ATF reclassifying frames and recievers

[HiredHand]

If they really wanted to serialize and make traceable almost every firearm that was produced, they would make barrels the serialized part. Not many of us could produce a rifled barrel at home. But I don’t think it’s about that at all, I think it’s the old death by a thousand cuts b.s. and making it appear to the uninformed that politicians are doing something other than waste the money they collect from us as taxes.

 

[HiredHand]

I read it again and my interpretation is that they want to serial number the upper because it houses the ‘bolt or breechblock’ that they mention over and over and over

This is a direct result of this case. https://www.gunsamerica.com/digest/judge-disconnect-atf-classification-lower-receivers-firearms/

“After deliberating for more than a year, US District Court Judge James V. Selna determined that because an AR-15 lower receiver does not house the bolt or breechblock and is not threaded to the barrel, as defined in 27 C.F.R. § 478.11, it does not constitute a “receiver” and cannot be considered a “firearm” under federal law.

“No reasonable person would understand that a part constitutes a receiver where it lacks the components specified in the regulation,” Selna wrote.”

 

[Fade2blue]

Barrels wear out though. Then you'd have to register a maintenance item.

 

[HiredHand]

Barrels wear out though. Then you'd have to register a maintenance item.

It would be a vastly small number of people that would ever wear out a barrel and I don’t think they’d really care. I’m not in favor of making barrels the serialized part, I’m just making the point that it’s the one piece of every firearm that would be impossible for the average person to make from scratch.

 

[Chris Hladik]

got this in an email from Sig today:


We need your help to fight back against the recent rule proposed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF) on firearm serialization. If this proposed arduous rule passes it will be nothing short of disastrous for the industry. The proposed rule ATF 2021R-05 is over 100 pages long and chief among the problems is that it is confusing and creates a problem where there is none - - at the expense of law-abiding firearms owners.

Help us fight unnecessary bureaucracy and submit your comments today by following these simple steps. All submissions must be received by BATF August 19th – but don’t wait – make sure your voice is heard today!

We’ve made it easy, submit your comments in these easy steps:

1. Visit regulations.gov

2. Enter ATF 2021R-05 in the search bar

3. Click the “Comment” button on the proposed rule

4. Cut and paste the following text in the comment section:



The proposed rules relating to changing how firearm frames or receivers are defined create problems and should not be adopted. Chief among the problems is the confusion they create - the NPRM is over 100 pages long and explains a very complicated scheme of how to define a frame or receiver. This is completely unnecessary. Where there was once a simple definition that was sufficient for decades, there are now a hundred pages providing more than a handful of poorly defined grandfathered configurations, a loose statement about similar configurations, a requirement that new designs be submitted to ATF for classification, and the requirement to engrave not just one but multiple serial numbers on potentially multiple receivers in a single firearm. The problems that recently developed with the definition after decades of use don’t need a hundred pages of re-definition and multiple serial numbers to be solved.

Even the statute that ATF is charged with enforcing by Congress indicates that a firearm has only one frame or receiver, yet ATF now wants to declare there can be multiple receivers in a single firearm, and in turn require that multiple serial numbers be marked on these receivers. It’s clear these serial number markings on a single new firearm must match, but thereafter serialized parts may be exchanged allowing different serial numbers on the same firearm. Is there a controlling serial number for the firearm, and which receiver does that serial number reside on? Which number(s) will be relayed by police in trace, or is every number on a firearm traced? What happens when a firearm with multiple serialized components is repaired with a component that has a different serial number? This just scratches the surface on the confusion this proposed rule creates about the definition of a firearm frame or receiver.

ATF should drop this complicated scheme and find a simple way as suggested above to follow the law. ATF needs to develop a simple definition that people can understand - like a single characteristic of a single part that all firearms have, and which does not have to be sent to ATF for an official determination.



5. Enter your e-mail address

6. Fill out the “Tell us about yourself” section

7. Hit submit



Thank you for your participation!

 

[BobbyV]

got this in an email from Sig today:


We need your help to fight back against the recent rule proposed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF) on firearm serialization. If this proposed arduous rule passes it will be nothing short of disastrous for the industry. The proposed rule ATF 2021R-05 is over 100 pages long and chief among the problems is that it is confusing and creates a problem where there is none - - at the expense of law-abiding firearms owners.

Help us fight unnecessary bureaucracy and submit your comments today by following these simple steps. All submissions must be received by BATF August 19th – but don’t wait – make sure your voice is heard today!

We’ve made it easy, submit your comments in these easy steps:

1. Visit regulations.gov

2. Enter ATF 2021R-05 in the search bar

3. Click the “Comment” button on the proposed rule

4. Cut and paste the following text in the comment section:



The proposed rules relating to changing how firearm frames or receivers are defined create problems and should not be adopted. Chief among the problems is the confusion they create - the NPRM is over 100 pages long and explains a very complicated scheme of how to define a frame or receiver. This is completely unnecessary. Where there was once a simple definition that was sufficient for decades, there are now a hundred pages providing more than a handful of poorly defined grandfathered configurations, a loose statement about similar configurations, a requirement that new designs be submitted to ATF for classification, and the requirement to engrave not just one but multiple serial numbers on potentially multiple receivers in a single firearm. The problems that recently developed with the definition after decades of use don’t need a hundred pages of re-definition and multiple serial numbers to be solved.

Even the statute that ATF is charged with enforcing by Congress indicates that a firearm has only one frame or receiver, yet ATF now wants to declare there can be multiple receivers in a single firearm, and in turn require that multiple serial numbers be marked on these receivers. It’s clear these serial number markings on a single new firearm must match, but thereafter serialized parts may be exchanged allowing different serial numbers on the same firearm. Is there a controlling serial number for the firearm, and which receiver does that serial number reside on? Which number(s) will be relayed by police in trace, or is every number on a firearm traced? What happens when a firearm with multiple serialized components is repaired with a component that has a different serial number? This just scratches the surface on the confusion this proposed rule creates about the definition of a firearm frame or receiver.

ATF should drop this complicated scheme and find a simple way as suggested above to follow the law. ATF needs to develop a simple definition that people can understand - like a single characteristic of a single part that all firearms have, and which does not have to be sent to ATF for an official determination.



5. Enter your e-mail address

6. Fill out the “Tell us about yourself” section

7. Hit submit



Thank you for your participation!

I'd be sure to make some noticeable changes to something like that . . . I thought I read some place that comments found to be duplicates would only be considered as a single comment.

 

[Fredkrueger100]

They don’t give a rats rear what we have to say.

 

[BobbyV]

They don’t give a rats rear what we have to say.

Seems that way . . .

 

[PBramble]

They don’t give a rats rear what we have to say.

What a coincidence....