[1024Megabytes]

Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms Proposes Unclear New Rule Banning ‘Ghost Guns,’ Redefining ‘Firearms’
by Jordan Michaels on May 11, 2021

Just 30 days after President Joe Biden ordered the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives to write a rule banning so-called “ghost guns,” the ATF has complied.

The proposed rule bans the direct sale of build-it-yourself 80-percent receiver kits, but it also attempts to redefine the term “firearm” to account for split-receiver rifles like the AR-15 and AK-47. In addition, the agency offers (supposed) guidelines for how companies can determine when a piece of metal counts as a “firearm.”

Unfortunately, though not surprisingly, none of the regulations offer much real clarification to consumers or manufacturers, and all proposed rules give the ATF latitude to redefine their terms to account for “future changes in firearms technology or terminology.”

“To reflect existing case law, this proposed rule would add a sentence at the end of the definition of ‘firearm’ in providing that ‘[t]he term shall include a weapon parts kit that is designed to or may readily be assembled, completed, converted, or restored to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive,’” the announcement of the proposed rule states.

While likely to be challenged in court if approved, this addition to the definition of “firearm” would all but eliminate easy access to build-it-yourself kits from companies like Polymer80. Such kits would still be available (assuming the companies stay in business) but would be sold and regulated like any other firearm.

Gun-rights groups have blasted the proposed rule, arguing that it would give the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms near-unlimited power to regulate firearms and firearm accessories.

Read more at: https://www.gunsamerica.com/digest/...-rule-banning-ghost-guns-redefining-firearms/

 

[1024Megabytes]

The proposed rule does not require private citizens to serialize homemade, private-use firearms, but it would require an Federal Firearms License Dealer to serialize “privately made firearms” (PMFs) within 60 days of receiving those firearms.

The Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms acknowledges, as the gun rights community has pointed out, that the agency’s current definition of “firearm” does not account for split-receiver firearms like the AR-15 and AK-47. But rather than proposing a clear rule to accommodate these types of receivers, the agency simply grants itself broad, unilateral power to define virtually anything as a “receiver” and, therefore, a “firearm.”

I would make a comment at the website if I were you. This regulation is all about registering privately made firearms so they have a list they can go and get at Federal Firearms License Dealer or from the Federal Bureau of Investigations. It will be difficult to attempt future confiscations if they do not know where most of the guns are. These are American Marxists as Mark Levin has said that have taken control of the Executive branch and other places of government.

 

[histed]

This is the one I posted about earlier, I think. There's no exemption for muzzleloading or repo black powder firearms either. According to this, buying a flint lock or muzzleloading barrel would also constitute private manufacture. Over reach after over reach

 

[Hipointer]

This is the one I posted about earlier, I think. There's no exemption for muzzleloading or repo black powder firearms either. According to this, buying a flint lock or muzzleloading barrel would also constitute private manufacture. Over reach after over reach

Sounds like ole Crazy Joe found a way to push some gun control, and keep his hands clear of it.

 

[histed]

Sounds like ole Crazy Joe found a way to push some gun control, and keep his hands clear of it.

We know it wasn't Joe - he's too far gone mentally. His handler, however....

 

[TNTRAILERTRASH]

All I could understand was send $25 to Firearms Policy Coalition.

 

[Quavodus]

I read this shit, and I don't want to put on a forum what I really think.

 

[TNTRAILERTRASH]

I read this shit, and I don't want to put on a forum what I really think.

Hence my answer above.

 

[Rerun]

Is this next?

eldar

 

[Rabidwookie]

Is this next?
View attachment 73180

eldar

Unfortunately, at the rate things are going, it’s a good possibility....

 

[Visper]

Well I put in my comment, hoping it makes a difference but at the same time kinda realize they will do what they want. I guess the only ray of sunshine we have is they received enough comments on the pistol braces a few months ago to not enact it.

Lets all flood them again.

Here is what I sent (hate that it reformatted - that's the .gov website for ya):

While I appreciate the ATF and the current administration trying to slow down gun violence in the major cities this will not have the desired effect you are seeking. The only people this will affect are legal and up standing citizens. Do you really think the criminals and murderers all across the country head to their basements and build weapons? It's easier and cheaper for them to buy one illegally in most cases and have the serial numbers ground off. Building weapons at home is a hobby, most of the time they are nowhere near as reliable as a factory firearm. They are fun for some to build. Some make model airplanes, some model rockets and some people make firearms.

This has been going on for way longer than any of us have been alive.

Have any of you actually seen the prices of the parts for these? As an example, someone who wanted to build a Glock clone could EASILY spend $1,000. You can buy a real one for $500... It is not about having a firearm to these builders, it’s about the joy of building them. Taking away people freedoms is just wrong.

Ever since the media has created the "ghost gun" scare what are the percentages of crimes actually committed with them? I would wager not as much as the public is lead to believe. I would say if the Government/ATF/FBI, you name it, want to cut back on gun violence - maybe we should actually enforce the laws we have now and maybe stop letting people slip through the cracks. How many of the last "mass shootings" did the shooter himself actually pass a background check even though they were on a watch list? It happens more often than not. So, as I said lets concentrate on actually enforcing the stuff on the books before we add more stuff to enforce when you guys can't enforce what is there now...

Now myself as a legal gun owner have gone through my background checks, paid tax stamps and basically done everything you have all asked, as most if not ALL legal gun owners out there do. Why does the government insist on putting more burden on us and leaving cities like Chicago in shambles...

I know you may actually hear this a lot but the 2nd Amendment specifies "Shall NOT be infringed" and every year it seems like more and more infringement gets introduced. It's the Bill of Rights for a reason, rights cannot be regulated, taxed etc. which you guys already do... let stop and actually read the constitution every now and then before we think about putting in new "guidelines".

So, I am officially stating that I am against these new "Definitions or Rules". Thank you.

 

[Rabidwookie]

Nicely said.

 

[Hipointer]

We know it wasn't Joe - he's too far gone mentally. His handler, however....

Yeah, or multiple "handlers"!

 

[lklawson]

If you have not yet commented, please do and comment.

Here's the link:

Regulations.gov

www.regulations.gov

Be polite and respectful. No cursing, swearing, accusations. Just say why you oppose. The two most common reasons cited for opposition (though not the only) are:

• The ATF does not have the authority to redefine a receiver. That was laid out in NFA 1934 and only Congress can change the definition in law. ATF doing so exceeds their authority.
• The goal of the ATF should be to clarify what is and is not a receiver. This rule actually makes it less clear and takes a position that has often been described as "I'll know it when I see it." This doesn't clarify and has the effect of making home builders feel as if they are in legal jeopardy by building, even if they are not.

Say something about each of those.

Yes, you can make it anonymous but you'll have to give your real name and address. Remember, you're already on "a list" even if you don't think you are. Trust me, you are.

Again, stay polite. If you swear or are impolite, your comment will be rejected. Write your own quick little message. "Form letters" that you copy and paste will not be counted.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[1024Megabytes]

I sent my comments to the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms. And I believe Americans have a right to craft their own firearms without getting permission from the Federal or local government.

 

[Quavodus]

There's nothing that should be illegal about building your own firearms, if you aren't selling them. That would stipulate a mandatory license. There's videos all over Youtube and other formats of guys doing just that. Duh!