An article very much worth reading... even if it is from CNN

[sirhrmechanic]

Former agent takes aim at ATF over AR-15s

Ex-ATF agent Dan O'Kelly says federal law does not apply to a key component of the AR-15 and many other weapons, creating a loophole through which convicted felons could acquire a firearm piece by piece.

www.cnn.com

I've sort of been following this for about a year. I think it's been discussed here on SH. But I can't find the link.

This article is a very good summation of the status of this... and the tremendous mess it could create or... opportunity it could create!

Interesting that an ATF agent is the catalyst for this.

Cheers,

Sirhr

 

[Maggot]

I saw that and it makes me a bit conflicted. On one hand its good info to know. On the other if he'd just shut up maybe it would take them longer to change it.

 

[Sixfivesavage]

But doesn't the lower still house the firing control and hammer...? Maybe I'm missing something.

 

[rjacobs]

But doesn't the lower still house the firing control and hammer...? Maybe I'm missing something.

I believe the definition is everything... firing control, hammer, barrel screws into it, houses the bolt, etc...

almost every semi auto pistol doesnt fit the definition either...

Basically revolvers and bolt guns fit the definition... Probably most shotguns too. AR15's and most semi auto pistols...dont.

 

[Sixfivesavage]

I guess the " and which is usually threaded for a barrel " part is my hang up.

 

[clcustom1911]

But doesn't the lower still house the firing control and hammer...? Maybe I'm missing something.

"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."

Does the upper house the hammer? No

Is the lower usually threaded at the end to receive the barrel? No

If you buy a complete AR, yes.

Buy the individual parts? No.

 

[Sixfivesavage]

"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."

Does the upper house the hammer? No

Is the lower usually threaded at the end to receive the barrel? No

If you buy a complete AR, yes.

Buy the individual parts? No.

I understand that. Like I said, my hang up and I know it's what ATF uses for their interpretation as well, is the portion where it says "and which is usually threaded at its forward portion to receive the barrel.".

That's ambiguous. It leaves room for the interpretation that it isn't always the case, thus not a necessity for the requirement.

To be clear, I'm nor arguing in favor of the current standards, much less the ATF in general. We know how this works and we know that they will take all they can with what the language provides for. It just seems to be a weak foundation for an argument against the requirement to me.

 

[Tx_Aggie]

Correcting this would likely result in uppers and lowers being serialized together (slides and frames for handguns) and equally regulated as receivers, as they likely should have been from the beginning under a strict interpretation of the statute.

ATF has understood the issues with their current interpretation for a while. But the cat is long out of the bag, and I imagine the embarrassment to them if they corrected it, not to mention the chaos it would cause in the industry, has led them to work towards maintaining the status quo.

The entire mess is ultimately a result of folks writing laws governing technology they don't understand (i.e. business as usual for politicians).