NPRM - Definition of Frame / Receiver

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!
  • KIBarrister

    Opinionated Libertarian
    MDS Supporter
    Apr 10, 2013
    3,923
    Kent Island/Centreville
    BUMP

    The stabilizing brace issue is taking center stage with comments, but this issue is getting lost by the wayside - even though this rule is far more troubling. It will allow BATFE to declare multiple parts the "firearm" subject to 4473 and FFL transfer. The reaches of this rule are far and wide. If you have not yet commented, please do so.
     

    pcfixer

    Ultimate Member
    May 24, 2009
    5,948
    Marylandstan
    BUMP again.

    This news is important, and it could determine whether you remain a free citizen and lawful gun owner.

    According to Ramsey, the ATF's proposed attack on home builds has only received a fraction of the number of comments on pistol braces.

    This is extremely bad news because it means the ATF could get away with sneaking this devastating new rule under the radar.

    From a email FLC sent.
     

    KIBarrister

    Opinionated Libertarian
    MDS Supporter
    Apr 10, 2013
    3,923
    Kent Island/Centreville
    Bump. Just a few weeks left to get in comments, friends. I can't stress enough that this rule is nothing short of a catastrophe that will make the bumpstock rule and pending brace rule seem like pleasant dreams by comparison. My comment is a couple pages back and goes through why the rule is legally flawed - but to be clear, this rule will give BATFE free reign to say near anything is a regulated part subject to Form 4473, serialization, etc. I'm sure I don't need to tell you what such an expansion will encourage to take place in Marylandistan. Even if you don't have any interest in 80% frames, this will make stripped uppers potentially require a transfer. This will make a new slide for your P320 require a transfer (and that means in Maryland probably a 77r). More costs, more loopholes, and more chances for .gov to expand upon "three felonies per day" to go after those who anger the king.

    Last I checked, the number of comments don't even tell the full story as the antis are jumping in with comments to cheer about how happy they are. Take a few minutes to note you disagree and the rule is irredeemably flawed - better yet, take an hour or two to give them a lengthy treatise on why it is flawed. It is worth it. If you show up in Annapolis to walk to the bricks, this is orders of magnitude easier.
     

    fidelity

    piled higher and deeper
    MDS Supporter
    Aug 15, 2012
    22,400
    Frederick County
    I quickly perused, but didn't see this upthread. Apologies if I missed it. Sig sent out an email yesterday with this information ...

    We need your help to fight back against the recent rule proposed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF) on firearm serialization. **If this proposed arduous rule passes it will be nothing short of disastrous for the industry.** The proposed rule ATF 2021R-05 is over 100 pages long and chief among the problems is that it is confusing and creates a problem where there is none - - at the expense of law-abiding firearms owners.


    Help us fight unnecessary bureaucracy and submit your comments today by following these simple steps. All submissions must be received by BATF August 19th – but don’t wait – make sure your voice is heard today!


    We’ve made it easy, submit your comments in these easy steps:


    1. Visit https://regulations.gov

    2. Enter ATF 2021R-05 in the search bar

    3. Click the “Comment” button on the proposed rule

    4. Cut and paste the following text in the comment section:


    The proposed rules relating to changing how firearm frames or receivers are defined create problems and should not be adopted. Chief among the problems is the confusion they create - the NPRM is over 100 pages long and explains a very complicated scheme of how to define a frame or receiver. This is completely unnecessary. Where there was once a simple definition that was sufficient for decades, there are now a hundred pages providing more than a handful of poorly defined grandfathered configurations, a loose statement about similar configurations, a requirement that new designs be submitted to ATF for classification, and the requirement to engrave not just one but multiple serial numbers on potentially multiple receivers in a single firearm. The problems that recently developed with the definition after decades of use don’t need a hundred pages of re-definition and multiple serial numbers to be solved.


    Even the statute that ATF is charged with enforcing by Congress indicates that a firearm has only one frame or receiver, yet ATF now wants to declare there can be multiple receivers in a single firearm, and in turn require that multiple serial numbers be marked on these receivers. It’s clear these serial number markings on a single new firearm must match, but thereafter serialized parts may be exchanged allowing different serial numbers on the same firearm. Is there a controlling serial number for the firearm, and which receiver does that serial number reside on? Which number(s) will be relayed by police in trace, or is every number on a firearm traced? What happens when a firearm with multiple serialized components is repaired with a component that has a different serial number? This just scratches the surface on the confusion this proposed rule creates about the definition of a firearm frame or receiver.


    ATF should drop this complicated scheme and find a simple way as suggested above to follow the law. ATF needs to develop a simple definition that people can understand - like a single characteristic of a single part that all firearms have, and which does not have to be sent to ATF for an official determination.


    5. Enter your e-mail address

    6. Fill out the “Tell us about yourself” section

    7. Hit submit


    Thank you for your participation!
     

    pcfixer

    Ultimate Member
    May 24, 2009
    5,948
    Marylandstan
    I quickly perused, but didn't see this upthread. Apologies if I missed it. Sig sent out an email yesterday with this information ...

    We’ve made it easy, submit your comments in these easy steps:


    1. Visit https://regulations.gov

    2. Enter ATF 2021R-05 in the search bar

    3. Click the “Comment” button on the proposed rule

    4. Cut and paste the following text in the comment section:


    Thank you. DONE today. :flag
     
    I made my comments back a while ago but really don't expect much to come from it. I'm fairly certain they're going to ignore everything that was written and the only thing that we will have done is given them our locations via IP address and isp. I guess those of you inclined to remain law abiding should probably start figuring out how you're going to get your barrels and upper receivers engraved
     

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    I made my comments back a while ago but really don't expect much to come from it. I'm fairly certain they're going to ignore everything that was written and the only thing that we will have done is given them our locations via IP address and isp. I guess those of you inclined to remain law abiding should probably start figuring out how you're going to get your barrels and upper receivers engraved

    They will not ignore the comments. They will need to provide justification in light of the comments as to what they finally intend to do. This justification can then be reviewed by the court to determine if the law is actually being followed. If you don't point out all of the flaws then they will have an easier time justifying what they want to do and you can't bring up things left out of the comments.

    It is very important to make comments and let them know about all possible reasons.
     

    lazarus

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 23, 2015
    13,678
    They will not ignore the comments. They will need to provide justification in light of the comments as to what they finally intend to do. This justification can then be reviewed by the court to determine if the law is actually being followed. If you don't point out all of the flaws then they will have an easier time justifying what they want to do and you can't bring up things left out of the comments.

    It is very important to make comments and let them know about all possible reasons.

    Agencies ignoring comments is often grounds for (eventual) successful litigation if those comments were legally correct.
     

    lazarus

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 23, 2015
    13,678
    I made my comments back a while ago but really don't expect much to come from it. I'm fairly certain they're going to ignore everything that was written and the only thing that we will have done is given them our locations via IP address and isp. I guess those of you inclined to remain law abiding should probably start figuring out how you're going to get your barrels and upper receivers engraved

    Ya know the proposed regulation doesn’t require anything of a private citizens existing property, right?

    At most it applies prospectively to what passes through an FFL’s hands. It might screw you on trying to sell/transfer your property in the future as it might be treated as a firearm.

    But that said, the ATF would also have to turn around and violate their proposed rule making by doing things like actually declaring multiple parts of the same firearm to be serialized. Their rule making is pretty clear that is not the intent of the rule making, but ensure every firearm has one part that is serialized and that it is basically up to the ATF to decide what that part is and it can be any one of a number of parts.

    Plus all of the privately made firearm stuff (which also just applies to FFLs touching them).

    I think the ATFs proposals aren’t remotely close to the sky falling and I’ve read any number of people who either exaggerate the likely effect and intent of the rule making or haven’t read it or don’t understand it.

    That out of the way, I think ATF’s proposed rule making is legally flawed as the Gun Control Act of 1968 lays out in fairly precise language what a firearm is. This proposed rule making would set aside that definition and broaden it. If it was Congress intent to have a broader definition they would have written that in to the law that the executive branch was to determine through a rule making process and administrative determination what part of a firearm was to be treated as the firearm under the law.

    The law did no such thing. It layed out a clear and common sense definition that the ATF is now trying to change. I’d argue the ATFs attempts to change the law makes sense if you DO in fact want to ensure one part is treated as the controlled part under GCA or NFA. Otherwise many firearms have no individual part that meets the definition under the law until partially or fully assembled.

    But then Congress should change their clear law. They have that power. If they can’t get it done, then that’s not something Congress wants to do apparently.

    Regulation is necessary, but plenty of times it can go too far based on the text and the intent of the law. Well back then if the intent was really a different definition, then they should have amended the law at some point. They can still do that. Many examples at the time wouldn’t fit as having one part that meets the definition to be serialized.

    Courts point out all the time they have to let someone off because the state or federal legislature wrote a bad law with loopholes you can drive a semi-truck through without scraping paint. Sometimes legislatures fix the law to match their intent. Otherwise they leave the law intact and point out it’s a feature. Not a bug.
     

    85MikeTPI

    Ultimate Member
    Jul 19, 2014
    2,699
    Ceciltucky
    Another reminder bump as the comment deadline approaches. Note that the comment count is not always in our favor, post if you haven't already..

    the Soros, Bloomburg, Brady, Gifford, Mommy groups are still out there in force...

    ----------
    Dear Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms,

    I am writing in support of the ATF's proposed rule (Docket No. ATF 2021R-05) that would help stem the rise of ghost guns.

    This proposed rule is a win for public safety and a loss for any criminals or extremists who wanted to buy untraceable guns with no background check and no questions asked. Ghost guns may be the scariest and fastest-growing gun safety threat in the country, allowing anyone to make an untraceable weapon in less than an hour. Additionally, they have emerged as a weapon of choice for violent criminals, gun traffickers, dangerous extremists, and other people legally prohibited from buying firearms. I urge the ATF to finalize this rule and protect public safety.

    Sincerely,
    Mae Mortel

    -----------------
    Dear Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms,

    I am writing in support of the ATF's proposed rule (Docket No. ATF 2021R-05) that would help stem the rise of ghost guns.

    This proposed rule is a win for public safety and a loss for any criminals or extremists who wanted to buy untraceable guns with no background check and no questions asked. Ghost guns may be the scariest and fastest-growing gun safety threat in the country, allowing anyone to make an untraceable weapon in less than an hour. Additionally, they have emerged as a weapon of choice for violent criminals, gun traffickers, dangerous extremists, and other people legally prohibited from buying firearms. I urge the ATF to finalize this rule and protect public safety.

    Sincerely,
    Leah Murphy
     

    JohnnyE

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Jan 18, 2013
    9,466
    MoCo
    Another reminder bump as the comment deadline approaches. Note that the comment count is not always in our favor, post if you haven't already..

    the Soros, Bloomburg, Brady, Gifford, Mommy groups are still out there in force...

    ----------
    Dear Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms,

    I am writing in support of the ATF's proposed rule (Docket No. ATF 2021R-05) that would help stem the rise of ghost guns.

    This proposed rule is a win for public safety and a loss for any criminals or extremists who wanted to buy untraceable guns with no background check and no questions asked. Ghost guns may be the scariest and fastest-growing gun safety threat in the country, allowing anyone to make an untraceable weapon in less than an hour. Additionally, they have emerged as a weapon of choice for violent criminals, gun traffickers, dangerous extremists, and other people legally prohibited from buying firearms. I urge the ATF to finalize this rule and protect public safety.

    Sincerely,
    Mae Mortel

    -----------------
    Dear Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms,

    I am writing in support of the ATF's proposed rule (Docket No. ATF 2021R-05) that would help stem the rise of ghost guns.

    This proposed rule is a win for public safety and a loss for any criminals or extremists who wanted to buy untraceable guns with no background check and no questions asked. Ghost guns may be the scariest and fastest-growing gun safety threat in the country, allowing anyone to make an untraceable weapon in less than an hour. Additionally, they have emerged as a weapon of choice for violent criminals, gun traffickers, dangerous extremists, and other people legally prohibited from buying firearms. I urge the ATF to finalize this rule and protect public safety.

    Sincerely,
    Leah Murphy
    If you know the deadline date would you please share that with us rather than just provide a non-specific comment that it is approaching?
     

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    Did you submit your comment?

    Not yet. My comments will likely be centered around the fact that there may now be more than one firearm involved. The law is best read to only have one receiver. MD has a one gun limit for handguns so you may not be able to transfer all the receivers in a single month. How does one transfer a firearm that may have multiple different serial numbers? Is each serial number a different firearm? Are there ITAR and tax implications to having multiple firearms in one firearm or having gunsmiths engrave the receiver?
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,931
    Messages
    7,259,491
    Members
    33,350
    Latest member
    Rotorboater

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom