Biden Ghost Gun Regs

[spyde12]

Originally Posted by steadyrock

Wouldn’t “possessed” mean “possessed”? Unless people plan to freehand their lowers, having a chunk of metal and a template in your possession at the same time now makes you a terrorist?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He's referring to buying them at the same time from the same vendor... Not using them as the same time.

Sent from my HD1925 using Tapatalk

[CandG]

Originally Posted by steadyrock

Wouldn’t “possessed” mean “possessed”? Unless people plan to freehand their lowers, having a chunk of metal and a template in your possession at the same time now makes you a terrorist?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No. Having them is fine. Possessing both together is fine. Even using them to build a firearm is fine. Nothing changed there.

The only thing you cannot do, now, is buy them both together from the same seller. Buying separately from different sellers is still totally fine, according to my reading of the text.

The minor inconvenience of having to do two transactions instead of just one, is what this 364 page document accomplished.

[abinsinia]

Originally Posted by CandG

No. Having them is fine. Possessing both together is fine. Even using them to build a firearm is fine. Nothing changed there.

The only thing you cannot do, now, is buy them both together from the same seller. Buying separately from different sellers is still totally fine, according to my reading of the text.

The minor inconvenience of having to do two transactions instead of just one, is what this 364 page document accomplished.

The other thing to consider is that most companies have already converted to something similar to this process .. Not that long ago polymer 80 got raided for the buy build shoot kits, but it wasn't illegal at that time just AFT said it was illegal.

Most of the companies selling %80 after this raid started selling the jig as a separate part and not together with the frame.

I am still considering that there could be something much worse inside these changes, but it doesn't seem like the hysteria fits at this moment.

[numpty]

Originally Posted by foreppin916

This comment gave me autism.

You sound like a typical CA gun owner.

Open your eyes dude, you honestly believe the government actually cares about your safety?

Thanks goodness Biden did this! All criminals will now obey the law and stop manufacturing their own guns illegally

Exactly! Since the criminals can't make their own guns then they'll know once they buy a serialized one legally that it can be traced back to them. And if the criminals know that their gun will be traced back to them if they use it in a crime, then they won't do the crime. Simple logic.

[steadyrock]

Originally Posted by Djantlive

Personally, these 80% are used so much in crimes that it’s really no surprise to me. Us law abiding citizens don’t need 80% imo.

You’ll see the point eventually. By then it will probably be too late. Hope you enjoy the taste of boot polish.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RangerRoy]

What I’d like to see is one single pro-gun or anti-gun politician inform the public of the real reason how this 80% preoccupation proliferated so much. During the second Obama administration where it is factual and at the same time over sensationalized number of school shootings and public shootings using semi-automatic weapons, the threat and rumors of the government asking for legal gun owners to surrender their legally owned semi-automatic weapon was discussed and was a looming threat. Lawful gun owners searched for another legal way of ownership without the government having the ability to track or confiscate what they are not aware of. Discussion of 80% manufacturing rose and was greatly publicized and became the go-to solution for legal gun owners should their legally acquired rifles were to be confiscated.

This paved the way for criminals to do the same as the source to get all the parts are not restricted only to law abiding citizens. The threat of confiscation of legally acquired rifles created this problem. the use of these so called ghost guns were not as this rampant until availability of the supplies became so publicized and widely advertised that criminals too took notice and realized they can do what law abiding gun owners are doing.
But I’ve never heard that discussion ever taking place.

[CandG]

Originally Posted by Ishootforblood

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7nFWDFB_ygk

The Armed Scholar does a good job of translating. I like the way he dumbs it down into cliff notes.

He seems to have the same opinion as I posted above:

• Unserialized 80% receivers/frames - still ok
• Jigs/tools for finishing 80% receivers/frames - still ok
• Buying those things separately, possessing them together, and using them to make a finished unserialized firearm for yourself - all still ok (but already-existing CA serialization laws still apply)
• Unserialized 80% receivers/frames that include jigs/tools sold together as a kit - now can't be sold. That's the only new change that affects 80% firearm hobbyists - you have to buy those things separately now. Most 80% retailers had already moved to doing that in recent years anyways.

In summary, the anti-2a politicians and media are touting a massive victory, while pro-2a groups and media are throwing a tantrum, when in reality not much has effectively changed.

There is NOTHING in the new regulations that say anything about having to serialize barrels, triggers, springs, etc. I don't know where those claims came from (possibly from an older version of the proposed regulations?). Under these new regs, you'll still be able to buy, for example, an AR lower parts kit or even a complete AR barreled upper without needing a serial or needing to go through an FFL. You can even continue to order those "everything except the stripped lower" AR build kits shipped straight to your doorstep.

The (only) other relevant change made by these new regulations, which pertains to serializing both receivers in a "split receiver" firearm design:

It only applies to future firearm designs that don't exist yet. Split-receiver designs such as the AR-pattern continue to be immune from needing both receiver halves serialized, because they are not a new design - existing firearm designs are exempt from the new split-receiver serialization requirement. Only new gun designs that operate in a mechanically different way from existing firearm designs will need both receivers serialized going forward - all currently existing firearm designs (AR pattern, AK pattern, SCAR pattern, etc) are exempt from needing both receiver halves serialized.

[scout II]

Are they wanting to put serial numbers on complete AR uppers assemblies? And will they have to be shipped to an FFL and treated just like a complete AR rifle? Will complete slide assemblies for pistols like the Glock be treated this way?

[abinsinia]

Originally Posted by scout II

Are they wanting to put serial numbers on complete AR uppers assemblies? And will they have to be shipped to an FFL and treated just like a complete AR rifle? Will complete slide assemblies for pistols like the Glock be treated this way?

No. No changes to uppers on existing designs.

[steadyrock]

Originally Posted by scout II

Are they wanting to put serial numbers on complete AR uppers assemblies? And will they have to be shipped to an FFL and treated just like a complete AR rifle? Will complete slide assemblies for pistols like the Glock be treated this way?

Armed Scholar's video addresses this specifically. In short, the only place where a serial number and accompanying DROS might be required is on a part where it would normally be required, in a non-80% scenario. E.g., frames and lowers. Amazingly, it sounds like we are not going to have to DROS buffer springs in the near future.

[CandG]

Originally Posted by scout II

Are they wanting to put serial numbers on complete AR uppers assemblies? And will they have to be shipped to an FFL and treated just like a complete AR rifle? Will complete slide assemblies for pistols like the Glock be treated this way?

See my new edits in the post right above yours

[Caleb1911]

On page 5 of the new rule the DOJ says:
“In the past few years, some courts have treated the regulatory definition of ‘firearm frame or receiver’ as inflexible when applied to the lower portion of the AR-15- type rifle, one of the most popular firearms in the United States. If broadly followed, that result could mean that as many as 90 percent of all firearms (i.e., with split frames or receivers, or striker-fired) in the United States would not have any frame or receiver subject to regulation.”

This is an acknowledgement that 2 courts have come perilously close (from their perspective) to saying that under the definition laid out by the Gun Control Act of 1968 that the ATF has unlawfully declared that an AR lower is the legal receiver part and subject to serialization and regulation when in fact it is not because it does not fit the definition found in the GCA. The basic problem is that under the GCA a receiver is defined as housing the fire control, the hammer, and the bolt TOGETHER. AR lowers do not do this so that is the basic problem. Here is the definition found of a receiver found in the Code of Federal Regulations:

Title 27, section 478.11: “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.”

In the case brought against Joseph Roh by the DOJ, Roh’s attorney argued that Roh was not illegally manufacturing and selling receivers to felons because completed AR lowers are by definition not receivers. US District Court Judge James V. Selna ultimately agreed with this argument. See this uncharacteristically honest article on CNN.com https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/11/us/ar...nvs/index.html. The article quotes from Judge Selna’s unpublished opinion:

“No reasonable person would understand that a part constitutes a receiver where it lacks the components specified in the regulation,” Selna wrote. Therefore, the judge determined, “Roh did not violate the law by manufacturing receivers.”

The only thing that saved the DOJ from the court declaring that their regulation of AR lowers was illegal was that they entered into a deferred prosecution agreement with Roh that basically let him go free and kept the court from publishing its opinion. So, in essence, they hushed the whole thing up rather than admit that under the current law 80% and completed AR lowers cannot be regulated.

I don’t see how what they have done with this new regulation will stop the courts from inevitably calling BS on their entire scheme as related to ARs. Am I missing something here?

[Tankhatch]

The ATF / BATFE has had decades of time, to get its s together, on what is a firearm receiver is vs slab of steel or aluminum is.
There is no federal definition of what a 80% / incomplete receiver is or what must be lacking in order to be NOT called a firearm receiver.
There is a site, that lets you buy a 1911a1 80% pistol frame and they sell the tool jig and parts kit to complete it into a pistol receiver / complete pistol.
For under $2k, you can make a 1911a1 ""ghost gun""
Like wise, they sell a 80% AR15 receiver frame and they also sell the tool jig and parts kit to complete the 80% frame into a rifle receiver / complete rifle
For under $1k, you can make a AR15 ""ghost gun""

LOL the coincidence of Joe needing to find a head of BATFE appointee,,,,, The 1 plus year of delay & ineptness of choosing.

[abinsinia]

Originally Posted by Caleb1911

On page 5 of the new rule the DOJ says:
“In the past few years, some courts have treated the regulatory definition of ‘firearm frame or receiver’ as inflexible when applied to the lower portion of the AR-15- type rifle, one of the most popular firearms in the United States. If broadly followed, that result could mean that as many as 90 percent of all firearms (i.e., with split frames or receivers, or striker-fired) in the United States would not have any frame or receiver subject to regulation.”

This is an acknowledgement that 2 courts have come perilously close (from their perspective) to saying that under the definition laid out by the Gun Control Act of 1968 that the ATF has unlawfully declared that an AR lower is the legal receiver part and subject to serialization and regulation when in fact it is not because it does not fit the definition found in the GCA. The basic problem is that under the GCA a receiver is defined as housing the fire control, the hammer, and the bolt TOGETHER. AR lowers do not do this so that is the basic problem. Here is the definition found of a receiver found in the Code of Federal Regulations:

Title 27, section 478.11: “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.”

I think you mean 27 CFR § 478.11,

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/27/478.11

Parts of the Code of Federal Regulations are under the control of the BATFE. They define whats written in the CFR, and this change was the process to change the CFR.


If the GCA does have these definition I would be curious of read that part. Others have mentioned it's in the GCA, but I've not seen references.

[Caleb1911]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

I think you mean 27 CFR § 478.11,

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/27/478.11

Parts of the Code of Federal Regulations are under the control of the BATFE. They define whats written in the CFR, and this change was the process to change the CFR.


If the GCA does have these definition I would be curious of read that part. Others have mentioned it's in the GCA, but I've not seen references.

Right. The reference was found through a legal website that quoted it that way. I understand it was a rule implementing the GCA and pages 4-5 of the new rule explain that. But it seems that they are loath to actually change the definition language and from what some lawyers say it would take an act of Congress to do it. It just seems to me that if they leave the definition intact that they will lose at some point because the definition does not line up with the physical reality of what an AR lower actually is and that they are going to lose control of ARs on that account.

[Caleb1911]

I just don't understand the rule making process and maybe that is what is lacking here. Perhaps when the GCA rules were promulgated and accepted they became wedded to them and they became virtually unchangeable. Maybe there is someone here who can enlighten us as to why this is so.

[Featureless]

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

[Tankhatch]

LOL to anybody that thinks Uncle Sam does not know you own firearms.
That Snoden guy, who outed the Feds for internal spying of US / other citizens residing in the USA.
He pointed out, that any communication, by any way (other than face to face communication) can be / has been be snooped by Uncle Sam.

[Epaphroditus]

That's a long winded way of says "infringement".

One day folks will use common sense and logic to understand criminals break laws and laws are always about diminished liberty - only law as punishment has any effect (and not a very big deterrence) - but without swift proportional punishment the law is pointless.

Enslaving all the people because of a few bad actors is tryanny.

[TruOil]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

I think you mean 27 CFR § 478.11,

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/27/478.11

Parts of the Code of Federal Regulations are under the control of the BATFE. They define whats written in the CFR, and this change was the process to change the CFR.


If the GCA does have these definition I would be curious of read that part. Others have mentioned it's in the GCA, but I've not seen references.

CFRs are regulations issued by agencies in order to effectuate laws (statutes) passed by Congress and the President. Typically a law will delegate to the agency the rule making authority. However there is one important caveat: a federal rule cannot exceed the scope of a law passed by Congress.
The issue here is going to be whether these new definitions are within the scope of the law passed by congress, and at first blush by significantly expanding the scope of the definition of "firearm," they may not. The issue has been brewing for some time since neither the lower nor the upper of an AR type firearm fits cleanly within the definition; it takes both a lower and an upper to fully meet the definition

[Caleb1911]

Originally Posted by TruOil

CFRs are regulations issued by agencies in order to effectuate laws (statutes) passed by Congress and the President. Typically a law will delegate to the agency the rule making authority. However there is one important caveat: a federal rule cannot exceed the scope of a law passed by Congress.
The issue here is going to be whether these new definitions are within the scope of the law passed by congress, and at first blush by significantly expanding the scope of the definition of "firearm," they may not. The issue has been brewing for some time since neither the lower nor the upper of an AR type firearm fits cleanly within the definition; it takes both a lower and an upper to fully meet the definition

Roger that, TruOil. Thank you for making this important point. This would explain the hesitation on the part of the DOJ to expand on the definition of a receiver that they already have promulgated. When I search the actual text of the GCA of 1968 (https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/...2-Pg1213-2.pdf) the three instances of the word "receiver" are in the singular and seem to assume a single, unitized part. To expand that to a multi-part unit would definitely open up some serious challenges to the rule and this is probably why several lawyers that I have read say that it will take a new law passed by Congress to cover ARs.

[abinsinia]

Dan O'kelly has said in interviews that the AFT has never won an "indexing" case.

The change in definition is kind of a continuation on the theme of indexing. Autokey card is an example of a new indexing case. They claim an image engraved of the item is the same as the item itself.

GCA says firearm and receiver , but it doesn't talk about something which may become a firearm or receiver at a later date. That seems like the biggest over reach of the changes AFT is making.

[JagerDog]

Originally Posted by CandG

If that's true, and if that's the extent of these new regulations, then I'm not seeing where this actually accomplished anything. What was already illegal is still illegal, what was legal is still legal.

There's gotta be more to it than just that. Serialization requirements?

Oh...it was supposed to accomplish something?

[artoaster]

Personally, I feel the gun community and the 2A community (basically the same, but sometimes I wonder) should support any and all firearms manufactured at home that at least adhere to what can be legally purchased and used by an individual for personal use. No machine gun without proper licensing, no SBR's without paying the tax, no suppressed without the damn tax, etc.

The propaganda we hear always sounds like they are after YOU when really they want to mess with firearm commerce and mess with dealer's and outlets where firearms are bought or traded. This hurts US. But no one is knocking down your door yet and really cannot unless your Commiefornia neighbor reports you for loading your AR in the trunk when you're only going to the range or desert on the weekend.

Newsom thinks his legislation will work but only if you are not careful and maintain and protect your rights then only the police or sheriff can decide to cross that line and inquire about your property and you can say no.

Do we have to be careful? In this state we do but we must support our way of life whether you gunsmith as a hobby or decide to make some sort of gun you plan on keeping, probably forever or destroy when it's no longer useful to you.

[GregW948]

Originally Posted by ronlglock

Anyone have a good write up of what’s going down?

They do not want ghost guns so that when they go door to door sooner or later, they will have an accurate list of the household guns that are actually in the house...

Has nothing to do with saving lives... they just want accurate records for confiscation

[everyday_hero]

Time to make 79% lowers.

[five.five-six]

Originally Posted by foreppin916

This comment gave me autism.

You sound like a typical CA gun owner.

Open your eyes dude, you honestly believe the government actually cares about your safety?

Thanks goodness Biden did this! All criminals will now obey the law and stop manufacturing their own guns illegally

If you didn’t recognize the sarcasm in the first 5 words of that post, it can only meany you had autism before you read that post.