ATF definition of AR-15 in serious trouble

[JU-87]

The ATF’s Definition of an AR-15 Lower as a ‘Firearm’ Is In Serious Trouble

...Joseph Roh was smart enough to hire a good attorney, Gregory Nicolaysen. Nicolaysen did his homework and actually read the federal statute that lays out what constitutes — legally speaking — a firearm. As CNN reports, when Roh’s case came to trial in 2018 . . .
Nicolaysen argued that the definition of a receiver under the relevant federal code differed in various ways from the AR-15 component Roh was accused of manufacturing.

Under the US Code of Federal Regulations, a firearm frame or receiver is defined as: “That part of a firearm which provides housing for the hammer, bolt or breechblock, and firing mechanism, and which is usually threaded at its forward portion to receive the barrel.” (emphasis added)

The lower receiver in Roh’s case does not have a bolt or breechblock and is not threaded to receive the barrel, Nicolaysen noted.
And neither does any other AR-15 lower receiver. Where most firearms have a monolithic receiver that meets the definition under federal law, an AR has a split receiver, an upper and a lower. Neither component, strictly speaking, meets the definition of a frame or receiver that is explicitly laid out in the law...

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/the-a ... s-trouble/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;