What are implications of upcoming ATF rulings re receivers?

[Racewin]

Any word on if previously owned items get grandfathered?

Is it too late to buy some pre-serial uppers?

 

[mtptwo]

Yes, and no. It will be interesting to see the lawsuits pop off when the ATF tries to implement that rule.

 

[QuietM4]

People forget that every tech branch letter, every ATF decision is just their opinion, it's not law. The GCA and NFA laws clearly define what is a pistol, rifle, receiver, etc. ATF just can't change the definition on a whim; it will take an act of Congress to change the actual law. Until then, we are all just agreeing to play along with the "rules".

Same goes with the pistol brace worksheet...it's just their opinion. Unfortunately, it takes someone with a very large wallet and big brass ones to take them to court over anything...so we will just have to wait and see.

ATF has a long history of bringing cases against people, including what constitutes a "receiver", and as soon as they see the judge about to rule against them, they drop the case. This keeps any legal precedent from being set.

By the GCA definition, an AR-15 receiver is NOT a firearm; only meets 2 of the 4 parts of the definition.

Title 27, Code of Federal Regulations, section 478.11 defines a “firearm receiver” as, “[t]hat 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.”

 

[Racewin]

What about the time between the rule change (assuming the rule gets changed) and it getting formally challenged in court...

Is there any language that would indicate either existing items getting grand-fathered or being required to be marked?

What day would the rule be made effective?...what is the last day to buy an unserialized upper that would be grandfathered (or has that day already passed)?

 

[Old Jeff H]

I was aware of a possible change regarding pistol braces, but what's going on with upper receivers?

 

[AZ_Five56]

I was aware of a possible change regarding pistol braces, but what's going on with upper receivers?

Basically, all uppers would be considered firearms. They would be regulated and serialized just like lowers.

 

[Brlux]

That should be interesting considering how many un-serialized uppers there already are.

 

[xerts1911]

https://thefederalist.com/2021/08/20/republicans-slam-atf-for-attempting-to-alter-legal-definition-of-firearm/
Some Republicans criticisms on ATF constantly changing rules

 

[TheAccountant]

I was aware of a possible change regarding pistol braces, but what's going on with upper receivers?

Basically, all uppers would be considered firearms. They would be regulated and serialized just like lowers.

I read II.B.3 of the proposed rule to pretty explicitly say that’s not the case. What part of the rule are you getting this from?

 

[YNOTAZ]

I read II.B.3 of the proposed rule to pretty explicitly say that’s not the case. What part of the rule are you getting this from?

I read the phrase "ATF may classify a specific part or parts to be the “frame or receiver” in II.B.3

In 1.Par 3 they say:

"With respect to the fire control components housed by the frame or receiver, the definition would include, at a minimum, any housing or holding structure for a hammer, bolt, bolt carrier, breechblock, cylinder, trigger mechanism, firing pin, striker, or slide rails. However, the definition is not limited to those particular fire control components.[46] There may be future changes in firearms technology "

An AR upper receiver is visible from the outside and contains a bolt, bolt carrier, and firing pin.

Unless there is something more restrictive anywhere in that rule the only restriction I saw was the part must be visible from the outside, eliminating any internal frame parts.

I have no idea how that will work with a Sig P320 where the serialized part is the chassis housing the FCG inside the frame.

Ignoring all of that ATF appears to be writing law which is not their authority.

 

[TheAccountant]

I read II.B.3 of the proposed rule to pretty explicitly say that’s not the case. What part of the rule are you getting this from?

I read the phrase "ATF may classify a specific part or parts to be the “frame or receiver” in II.B.3

In 1.Par 3 they say:

"With respect to the fire control components housed by the frame or receiver, the definition would include, at a minimum, any housing or holding structure for a hammer, bolt, bolt carrier, breechblock, cylinder, trigger mechanism, firing pin, striker, or slide rails. However, the definition is not limited to those particular fire control components.[46] There may be future changes in firearms technology "

An AR upper receiver is visible from the outside and contains a bolt, bolt carrier, and firing pin.

Unless there is something more restrictive anywhere in that rule the only restriction I saw was the part must be visible from the outside, eliminating any internal frame parts.

I have no idea how that will work with a Sig P320 where the serialized part is the chassis housing the FCG inside the frame.

Ignoring all of that ATF appears to be writing law which is not their authority.

The portion that seems to directly contradict the idea that uppers would be serialized (and solve for the P320 issue that you noted) is below:

One important goal of this rule is to ensure that it does not affect existing ATF classifications of firearms that specify a single component as the frame or receiver. Application of the rule, as proposed, would not alter these prior classifications. To provide more clarity, this supplement to the definition would include a nonexclusive list of common weapons with a split/multi-piece frame or receiver configuration for which ATF has previously determined a specific part to be the frame or receiver. If a manufacturer produces or an importer imports a firearm falling within one of these designs as they exist as of the date of publication of a final rule, it can refer to this list to know which part is the frame or receiver. The manufacturer or importer can then mark without needing to ask ATF for a classification. The nonexclusive list identifies the frame or receiver for the following firearms: (i) Colt 1911-type, Beretta/Browning/FN Herstal/Heckler & Koch/Ruger/Sig Sauer/Smith & Wesson/Taurus hammer fired semiautomatic pistols; (ii) Glock-type striker fired semiautomatic pistols; (iii) Sig Sauer P320-type semiautomatic pistols; (iv) certain locking block rail system semiautomatic pistols; (v) AR-15-type and Beretta AR-70-type firearms; (vi) Steyr AUG-type firearms; (vii) Thompson M1A1-type machineguns and semiautomatic variants, and L1A1, FN FAL, FN FNC, MP 38, MP 40, and SIG 550 type firearms, and HK-type machineguns and semiautomatic variants; (viii) Vickers/Maxim, Browning 1919, and M2-type machineguns, and box-type machineguns and semiautomatic variants thereof; and (ix) Sten, Sterling, and Kel-tec Sub-2000-type firearms.

 

[YNOTAZ]

The portion that seems to directly contradict the idea that uppers would be serialized (and solve for the P320 issue that you noted) is below:

One important goal of this rule is to ensure that it does not affect existing ATF classifications of firearms that specify a single component as the frame or receiver. Application of the rule, as proposed, would not alter these prior classifications. To provide more clarity, this supplement to the definition would include a nonexclusive list of common weapons with a split/multi-piece frame or receiver configuration for which ATF has previously determined a specific part to be the frame or receiver. If a manufacturer produces or an importer imports a firearm falling within one of these designs as they exist as of the date of publication of a final rule, it can refer to this list to know which part is the frame or receiver. The manufacturer or importer can then mark without needing to ask ATF for a classification. The nonexclusive list identifies the frame or receiver for the following firearms: (i) Colt 1911-type, Beretta/Browning/FN Herstal/Heckler & Koch/Ruger/Sig Sauer/Smith & Wesson/Taurus hammer fired semiautomatic pistols; (ii) Glock-type striker fired semiautomatic pistols; (iii) Sig Sauer P320-type semiautomatic pistols; (iv) certain locking block rail system semiautomatic pistols; (v) AR-15-type and Beretta AR-70-type firearms; (vi) Steyr AUG-type firearms; (vii) Thompson M1A1-type machineguns and semiautomatic variants, and L1A1, FN FAL, FN FNC, MP 38, MP 40, and SIG 550 type firearms, and HK-type machineguns and semiautomatic variants; (viii) Vickers/Maxim, Browning 1919, and M2-type machineguns, and box-type machineguns and semiautomatic variants thereof; and (ix) Sten, Sterling, and Kel-tec Sub-2000-type firearms.

Good job and great point but, in reading They say they "have a goal" while they are rewriting law, they make no commitment to enforcement or ATF regulations.

With the newly usurped authority of the ATF and taken in to the totality with Gunsmith redefinition, does a 6.8 SPC upper for a currently owned 5.56 AR make you a gunsmith, a manufacturer, and is the caliber change upper a firearm?

With them rewriting law, covering their asses for almost a 50 years of their admitted over-enforcement, and all the built in loopholes allowing them to use the newfound power to change add, or do whatever they want I will not make any assumption that their intentions are good.

Their closing statement sums it all up in that they can change the rule any time they want, as technology changes, innovation increases, or they can imply technology has changed.

How old was the 1911 design, when the GCA was written in 1968?

"1. A DESCRIPTION OF THE REASONS WHY ACTION BY THE AGENCY IS BEING CONSIDERED
One of the reasons ATF is considering this proposed regulation is the failure of the market to compensate for negative externalities caused by commercial activity. A negative externality can be the by-product of a transaction between two parties that is not accounted for in the transaction.

This proposed rule would update the existing definition of frame or receiver to account for the majority of technological advances in the industry and ensure that these firearms continue to remain under the regulatory regime as intended by the enactment of the GCA, including accounting for manufacturing of firearms using multiple manufacturers. In light of recent court cases, the majority of regulated firearms may not meet the existing definition of firearm frame or receiver. This may result in no part of a firearm being regulated as a “frame or receiver” contrary to the requirements in the GCA that ensure tracing to solve crime and help prevent prohibited persons from coming into possession of weapons. Furthermore, finding information in support of criminal cases may be hindered because records are destroyed after 20 years despite the fact that firearms may last longer than 20 years and be used in criminal activities.

This proposed rule would also account for advances in technology in performing transactions such as electronic storage. For more specific details regarding the need for regulation, please refer to the specific chapters pertaining to each provision of this proposed rule."

You are a much more trusting person than I.

 

[TheAccountant]

I agree that their goals don’t carry much weight, but there are two separate sentences explicitly stating it’ll be status quo for the enumerated firearms. Unless there’s something specific to disprove it, you can’t really parse a document and say “they mean this part and this part but they don’t really mean that part.” I don’t trust anyone from the gov as far as I can throw them, but these click bait websites that get everyone up in arms over easily refuted claims don’t do anything but distract from the actual points that should be focused on. How many letters do you think they’ve received with people whining about serialized AR uppers that go nowhere because it’s a non-issue as the rule was written?

 

[YNOTAZ]

Bump stocks are machineguns, forced reset triggers are machineguns, arm braces are SBRs, xm855 ammo should be banned, ATI GSG 5SD is suppressed, AR15 lowers are firearms. 80% lowers are firearms, help a friend set up a mill on an 80% you manufactured it, if you have a barrel less than 16" in a house with an AR lower you constructively intended to build an SBR.

Their history says don't parse words and/or sentences, find the worst you can, triple that and that's 1/2 of what you're going to get.

And let's say they push through the arm brace thing, they handle it just like they did the GSG5SDs, and just 50% of the people attempt to comply and submit form 1s for SBR's. Considering current backlogs and ATF's priority on NFA items, it will likely be 2-3 years before they see a tax stamp.

They will be Federal and State felons until then. Piss off the wrong person and you lose all your firearms.

Considering the consequences and ATF's history, I choose to take them at their worst +1,000

 

[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.

 

[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:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHhcOki1OnE

 

[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