ATF to Re-Write Definition of a Lower Receiver???
- Thread starter Longshot231
- Start date
I heard about it its not happening even if it makes sense because there are to many AR15's out there.
There is a catch, this is not a good thing
That's what I was beginning to wonder. They will re-define it but what will be the new definition? Something worse for gunowners? Probably.
How does any semi auto differ from an AR lower........1911, Sig, Glock pistols.
Im still trying to figure how the Sig M17 trigger pack is a firearm.
Im still trying to figure how the Sig M17 trigger pack is a firearm.
The issue here, and it's a big one, is the legal definition of a firearm ( 27 CFR § 478.11) doesn't match a AR lower. This is a big deal. There have been numerous cases dropped by Federal prosecutors to prevent a judge from ruling on this. It's a fascinating story with huge implications.
There is no federal law that says one cannot build his or her own firearm, unless it falls under the NFA. In that instance one pays the 200 tax for permission to exercise his or her right to build that firearm.
With that in mind, I’m fearful that the ATF will adopt language that prohibits people from building their own guns by redefining what a lower is.
They’ve been focused on this for a long time: think “ghost guns.”
If it sounds like fun, you can’t do it.
With that in mind, I’m fearful that the ATF will adopt language that prohibits people from building their own guns by redefining what a lower is.
They’ve been focused on this for a long time: think “ghost guns.”
If it sounds like fun, you can’t do it.
The ATF has no power to rewrite a statutory definition, that would require Congress. There are numerous problems with ATF definitions of the serialized part. Why is an AR-15 lower a firearm and an FAL lower is not? What is the registered part of a Maxim? The right side plate. What's the difference between the right and left plate? Which side you riveted the cam. In any event, how does a flat sheet of steel in any way meet the definition of firearm?
I swear, some days Tech Branch just makes shit up.
I swear, some days Tech Branch just makes shit up.
Is the problem that the definition states the part that holds the bolt is the firearm? Is that the difference between the AR and the FAL? I've not really researched the issue, other than to see cases of illegal manufacturing by prohibited felons dropped by prosecutors before a judge could rule.
Def. was charged in 2015 with receiving and possessing an unregistered, unserialized AR15 machinegun lower receiver (by a felon, no less). Defense's motion to dismiss was predicated on the argument that an AR lower did not meet the legal definition of a receiver because, as you've already stated, did not directly accommodate the barrel along with the hammer and firing mechanism. The motion to dismiss was granted.
United States v. Jimenez, 191 F. Supp. 3d 1038 | Casetext Search + Citator
Read United States v. Jimenez, 191 F. Supp. 3d 1038, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database
casetext.com
Death by a thousand cuts.
Gun grabbers justify these types of actions by using terms like "Common Sense Gun Control" and making statements like "If it only saves one life"
Generally in any negotiation there is a trade off where you get a little but you give a little, with gun control you simply give.
With gun grabbers it is a one way street and their goal is very simple - a complete ban. Once you understand that everything else makes sense.
Gun grabbers justify these types of actions by using terms like "Common Sense Gun Control" and making statements like "If it only saves one life"
Generally in any negotiation there is a trade off where you get a little but you give a little, with gun control you simply give.
With gun grabbers it is a one way street and their goal is very simple - a complete ban. Once you understand that everything else makes sense.
In this specific case, the difference is where the mag well is located - an FAL upper holds the barrel and the mag, but not the fire control group. But to a layperson, there is quite a subtle difference between this and an AR-15. One could even have the parts examined by a mechanically-inclined person who is not a firearms enthusiast, and he may fail to recognize any meaningful distinction - both the upper and the lower of a FAL or AR are inert pieces of metal when disassembled. (For the record, an FAL upper is slightly less inert than its AR counterpart if, say, dropped from a workbench onto one's unprotected foot.)
Regardless of what we're discussing - AR, FAL, semiauto pistol (Browning or Luger style), box/trunion-receiver machine gun - we've got problems identifying a single component that houses the FCG, magwell, and barrel, and thus these don't fit the ATF's own definition. Plenty of these examples existed prior to the GCA of '68, so it's not like the regulation simply became obsolete due to technical innovation - it was never adequate from the start. There would appear to be two paths available to the ATF - disregard receiver classification entirely, or add more components to what is commonly considered to be a receiver. One of those is less likely than the other.
Similar threads
