ATF definition of AR-15 lower

pcfixer · Oct 13, 2019

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

from article...….....

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.

pcfixer · Oct 13, 2019

ops dupe..

kshaw · Oct 13, 2019

This is the second loss for the ATF (Bump Stocks was the first) in only a few weeks. Pry up a few more boards and we may wind up with restoration of the 2nd Amendment, at least at the Federal level.

kdmag88 · Oct 13, 2019

Gotta be careful with this... there is going to be some regulated part somewhere, and the lower makes the most sense. This could potentially lead to the regulation of both upper and lower together, or at least least the upper. I don't know about you guys, I'd rather have one lower with a bunch of uppers vs an upper with a bunch of lowers. Plus finishing an 80% upper sounds like a PITA. But lets be real, they're not going to change the system now, this is how they've done it for 50 years.

lazarus · Oct 13, 2019

kdmag88 said:
Gotta be careful with this... there is going to be some regulated part somewhere, and the lower makes the most sense. This could potentially lead to the regulation of both upper and lower together, or at least least the upper. I don't know about you guys, I'd rather have one lower with a bunch of uppers vs an upper with a bunch of lowers. Plus finishing an 80% upper sounds like a PITA. But lets be real, they're not going to change the system now, this is how they've done it for 50 years.

The point is, based on the law, only the assembled rifle can be considered a firearm. If there were to be a change, it would need to be a law change. Not a regulation change.

I doubt much will change. Too many don’t want the apple cart upset. I’ll be a little honest, I am more worried what they’d do opening things up to a law change. I really doubt congress would sit on its but if suddenly you could buy all the parts for an AR and it’s only a gun once you put them all together. They’ll make something a gun and odds are good we’d end up with real stupid legislation in the end.

At the same time, getting some of our rights back would be real nice while it lasted.

Mike OTDP · Oct 13, 2019

The problem is that the laws defining a firearm were written in 1968. And weren't too well-thought-out then. Many Western military rifles had distinct upper and lower receivers (the FAL, for example). ATF had to pick one to be legally defined as the firearm. This is one where I don't fault them.

Occam · Oct 13, 2019

lazarus said:
I really doubt congress would sit on its but if suddenly you could buy all the parts for an AR and it’s only a gun once you put them all together.

Isn't that exactly how it works with kit/homebrew suppressors? You can have a pile of parts. ALL of the parts. But you cannot assemble until you have the stamp.

danb · Oct 13, 2019

Occam said:
Isn't that exactly how it works with kit/homebrew suppressors? You can have a pile of parts. ALL of the parts. But you cannot assemble until you have the stamp.

Or drill certain critical holes until you have a stamp.

tallen702 · Oct 13, 2019

lazarus said:
The point is, based on the law, only the assembled rifle can be considered a firearm.

That's not what this is saying at all. The judge is noting that the AR-15 deviates from almost all other instances, including firearms that have both upper and lower receivers. The FN-FAL and CETME/G3 clones are an excellent example in that their UPPER receivers are what are considered the firearms as they contain the bolt, firing pin, breech, and connect the barrel to the rest of the firearm. He doesn't state (nor does the law) that all of those components plus the hammer and other parts MUST be contained within the part considered the "firearm." In reality, you can feasibly make an AR go bang with just the upper and a working BCG, not so the lower. And that seems to be the test that the judge is looking at in this case. What constitutes a functional firearm. What can actually make a round go "bang?"

The BATFE actually did a favor to AR owners when they ruled that the lower was the firearm in the case of that platform. It was a thought-out decision given that the ability to swap uppers of various calibers, lengths, etc. made the utility of a single transferable lower far greater and easier to work with than requiring the upper to be the firearm. You can have multiple uppers on one lower and see greater utility. The same is not the case with multiple lowers one one upper.

As it applies to this case, and ONLY this case, it meant that a guy who was honestly skirting the law gets to go free because they're going to withdraw all charges to prevent a major clustercuss. It's happened before in a similar manner.

lazarus · Oct 14, 2019

Occam said:
Isn't that exactly how it works with kit/homebrew suppressors? You can have a pile of parts. ALL of the parts. But you cannot assemble until you have the stamp.

No, because ATF can and will charge you with constructive possession. Same reason they’ve been going after sanitary trap makers. It’s all the parts for a suppressor, but you have to assemble and machine things.

What I am surprised about is they’ve been getting away with it for so long (ATF).

Also I guess good point. Looking at the language of the law I misread where the ands and ors were.

Looks like GCA simply says that the firearm must contain the firing mechanism (the and) as well as either the hammer (probably would be interpreted by the courts to include a striker today), breech block or bolt. Also that is usually has the threaded extension (bus it literally says usually)

So yeah...that’s an AR upper.

I guess maybe I am really glad in the end the ATF classified the lower as the firearm and oppsed all those years ago.

So next question is, do I have enough uppers to last me a lifetime...

Markpixs · Oct 14, 2019

Interesting topic, and as a Ruger Mark II and standard shooter, the ‘upper’ is the serialed part requiring an FFL but lowers aren’t regulated. If you want to add a PAC-Lite threaded or target barrel they usually require a transfer. The reverse of the AR platform and more to the letter of the law. Thoughts?

sajidakh · Oct 14, 2019

Markpixs said:
Interesting topic, and as a Ruger Mark II and standard shooter, the ‘upper’ is the serialed part requiring an FFL but lowers aren’t regulated. If you want to add a PAC-Lite threaded or target barrel they usually require a transfer. The reverse of the AR platform and more to the letter of the law. Thoughts?

No neither of them are firerarms and neither should be to be serialized until they are put together. Similar to building an SBR. You can own the components to build one but as long as they are subjectively separated you can't put it together until your tax stamp comes back.

clandestine · Oct 14, 2019

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.

kdmag88 · Oct 14, 2019

tallen702 said:
The BATFE actually did a favor to AR owners when they ruled that the lower was the firearm in the case of that platform. It was a thought-out decision given that the ability to swap uppers of various calibers, lengths, etc. made the utility of a single transferable lower far greater and easier to work with than requiring the upper to be the firearm. You can have multiple uppers on one lower and see greater utility. The same is not the case with multiple lowers one one upper.

lazarus said:
So next question is, do I have enough uppers to last me a lifetime...

That's what I'm saying. We are relatively lucky that they regulate the lower and not the upper. I get that one could argue that it isn't a firearm until the halves are together. But it's a weak argument, only slightly better than the argument for any bare frame. I just could see this going awry. Potentially, now both the upper and lower are regulated with xxx-U and xxx-L numbers, and must be kept together, never to go on a yyy-L lower. No more easy switch of calibers or barrel lengths.

Just saying let's be smart. In the current climate, they are never going to unregulate or go easy on AR's. This could just be a chance for them to say, "you're right, we need to regulate both halves.".

Mike OTDP · Oct 16, 2019

I think the most likely course is to amend the law to give ATF the ability to designate one part (upper, lower, whatever) as "the firearm". Just to clear things up. Lowers still = "the firearm".

Any real and substantial change would open a can of worms that I don't think ATF wants to come near.

HaveBlue · Oct 16, 2019

Mike OTDP said:
I think the most likely course is to amend the law to give ATF the ability to designate one part (upper, lower, whatever) as "the firearm". Just to clear things up. Lowers still = "the firearm".

Any real and substantial change would open a can of worms that I don't think ATF wants to come near.

Strangely, it appears that ATF doesn’t have the authority to open or close the can-o-worms. At the same time, it’s hard to imagine Congress doing anything to fix the obvious gap between the law and reality.

I also agree with the “it’s a trap” sentiment in an earlier post. Of the possibilities I agree that, if some component part of an AR is is going to be “the firearm”, the lower is the most convenient for us.

The grabbers will see unregulated ARs as huge threat. I.e I think we should push this. I wouldn’t mind offering to change the law as a concession for something we do want.

jimisbell · Oct 16, 2019

Never negotiate by giving something up for a return favor when you are negotiating with an entity that has NO MORAL foundation and thus no intention of keeping the bargain. Anything you give up NOW is just a step toward total confiscation.

BRIANtheBRAVE · Oct 16, 2019

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 ?

Muleskinner · Oct 16, 2019

BRIANtheBRAVE said:
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 ?

Fighting for your rights using the very tools they want to take is "Brave".....turning them in? Not so much...

Blacksmith101 · Oct 16, 2019

BRIANtheBRAVE said:
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 ?

When they come for your firearms they will take everything that even looks like it is gun related; guns, muzzle loaders, ammunition, parts, lowers, uppers, jigs, scopes, reloading equipment, components, reference books, your virginity. You can then take them to court to get back anything that is not a "firearm" (except the last one). It will cost you thousands and take years.

ATF definition of AR-15 lower

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Not Even ONE Indictment

dont be a dumbass

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Active Member

AR-15 Savant

Active Member

Ultimate Member

HaveBlue

Member

Member

Ultimate Member

Grumpy Old Man

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics