What are implications of upcoming ATF rulings re receivers?

[YNOTAZ]

You and I have different opinions, which we each have a right to. You seem to trust the ATF's intentions, I've experienced their their intentions. The following is a video circulated by Gun Owners of America. While it uses a Glock as an example, the same rules apply to an AR. I trust their opinion:

[TheAccountant]

There’s a massive difference between you and I: You base your opinions on other people’s interpretations of the facts, forgetting those people are often motivated to use their interpretation to manipulate you. I look at the facts presented and form my own opinions. You can post all of the videos you want, but I’ll still base my opinion on what’s in black and white. If someone can produce facts to refute what’s in black and white then I’m all ears, but all I’ve seen from anyone so far is an opinion formed on a crystal ball.

Also, that video could not have proved my earlier point better if it tried. How many letters to the ATF did that video generate where people are whining about their Glock being 18 firearms now? Absolutely none of them will be considered because the issue has been addressed, at least in ATFs mind. How much money do you think the GOA has collected pushing that narrative?

These sites are meant to get you emotionally involved (i.e. mad, outraged, victimized, etc) so they can manipulate you into giving them money. They are not there to provide impartial facts for you to make your own decisions. They collect money, people walk away uninformed/misinformed and the true issues never get addressed.

[YNOTAZ]

GOA has attorneys that read law, not accountants and I've had experience with the ATF after they changed their mind with no legal justification.

You certainly have a right your opinion, enjoy it.

[TheAccountant]

Attorneys make their money by interpreting the law and presenting facts in a way most favorable to their client. They have no duty to anyone else. You are most certainly not their client so relying on their interpretation is foolish at best. A favorable interpretation for their client, the GOA, in this instance is to present parsed information that supports a doomsday scenario that can be used by their client to raise money. It sounds like it worked on at least one person.

Sheep will be sheep. Carry on.

[kenpoprofessor]

We can all sit around and speculate about what’s to come in the future, but the reality is that there is nothing in the current proposed rule that requires serialized uppers or classifies uppers as firearms.

Clyde

[TheAccountant]

We can all sit around and speculate about what’s to come in the future, but the reality is that there is nothing in the current proposed rule that requires serialized uppers or classifies uppers as firearms.

Clyde

Typical liberal trying to fight facts with memes

[QuietM4]

You can all talk about what the ATF is saying now, but we all know they have a MASSIVE HISTORY of saying one thing, and then doing the complete opposite. I trust nothing they say.

[AZ_Five56]

You can all talk about what the ATF is saying now, but we all know they have a MASSIVE HISTORY of saying one thing, and then doing the complete opposite. I trust nothing they say.

Absolutely! My interpretation after reading everything was that the director may make the determination of what is a receiver. The guidelines laid out what is a receiver for certain firearms, however, the language is too loose throughout. Could they determine that a certain model has two receivers? Maybe a stupid question... I just don't know. What I do know is that if they have an inch, they will take a mile.