[AaronJStewart]

I would like to thank Rory for informing of this. As a retired Federal employee (worked for the USAF and USN as most recent; in the world of classified from idea to disposition the full life cycle) I use to monitor the Federal Register for anything associated with my job. After retiring I shut it down. I wish I had started to keep and ear open for my firearm hobby, alas I did not. I'm not going to go into the ins and outs of the Federal Register as you can find more information on their website.

-------------NOTE-----------------NOTE------------------NOTE------------------NOTE--------------NOTE----------------
This action taken by the DoJ is NOT, NOT, NOT a law. This action taken by the DoJ is NOT, NOT, NOT a law. This action taken by the DoJ is NOT, NOT, NOT a law. This action taken by the DoJ is NOT, NOT, NOT a law.
The new rule modernizes the definition of a firearm.

Here are links for more information. If there is a word, sentence etc. that is highlighted or looks different than the rest of the text if may be an additional link for more information. i.e. the word 'steps' in the last sentence of the rule on the DoJ web site, "Today’s announcement is also the latest in a series of steps the department has taken to address violent crime and gun violence."

Federal Register :: Home - Tuesday, April 12th

Federal Register :: Definition of “Frame or Receiver” and Identification of Firearms

Justice Department Announces New Rule to Modernize Firearm Definitions | OPA | Department of Justice

Definition of “Frame or Receiver” and Identification of Firearms | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (atf.gov)

If there are questions or you are unclear about this let me know and I will do my best to get you the answer or understand

Respectfully,
Aaron J. Stewart

 

[AaronJStewart]

With that out of the way, my two cents, or there bout’s.

There will be many legal cases brought forward and once again we fall on the decision or not of the Supreme Court.

The FBI uses the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) -
https://www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/ucr/nibrs

“Implemented to improve the overall quality of crime data collected by law enforcement, NIBRS captures details on each single crime incident—as well as on separate offenses within the same incident—including information on victims, known offenders, relationships between victims and offenders, arrestees, and property involved in crimes.”

In reading the rule I and as with all statements, written and oral, concerning illegal firearms there is NO effort, rule, law etc. by any agency, local, state or Federal that addresses the facts on HOW the firearm was obtained. Stolen, bought (private sale, black-market etc.) made etc.

It is my opinion that this data is NEVER going to be compiled to show factual proof that the majority of these firearms are obtained illegally. AS we all know laws are for those who follow them. What is the penalty for illegally obtaining a firearm? There is not one. There is only a penalty for “illegal weapon possession”.

As someone who had their Glock 23 stolen from my truck many many years ago. I was nervous 20 some odd years later why the AFT agent contacted me for a meeting; was I or somebody I knew in trouble? AS it turns out my Glock was RECOVERED by an ATF and City of Miami Beach officers. All I was told was this. They were watching a known drug house saw the suspect with a handgun in their possession and made the arrest. The suspect told them he only shot the gun once at New Years and into the ground. No other information was given as there were bigger things at hand. My Glock was sent to ATF labs researched for any other crimes associated with it and cataloged in case at some point crimes are found. (saving my money to one day sell it and upgrade to a compact .45 Kimber with green Crimson Trace laser.)

Aaron J. Stewart

 

[joshs1ofakindxj]

I haven't read the full 364 page rule change yet but there is a lot of people putting out their takes and the majority seem to be wrong on some points, so take everything with a grain of salt until you read it yourself or get the details from multiple trustworthy sources.

PS, I discourage lasers on handguns. I think the cons listed here outweigh the pros: Are Lasers on Handguns a Good Idea?

 

[Rory]

this whole thing is messy. like what other parts will they want serialized? generic use of terms like "kits" makes this more messy and cringe worthy for everyone.

 

[AaronJStewart]

Thanks for the information (I figured if the girls had to use it instead of their long guns the laser might help)

 

[joshs1ofakindxj]

From what I've read so far, the traditional parts serialized won't be changing, except an 80% receiver kit as they define it would now meet the requirement of being a firearm.

It definitely doesn't define an AR15 upper as a receiver that needs serialized. There are graphics near the back of the document that make this clear.

 

[IMBLITZVT]

This seems pretty good on the issue.

 

[IMBLITZVT]

Oh and I forgot to mention...

Here in Maryland they past a Ghost Gun ban last Friday that looks like it will force me to registered any home made guns and take them to an FFL to do it. I wonder how much that will cost! Or I can give them up to the ATF. No more 1919a4 building!

 

[Kirby]

this whole thing is messy. like what other parts will they want serialized? generic use of terms like "kits" makes this more messy and cringe worthy for everyone.

I highly suspect this was written by people who do not have clue. If they really wanted to do this properly they would have involved industry representatives during the formulation of this to at a minimum get the terminology correct.

 

[TiredIron]

At what point are they also going to require that every one of the millions of un-serialized pre-1968 rifles manufactured by well known Brands, be marked up with meaningless numbers and symbols. If not...then I'm pretty sure that most everybody built or finished their home projects prior to May of 1968. I know I did.

 

[barbarous relic]

At what point are they also going to require that every one of the millions of un-serialized pre-1968 rifles manufactured by well known Brands, be marked up with meaningless numbers and symbols. If not...then I'm pretty sure that most everybody built or finished their home projects prior to May of 1968. I know I did.

I think I'd have a hard time arguing in court that I did anything before 1983.

It's an interesting point that unlike glock style pistols and other popular home builds, the 1919a4 actually existed prior to 1968, so there's some plausible deniability in the argument, shifting the burden of proof. Not that it matters much, because home builders still aren't required to serialize anything. The new privately made firearm serialization requirements only affect FFL transfers.

 

[barbarous relic]

I highly suspect this was written by people who do not have clue. If they really wanted to do this properly they would have involved industry representatives during the formulation of this to at a minimum get the terminology correct.

The final rule change (all 364 pages of it) cites comments by Sig Sauer, SAAMI, and others, in response to the original proposal. Much of the length of the document is responding to the comments we (so far I'm not an industry insider, just a C&R licensee) sent them.

 

[Kirby]

The final rule change (all 364 pages of it) cites comments by Sig Sauer, SAAMI, and others, in response to the original proposal. Much of the length of the document is responding to the comments we (so far I'm not an industry insider, just a C&R licensee) sent them.

I was thinking more along the lines of NSSF.

 

[barbarous relic]

I was thinking more along the lines of NSSF.

It doesn't get much more relevant than Polymer80. Their comments are acknowledged on page 178.

They were accepting comments from anyone. I guarantee I got my two cents in—for whatever it was worth.

I don't know that NSSF has been involved in home-built firearms, so maybe they didn't have an official statement.

 

[Gregg]

Congress writes and passes Laws.
Federal Agencies then write Regulations to enforce the Laws.
No where do "Rules" enter the picture.
This is just Joe attempting to bypass Congress, to get more "Gun Control".
This will go nowhere with the Court System, and will end up being another Bump Stock and Binary Trigger mess for the Courts to rule against.
BUT, the ATF will attempt to enforce these Rules in the meantime.
Hound your Congress Critters NOW!

 

[Abominog]

Actually Gregg, most agencies are authorized by law to develop rules, which are de facto laws. As I detailed in another recent thread, foreign organizations also forge US law.

there is only one law, and that’s the Constitution.

 

[shred]

I can recognize several parts of my comments in the discussion section. A bit sad to be that much of it since there were 300,000 comments submitted (about 3/4 of them "form letters" pro and con.)

 

[barbarous relic]

Maybe we underestimated how seriously they'd take the comments. Lots of interesting issues raised and some of the proposed rule changes walked back. I don't want to sound like an apologist for the agency, and the 2021R-08 proposal is a different matter, but when I originally read 2021R-05, I kind of got the impression that neutral or even pro-gun folks had gotten an order from the top to "do something", and what they proposed was minimally compliant with the order. Considering the final version cited our comments as reasons to backpedal on some of the proposals, it's possible they were looking to us to give them the justification for not pursuing the changes they were ordered to push through.

 

[OLDIRONSIGHT]

After reading through some of it the “split receiver” language opens soooo many cans of worms. So in the future I’ll have to transfer a LSP, top and bottom plate all with serial numbers that match the RSP? How do some of you interpret the “split receiver” portion?
Does it just apply to an AR style weapon where the FCG and BCG are “split” and would be treated as one receiver?

 

[barbarous relic]

After reading through some of it the “split receiver” language opens soooo many cans of worms. So in the future I’ll have to transfer a LSP, top and bottom plate all with serial numbers that match the RSP? How do some of you interpret the “split receiver” portion?
Does it just apply to an AR style weapon where the FCG and BCG are “split” and would be treated as one receiver?

The original proposal had language about split receivers that they specifically said would only apply to new designs.

The final rule has numerous mentions of "grandfather[ing]" determinations previously recognizing a single part as the frame/receiver, and not wanting to have more than one part count as a frame/receiver. Near the end (pages 332-333), they show a picture of a 1919 variant as the example for which single part they'll consider the receiver for "box-type machineguns and semiautomatic variants", and consistent with everything preceding in the final rule, and the original proposal, it's the right side plate, same as always.

Arguably, there's ambiguity for the M2/M3, because they specify "The receiver is the side plate of the weapon that is designed to hold the charging handle" and for M2s to be reversible, both need to be designed to hold the charging handle, but there's enough language elsewhere about grandfathering, and only wanting a single part to be a receiver, that I think it's clear they don't want the M2 treated differently from the 1919 of substantially similar design.