Good article: atf/ar/lowers/80percent

delaware_export · Oct 11, 2019

This case has been kept pretty quiet and calls into question atf classification of some ar related issues

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/11/us/ar-15-guns-law-atf-invs/index.html

whistlersmother · Oct 11, 2019

"No reasonable person would understand that a part constitutes a receiver where it lacks the components specified in the regulation," Selna wrote.

Neither lower nor upper meet the definition of "receiver" in the regulations...

No wonder ATF decided to drop it - no way to enforce restriction on lowers had the case gone through.

Lloyd · Oct 12, 2019

This could be very interesting.

Could this unravel the ATF's interpretation of what makes a pistol AR not a Class 3 SBR?

.

wolfwood · Oct 12, 2019

here is the tentative ruling at issue

https://www.scribd.com/document/429889179/Roh-Ruling-on-R-29-Motion

danb · Oct 12, 2019

Interesting.

delaware_export · Oct 12, 2019

So wolf, it sounds like they’re saying atf can go through a formal rules making process, like bump stocks and have this “fixed”?

And maybe until then, folks could make all the finished lowers they want and throw them around to anyone? Just don’t mate them with an upper and you’re good until the rules change?

wolfwood said:
here is the tentative ruling at issue

https://www.scribd.com/document/429889179/Roh-Ruling-on-R-29-Motion

Bikebreath · Oct 12, 2019

This disturbing paragraph floated by itself...

Sources familiar with the agreement said prosecutors wanted to strike a deal in order to prevent Selna's order from becoming permanent, drawing publicity, and creating case law that could hamper ATF enforcement efforts.

If you care to find it, it's 10 paragraphs up from the bottom.

Allen65 · Oct 12, 2019

Why were the Feds worried? A decision by a District Court judge in favor of 2A means nothing in 9CA, let alone the rest of the country. Even if an appellate panel by some miracle upheld the ruling, it would almost certainly be enbanc'ed into oblivion because the antis still have a majority in 9CA overall.

Remember, we won against G&S at District level in MD with Judge Legg. How's that freedom feeling now after 4CA squashed it?

danb · Oct 12, 2019

The Feds are worried because there is clearly a problem. The logic is pretty sound as applied to AR receivers. What puzzles me is why there has not been any rule-making to close this gap.

Mark75H · Oct 12, 2019

The AR is not alone in this feature. There are other rifles that just do not meet the specific exact definition until the entire firearm is fully assembled.

Even if no worms escape, opening the can presents a problem to those with helminthophobia, scoleciphobia or vermiphobia

Allen65 · Oct 12, 2019

danb said:
What puzzles me is why there has not been any rule-making to close this gap.

Don't underestimate the force of bureaucratic inertia. The rule held up until now, so nobody in ATF saw a reason to put resources towards drafting and staffing changes.

WildWeasel · Oct 12, 2019

Allen65 said:
Why were the Feds worried? A decision by a District Court judge in favor of 2A means nothing in 9CA, let alone the rest of the country. Even if an appellate panel by some miracle upheld the ruling, it would almost certainly be enbanc'ed into oblivion because the antis still have a majority in 9CA overall.

Remember, we won against G&S at District level in MD with Judge Legg. How's that freedom feeling now after 4CA squashed it?

It's still precedent; whether it holds up or not is always a different story, but it would still make it tougher for one side or the other.

Mark75H said:
The AR is not alone in this feature. There are other rifles that just do not meet the specific exact definition until the entire firearm is fully assembled.

Aren't there 80% pistol frames as well?

Sounds to me like they're trying to appease both sides... Leaving 80s alone, but "not wanting to get it publicity..." The anti 2As probably think this is a brand new thing, rather than 80s being made and sold for a long time...

whistlersmother · Oct 12, 2019

This is not just an 80% deal. If by ATF regs the AR15 lower is not a receiver, then they can be sold without NICS checks. Anyone can buy them and assemble to complete, untraceable rifle/pistol (legally or illegally).

ATF looses control - and can't have that.

Mark75H · Oct 12, 2019

WildWeasel said:
It's still precedent; whether it holds up or not is always a different story, but it would still make it tougher for one side or the other.

Aren't there 80% pistol frames as well?

Sounds to me like they're trying to appease both sides... Leaving 80s alone, but "not wanting to get it publicity..." The anti 2As probably think this is a brand new thing, rather than 80s being made and sold for a long time...

You made me think

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

Many semiauto handguns, esp striker fired, should fail the defintion. The "and" connecting "bolt or breechblock," to "firing mechanism" where the breechblock and firing mechanism are separatly housed makes the parts not fit the definition until the slide and frame are put together, like joining an AR's upper and lower.

Mike OTDP · Oct 12, 2019

The big problem is that the definitions date to the National Firearms Act of 1934. Meaning they were written around a much different technology base.

HaveBlue · Oct 12, 2019

The B&T GHM9 is layed out like an AR. It has a serial # on the upper, the barrel and the bolt. The lower has no serial #. The lower is swapable to accommodate Glock, P320 and B&T mags.

Bob A · Oct 12, 2019

delaware_export said:
So wolf, it sounds like they’re saying atf can go through a formal rules making process, like bump stocks and have this “fixed”?

And maybe until then, folks could make all the finished lowers they want and throw them around to anyone? Just don’t mate them with an upper and you’re good until the rules change?

Apparently the ATF rule-making is subject to question? The agency seems to lack the authority to issue a legislative rule, and the bumpstock prohibition is merely "interpretive"?

Link:
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/atf-admits-lacked-authority-issue-172200417.html

Sirex · Oct 12, 2019

With California as the beta testgrounds for restrictive gun laws, if it isn't shot down in court, this could go nationwide on a state by state basis.

"One other bill that’s going to cause huge problems for gun owners is AB 879, which requires all “precursor parts” sold in the state be sold through a licensed “precursor parts dealer”, which in turn means background checks (and fees) on every purchase of a “precursor part”, be it a trigger, a barrel, or an 80% lower. Basically anything other than an a finished firearm, frame, or finished receiver. This is modeled after California’s new ammunition background check law, which has had thousands of false denials and delays since it went into effect earlier this year. And just like California’s ammunition background check law, which makes it illegal for California residents to bring ammunition purchased out of state back home, this bill creates a new misdemeanor offense for anyone who brings “a firearm precursor part into the state without first having the part delivered to a licensed firearm precursor part vendor.” "

https://bearingarms.com/cam-e/2019/...aE-OOwDKz4FMBrM0I90gOGMUvC_yTLgPG5-Y6s6jD8Kw4

Allen65 · Oct 12, 2019

Sirex said:
With California as the beta testgrounds for restrictive gun laws, if it isn't shot down in court, this could go nationwide on a state by state basis.

Sen. Schumer was trying to push something similar at the Federal level a few years back, and if the Ds take the Senate, expect to see it again. Basically he wanted to make any part intended for use in a firearm, including springs and screws, controlled items just like complete firearms and subject to all the same transfer rules.

ironpony · Oct 13, 2019

How might a Class Action lawsuit go ? Return of transfer fees incurred as well as other expenses/intrusions/etc. Make them show their hand? or make them change the rules for the worse. Almost like sending an opinion letter ...

Good article: atf/ar/lowers/80percent

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

Peace through strength

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Attachments

dont be a dumbass

Ultimate Member

R.I.P.

Ultimate Member

dont be a dumbass

MD Wear&Carry Instructor

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Peace through strength

MD Wear&Carry Instructor

Ultimate Member

HaveBlue

όυ φροντισ

Powered by natural gas

Ultimate Member

Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics