BLUF

The ATF Frame and Receiver redefinition fails at multiple legal issues. The biggest is that they are playing word games with the GCA of 1968 and the second is that even if what they are doing is using rule making in spite of what congress has mandated.


We all know that the ATF cheats. That is no big surprise. The good news is that people are watching and the courts are ruling on things that call into question how the ATF is making rules and if the rules are designed.

In this case, the ATF is attempting to regulate gun parts and precursors to guns. They have very limited room to do that.

The term ‘firearm’ means (A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive;

This is the first definition of firearm. This is where we see the term “may readily be converted”. This is designed to cover the situation where you have a solid metal rod instead of a barrel, but you remove the take down pin and put a real barrel in its place. You have readily converted the object into a firearm.

The second definition:

(B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon

This means that the frame or receiver of a weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive.

There is NOTHING in the definitions that says anything about something that can be readily converted into a frame or receiver. It has to be readily converted into a weapon.

This interesting turn of phrase means that no matter how much the ATF may fume and posture they can’t redefine a chunk-o-aluminum to be readily converted into a frame or receiver.

IANAL so I might have this wrong, but I don’t think so.

(3) The term ‘firearm’ means (A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by action of an explosive; (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon; (C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or (D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm.
— Gun Control Act of 1968

Spread the love

By awa

2 thoughts on “ATF Frame and Receiver Rule fails”
  1. What I found unacceptable about the “rule” is the word “readily” was not defined. Could not find it in the proposed rule at all.
    Without a legally supportable definition of readily, it would mean anything that ATF wanted it to mean when they wanted it to mean it.
    .
    Now, I would have a hard time arguing that a stripped AR lower cannot readily be turned into a firearm. There is a reason why they need to be serialized and sold through a FFL. But, an 80% lower? Readily? Not buying it.
    .
    Can you turn an 80% lower into a firearm without expensive tools? Yes, but in how many hours/days? Kind of fails any definition of reasonable if you have to purchase a very expensive jig, own a mill, or spend dozens of hours with hand tools to make it capable of holding the fire control group. But, that is what the ATF tried to do.
    .
    Glad they failed.

    1. A stripped AR lower doesn’t meet the definition of “frame” either. It’s no more of a firearm than the upper. Which is why the stupid games they play with, “sold as pistol or sold as rifle” is so retarded.

Login or register to comment.