Proposed ATF Regulations leaked.

Discussion of Firearm Politics & Legislation. This forum is now strictly limited to discussions directly related to firearms.

Moderators: Chuck, Mustang380gal, Coordinators, Moderators

Post Reply
jacksnack

Proposed ATF Regulations leaked.

Post by jacksnack »

Long time no talk all.

Found this on another forum:

https://thereload.com/leaked-atf-docume ... host-guns/

Not sure if it is legit...but seems plausible.
The document reworks and broadens the definition of what parts constitute a regulated firearm receiver. It then says any unfinished part that “may readily be converted” into a receiver must be treated as a receiver and requires sellers to obtain federal licenses, mark the unfinished parts with serial numbers, and perform background checks on buyers.
WhyNot
OFCC Member
OFCC Member
Posts: 1221
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 8:23 am
Location: NW Ohio

Re: Proposed ATF Regulations leaked.

Post by WhyNot »

Just look at your current firearm

Think a serial # on every part

Do you have a spare extractor? R U CURRENTLY A GUNSMITH? U might be, soon!

Did you or are you planning to make or modify your own firearm? You know, like what's been happening here on our soil since early colonial times?


R U prepared for this document to have 6, 7, 15 interpretations even before enacted? THINK alllllllll the new ''definitions'' of ''infrastructure.''

Border definition of ''secure'' certainly has changed last few months, eh?!
Acquisitions thus far:

-Slingshot
-Butter knife
-Soda straw and peas
-Sharpened pencil
-Newspaper roll
--water balloon (*diversionary*)

Yeah, I'm that good
jacksnack

Re: Proposed ATF Regulations leaked.

Post by jacksnack »

OK, so it appears this leak was legitimate.

COMMENT AGAINST!!!!

https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulatio ... it-comment
jacksnack

Re: Proposed ATF Regulations leaked.

Post by jacksnack »

What concerns me more is the definition of a firearm to include:

Page 26:
Unlike the prior definitions of *frame or receiver* that were rigidly tied to three specific fire control components (i.e., those necessary for the firearm to initiate or complete the firing sequence), the new regulatory definition is intended to be general enough to encompass changes in technology and parts terminology. With respect to the fire control components housed by the frame or receiver, the definition would include, at a minimum, any housing or holding structure for a hammer, bolt, bolt carrier, breechblock, cylinder, trigger mechanism, firing pin, striker, or slide rails.
Page 27:
Finally, the definition would make clear to persons who may acquire or possess a part now defined as a *frame or receiver* that is identified with a serial number that they must presume, absent an official determination by ATF or other reliable evidence to the contrary, that the part is a firearm *frame or receiver* without further guidance.
It is my understanding this could include UPPER receivers as well, and NOW require a background check to purchase.
User avatar
JustaShooter
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
Posts: 5800
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 3:08 pm
Location: Akron/Canton Area

Re: Proposed ATF Regulations leaked.

Post by JustaShooter »

jacksnack wrote:What concerns me more is the definition of a firearm to include:

Page 26:
Unlike the prior definitions of *frame or receiver* that were rigidly tied to three specific fire control components (i.e., those necessary for the firearm to initiate or complete the firing sequence), the new regulatory definition is intended to be general enough to encompass changes in technology and parts terminology. With respect to the fire control components housed by the frame or receiver, the definition would include, at a minimum, any housing or holding structure for a hammer, bolt, bolt carrier, breechblock, cylinder, trigger mechanism, firing pin, striker, or slide rails.
Page 27:
Finally, the definition would make clear to persons who may acquire or possess a part now defined as a *frame or receiver* that is identified with a serial number that they must presume, absent an official determination by ATF or other reliable evidence to the contrary, that the part is a firearm *frame or receiver* without further guidance.
It is my understanding this could include UPPER receivers as well, and NOW require a background check to purchase.
Given the following from page 25, presumably, not for current firearms the ATF has already designated the lower receiver as the firearm:
Although the new definition would more broadly define the term “frame or receiver” than the current definition, it is not intended to alter any prior determinations by ATF of what it considers the frame or receiver of a particular split/modular weapon.
Christian, Husband, Father
NRA Life Member
NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
NRA Certified Pistol & Rifle Instructor

Want to become more active with OFCC and help fight for your rights? Click Here!
WhyNot
OFCC Member
OFCC Member
Posts: 1221
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 8:23 am
Location: NW Ohio

Re: Proposed ATF Regulations leaked.

Post by WhyNot »

Given the following from page 25, presumably, not for current firearms the ATF has already designated the lower receiver as the firearm:
Yes I did notice your term ''presumably, '' but for consideration of discussion I can and rightly will state ...

Could be more correctly '' Given the following from page 25, presumably, not for current firearms the ATF has already designated the lower receiver as the firearm: FOR NOW until the NEXT round of Regs ''

Because as we know, there WILL be another round...and another....wait, OMG!! TWO FELONS did something, another...on...on....
Acquisitions thus far:

-Slingshot
-Butter knife
-Soda straw and peas
-Sharpened pencil
-Newspaper roll
--water balloon (*diversionary*)

Yeah, I'm that good
JimE
OFCC Member
OFCC Member
Posts: 393
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 7:50 pm
Location: Ashland,OH

Re: Proposed ATF Regulations leaked.

Post by JimE »

There have been 1 or 2 cases, where ATF's "rulings" about serial numbers on the lower (AR15's) did not jive with the GCA. The Fed's decided to drop the charges for fear of an actual court ruling against them.
Consider that a AR pattern rifle carries the s/n on the lower, just like a pistol frame. Yet on a FAL, or my Sig 556xi , the upper receiver has the s/n.
Yet the AR's & FAL existed in civilian form when the GCA was written. Shows you just how much the author (Sen. Dodd) really cared about what he was doing.
The inconsistent applications now have them in a pickle, and my guess is they still have not complied with the GCA of '68.
Of course, they can't help themselves by trying to screw over the law abiding folks with their "corrections".
bignflnut
Volunteer
Volunteer
Posts: 8135
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:14 pm
Location: Under Naybob Tinfoil Bridge
Contact:

Re: Proposed ATF Regulations leaked.

Post by bignflnut »

We ought to thank the guy who changed the legal definition of machine gun, making all of this drama possible.
Image
“It’s not that we don’t have enough scoundrels to curse; it’s that we don’t have enough good men to curse them.”–G.K. Chesterton-Illustrated London News, 3-14-1908

Republicans.Hate.You. See2020.

"Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams to Mass Militia 10-11-1798
Post Reply