They published this today. Took me a while to find it:
https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/definition-frame-or-receiver
https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/definition-frame-or-receiver
IANAL - I still don't understand if this will cover existing AR 80% or P80 80% items.
Chris
Even with the best jig and some experience, it takes most people 4+ hours to finish an 80% into a functional firearm. Someone with an advanced CNC machining center can turn a block into a complete receiver in 15 minutes or less. Hard to believe that anything done by hand with a jig is readily convertible.
*cough* 30 minutes to machine, 30 to assemble other parts *cough*
There is another section that discusses split receiver firearms and IIRC says the ATF can designate which part is the receiver.So if this reg is enacted, an AR upper would be a separate firearm in and of itself:
Under the proposed rule, a “frame or receiver” is any externally visible housing or holding structure for one or more fire control components. A “fire control component” is one necessary for the firearm to initiate, complete, or continue the firing sequence, including, but not limited to, any of the following: hammer, bolt, bolt carrier, breechblock, cylinder, trigger mechanism, firing pin, striker, or slide rails.
There is another section that discusses split receiver firearms and IIRC says the ATF can designate which part is the receiver.
Say what?Should the current definition remain in place and courts continue to interpret it such that no part or parts of most firearms are defined as the frame or receiver, these unserialized parts, easily purchased and assembled to create functioning firearms, would be untraceable, thereby putting the public at risk.
Labelling an upper as a firearm would start a whole shitstorm considering the millions of them out there that are uncontrolled. This in conjunction with the proposed FFL labelling requirements (every time an unmarked frame / firearm goes through an FFL they have to engrave it) would be a nightmare scenario and unenforceable.Yup. But it's at their discretion, and you can bet there will be political pressure from above to use that discretion to make everything that could be considered a firearm under the GCA, considered a firearm.
IIRC there are already firearms where ATF considers more than one component to be a firearm in and of itself, i.e. one complete gun is comprised of two or more parts that are legally "firearms" independently.
I was surprised they did as little with the new reg as it appears. It wasn't for lack of intent, but they discovered there are limits to how much further they can go without statutory changes.