New ATF definition of firearm

[palmettomoon]

Looks like you aren't going to be allowed to mark your own PMFs, even before the rule takes effect (assuming it does as written).

You'll HAVE to take it to your local Billy Bub gunsmiff or local gunshop ass clown to mark it for you. LOL!

 

[spencer60]

The real scary part is that the ATF can decide what is a 'frame or receiver' on anything that comes down the pike in the future.

It's also really unclear what a 'partially completed firearm' is. It's basically what they say it is.

115 pages of 'rules' around what a 'firearm' actually is will not be a good thing in any way, shape or form.

 

[spencer60]

Yes, but it is subject to a length rule making process, and then challenges in court about the reasonableness of the rule, and abuse of discretion. Unlike legislation the agency has to show they are authorized to act, that the proposed rule is within their authority, that the rule is reasonable, and that there is a need for the rule.

Sadly, the ATF, via the Dept. of Justice, has all the authority they need to do any of this. It was given to the Atty's General in GCA '68 and has been added to in gun control bills ever since.

Congress specifically gave away their legislative authority to the Executive in 1968, and that lets the DoJ/ATF do almost anything they want. They can 'redefine' things ad nauseam.

I know FPC is already looking at court challenges, but that could be like the bump stock cases, still in the courts years after the damage is done.

 

[Bryan]

Looks like you aren't going to be allowed to mark your own PMFs, even before the rule takes effect (assuming it does as written).

You'll HAVE to take it to your local Billy Bub gunsmiff or local gunshop ass clown to mark it for you. LOL!

And do a 4473 to put it in their book no matter if they keep it overnight or not.

 

[gh1950]

Sadly, the ATF, via the Dept. of Justice, has all the authority they need to do any of this. It was given to the Atty's General in GCA '68 and has been added to in gun control bills ever since.

Congress specifically gave away their legislative authority to the Executive in 1968, and that lets the DoJ/ATF do almost anything they want. They can 'redefine' things ad nauseam.

I know FPC is already looking at court challenges, but that could be like the bump stock cases, still in the courts years after the damage is done.

I don't know how to gently break this to you, but that simply is not true.

There is a case right now before the Supreme Court addressing the issue, in another context, of Congress attempting to delegate its authority to a an administrative agency.

At the end of the day, the BATF is bound by what legislation states is a firearm, a point that has already been affirmed by many courts,

 

[websouth]

Looks like Upper Receivers will now be serialized or possibly BCGs

 

[sartac]

Inch by inch closer to a national registry. Wonder why that's needed...

 

[spencer60]

I don't know how to gently break this to you, but that simply is not true.

There is a case right now before the Supreme Court addressing the issue, in another context, of Congress attempting to delegate its authority to a an administrative agency.

At the end of the day, the BATF is bound by what legislation states is a firearm, a point that has already been affirmed by many courts,

Up to a point, but as they make very clear in this proposal, Congress gave the Atty General the authority to 'interpret' the statues and create regulations to enforce it. This has been supported over and over again in court, and when it comes to a 'technical' decision like this I don't know that the ATF has ever lost a case.

And if you read the document, they put up a good argument that what makes up anything but a completely finished 'firearm' has never really been determined as a general principle.

I'm not saying that this isn't anything but a mess, but as far as their authority goes, they are probably well within their limits as defined in GCA '68 and later legislation.

 

[WinstonSmith]

From what I have seen, the bottom line is it doesn't really matter. They purposely leave the laws vague so that if they don't like what you are doing they can charge you and drag you through a lengthy and expensive court battle to prove your innocence. Innocent till proven guilty with the burden of proof being on the state is a thing of the past. They don't have to win in court to win if the process leaves you ruined and destitute. We are gonna see a whole lot of "legal" persecution in the years to come. And it will never be one charge. They will throw a ton of crap on the wall to make sure at least something sticks. They do that to insure they don't end up with egg on their face. Gov hates that.

 

[spencer60]

True. As a general strategy laws are written to be vague these days since that doesn't leave opponents with specifics to attack them on. It's easier to just say "let the <insert agency here> work out the details".

Both sides play this game since it gives them maximum control when they are in power, but the Dems are masters at it. Look at how they flipped banks from solidly pro-GOP to pro-Dem via Frank-Dodd.

GCA '68was probably one of the earliest laws to delegate Congress's authority to the executive branch, but it's a process that's been speeding up ever since.