Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion Discuss national gun rights and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-20-2021, 12:24 PM
Dirtlaw Dirtlaw is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: OC
Posts: 1,701
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default New proposed regulation

https://thereload.com/app/uploads/20...ft-OGC-HQS.pdf
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 04-20-2021, 12:24 PM
Dirtlaw Dirtlaw is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: OC
Posts: 1,701
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default Leaked ATF Document Details Biden Plan to Ban ‘Ghost Guns’

https://thereload.com/leaked-atf-doc...an-ghost-guns/
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-20-2021, 1:21 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 15,653
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

They'll have to specify what "readily convertible" means, not just point to a few legal cases. This won't hold in court unless they add the exact definition.

At the moment, what they are trying to do is by definition unconstitutionally vague. It's the "I know it when I see it standard" applied to a criminal statute. My guess is this will either get significantly changed in the final version, or it won't pass even the initial legal challenge.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-20-2021, 2:52 PM
Robotron2k84's Avatar
Robotron2k84 Robotron2k84 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 1,365
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Clinically omitted from that diarrhea-form PDF is the fact that the regulations cited, the GCA and FFA (‘38) were solely to regulate commercial sale of firearms, not homemade frames or receivers or private sales of such.

Such an omission is calculated to now ensnare all movement of firearm components, commercial and private, as well as any technologies such as the Ghost Gunner, that would facilitate your exercise of your right to keep arms of your own construction without government approval.

We’ve seen this in California, and the proposed regulations, here, would allow ATF to successfully remove any and all traces of home built firearm legality without first obtaining an FFL07 and furnishing permanent records to them for every part transferred.

Enough is enough and every free man or woman needs to resist this blatant tyranny. As well, Chevron deference must end with this stroke.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-20-2021, 4:46 PM
snailbait snailbait is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Posts: 60
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

It looks like the they are saying that lower blanks cannot be sold by the same company that sells parts kits.

They are also rather unclear at what point a lower blank becomes an item that requires serial numbers and record keeping for sale.
They say a block of metal does not, but left open anything else as maybe.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 04-20-2021, 5:08 PM
John Browning's Avatar
John Browning John Browning is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Contra Costa County
Posts: 7,801
iTrader: 78 / 100%
Default

With 3D printing and reality being reality, they might as well try and regulate the composition of the air inside a portapotty.
__________________
For Sale: 5.56 77gr ammo

Quote:
Originally Posted by KWalkerM View Post
eh why bring logic into this, that makes too much sense... besides when you have bested a fool, you have accomplished nothing and he is a fool.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 04-20-2021, 5:17 PM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 4,106
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Browning View Post
With 3D printing and reality being reality, they might as well try and regulate the composition of the air inside a portapotty.

I really think the future is 3D printed AR and Glock magazines where some very cheap metal reinforcement could be added (AR or AK maybe), and the magazine spring is some type of standardized spring(s) you can buy at home depot.

I really don't know why the Biden admin want to go down this path. The legal definition of a firearm has been challenged a few times and the ATF settled those cases to prevent case law from being established, because an AR lower doesn't even meet the legal definition of a firearm.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 04-20-2021, 5:40 PM
Elgatodeacero Elgatodeacero is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 711
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

I read this and it was quite difficult to understand. I just don’t think they can accomplish much with what they are proposing, but maybe I didn’t grasp the full nature of what they are proposing.

At pg. 42 near the bottom, and also at pg. 42 footnote 62, the document seems to say no changes to self made firearm rules so long as not for resale, but maybe I am misunderstanding all that also.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 04-20-2021, 6:55 PM
pratchett pratchett is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 722
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

One aspect of that PDF is the ATF making clear it wishes to have stripped upper receivers of AR-pattern firearms serialized, making them subject to the same legal process as lower receivers now. For handguns, they would similarly require the slide to be considered a "firearm."

Last edited by pratchett; 04-20-2021 at 6:57 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 04-20-2021, 7:45 PM
Corbin Dallas's Avatar
Corbin Dallas Corbin Dallas is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: SD
Posts: 4,810
iTrader: 90 / 100%
Default

Explain this dribble to me...

Quote:
“These courts’ interpretation of ATF’s regulations, if broadly followed, could mean that as many as 90 percent of all firearms now in the United States would not have an identifiable frame or receiver,” the document said. “Those firearms would include numerous widely available models, such as Glock-type and Sig Sauer P32013 pistols, that do not utilize a hammer – a named component – in the firing sequence.”
Since the slide, frame and barrel of a Glock pistol is serialized, what are they saying?
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 04-20-2021, 7:52 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 2,495
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

As you debate all of this, just remember, at the end of March... ATF Met With NSSF, Polymer 80, and Others: Changing Definition of What Is A Firearm

______________

ETA: From the linked proposal...

Quote:
...Although ATF’s regulatory definitions of “frame or receiver” do not expressly capture these types of firearms (i.e., split/multi-piece receivers) that now constitute the majority of firearms in the United States, ATF’s position has long been that the weapon “should be examined with a view toward determining if [either] the upper or lower half of the receiver more nearly fits the legal definition of ‘receiver,’” and more specifically, for machineguns, whether the upper or lower portion has the ability to accept machinegun parts...
Noting the part I emphasized, could such be "teeing it up" for SCOTUS; not simply due to deference and executive vs. legislative authority, but from the standpoint of... If the standard, as noted in Heller is "common use," then "constitute the majority of firearms" would seem to be synonymous. As Justice Alito wrote in a concurring opinion to Caetano, one which Justice Thomas joined...

Quote:
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the conviction, holding that a stun gun “is not the type of weapon that is eligible for Second Amendment protection” because it was “not in common use at the time of [the Second Amendment’s] enactment.” ... This reasoning defies our decision in Heller, which rejected as “bordering on the frivolous” the argument “that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.” ...

The Supreme Judicial Court’s holding that stun guns may be banned as “dangerous and unusual weapons” fares no better. As the per curiam opinion recognizes, this is a conjunctive test: A weapon may not be banned unless it is both dangerous and unusual. Because the Court rejects the lower court’s conclusion that stun guns are “unusual,” it does not need to consider the lower court’s conclusion that they are also “dangerous.”...

As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” ... the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes... If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous...

As the foregoing makes clear, the pertinent Second Amendment inquiry is whether stun guns are commonly possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes today... The more relevant statistic is that “[h]undreds of thousands of Tasers and stun guns have been sold to private citizens,” who it appears may lawfully possess them in 45 States... While less popular than handguns, stun guns are widely owned and accepted as a legitimate means of self-defense across the country. Massachusetts’ categorical ban of such weapons therefore violates the Second Amendment.

The lower court’s ill treatment of Heller cannot stand... “Self-defense,” however, “is a basic right.”... I am not prepared to say that a State may force an individual to choose between exercising that right and following her conscience, at least where both can be accommodated by a weapon already in widespread use across the Nation... If the fundamental right of self defense does not protect Caetano, then the safety of all Americans is left to the mercy of state authorities who may be more concerned about disarming the people than about keeping them safe.
And, as Justice Thomas (with Scalia signing on), noted in his dissent in Friedman...

Quote:
...Instead of adhering to our reasoning in Heller, the Seventh Circuit limited Heller to its facts, and read Heller to forbid only total bans on handguns used for self-defense in the home... All other questions about the Second Amendment, the Seventh Circuit concluded, should be defined by “the political process and scholarly debate.” ... But Heller repudiates that approach. We explained in Heller that “since th[e] case represent[ed] this Court’s first in-depth examination of the Second Amendment, one should not expect it to clarify the entire field.” ... We cautioned courts against leaving the rest of the field to the legislative process: “Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad.” ...

Based on its crabbed reading of Heller, the Seventh Circuit felt free to adopt a test for assessing firearm bans that eviscerates many of the protections recognized in Heller and McDonald. The court asked in the first instance whether the banned firearms “were common at the time of ratification” in 1791.... But we said in Heller that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.”...

The Seventh Circuit alternatively asked whether the banned firearms relate “to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.” ... The court concluded that state and local ordinances never run afoul of that objective, since “states, which are in charge of militias, should be allowed to decide when civilians can possess military-grade firearms.” ... But that ignores Heller’s fundamental premise: The right to keep and bear arms is an independent, individual right. Its scope is defined not by what the militia needs, but by what private citizens commonly possess... Moreover, the Seventh Circuit endorsed the view of the militia that Heller rejected. We explained that “Congress retains plenary authority to organize the militia,” not States... Because the Second Amendment confers rights upon individual citizens—not state governments—it was doubly wrong for the Seventh Circuit to delegate to States and localities the power to decide which firearms people may possess.

Lastly, the Seventh Circuit considered “whether lawabiding citizens retain adequate means of self-defense,”...

That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist... And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns... The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes. Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles... The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting... Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons...
In other words, regardless of how ATF were to 'redetermine' (whether based on 'new technologies' or nefarious intent) how a 'firearm' is defined, such firearms would still be in "common use for lawful purposes" by being recognized, in the ATF's own proposal, as 'constituting the majority of firearms' today.'

The real potential problem isn't just the 'delay' inherent in challenging this via SCOTUS, the 'danger' is something CBS News alluded to yesterday in their 'reasoning' for why SCOTUS rejected the "gun cases" yesterday for similar reasons...

Quote:
...The decision by the high court to stay away from the politically charged issue of gun rights comes in the wake of a spate of mass shootings in recent weeks, which have spurred calls for Congress to pass legislation restricting access to firearms. Still pending before the Supreme Court, however, is at least one dispute over restrictions for carrying a concealed handgun in public.

Gun rights supporters have hoped the high court would clarify the scope of the Second Amendment now that it boasts a 6-3 conservative majority. Some of the justices have taken note of the Supreme Court's reluctance to wade into the debate over gun rights and called for the court to address the issue in the wake of its last major gun rights decisions in 2008 and 2010, when it found the Second Amendment protects the right to have firearms in the home for self-defense...

Last edited by TrappedinCalifornia; 04-20-2021 at 9:35 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 04-21-2021, 6:39 AM
pratchett pratchett is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 722
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Corbin Dallas View Post
Explain this dribble to me...



Since the slide, frame and barrel of a Glock pistol is serialized, what are they saying?
I’ll take you at your word, as I’ve never owned a Glock. But while the slide and barrel may be factory serialized, they are not themselves the “serialized components” of the firearm for the purposes of the law. And, the frame itself may not even meet the arguably antiquated or stringent definition of a firearm. Thus, two things are going on: 1) I can legally buy a slide; and 2) A strict interpretation of the law and the regs say that the frame may not even qualify as a “firearm,” meaning folks have and may in the future walk for fabricating and selling frames and lowers.

And me explaining the ATF’s position certainly doesn’t mean I agree with it.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 04-21-2021, 9:59 AM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 15,653
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Corbin Dallas View Post
Since the slide, frame and barrel of a Glock pistol is serialized, what are they saying?
There are two separate meanings of "serialized" and you can't comingle them. One is physically having a serial number on a part, the other is being controlled by the ATF via the serial number.

Serial numbers on non-controlled parts of Glocks are in the same category as any text you might put on a cerakoted finish of a slide - arbitrary and meaningless. They are likely used by some foreign countries where the law requires serialized slides and barrels. CZs have also parts serialized this way, but they too are meaningless in the context of controlled parts in the US.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 04-21-2021, 11:20 AM
cyphr02's Avatar
cyphr02 cyphr02 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: SoCal
Posts: 372
iTrader: 18 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Corbin Dallas View Post
Explain this dribble to me...



Since the slide, frame and barrel of a Glock pistol is serialized, what are they saying?
The specific problem they have w/ Glocks is the fact that they are striker fired and do not have a hammer. A strict reading of the statute requires a component to house a hammer or breechblock to be considered a frame/receiver.

Last edited by cyphr02; 04-21-2021 at 11:24 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 04-21-2021, 11:23 AM
cyphr02's Avatar
cyphr02 cyphr02 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: SoCal
Posts: 372
iTrader: 18 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
There are two separate meanings of "serialized" and you can't comingle them. One is physically having a serial number on a part, the other is being controlled by the ATF via the serial number.

Serial numbers on non-controlled parts of Glocks are in the same category as any text you might put on a cerakoted finish of a slide - arbitrary and meaningless. They are likely used by some foreign countries where the law requires serialized slides and barrels. CZs have also parts serialized this way, but they too are meaningless in the context of controlled parts in the US.
Spot on, different countries throughout Europe have different requirements on what component needs to be serialized, it may be the frame, slide or barrel. I'm pretty sure all pistols mfg in Europe will have all three serialized to cover all their bases.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 04-21-2021, 12:12 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 15,653
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cyphr02 View Post
Spot on, different countries throughout Europe have different requirements on what component needs to be serialized, it may be the frame, slide or barrel. I'm pretty sure all pistols mfg in Europe will have all three serialized to cover all their bases.
Speaking of which, ATF cannot change the serialization requirements via the regulation since it requires a change in the underlying law, which is the job of the legislators.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 04-21-2021, 4:59 PM
Jeepergeo's Avatar
Jeepergeo Jeepergeo is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Arcata
Posts: 2,788
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirtlaw View Post
With nothing in the way of a summary and some analysis this post is virtually worthless. Sheesh.
__________________
Patron Life Member, National Rifle Association
Life Member, California Rifle and Pistol Association
Member, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 04-21-2021, 5:00 PM
Featureless Featureless is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: SLO County
Posts: 1,535
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Who's stepping up? Is the NRA stepping up? Who is actually opposing this in a way that will matter?
__________________
California Native
Lifelong Gun Owner
NRA Member
CRPA Member

"Those who seek absolute power, even though they seek it to do what they regard as good, are simply demanding the right to enforce their own version of heaven on earth. And let me remind you, they are the very ones who always create the most hellish tyrannies. Absolute power does corrupt, and those who seek it must be suspect and must be opposed"
~ Barry Goldwater 1964
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 04-21-2021, 5:51 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 2,495
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Featureless View Post
Who's stepping up? Is the NRA stepping up? Who is actually opposing this in a way that will matter?
It's difficult to 'oppose' something that has yet to be introduced, at least from a legal standpoint. Remember, this is a 'leaked document' and, as such, might not even be the final iteration. Then there has to be 'standing.'

Also bear in mind that, as others have noted, there needs to be some clarification of terms and there is a very real question of the necessity of altering the actual law (a legislative rather than a regulatory function). Thus, there is the possibility that the Legislature is going to have to become involved before it can be implemented, at least as is.

Remember, according to the page linked in the OP...

Quote:
...The ATF said in the proposal it expects the rule will have a “significant impact” on companies currently selling unfinished receivers, but it expects them to adapt to the new rule.

“Based on current marketing related to the unregulated sale of certain firearm parts kits, ATF anticipates that these non-FFLs would either become FFLs or would take a loss in revenue to sell a parts kit that does not contain a frame or receiver, or simply sell the frame or receiver, but not both,” the document said.

The full proposal won’t be made public for another two weeks, and details could change between now and then. However, the draft is in line with comments made by President Biden when he directed the DOJ to make new rules outlawing the sale of so-called ghost gun kits on April 8...
And, as I said, at the end of March... ATF Met With NSSF, Polymer 80, and Others: Changing Definition of What Is A Firearm. It would be interesting to know if such companies 'contributed' or if it was more along the lines of a 'heads-up' from ATF to the companies.

Last edited by TrappedinCalifornia; 04-21-2021 at 5:56 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 04-21-2021, 6:14 PM
Grumpyoldretiredcop's Avatar
Grumpyoldretiredcop Grumpyoldretiredcop is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Escape tunnel successful!
Posts: 6,226
iTrader: 123 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elgatodeacero View Post
I read this and it was quite difficult to understand. I just don’t think they can accomplish much with what they are proposing, but maybe I didn’t grasp the full nature of what they are proposing.

At pg. 42 near the bottom, and also at pg. 42 footnote 62, the document seems to say no changes to self made firearm rules so long as not for resale, but maybe I am misunderstanding all that also.
I waded through this morass of legalistic mumbo-jumbo too. If I'm not mistaken, you're referring to this language:

Quote:
At the same time, consistent with the intent of the GCA, nothing in this rule would impose any undue or unnecessary Federal restrictions or burdens on law-abiding citizens to make their own firearms at home without markings solely for personal use (not for sale or distribution) in accordance with Federal, State, and local law.

Under Federal law, for example, certain firearm transactions must be conducted through Federal firearms licensees. See 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(5) (prohibiting any person other than a licensee, subject to certain limited exceptions, from selling or delivering a firearm to an unlicensed out of state resident).
It appears to me that one could print a "frame" at home, but buying a Polymer 80, let's say, would require a transfer through an FFL as the uncompleted item would be treated as a firearm. Additionally, the slide could become a serialized item also, with the obvious intent that one could not complete a home-printed frame in any event. This is nothing less than an attempt to preclude the ability of private persons to manufacture self-produced firearms, notwithstanding the mealymouthed statement on pages 42 and 43 of this utterly infamous document.

Time to buy a 3D printer, methinks.
__________________
I'm retired. That's right, retired. I don't want to hear about the cop who stopped you today or how you didn't think you should get a ticket. That just makes me grumpy!

Last edited by Grumpyoldretiredcop; 04-21-2021 at 6:18 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 04-21-2021, 11:41 PM
Robotron2k84's Avatar
Robotron2k84 Robotron2k84 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 1,365
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Unfortunately, it’s not that straightforward. By creating a special class, PMF, or whatever they are going to call it, creates a new bucket in administrative law. That new bucket will then need to be be regulated, as their indication of how FFLs are to handle weapons transferred to them from the PMF category: they record name and ID of the transferor, and now you’re in a permanent database as being a “manufacturer” that could be inspected to see if you require an 07, giving them license to harass and get personal.

Once the PMF category is established, bet your money that it will be expanded upon to clamp down to the absolute minimum of what can be possessed without a license. Serialized uppers, BCGs, magazines, BGC for all? 3D-printer? Great, but the CAD files that drive it? ITAR restricted. You would then be legally in jeopardy without an 07 and ITAR license. All because of a new category that exists, and administrative law is like nature: abhorring a vacuum.

No, PMF regulation is not the official goal of this proposal, but laying the groundwork for further encroachments.

Trust me when I say that ATF is not here to help you and give them an inch and they’ll be back to take your guns.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 05-06-2021, 5:23 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 2,495
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

DOJ expected to issue order rule on 'ghost guns' Friday: sources

Quote:
...The proposed rule will be entered into the federal register on Friday and kick off a 30-60 day review period for public comment...
It'll be interesting to see if the leaked proposal has changed.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 05-06-2021, 9:04 PM
Hateca's Avatar
Hateca Hateca is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Henderson NV, Riverside CA
Posts: 615
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

This clear as mud BS will languish in court for years like everything else.
__________________
<img src=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v232/hateca/M700A.jpg border=0 alt= />

"Those that don't shouldn't. Those that do should"
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 05-07-2021, 2:13 PM
ProLibertate ProLibertate is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Santa Cruz Mountains
Posts: 107
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Here is the new proposed regulation:

https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regula...me-or-receiver
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 05-07-2021, 5:10 PM
jcwatchdog jcwatchdog is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,762
iTrader: 97 / 100%
Default

Does anyone have a way to get to page to submit a comment? I get to the initial page and then search for the ATF 2021R-05, but no results are found.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 05-07-2021, 9:55 PM
jcwatchdog jcwatchdog is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,762
iTrader: 97 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cyphr02 View Post
Spot on, different countries throughout Europe have different requirements on what component needs to be serialized, it may be the frame, slide or barrel. I'm pretty sure all pistols mfg in Europe will have all three serialized to cover all their bases.

In Europe, firearms are considered the upper receiver. You can buy ar15 lowers, Glock lowers, whatever you want as a lower, they’re not regulated.

The serial number on those lower frames are only added to satisfy the sales to countries like the US. That’s why you see CZ, HK and Glock slides sold here serialized. They serialize all their slides and they match the serial of the slide to the frame for those guns imported to the US. But they wouldn’t have to do this for sales in their native countries.

Then you have oddballs like the Scar 17 and 16 which come in with serialized uppers and no serial on the lower at all, or the CZ scorpion. Why is this done? The heck if I know, but in some cases the US considers the upper the firearm.

If they hadn’t gotten fancy with the definitions and just stated something along the lines of “a barreled receiver” is a firearm, it would have resolved many of their current problems. It’s too late now though.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:20 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2021, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.



Seams2SewBySusy

Tactical Pants Tactical Boots Military Boots 5.11 Tactical