NPRM - Definition of Frame / Receiver

lazarus said:

Only if an FFL touches it. If an FFL doesn't touch it, that isn't the case.

To be clear, the NPRM is applying serialization requirements to FFLs.

Click to expand...

Cool. My first will be marked as "**** BIDEN 1 TIME", the second as "**** BIDEN 2 TIMES", etc...

BeoBill said:

Cool. My first will be marked as "**** BIDEN 1 TIME", the second as "**** BIDEN 2 TIMES", etc...

Click to expand...

Wouldn’t be an official serial number. The NPRM has official guidance one what the serial number needs to consist of from the FFL.

Now if you want mark your NFA items like that, please proceed :-)

teratos said:

On the flip side, how does a serial number make it any safer?

Click to expand...

I would like to see the data on the number of times the serial number on a firearm actually helped solve the crime.

1) The firearm has be to be recovered without the perp.

2) The firearm had to be legally purchased by the perp.

No firearm, no serial number to look up.

Stolen or illegally sold firearm, no tracking of the serial number.


And finally, if the perp is smart enough and handy enough to build a firearm, they can also obliterate the serial number if there is one.

Pinecone said:

I would like to see the data on the number of times the serial number on a firearm actually helped solve the crime.

1) The firearm has be to be recovered without the perp.

2) The firearm had to be legally purchased by the perp.

No firearm, no serial number to look up.

Stolen or illegally sold firearm, no tracking of the serial number.


And finally, if the perp is smart enough and handy enough to build a firearm, they can also obliterate the serial number if there is one.

Click to expand...

Facts don't matter in a emotional argument

Pinecone said:

I would like to see the data on the number of times the serial number on a firearm actually helped solve the crime.

1) The firearm has be to be recovered without the perp.

2) The firearm had to be legally purchased by the perp.

No firearm, no serial number to look up.

Stolen or illegally sold firearm, no tracking of the serial number.


And finally, if the perp is smart enough and handy enough to build a firearm, they can also obliterate the serial number if there is one.

Click to expand...

It’s solved it a large number of times. Just not the crime the gun was used in. A lot of straw purchases or illegal private sales were proven because of tracing the serial number (known felon, etc.).

Not sure if there are statistics out there. I am pretty sure there are in terms of convictions/charges. Though how many were specifically discovered because the serial number was traced I am sure is unknown. But you could probably bet high.

The actual crime ITSELF, I’d imagine a very small number over the years.

As for obliterating the serial number, it’s impressive what can be recovered even grinding it smooth. Depending on how it was engraved, it changed the grain structure of the metal under it and it can often be recovered even if it looks perfectly smooth.

I will have to re-read it.

But I did not read it as having to serialize 80%. FFLs have to serialized FIREARMS that come into their possession. Unless they change the definitions, an 80% is NOT a firearm.

And if they change the percentage to 70%, then we will start buying 70% hunks of metal.

Pinecone said:

I will have to re-read it.

But I did not read it as having to serialize 80%. FFLs have to serialized FIREARMS that come into their possession. Unless they change the definitions, an 80% is NOT a firearm.

And if they change the percentage to 70%, then we will start buying 70% hunks of metal.

Click to expand...

A finished 80% is a firearm

Pinecone said:

I will have to re-read it.

But I did not read it as having to serialize 80%. FFLs have to serialized FIREARMS that come into their possession. Unless they change the definitions, an 80% is NOT a firearm.

And if they change the percentage to 70%, then we will start buying 70% hunks of metal.

Click to expand...

Yes. They are doing that in this NPRM. They are laying out that they are reinterpreting “readily converted” that is in the law to make it more clear that an 80% is actually a firearm.

Surprise, surprise after all these years, they’d said before 80% weren’t firearms, but now they will be saying they are.

Or I should say they are laying out their position that they are reinterpreting “readily converted” with slightly clearer definitions. As for the impact of that reinterpreting we will have to see what it is. But I think I can guess all existing 80% will fail their new test and be considered firearms. Any 80% sold as part of a parts kit will 100% absolutely for sure be considered a firearm.

An 80% is a made up term. What it is going to come down to as anything that can go from pieces of things in to a functional pew pew in a few hours of work and basic machine tools and moderate knowledge is going to be considered a gun. They specifically cite case law along those lines.

And yes, some hardware and plumbing parts and a guy with moderate machining skills can make a basic sten gun in that time. I am well aware. So are pipes firearms now?

Just pointing out that the ATF is laying out their position that they are reinterpreting what a firearm is.

The answer is, still kind of like porn. “We’ll know it when we see it”. Except now they are being slightly clearer “bare boobies or cooter and it might be porn, and we’ll let you know if it is artistic or porn”

And yes, companies might adjust. At some point something will be far enough removed ATF won’t consider it a firearm nor would a court (at least not with a straight face).

But yeah, it might be a blank forging or casting where you’ll have to perform all of the machine operations for an AR. Couldn’t guess on most handguns.

4. Partially complete, disassembled, or inoperable frame or receiver

4. Partially complete, disassembled, or inoperable frame or receiver

So if this is at a gunsmith, it could be a receiver.

Just ask them if I am drunk and carrying a car headlight or a steering wheel is that considered drunk driving? A car is the complete item not a part to it. I would also think if you had some steel and a motor and maby a couple tires you do not have a car. But i could be wrong.

It's not a good sign the braces thread is getting more traction. This issue is by far more important

Over 55,000 comments on this so far. EVERYONE needs to comment on this. Lot's of REALLY BAD things in this NPRM.

THIS HAS MORE IMPACT THAN THE PISTOL BRACE NPRM!

https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...me-or-receiver-and-identification-of-firearms

The receiver on a Sten (or a lot of other subguns) is a length of steel tubing with slots cut in it. And there was one guy who made an AK receiver...from a shovel blade. Does ATF propose to shut down every hardware store in the country?

Mike OTDP said:

The receiver on a Sten (or a lot of other subguns) is a length of steel tubing with slots cut in it. And there was one guy who made an AK receiver...from a shovel blade. Does ATF propose to shut down every hardware store in the country?

Click to expand...

Long live the "shit-shovel AK" testimony in Annapolis! (yes, I went there)

Well, I submitted my comment this morning; be it as it may.
I was dismayed at the comment length limit of 5,000 characters. This caused me to cut down my total comment a bit. I hope it still makes sense.
While I did utilize some resources, I tried to control the amount of cut and paste that I did. Where I used it, I tried to form it into a cohesive argument.

I am open to constructive feedback.

The language in the proposed rulemaking is substantially arbitrary and cannot be enforced as written. It would not stand legal challenge, and includes contradictions; lack of definition; subjective, not objective definitions; and thus would not provide significant impact in crime reduction, a basic tenant of its creation. I request that the Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Bureau summarily reject this proposed rule based on these comments and those received by thousands of other respondents (48,310 comments as of the submission of this comment).

As defined in Section II.B.4. of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), a “Partially complete, disassembled, or inoperable frame or received” is defined “For purposes of this definition, the term “partially complete,” as it modifies “frame or receiver,” means a forging, casting, printing, extrusion, machined body or similar article that has reached a stage in manufacture where it is clearly identifiable as an unfinished component part of a weapon.” (p. 33) However, there is no definition of “clearly identifiable” nor is there a legal precedent established to justify this ambiguity as sufficient. As a comparison, would one be able to differentiate between the electrical components used to make cell phone or those used in the manufacture of an improvised explosive device (IED)? It is clear that the manufacture of an IED is illegal, however the manufacture of a cell phone is not. Yet one cannot “clearly identify” the various components without and established standard.

The proposed rule would create new definitions for the terms “firearm frame or receiver,” “frame or receiver,” “firearm,” “gunsmith,” “complete weapon,” “complete muffler or silencer device,” “privately made firearm,” and “readily.” The new definitions make it possible for firearms to have more than one “frame or receiver.” A conclusion that is both at odds with the controlling federal statute and could disrupt the entire industry.
As defined in Section II.B.5.C. of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), the term “readily” is loosely and ambiguously defined. (p.35) This definition would be rejected by all legal scholars and could not stand cross examination in legal setting since it uses eight (8) further subjective characteristics to support the definition. Most importantly, each of these eight characteristics is yet undefined, leaving the foundation of this definition up to significant subjective invalidation and rejection. The subjectivity of this term is unreasonable.

Furthermore, manufacturing an unfinished receiver into a “functional lower receiver” is not a trivial process, as pointed out in court filings submitted by the ATF and the Department of Justice. For example, in State of California v. BATF, No. 20-cv-6761 (N.D. Cal.), the Department of Justice and the ATF explained: An unfinished receiver that has not yet had “machining of any kind performed in the area of the trigger/hammer (fire-control) recess (or cavity),” see ATF Firearms Technology Branch Technical Bulletin 14-01 (“Bulletin 14-01”), filed in Calif. Rifle and Pistol Ass’n v. ATF, Case No. 1:14-cv-01211, ECF No. 24 at 285 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2015), requires that numerous steps be performed simply to yield a receiver, that then in turn must be assembled with other parts into a device that can expel a projectile by the action of an explosive. These milling and metalworking steps—each of which require skills, tools, and time—include: 1) “milling out of fire-control cavity”; 2) “drilling of selector-lever hole”; 3) “cutting of trigger slot”; 4) “drilling of trigger pin hole; and 5) “drilling of hammer pin hole.” Compl. Ex. 9.

The need to conduct these machining steps from scratch, without indexing, and “carefully” means a working gun cannot be produced “without difficulty.” Id. And the work to excavate the cavities and drill holes in a solid, un-machined substrate requires care rather than speed to avoid doing so raggedly or in the wrong area. See id. Therefore, the receiver cannot be completed “without delay,” even leaving aside the further assembly with many other parts needed to have a weapon that can expel a bullet by explosive action. A receiver blank therefore may not “readily be converted” into a firearm.

More importantly, a disqualified person or criminal would not be deterred by this NPRM because such a disqualified person is already precluded by Federal law from possessing any modern firearm or modern ammunition of any type. 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). Actual or constructive possession of a modern firearm or ammunition by a person subject to this firearms disability is a felony, punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment under Federal law. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2). Simple actual or constructive possession of a receiver alone (an “81% receiver”) would be sufficient to constitute a violation of these existing laws, as a receiver alone is considered a “firearm” under Federal law. See 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(3).

There's a check box for if you submitted attachments with other comments, does that mean you can write more than one comment without automatically being deleted?

I got the notice of being over the character limit also. I just made mine into a pdf file and submitted as an attachment. There doesn't seem to be a limit if you submit this way.

My comment below, if anyone is struggling for ideas/wording. As euler357, I had to render it a pdf...

Memorandum Regarding Proposed Rule ATF 2021R-05

I write to oppose Proposed Rule ATF 2021R-05 (Definition of “Frame or Receiver” and Identification of Firearms). This proposed Rule would upend centuries of American firearms tradition, create a quagmire of vague rules, and violate Federal law. Assuming, arguendo, that the statutes the proposed Rule is promulgated under are constitutional, the proposed Rule itself is not for the reasons set forth below.

A. There is only one frame or receiver per firearm
First and foremost, the Gun Control Act of 1968 (“GCA”) is clear that a firearm can only have one (1) “frame or receiver.” Section 921(a)(3), which provides the definition of a “firearm” states in pertinent part: “The term ‘firearm’ means (A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon [….]” (emphasis added). The precise language of the GCA as emphasized is important: the singular is used in reference to “the frame or receiver.” However, the proposed Rule seeks to treat this as if the statute was written in the plural, and/or as if instead of the word “or” appearing between the words “frame” and “receiver” the statute contains the [potentially] conjunctive “and/or.” This is clearly not the case.
The use of the word “or” means in the alternative – a singular frame or a singular receiver, to the exclusion of the other. See, Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. v. Norris, 114 S. Ct. 2239, 2244-45 (1994). To interpret the definition found in the GCA any other way than to mean a singular component counts as a regulated part would violate the canons of statutory construction. Similarly, the use of the adverb “the” – as opposed to, e.g., “any” – before “frame or receiver” makes clear Congress intended that one (1) singular part would be considered a regulated item for the purposes of Federal law. Finally, the omission of an “-s” after either “frame” or “receiver,” when Congress certainly could have conjugated such terms to specify the possibility of describing them in the plural, further solidifies the point that Congress intended to regulate one (1) specific part.
Moreover, the use of a singular part – the part most crucial and without which a firearm cannot function – comports with the state government interest of “requiring serial numbers on firearms [to enable] the tracking of inventory and record-keeping by licensees [and] tracing specific firearms using in crimes.” United States v. Harris, 720 F.3d 499, 502 (4th Cir. 2013). The notion of expanding the requirement such that multiple parts carry serial numbers and are heavily regulated has no nexus to serving this government interest; for example, if every ArmaLite Rifle Model 15 (“AR-15”) lower receiver carries a serial number the Government is able to track each and every individual firearm. Adding a requirement that the upper receiver requires serialization makes no sense on its own, let alone vis-à-vis the regulatory burden such a requirement would create. Moreover, the upper receiver can be and is a “wear part” subject to replacement or upgrade much like the barrel of the firearm (or the brake calipers on a vehicle). A gunowner may desire to upgrade the “standard” AR-15 upper receiver to one that is side-charging such as made by Gibbz Arms (for example, see https://www.gibbzarms.com/product/g4-side-charging-upper-receiver-lite-weight/), or they may elect to change from the “standard” AR-15 upper receiver to one that omits the forward assist or ejection port cover (for example, see https://www.masdefense.com/AR15-SLICK-SIDE-p/mas00101104.htm). The reality is that, in the event a gunowner removes the “stock” upper receiver to replace with a new or upgraded part – and assuming the “stock” upper receiver still functions – that [now bare] upper receiver cannot be used to construct another firearm without the addition of a lower receiver. Such lower receiver is now, and has been since 1968, a regulated part subject to serialization and record keeping as described in Harris. At the risk of being repetitive, requiring such an upper receiver to be serialized carries no benefit (but a rather heavy regulatory burden from manufacturers all the way to consumers). Nowhere in the proposed Rule is there any rational, logical, plausible basis to justify a change in existing definitions.
BATFE’s bald assertion that “single framed firearms” were far more prevalent than “split frames or receivers” is absolutely unsupported by any rational review of Americans’ historical utilization of their Second Amendment rights. By way of example only, long before the GCA was even conceived:
1) John Moses Browning designed the FN Browning M1900 in 1896, of which over 700,000 were manufactured (President Theodore Roosevelt was known to keep one on him or in his nightstand). Notably, under the proposed Rule this One Hundred Twenty-Five (125) year old design would arguably contain three (3) “frame” or “receiver” components;
2) John Moses Browning later completed what would become known as the Colt M1911, which was an improvement on the M1900 and saw testing beginning in 1907. While it is true this firearm was initially designed for presentation to armed forces (and subsequently adopted) it was available to civilians simultaneously – and Colt’s Manufacturing Company produced 1911 models specifically to market to civilians in these United States at least as early as 1949 (nineteen years before the GCA);
3) SIG released the P210 in 1947, which was essentially immediately available to civilians in these United States (twenty-one years before the GCA);
4) Colt’s Manufacturing Company released the civilian AR-15 in 1964, four (4) years before the GCA;
5) The ArmaLite AR-10, the basis for the AR-15 design, was introduced in 1956. Congress would have most certainly been aware of not just it’s existence but the particulars of its design as it was submitted to the U.S. military for testing, under Congressional oversight, in 1957;
6) The FAL was originally designed in 1947 and was exceedingly widespread (being known as the “right arm of the free world”) in short order.
Indeed, the list of common firearms with “split frames or receivers” as noted by BATFE could carry on for volumes and was already prolific and common many decades before Congress authored the GCA.
While my intention is to keep my comments focused on the definitions and limits of statutory construction rendering the proposed Rule invalid, it would be an error to not also point out that the proposed Rule seeks to regulate quite literally hundreds of millions of items of personal property already in the possession of as many citizens of these United States (presuming BATFE intends to apply the proposed Rule consistently). Such an overreaching regulation would upend of market norms that have existed for over fifty (50) years at significant cost and frustration of millions of Americans. Nowhere does BATFE describe any tangible benefit to the Government and/or society to justify such an action. Indeed, the only persons that would be impacted by the proposed Rule are law-abiding gun owners; the criminals that we must presume BATFE seeks to control (who acquire their weapons illegally by such a wide margin as to render those who lawfully acquired a firearm a statistically insignificant percentage) will not be in any way impacted by this regulation. A criminal caught with a firearm containing what would be defined as two (2) receivers would face no different penalty.
B. Readily converted does not apply to “80%” frames/receivers
The proposed Rule seeks to regulate [out of existence] “privately made firearms” or “PMFs” The basis for the Government’s desire to so regulate – unconstitutionally absent some further action by Congress – is inherently flawed as it stands on anecdote and then conflates correlation with causation. BATFE notes that during a five year period “23,906 suspected PMFs [were] reported to ATF as having bee recovered by law enforcement from potential crime scenes, including 325 homicides or attempted homicides [….]”
However, the Government’s citation of these numbers for a period ending 31 December 2020 is, in a word, meaningless. The Government does not provide any comparison to the number of PMFs recovered in a similar prior window. Nor does the Government provide any analysis of whether these PMFs were possessed by prohibited persons. Indeed, the Government instead relies on an ipse dixit assumption that the numbers somehow indicate the existence of a problem. A review of data from BATFE’s own publications (available at https://www.atf.gov/file/130336/download) indicated that in one (1) year alone – 2017 – a total of Two Hundred Thirty Nine Thousand One Hundred Seventy Five (239,175) firearms were recovered by law enforcement. No other years were provided by BATFE, but if we assume that is an “average” number, it would mean that during the same period cited 1,195,875 firearms were recovered in total making PMFs accountable for 1.999 per cent of all firearms recovered. Similarly, there are an average of 10,250 homicides by firearm per year in these United States, for a total during the five (5) year time frame mentioned of 51,250; this results in PMFs representing .634 per cent of the total. It is also worth noting that more people are killed each and every year by “personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.)” than the total of PMFs cited for five (5) years (see https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u....019/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls).
It is against this backdrop of a “problem,” vel non, with PMFs that the Government proposes to change long standing regulations and unconstitutionally expand the definition of a firearm to include “a weapon parts kit that is designed to or may readily be assembled, completed, converted, or restored to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive.” The expressing wording of the proposed Rule makes it clear that what BATFE is in fact attempting to do is quite literally put the 80% firearm industry out of business.
For the reasons set forth above regarding the statistically insignificant nature of the purported problem it is clear that this goal has no grounding in a genuine issue requiring the Government’s attention. However, even if we assume, arguendo, that such a genuine issue existed, the Government’s proposed solution is unconstitutional. It was BATFE themselves that for decades has issued opinion letters (that manufacturers and consumers alike have relied upon) deeming the 80% paperweights in question to not be firearms as defined by the GCA.
The proposed Rule’s effect on PMFs is overly vague and unconstitutionally broad. Taken to the logical conclusion, a block of aluminum sold with the various small parts needed to assemble an AR15 (except for the receiver) would constitute an illegal firearm. Indeed, a firearm can be assembled from a length of pipe and a handful of screws and sheet metal available at any hardware store in these United States with simple hand tools and a few hours of work (see, for example, “The DIY Sten Gun” https://www.herohog.com/GunBuilds/Practical_Scrap_Metal_Small_Arms_Vol.03-The_DIY_STEN_Gun.pdf). Would BATFE expect Home Depot to serialize every piece of mild steel pipe and obtain a Federal Firearms License?
If we assume the answer is no, then we return to the only plausible scenario being that BATFE intends to put the 80% firearm industry out of business – an industry that acquired its name as a result of BATFE’s own determination that 80% is the threshold for a paperweight to be deemed “readily convertible.” The destruction of such an industry provides no benefit to the Government or society as demonstrated the statistical insignificance of PMFs shown above. It does however accomplish two things: 1) it destroys a significant number of small businesses and erases many manufacturing jobs creating American-made products for domestic consumption; and 2) it ends a 250 year American tradition – enjoyed by millions of law-abiding hobbyists – of building a firearm for personal use. The people building a Polymer80 “Glock” type pistol or an AR-15 (America’s most popular rifle) are tax-paying, law-abiding citizens enjoying a past time shared by their ancestors from ten generations.
A prohibited person that builds their own firearm is knowingly committing a crime irrespective of any change in existing law or regulation. If the PMF industry is run out of business tomorrow the exceptionally rare criminal that might today obtain a firearm [illegally] by building their own, will instead obtain a firearm the way of his “colleagues” do: on the black market (or perhaps build a “DIY Sten gun”). The only individuals impacted in any measurable manner will be the millions law-abiding American hobbyists, hundreds if not thousands of small businesses, and thousands if not tens of thousands of their employees.
I strongly urge the government to abandon the unconstitutional attack on the Second Amendment and law-abiding citizens.

The moms in need of action are coming out of the woodworks to express their approval of government overlords. More comments supporting than opposing (of course all based on emotion entirely)....

https://www.regulations.gov/documen...edDateFrom=2021-06-24&postedDateTo=2021-06-24