ATF corrections frame receiver ruling - effective 8/24/22

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

Moderators: Chuck, Mustang380gal, Coordinators, Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Bruenor
Posts: 7306
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 3:03 pm
Location: Geneva, OH

ATF corrections frame receiver ruling - effective 8/24/22

Post by Bruenor »

definition-of-frame-or-receiver-and-identification-of-firearms

Some last minute corrections / changes to the frame receiver ruling

definition-of-frame-or-receiver-and-identification-of-firearms-corrections


A brief summary from the end of the first link

Section V of this preamble describes the regulatory text of the final rule and the changes from the proposed rule. The following is a list of substantive changes:

(1) DEFINITION OF “FRAME OR RECEIVER”
The final rule describes one part of a projectile weapon that will be either the “frame” or “receiver” with examples and pictures still provided.
The final rule defines “variant” and more clearly grandfathers existing classifications ( e.g., AR-15/M-16 variants).
The final rule clarifies the one part of a firearm muffler or silencer device that is the frame or receiver and addresses how modular silencers are marked.
The final rule defines “multi-piece frame or receiver” and specifically addresses how such parts must be marked.
The final rule clarifies the supplement titled “partially complete, disassembled, or inoperable [now `nonfunctional'] frame or receiver” and provides examples.
The final rule clarifies the materials that need to be submitted when voluntarily seeking a firearm or armor piercing ammunition classification from ATF.
(2) PMFS (Privately Made Firearms)
The final rule requires FFLs to mark and record PMFs only when they are received or otherwise acquired into inventory, but allows PMFs to be adjusted or repaired and returned on the same day without marking.
The final rule allows FFLs to directly supervise a nonlicensee who may mark the PMF for the licensee in accordance with the regulations.
The final rule clarifies who is required to be licensed as a gunsmith eligible to mark PMFs without a manufacturer's license.
(3) MARKING
• The final rule defines “new design” to inform manufacturers as to when they are required to mark firearms they manufacture in accordance with the new marking requirements ( i.e., either FFL name, city, and State; or FFL name and abbreviated FFL number placed on the frame or receiver).

The final rule expands adoption of marking allowances and addresses an additional three circumstances where markings can be adopted. These include newly manufactured firearms, manufacturers performing gunsmithing services, and PMFs marked by nonlicensees.
The final rule provides that an acceptable way for PMFs to be marked is by placing the serial number on a metal plate that is permanently embedded into a polymer frame or receiver, or other method approved by the Director.
(4) RECORDKEEPING
The final rule clarifies that manufacturers have seven days to enter non-NFA firearms into their records, and by close of the next business day for manufactured NFA firearms.
The final rule clarifies that licensed dealers (including gunsmiths), manufacturers, and importers may conduct adjustments or repairs of all firearms without recording them as acquisitions or dispositions provided they are returned to the person from whom they were received on the same day.
The final rule clarifies that PMFs must be recorded as an acquisition when a licensee places marks of identification, and as a disposition upon return (unless the licensee is marking under the direct supervision of another licensee who recorded the acquisition).
(5) RECORD RETENTION
The final rule clarifies that FFLs are required to maintain their records until licensed activity is discontinued.
referenced documents
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-27/c ... B/part-447" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-27/c ... B/part-478" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-27/c ... B/part-479" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Μολὼν λαβέ

"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. . . Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."

- Thomas Paine

"Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem."

- Thomas Jefferson
M-Quigley
Posts: 4782
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:06 pm
Location: Western Ohio

Re: ATF corrections frame receiver ruling - effective 8/24/2

Post by M-Quigley »

For purposes of these definitions, the terms “variant” and “variants thereof” are defined as: “a weapon utilizing a similar frame or receiver design irrespective of new or different model designations or configurations, characteristics, features, components, accessories, or attachments. For example, an AK-type firearm with a short stock and a pistol grip is a pistol variant of an AK-type rifle, an AR-type firearm with a short stock and a pistol grip is a pistol variant of an AR-type rifle, and a revolving cylinder shotgun is a shotgun variant of a revolver.”
I'm confused. Are they referring to stabilizing braces as "short stocks" now? Or is it now legal to put a "short stock" on an AR type firearm and it's still a pistol? It doesn't mention the barrel length on this "AR type firearm" at all.
User avatar
JustaShooter
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
Posts: 5800
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 3:08 pm
Location: Akron/Canton Area

Re: ATF corrections frame receiver ruling - effective 8/24/2

Post by JustaShooter »

M-Quigley wrote:
For purposes of these definitions, the terms “variant” and “variants thereof” are defined as: “a weapon utilizing a similar frame or receiver design irrespective of new or different model designations or configurations, characteristics, features, components, accessories, or attachments. For example, an AK-type firearm with a short stock and a pistol grip is a pistol variant of an AK-type rifle, an AR-type firearm with a short stock and a pistol grip is a pistol variant of an AR-type rifle, and a revolving cylinder shotgun is a shotgun variant of a revolver.”
I'm confused. Are they referring to stabilizing braces as "short stocks" now? Or is it now legal to put a "short stock" on an AR type firearm and it's still a pistol? It doesn't mention the barrel length on this "AR type firearm" at all.
Federal (and Ohio) law has always defined handguns using that term:
The term handgun means a firearm which has a short stock and is designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand; and any combination of parts from which a firearm described above can be assembled.[18 USCS § 921]
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!
M-Quigley
Posts: 4782
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:06 pm
Location: Western Ohio

Re: ATF corrections frame receiver ruling - effective 8/24/2

Post by M-Quigley »

JustaShooter wrote:
M-Quigley wrote:
For purposes of these definitions, the terms “variant” and “variants thereof” are defined as: “a weapon utilizing a similar frame or receiver design irrespective of new or different model designations or configurations, characteristics, features, components, accessories, or attachments. For example, an AK-type firearm with a short stock and a pistol grip is a pistol variant of an AK-type rifle, an AR-type firearm with a short stock and a pistol grip is a pistol variant of an AR-type rifle, and a revolving cylinder shotgun is a shotgun variant of a revolver.”
I'm confused. Are they referring to stabilizing braces as "short stocks" now? Or is it now legal to put a "short stock" on an AR type firearm and it's still a pistol? It doesn't mention the barrel length on this "AR type firearm" at all.
Federal (and Ohio) law has always defined handguns using that term:
The term handgun means a firearm which has a short stock and is designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand; and any combination of parts from which a firearm described above can be assembled.[18 USCS § 921]
That's true but where on a typical pistol is legally considered a "short stock" ? Last time I checked attaching a traditional stock to most pistols (whether they are AR's or not) is frowned upon by the ATF.
User avatar
JustaShooter
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
Posts: 5800
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 3:08 pm
Location: Akron/Canton Area

Re: ATF corrections frame receiver ruling - effective 8/24/2

Post by JustaShooter »

M-Quigley wrote:
JustaShooter wrote:
M-Quigley wrote:For purposes of these definitions, the terms “variant” and “variants thereof” are defined as: “a weapon utilizing a similar frame or receiver design irrespective of new or different model designations or configurations, characteristics, features, components, accessories, or attachments. For example, an AK-type firearm with a short stock and a pistol grip is a pistol variant of an AK-type rifle, an AR-type firearm with a short stock and a pistol grip is a pistol variant of an AR-type rifle, and a revolving cylinder shotgun is a shotgun variant of a revolver.”

I'm confused. Are they referring to stabilizing braces as "short stocks" now? Or is it now legal to put a "short stock" on an AR type firearm and it's still a pistol? It doesn't mention the barrel length on this "AR type firearm" at all.
Federal (and Ohio) law has always defined handguns using that term:
The term handgun means a firearm which has a short stock and is designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand; and any combination of parts from which a firearm described above can be assembled.[18 USCS § 921]
That's true but where on a typical pistol is legally considered a "short stock" ? Last time I checked attaching a traditional stock to most pistols (whether they are AR's or not) is frowned upon by the ATF.
What you and I call the "grip" on a handgun is what the law refers to as a "short stock". No, I don't know why. Yes, it can be confusing - and this is precisely why the government formed regulatory agencies like the ATF to promulgate rules to implement the laws that they wrote. And yes, putting anything on a pistol that extends the "short stock" or adds something that you and I would consider a stock instead of a grip turns the pistol into an SBR.

Why the ATF ever allowed "stabilizing braces" as a way to circumvent this is beyond me. Much like the recent change to define what we used to call 80% frames and receivers into actual frames and receivers requiring a serial number, I have been expecting this change since the very first time I became aware of them.
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!
M-Quigley
Posts: 4782
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:06 pm
Location: Western Ohio

Re: ATF corrections frame receiver ruling - effective 8/24/2

Post by M-Quigley »

JustaShooter wrote: What you and I call the "grip" on a handgun is what the law refers to as a "short stock". No, I don't know why. Yes, it can be confusing - and this is precisely why the government formed regulatory agencies like the ATF to promulgate rules to implement the laws that they wrote. And yes, putting anything on a pistol that extends the "short stock" or adds something that you and I would consider a stock instead of a grip turns the pistol into an SBR.

Why the ATF ever allowed "stabilizing braces" as a way to circumvent this is beyond me. Much like the recent change to define what we used to call 80% frames and receivers into actual frames and receivers requiring a serial number, I have been expecting this change since the very first time I became aware of them.
Thanks for the explanation. As far as the explanation for the stabilizing brace, allegedly some handicapped people who because of a disability of some kind that could only shoot a pistol one handed wanted a stabilizing brace, and most of them usually does work in that role. I know ATF had a "points system" proposal to effectively ban stabilizing braces introduced for comments this year that they were going to publish in August, but the latest I heard was that they are putting anything official off until December, due to a lawsuit from the SAF, and also possibly a SCOTUS ruling about government agencies making laws that only Congress had the authority to make. (an EPA ruling in WV) This according to a firearms lawyer on Youtube. Allegedly both the SAF and ATF agreed to put the lawsuit on hold until then.
User avatar
Bruenor
Posts: 7306
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 3:03 pm
Location: Geneva, OH

Re: ATF corrections frame receiver ruling - effective 8/24/2

Post by Bruenor »

I'm still trying to figure out why if I have a pistol and I want to ADD a stock to it, It's now less concealable, and somehow more dangerous yet I have to pay a $200 tax and get another background check, and wait several months for the privilege. Not much makes sense in the world of the ATF
Μολὼν λαβέ

"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. . . Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."

- Thomas Paine

"Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem."

- Thomas Jefferson
M-Quigley
Posts: 4782
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:06 pm
Location: Western Ohio

Re: ATF corrections frame receiver ruling - effective 8/24/2

Post by M-Quigley »

Bruenor wrote:I'm still trying to figure out why if I have a pistol and I want to ADD a stock to it, It's now less concealable, and somehow more dangerous yet I have to pay a $200 tax and get another background check, and wait several months for the privilege. Not much makes sense in the world of the ATF
It didn't make sense to me either, but according to some legal experts online, their opinion isn't that ATF cares about whether it is more dangerous or not. They infer that the reason is simply to make people who own AR pistols register them as SBR's. Initially it was thought money was the motive, but the ATF is talking about an amnesty period where if you try to jump through the hoops within the first 90 days of when the ruling comes out (Dec 2022 ?) they will waive the $200 tax.

They're not waiving the tax out of the goodness of their hearts either, it's suggested that it might make their legal case in Texas where the SAF is suing ATF about the issue. One of the issues concerning the case in WV versus the EPA was money, and how an EPA rule that wasn't approved by the legislature would impact people and businesses financially. IMHO though it's still going to impact millions of owners of AR pistols with braces (just not as much) AND all the businesses that sell not only the braces but parts for AR pistols in general. A "rule" by the ATF in December could potentially make up to 20 million people felons overnight, based on one persons allegation of previous sales of braces.
User avatar
FormerNavy
Posts: 2342
Joined: Fri Aug 08, 2008 3:19 pm
Location: Southwest Ohio

Re: ATF corrections frame receiver ruling - effective 8/24/2

Post by FormerNavy »

M-Quigley wrote:
Bruenor wrote:I'm still trying to figure out why if I have a pistol and I want to ADD a stock to it, It's now less concealable, and somehow more dangerous yet I have to pay a $200 tax and get another background check, and wait several months for the privilege. Not much makes sense in the world of the ATF
It didn't make sense to me either, but according to some legal experts online, their opinion isn't that ATF cares about whether it is more dangerous or not. They infer that the reason is simply to make people who own AR pistols register them as SBR's. Initially it was thought money was the motive, but the ATF is talking about an amnesty period where if you try to jump through the hoops within the first 90 days of when the ruling comes out (Dec 2022 ?) they will waive the $200 tax.

They're not waiving the tax out of the goodness of their hearts either, it's suggested that it might make their legal case in Texas where the SAF is suing ATF about the issue. One of the issues concerning the case in WV versus the EPA was money, and how an EPA rule that wasn't approved by the legislature would impact people and businesses financially. IMHO though it's still going to impact millions of owners of AR pistols with braces (just not as much) AND all the businesses that sell not only the braces but parts for AR pistols in general. A "rule" by the ATF in December could potentially make up to 20 million people felons overnight, based on one persons allegation of previous sales of braces.

I said it in the other thread too, but I don't believe ATF can simply waive the legal requirement of $200 to get the tax stamp to register an SBR.
User avatar
Bruenor
Posts: 7306
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 3:03 pm
Location: Geneva, OH

Re: ATF corrections frame receiver ruling - effective 8/24/2

Post by Bruenor »

M-Quigley wrote:
Bruenor wrote:I'm still trying to figure out why if I have a pistol and I want to ADD a stock to it, It's now less concealable, and somehow more dangerous yet I have to pay a $200 tax and get another background check, and wait several months for the privilege. Not much makes sense in the world of the ATF
It didn't make sense to me either, but according to some legal experts online, their opinion isn't that ATF cares about whether it is more dangerous or not. They infer that the reason is simply to make people who own AR pistols register them as SBR's. Initially it was thought money was the motive, but the ATF is talking about an amnesty period where if you try to jump through the hoops within the first 90 days of when the ruling comes out (Dec 2022 ?) they will waive the $200 tax.

They're not waiving the tax out of the goodness of their hearts either, it's suggested that it might make their legal case in Texas where the SAF is suing ATF about the issue. One of the issues concerning the case in WV versus the EPA was money, and how an EPA rule that wasn't approved by the legislature would impact people and businesses financially. IMHO though it's still going to impact millions of owners of AR pistols with braces (just not as much) AND all the businesses that sell not only the braces but parts for AR pistols in general. A "rule" by the ATF in December could potentially make up to 20 million people felons overnight, based on one persons allegation of previous sales of braces.
In this case it's not a AR but an MP5 Clone. it's not braced and even if it were I wouldn't send the ATF pictures of the 'now illegal configuration' as 'proof' to get a 'free' stamp. They sure seem to want a lot of pictures lately.. Picture of your illegal braced pistol configuration, picture of the materials you are building your Form 1 suppressor from, which as soon as you declare they are to build a suppressor they are considered suppressor parts which are required to be transferred via Form 4. Most people would take those pictures with their phone so the images would include EXIF data with GPS coordinates. Not a fan of the current regimes ATF, I like my dogs.
Μολὼν λαβέ

"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. . . Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."

- Thomas Paine

"Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem."

- Thomas Jefferson
Ring
Posts: 1115
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 9:54 am
Location: medina ohio

Re: ATF corrections frame receiver ruling - effective 8/24/2

Post by Ring »

Bruenor wrote: Mon Sep 05, 2022 8:43 pm Picture of your illegal braced pistol configuration
incorrect... the only pic required is that of the SN# and factory stamp.
User avatar
JustaShooter
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
Posts: 5800
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 3:08 pm
Location: Akron/Canton Area

Re: ATF corrections frame receiver ruling - effective 8/24/2

Post by JustaShooter »

Ring wrote: Tue Aug 22, 2023 7:43 am
Bruenor wrote: Mon Sep 05, 2022 8:43 pm Picture of your illegal braced pistol configuration
incorrect... the only pic required is that of the SN# and factory stamp.
Currently, that may be the case, but to qualify for the "free" stamp during the now-expired amnesty period you had to supply images of the completely assembled sbr/formerly braced pistol.
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!
M-Quigley
Posts: 4782
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:06 pm
Location: Western Ohio

Re: ATF corrections frame receiver ruling - effective 8/24/22

Post by M-Quigley »

Bruenor wrote: Mon Sep 05, 2022 8:43 pm
In this case it's not a AR but an MP5 Clone. it's not braced and even if it were I wouldn't send the ATF pictures of the 'now illegal configuration' as 'proof' to get a 'free' stamp. They sure seem to want a lot of pictures lately.. Picture of your illegal braced pistol configuration, picture of the materials you are building your Form 1 suppressor from, which as soon as you declare they are to build a suppressor they are considered suppressor parts which are required to be transferred via Form 4. Most people would take those pictures with their phone so the images would include [url=https://photographylife.com/what-is-exif-data]EXIF data with GPS coordinates[/url]. Not a fan of the current regimes ATF, I like my dogs.
According to a gun rights lawyer on Youtube there is a federal statue that prevents the government from prosecuting you for anything you submitted on an ATF form, including pictures, as long as the information is truthful. Back months ago (FEb) when I was talking with a lawyer friend of mine about the whole new final rule thing, I asked him if this interpretation of the statue by the lawyer on Youtube was correct, and he said yes, but only in reference to criminal prosecutions. The ATF can still do a raid and confiscate the allegedly illegal firearm. Plus, there's nothing from stopping the ATF from just ignoring the law and arresting you anyway. Then you have to get a lawyer and maybe have to inform that lawyer about that particular law itself (depending on the experience of the lawyer) and while you will eventually win in court you will lose time and money, maybe your job, your reputation, maybe your dogs, etc. :(

Regarding GPS info in photos, with my Android phone I can disable the location permission for my camera app. I still get EGIF data on my pictures but not GPS data. I'm still trying to figure out how to get it to not put EGIF data on a picture at all, in order to reduce file size. Regardless, if you submit a picture with the form you are still putting your address on the form.

Regarding the OP topic which I though was frames and receivers, SCOTUS recently denied a temporary injunction against enforcement of alleged "ghost guns" and I think sent it back to a lower court for review. :( OTOH 5 days prior they upheld a decision regarding vacating the new ATF rule on frames and receivers?

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/ ... cation.pdf
Conservative U.S. Supreme Court Justices John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett joined the court's three liberal justices to temporarily revive federal ghost gun regulations.

Ghost guns are homemade weapons or firearms that are typically purchased online and are untraceable to authorities due to the lack of a serial number, a lack of user ownership records, and no requirement for a background check.

Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas denied the application. The order was put on hold by U.S. District Court Judge Reed O'Connor in the Northern District of Texas on July 5, blocking ghost gun regulations nationwide.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) updated its regulations last year, making ghost guns and the kits used to assemble them identifiable under federal law. However, the rule itself does not disallow individuals from purchasing kits or being in possession of them.
The district court correctly vacated ATF's new “firearm” definition as to unfinished frames and receivers and part kits. The district court was right to vacate the Rule's new “firearm” definition “on grounds that the Final Rule was issued in excess of ATF's statutory jurisdiction
https://www.newsweek.com/supreme-court- ... ns-1818350
Post Reply