Good article: atf/ar/lowers/80percent

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!
  • pcfixer

    Ultimate Member
    May 24, 2009
    5,947
    Marylandstan
    Nicolaysen argued that the definition of a receiver under the relevant federal code differed in various ways from the AR-15 component Roh was accused of manufacturing.
    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)
    The lower receiver in Roh’s case does not have a bolt or breechblock and is not threaded to receive the barrel, Nicolaysen noted.

    https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/t...-15-lower-as-a-firearm-is-in-serious-trouble/
     

    ToolAA

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Jun 17, 2016
    10,499
    God's Country
    When does a hunk of metal become a firearm? It shouldn’t be too hard for liberals to adopt the same approach they argue for late term abortions. It’s not a firearm until it can actually “fire” a projectile. Everything else is NOT a firearm and shouldn’t be regulated or restricted.
     

    MigraineMan

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 9, 2011
    19,109
    Frederick County
    When does a hunk of metal become a firearm? It shouldn’t be too hard for liberals to adopt the same approach they argue for late term abortions. It’s not a firearm until it can actually “fire” a projectile. Everything else is NOT a firearm and shouldn’t be regulated or restricted.

    Unfortunately, they've already played the "constructive possession" card, which will forever muddy the legal waters.

    Maybe we would be better off performing late-term abortions on those who commit violent crimes upon innocent victims.
     

    Threeband

    The M1 Does My Talking
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 30, 2006
    25,231
    Carroll County
    I realized many years ago that "they" were regulating the wrong part of the AR 15 and AR 10. I never mentioned it here or anywhere else, because why open that can of worms? If it became widely recognized, it would only lead to more restrictions on uppers.

    The upper is obviously the receiver. It not only "receives" the barrel, but also the bolt.

    I think that, back in the '50s, Eugene Stoner, Armalite, and Colt didn't really grasp the potential of the modular nature of the AR 10 and the AR 15. It looks like they just viewed the receiver as a single part that could be hinged open for maintenance, and so they put the serial number along with the rest of the "billboard" markings in that lovely big space on the lower part of the receiver.

    I don't recall ever seeing the term "Upper" and "Lower" before the 1990s, maybe not before the naughts. I do recall being momentarily confused the first time I saw it, but I'm not really an AR person. But it was at that time I first realized that somebody had put the serial number on the wrong part, thus 60 years of nonsense.

    The AR Lower is really the equivalent of the trigger group on an M1 Garand, with the pistol grip added on.

    I always figured if that were widely recognized, it would only cause problems for us, such as restrictions on Uppers and Barreled Uppers, and so I kept quiet. hopefully this will die down...
     

    danb

    dont be a dumbass
    Feb 24, 2013
    22,704
    google is your friend, I am not.
    The upper is obviously the receiver. It not only "receives" the barrel, but also the bolt.

    But not the housing for the hammer or firing mechanism.

    The receiver has four components by law. The lower of an AR has only two.

    “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.

    Also note that threads for the barrel is "usual" but not necessary.
     

    Threeband

    The M1 Does My Talking
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 30, 2006
    25,231
    Carroll County
    But not the housing for the hammer or firing mechanism.

    The receiver has four components by law. The lower of an AR has only two.



    Also note that threads for the barrel is "usual" but not necessary.

    The M1 Garand has its hammer "housed" in the detachable trigger group, not in the receiver.

    iu



    Meanwhile, what is the "firing mechanism"? Is it the firing pin? The hammer? Or both? But the Garand has its hammer in the Garand Lower trigger group.

    Also note that threads for the barrel is "usual" but not necessary.

    That wording could reflect the many long guns with take down barrels, such as the Remington Model 8, or those with pinned or otherwise non-threaded barrels. In general, the receiver is that part which receives the barrel and the bolt/breechblock.


    The definition was badly written from the beginning, but clearly the AR upper is the receiver, except the designers saw the upper and lower as a unit, as one part, and put the serial number on the trigger group lower part.

    If anybody spoke of Lowers and Uppers before the 1980s, I would be interested to see the citation. When did the terms "lower" and "upper" come into use?

    I sometimes see people talk about the "lower" and "upper" of a Glock or 1911, rather than "frame" and "slide."
     

    danb

    dont be a dumbass
    Feb 24, 2013
    22,704
    google is your friend, I am not.
    The M1 Garand has its hammer "housed" in the detachable trigger group, not in the receiver.

    Well, the entire firing mechanism including the the hammer and trigger group is in the receiver. They were well aware of the M1 Garand when they wrote this definition. In this case, the hammer is really part of the trigger group.
     

    clandestine

    AR-15 Savant
    Oct 13, 2008
    37,031
    Elkton, MD
    I believe the purpose of these articles purpose is to draw people into doing foolish things.

    It appears many people are considering the idea of taking the bait.
     

    Threeband

    The M1 Does My Talking
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 30, 2006
    25,231
    Carroll County
    No, the trigger group of the M1 is in the stock. The AR receiver is one unit. There is no "upper" and "lower". That concept didn't exist until recently.

    The ATF wasn't thinking of the Garand. The ATF had its head up its ass. The definition is rubbish: that's the real problem.


    I noticed years ago that, when trying to teach or explain about guns, one immediately runs into all sorts of confusing exceptions to any generalization. It is almost impossible to speak clearly, concisely, and accurately about firearms.

    My use of the term "receiver" is based on "gun people's usage," not government legalese. The receiver is the "chassis" or "frame" which "receives" the barrel and bolt. It is not possible to craft an all-inclusive definition of "receiver" which doesn't have exceptions. Even my unofficial definition is not all-inclusive.

    The ATF definition is an unsuccessful attempt to do the impossible.

    My thesis is that the AR upper is more appropriately called the "receiver" than is the lower. As I said, in 1960, the upper and lower were not seen as distinct parts. The serial number was stamped where it fit best, aesthetically. The part with the serial number is registered (danger-thin ice).

    It's all rubbish.

    This is why I did not mention this fifteen years ago. Obviously I was wise to keep my mouth shut.
     
    Last edited:

    BRIANtheBRAVE

    Member
    Jun 20, 2013
    10
    Is it Legal to skeletize my handguns and AR's to build 80 % so I don't have to lay out More money and just keep the frame on handguns and lowers on AR's and just turn Them over to the Feds if they ever confiscate firearms ?
     

    Speed3

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 19, 2011
    7,816
    MD
    Is it Legal to skeletize my handguns and AR's to build 80 % so I don't have to lay out More money and just keep the frame on handguns and lowers on AR's and just turn Them over to the Feds if they ever confiscate firearms ?

    I think you're asking, is it legal to separate the factory frame from a pistol, put on an 80% frame? If so, then yes. You can try to sell the factory frame or keep it for safe keeping.
     

    accokeek

    Member
    MDS Supporter
    Mar 4, 2013
    20
    Southern Maryland

    lazarus

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 23, 2015
    13,673
    I think you're asking, is it legal to separate the factory frame from a pistol, put on an 80% frame? If so, then yes. You can try to sell the factory frame or keep it for safe keeping.

    Though not if it is a non-HBAR frame for an 80% in MD. Though if there is confiscation, the gun is banned full stop and an 80% (at least that is completed) would be illegal.
     

    Pinecone

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 4, 2013
    28,175
    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?

    No, in this case, the law has specific language. They cannot make a ruling, no matter what the process, that does not match the law.
     

    Pinecone

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 4, 2013
    28,175
    No, the trigger group of the M1 is in the stock. The AR receiver is one unit. There is no "upper" and "lower". That concept didn't exist until recently.

    The ATF wasn't thinking of the Garand. The ATF had its head up its ass. The definition is rubbish: that's the real problem.


    I noticed years ago that, when trying to teach or explain about guns, one immediately runs into all sorts of confusing exceptions to any generalization. It is almost impossible to speak clearly, concisely, and accurately about firearms.

    My use of the term "receiver" is based on "gun people's usage," not government legalese. The receiver is the "chassis" or "frame" which "receives" the barrel and bolt. It is not possible to craft an all-inclusive definition of "receiver" which doesn't have exceptions. Even my unofficial definition is not all-inclusive.

    The ATF definition is an unsuccessful attempt to do the impossible.

    My thesis is that the AR upper is more appropriately called the "receiver" than is the lower. As I said, in 1960, the upper and lower were not seen as distinct parts. The serial number was stamped where it fit best, aesthetically. The part with the serial number is registered (danger-thin ice).

    It's all rubbish.

    This is why I did not mention this fifteen years ago. Obviously I was wise to keep my mouth shut.

    The ATF did not make the wording of what a receiver is.

    And no, the people who wrote that wording, were not thinking of the Garand, as it was not in production yet.

    They were thinking of Springfield 03s and similar rifles.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,915
    Messages
    7,258,414
    Members
    33,348
    Latest member
    Eric_Hehl

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom