B.L.U.F.: The Gun Control Act of 1968 doesn’t define “readily”. It doesn’t prohibit converting to a frame or receiver, does not prohibit possession of machine gun parts. Readily converted is very dependent on equipment, skill and knowledge.

START-UPDATE

After posting this article I continued my research and stumbled onto the source of the current definition of readily as ATF published it. A few years ago there was a court case. In the court case the judge was asked to if something was “readily converted”. The judge, in their opinion, listed the criteria they used to make that determination. The judge then made the determination.

The ATF copied the language of the opinion on what the criteria the judge used. This is not a definition. This is just how to make a decision. As currently written, the ATF can say “we used the criteria and have determined that this is readily converted.”

Stil, the language of the GCA of 1968 as amendment says that the only thing the ATF can say is if something is or is not a frame or receiver. Readily doesn’t enter into that equation at all.

END-UPDATE

In 1968 then President L.B. Johnson signed into law the Gun Control Act of 1968. This was the first law that significantly intruded into the rights guaranteed under the second amendment.

Prior to this time the worse that had happened was that people had to pay an extra $200 for NFA items. For a long time after the 1934 NFA being caught with a NFA item meant you had to register and pay the stamp tax, nothing more.

The GCA of 1968 gave us

• FFLs
• Only FFLs could import, manufacture or deal in firearms or ammunition.
• Only FFLs could purchase or obtain firearms out of their state of residence
• Only FFLs could transport destructive devices, machine-guns, SBS or SBR across state lines without permission
• To give false identification in purchasing or acquiring a firearm
• For FFLs to sell firearms or ammunition to people less than eighteen years of age
• For FFLs to sell anything but shotguns or rifles and shotgun and rifle ammunition to people less than 21 years of age
• Gave state laws the ability to limit who an FFL sold to
• Require government permission to transfer NFA items
• Require the FFL to keep a record of who they sell firearms and ammunition to
• Defined what a prohibited person was:
  • A person under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year
  • is a fugitive from justice
  • is an unlawful user of or addicted to marihuana or any depressant or stimulant drug (as defined in section 201(v) of the Federal Food, Durg, and Cosmetic Act) or narcotic drug (as defined in section 4731(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954)
  • Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution.

  Note that the spelling of “marijuana” is from the actual GCA, not an AWA typo.

• It is ship firearms or ammunitions without telling the shipper it is a firearm or ammunition, in writing
• It is unlawful for a shipper to deliver firearms or ammunition to a prohibited person
• It is unlawful to move a firearm across state lines where the serial number has been removed, obliterated, or altered
• It is unlawful for an FFL to make a false statement in there their records

In addition, the GCA of 1968 defined what all the “important” terms mean.

(b) Machinegun. — The term ‘machinegun’ means any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any combination of parts designed and intended to use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person

In 1968 there was nothing about “readily converted” to a machine gun, it was “readily restored”. Which means that having an AR-15 lower receiver with M-16/4 parts in it except for the auto-sear is NOT a machine gun by this definition. The receiver would have to be a machine gun receiver. Which in the AR world means the fourth hole.

Nothing in this talks about readily converted to a machine gun. It is all about readily restored to shoot.

Section 921 creates definitions for non NFA items:

1. As used in this chapter–
   1. The term ‘person’ and the term ‘whoever’ include any individual, corporation, company, association, firm, partnership, society, or joint stock company
   2. The term ‘interstate or foreign commerce’ includes commerce between any place in a State and any place outside of that State, or within any possession of the United States (not including the Canal Zone) or the District of Columbia, but such term does not include commerce between places within the same Sate but through any place outside of that State. The term ‘State’ includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the possessions of the United States (no including the Canal Zone)
   3. The term ‘firearm’ means
      1. 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
      2. the frame or receiver of any such weapon
      3. any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or
      4. any destructive device.

      Such term does not include an antique firearm.

   4. The term destructive device’ means —
      1. any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas —
         1. bomb
         2. grenade
         3. rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces
         4. missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce
         5. mine, or
         6. device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clauses
      2. any type of weapon (other than a shotgun or a shotgun shell which the Secretary finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes) by whatever name known which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, and which has any barrel with a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter; and
      3. Any combination of parts either designed or intended for use in converting any device into any destructive device described in subparagraph (A) or (B) and from which a destructive device may be readily assembled.

      The term ‘destructive device’ shall not include any device which is neither designed nor redesigned for use as a weapon; any device although originally designed for use as a weapon, which is redesigned for use as a signaling, pyrotechnic, line throwing, safety, or similar device; surplus ordnance sold, loaned, or given by the Secretary of the Army pursuant to the provisions of section 4684(2), 4685, or 4686 of title 10; or any other device which the Secretary of the Treasury finds is not likely to be used as a weapon, is an antique, or is a rifle which the owner intends to use solely for sporting purposes.

   5. The term ‘shotgun’ means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed shotgun shell to fire through a smooth bore either a number of ball shot or a single projectile for each single pull of the trigger.
   6. The term ‘short-barreled shotgun’ means a shotgun having one or more barrels less than eighteen inches in length and any weapon made from a shotgun (whether by alteration, modification or otherwise) if such weapon is modified has an overall length of less than twenty-six inches.
   7. The term ‘rifle’ means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed metallic cartridge to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger
   8. The term ‘short-barreled rifle’ means a rifle having one or more barrels less than sixteen inches in length and any weapon made from a rifle (whether by alteration, modification, or otherwise) if such weapon, as modified, has an overall length of less than twenty-six inches.
   9. The term ‘importer’ means …
   10. The term ‘manufacturer’ means any person engaged in the manufacture of firearms or ammunition for purposes of sale or distribution; the term ‘licensed manufacturer’ means any such person licensed under the provisions of this chapter
   11. …

(That was transcribed from the GCA of 1968. Parts were left out as they are not of interest to us. Parts have been modified since the bill was originally signed into law)

Nowhere in the bill do they define what the term “frame or receiver” means nor do they define what the term “readily” means.

Because congress did not define what a frame or receiver was, the Secretary of the Treasury (ATF) is required to publish that definition.

Firearm: 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; the frame or receiver of any such weapon; any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or any destructive device; but the term shall not include an antique firearm. In the case of a licensed collector, the term shall mean only curios and relics. The term shall include a weapon parts kit that is designed to or may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive. The term shall not include a weapon, including a weapon parts kit, in which the frame or receiver of such weapon is destroyed as described in the definition “frame or receiver”.
— 27 CFR 478.11 “Firearm”

Note that this definition of firearm does not match the language of the GCA of 1968. It includes “weapon parts kit”.

Frame or receiver: The term “frame or receiver” shall have the same meaning as in § 478.12.
— 27 CFR 478.11 “Frame or receiver”

This is the current version, hear is the version as of 4/26/2022:

Firearm frame or receiver. 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.
— 27 CFR 478.11 “Firearm frame or receiver” as of 4/26/2022

As of 4/26/2022 there are 37 references to the word “readily” but no definition given.

As of 12/28/2022 there are 50 references and they do define “readily”

Readily. A process, action, or physical state that is fairly or reasonably efficient, quick, and easy, but not necessarily the most efficient, speediest, or easiest process, action, or physical state. With respect to the classification of firearms, factors relevant in making this determination include the following:

1. Time, i.e., how long it takes to finish the process;
2. Ease, i.e., how difficult it is to do so;
3. Expertise, i.e., what knowledge and skills are required;
4. Equipment, i.e., what tools are required;
5. Parts availability, i.e., whether additional parts are required, and how easily they can be obtained;
6. Expense, i.e., how much it costs;
7. Scope, i.e., the extent to which the subject of the process must be changed to finish it; and
8. Feasibility, i.e., whether the process would damage or destroy the subject of the process, or cause it to malfunction.

Of course they left all the important parts out. With a manual mill with a DRO it takes me about 5 hours to go from an 80% lower to a functional receiver. If I was doing more, I would create some jigs and I would be able to do it in about 2 hours. Is that readily?

Easy is a relative term. Giving birth is “easy” but I don’t want to go through it nor does my wife want to go through it again. For me, it is “easy” to do the work, for others it isn’t.

Expertise: It is very easy to make mistakes while doing the conversion with a mill. It takes knowledge of what you are doing. With a jig system, it might not take as much skill. It still is not simple.

Equipment: You can buy a mill big enough to do a conversion for around $1000 US. You can not rent or borrow or use somebody else’s mill. You can also invest dollars for jigs, router, drill press and such, still not “cheap”.

Availability is a bogus term. I know the URL of a site where I can purchase a complete select fire fire-control parts kit for an M4/M16. It is as easy as typing in my address and credit card to get that part. Same with 80% lowers and all the other parts. This is just an always unless there is panic buying.

Expense: I remember seeing people bang shovels into AK-47 receivers. Was that readily? It was certainly cheap in cost.

Scope is another “in the eye of the beholder”. I consider the scope of turning an 80% lower into a fully receiver to be much larger than the scope of turning an 80% plastic fantastic into a functional frame. That could be because I’ve not done it.

Feasibility: I’ve got one lower that has a bad trigger slot. I messed up. It still works. On the other hand, I could have miss drilled a single pin hole and totally destroyed me receiver. A friend of mine has a paper weight that looks like an AR15 lower but isn’t and never will be.

Today, every such “failure” is upwards of $100.

All of this is to say that readily is really really in the eye of the beholder. If I had a full CNC machine with tool changer it might very well be that turning an 80% lower into a functional receiver is as simple as pushing the button and waiting for the result popping out 30 minutes later. It might be that doing the same thing to a raw casting takes about the same amount of effort and time. Disregarding all of the setup time and CNC programming time.

At this point, I believe that the entire GCA is going to go away in the next 10 years.

Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act is the part where it says “no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”

This is a goodness when used correctly.  This means that if one of our readers posts something that is actionable as a comment, defamation or such, we as the owners of the blog are not responsible.

This is what allowed Facebook and every forum, BBS, Usenet, and blog to exist in this age of the Internet.

It is what protects our cloud provider and CDNs from being held responsible for every bit of traffic that passes through their servers or is hosted on a piece of their hardware.  In addition, it means that your service provider, Comcast, Verizon, RoadRunner, and all the other ISPs are not responsible for what passes across their networks.

A HUGE goodness.

Unfortunately it is also being misused.

The gist is that as long as you, as a provider, do no editorial actions then you are not responsible. If you are controlling the content then you are now a publisher and not a common carrier.

Consider the NYT. Every single word that the publish is vetted and approved as a publisher, legally speaking. They have the final word on any opinion published, on any advertisement that runs, any news article that they publish they are responsible for.

When a company or group takes on the role of editor/publisher they also accept that legal responsibility in a legal sense.

So what happens if a company decides that they will not publish an article?

When Twitter decided to suppress all references to the Hunter Biden story in 2020 did they become a publisher?

When Facebook or YouTube shadow bans a user or group, are the acting as editors?

At what point do they loose their Section 230 protections as a “provider”?

If the owner of a blog allows open commenting but deletes any post where the commenter refuses to identify themselves, have they become a publisher?

On Dec 19th, 2022 the Supreme court scheduled arguments for Reynaldo Gonzalez, et al., Petitioners v. Google LLC for Feb 21, 2023.

The question the petitioners ask is:

Does section 230(c)(1) immunize interactive computer services when they make targeted recommendations of information provided by another information content provider, or only limit the liability of interactive computer services when they engage in traditional editorial functions (such as deciding whether to display or withdraw) with regard to such information?

The question the defendants ask is:

Whether a claim seeks to treat an interactive computer service provider as a “publisher,” and is thus barred by section 230, when the claim targets the provider’s display of third-party content of potential interest to individual users.

This may get very interesting for Facebook, Google, YouTube and a few other players that have been using shadow bans and the ban hammer to push their point of view or to suppress the speech of those they disagree with.

Rittenhouse sentenced on child exploitation charges - Alachua Chronicle

Kyle Allen Rittenhouse, 25, was sentenced today to 5 years in state prison, followed by 5 years of sexual offender probation, after pleading nolo contendere to three felonies

So I’m scrolling through my feeds when this pops up.  Now I read before I look at images and even so I’m not willing to leap to conclusions based on my memory and pictures.

This guy doesn’t seem to be Kyle Rittenhouse but maybe?  Last I saw he was a bit heavier than this, still carrying childhood weight.

Did the Hero of Kenosha fall from grace?

Nope, different person.  Just a heads up as I would not be surprised to start seeing reports about Kyle being sentenced for kiddy diddling or something like that.

B.L.U.F.: .357 is a good critter round, w/ NSFW pictures

One of the reasons we had a racoon problem earlier this year was because one of our chickens was badly injured in some sort of attack. As my lady described it, she was “gloved”.

At first we thought the rooster had done it. Then we thought that maybe a hawk had down it as there are a number of hawks around here. Some animal had ripped the top of the chickens head off. It blinded her completely for a couple of weeks but she seems to have one poorly working eye at this point.

She is currently kept in a pen near the other chickens and the rooster but away separate from them. At the time of the racoon incursion she was being kept safe in a big plastic tub on the porch.

The racoons were attracted to her scent and sounds and found chicken food to eat instead.

This lead to the deployment of a Winchester ’94 in 30-30 on racoon one. Overkill.
Savage Mark II in .22LR which was not enough against racoon two.
Winchester ’94 in 30-30 on racoon three, still overkill but more ethical than the .22.
And the same Winchester ’94 in 30-30 on racoon four.

This was driving the need for something between .22 and 30-30. I could have used the PC-9 but it really didn’t feel like the right choice.

In the end I found my Rossi R92 in 38 Special, .357 Magnum.

I’ve done a little bit of smithing on it. It needs more. It shoots exactly where I want it and is reliable after the first round chambers.

I had finished emptying almost all of my .357 magnum as I wanted to load them with 2400 instead of Titegroup. So it was sitting empty waiting for me to get more rounds loaded.

Last night my daughter heard her rooster give the alarm. She grabbed an ax and headed for the hen house. I figured that I should be the good father and head out to support her.

I quickly ejected my last 7 rounds of .357 form the Ruger GP100 grabbed the R92 and my light, started loading and heading out the door.

When I get out there daughter is pointing out the footprints. I tell her to search for more footprints leading away as it must have hauled ass when it heard my daughter head out.

We don’t see anything so daughter goes to check her chickens. The head count isn’t right so she goes to the back of the hen house and opens the door and a possum comes scurrying out between her legs heading across the snow.

I track the possum as it moves away. Bring the rifle to my shoulder, thumbing the hammer back as I do. Trigger finger is still on the receiver, outside of the trigger guard.

Rifle is lined up, good shoot. Bad back drop. Move to get a better backdrop as the possum moves to give me a better backdrop.

Line up, verify backdrop, press the trigger and there is a sharp bang. Nowhere near as loud as the 30-30.

The possum isn’t even twitching. I move up and verify. It is dead, really. No doubt about.

Since this is around 2300 wife is in bed asleep already. She woke up and immediately texts us for a report. We head in and give her the report.

After reporting in daughter goes out to get pictures so that she can brag to her friends that we have another dead animal. The skeleton will be processed but we aren’t interested in eating this animal.

The .357 magnum was not loaded to full power. It was still bottom end of my .357 loads. But the bullet I used did the trick.

The results of hitting a possum with this round are after the cut. They are graphic:
Read More

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

The videos.gunfreezone.net and discourse.gunfreezone.net while be unavailable for a short (couple of days) period of time. The server they are currently running on is being decommissioned and I have to move them to a different server.

Welcome to another Friday!

It was good to see that people voted for what they wanted to hear about. I hope my BP article was what y’ll were looking for.

Anything you would like to hear about, just let us know below.

J.Kb. has offered to write some technical geeky stuff about metals and guns and things. If you all don’t give him some prompts I’ll be forced to take advantage of his knowledge. He is a sharp one. Much sharper than I am.

Lots of things going on in the courts, more updates are coming.

Have a great weekend all.