The 80% build fantasy...

[booknut]

WOW!
I've been busy and just dropped in tonight to see what's been happening.

More than a couple of threads concerning 80% builds, I see.

I just want to throw something out here....

I have NEVER found any legal description that says ANYTHING about 80% legality.

Meaning... this whole 80% thing was not invented by the government... at least from anything I've seen.

Either we should find a way to get the laws to clearly define a non-gun frame/receiver as being 80% or less, or we should quit using this term.

Over the years, I have seen many posts where folks cry about the legality of their 80% builds when the only standard I have seen used by the government is... "readily converted to fire..." and other similar language.
Of course, this is not clearly defined and leaves any American who wants to purchase an 'almost-a-gun' block of aluminum/steel open for a challenge by the BATFE and other gov. organizations.

Then again... perhaps if this "80%" language is in such common usage, maybe the government will adopt it?

I just wanted to make a point that as far as the government is concerned, it's not about percentage, but the ability of an individual to easily convert a block of metal/plastic/wood into an object that can fire a single round of ammunition.

What this country needs is a clear definitive gauge by which we will all know a gun when we see (or build) it.

[kap]

We already have a law that is clear on this issue.

"... the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"

That should include building an 80% lower.

[metalhead357]

closest I could find....

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/building_a_firearm.pdf

[hoffmang]

As I have been thinking about this, a key thought. Selling 80% builds is a lot more risky than buying. If you are an otherwise eligible purchaser (aka, you can pass a NICS) and you buy an 80% receiver and build it up, the letter metalhead shows above should protect you at the Federal level.

What is less clear is where the line of "80%" is when you sell these either hunks of metal or firearms depending...

-Gene

[SemiAutoSam]

Gene

In reference to the text at 357's links from his post and mine here.

The feds talk about a firearms importability as to its sporting purposes.

How do they justify using such criteria when the go this route ?

Why does it matter if a firearm has a sporting purpose or not.

Where does the 2A say you have the right to bear sporting firearms ?

When ever I read crap like that it really pisses me off.


http://www.atf.gov/firearms/building_a_firearm.pdf"

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/building_a_firearm.pdf

[jumbopanda]

Gene

In reference to the text at 357's links from his post and mine here.

The feds talk about a firearms importability as to its sporting purposes.

How do they justify using such criteria when the go this route ?

Why does it matter if a firearm has a sporting purpose or not.

Where does the 2A say you have the right to bear sporting firearms ?

When ever I read crap like that it really pisses me off.


http://www.atf.gov/firearms/building_a_firearm.pdf"

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/building_a_firearm.pdf

I was just thinking the same thing. But, this is old news...very old news.

[hoffmang]

Sam,

You are preaching to the choir. I think we're going to see a lot of Federal laws fall in the very near future.

-Gene

[Matt C]

As I have been thinking about this, a key thought. Selling 80% builds is a lot more risky than buying. If you are an otherwise eligible purchaser (aka, you can pass a NICS) and you buy an 80% receiver and build it up, the letter metalhead shows above should protect you at the Federal level.

What is less clear is where the line of "80%" is when you sell these either hunks of metal or firearms depending...

-Gene

I agree, the risk is mostly to the seller. Still, I would not do this for a regular AR lower that I could legally pick up from a local shop now. BUT, if it was something that allowed me to build a AR pistol w/ fixed mag, I think it would be worth the risk.