So if an AR lower is not a firearm, wouldn't a Glock frame...

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!

    • Register Log in
    Boats

    Boats

    Broken Member
    Mar 13, 2012
    4,121
    Howeird County
    Depending on interpretation, a finished 80% Glock frame would not be a firearm, since the striker mechanism is in the slide and the trigger. is in the frame. Same with a Ruger mk3.

    Here is the rub: That case is NOT case law, which is why the ATF basically dropped the charges. If the judge had issued a final ruling, it would have made the case binding. But since charges were dropped, and Roh took a plea deal, it is not.

    So, currently, a Glock frame (and an AR15 lower) ARE firearms, until the next guy gets hauled before a judge by the ATF.

    IANAL
     
    SkiPatrolDude

    SkiPatrolDude

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Oct 24, 2017
    3,386
    Timonium-Lutherville
    Boats said:
    Depending on interpretation, a finished 80% Glock frame would not be a firearm, since the striker mechanism is in the slide and the trigger. is in the frame. Same with a Ruger mk3.

    Here is the rub: That case is NOT case law, which is why the ATF basically dropped the charges. If the judge had issued a final ruling, it would have made the case binding. But since charges were dropped, and Roh took a plea deal, it is not.

    So, currently, a Glock frame (and an AR15 lower) ARE firearms, until the next guy gets hauled before a judge by the ATF.

    IANAL
    Click to expand...

    Yeah - to me it's one of those things we may just not want to touch, or at least for as long as we can avoid it.

    I sure do like to be able to order complete uppers and parts for my AR's online.

    Not sure that a legal resolution to provide more clarity would do any good. Leave good enough alone is my take.
     
    Boats

    Boats

    Broken Member
    Mar 13, 2012
    4,121
    Howeird County
    SkiPatrolDude said:
    Yeah - to me it's one of those things we may just not want to touch, or at least for as long as we can avoid it.

    I sure do like to be able to order complete uppers and parts for my AR's online.

    Not sure that a legal resolution to provide more clarity would do any good. Leave good enough alone is my take.
    Click to expand...

    agree. I am sure there are those who hope that it would open the doors to less government infringements on our 2a rights, but that is never how things like this go down.

    Realistically it would mean that lowers AND uppers would be counted as firearms and both would be regulated.

    But I feel there is another fight coming over this, and we (the pro-2a) will probably lose as we usually do. (my view is that a successful suit to maintain the status quo is not a win, it is keeping what little we have left)
     
    D

    delaware_export

    Ultimate Member
    Apr 10, 2018
    3,241
    If you follow the progress in some states, notably CA and NY, those folks would like every part registered.

    Any change to law would NOT be in favor of gun folks or the 2a.
     
    A

    atblis

    Ultimate Member
    May 23, 2010
    2,036
    Oh yes, I totally agree that a "clarification" would be bad.

    After thinking about it a bit, I think the Glock lower might cover the part about the breechblock. The wording is "provides housing for" which the frame does in fact do for the locking block whether it's present or not. An Ar lower does not provide any housing for the "bolt" or "breechblock". Though, if we're interpreting as requiring A and B and C where B = Hammer, then the Glock lower doesn't do that. Hmm, what an oddly written law. A "breechblock" is something you'd find on a falling block or lever action. I wouldn't consider the locking block in a Glock a breech block.
    A = provides housing for the hammer
    B = provides housing for the bolt or breechblock
    C = provides housing for the firing mechanism

    or is it (A or B or C) ?

    Under the US Code of Federal Regulations, a firearm frame or receiver is defined as: “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.” (emphasis added)
    Click to expand...

    ETA: Huh, so i don't see how a Glock frame could be interpreted as meeting the definition of a firearm frame or receiver.
     
    You must log in or register to reply here.

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
    Busted Gun in MD ad

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    275,597
    Messages
    7,287,871
    Members
    33,482
    Latest member
    Claude

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom