UZI Talk Forums
Closed Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 26

Thread: ATF looking to redefine the upper receiver as the registered part.

  1. #1
    Registered User Doobis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    112

    ATF looking to redefine the upper receiver as the registered part.

    I am not sure what this will mean for the transferable market

    https://www.ammoland.com/2021/03/atf...iversity-guns/

    I would like to think this concept would be for all future manufacturing.

  2. #2
    UZI Talk Supporter
    root's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    3,299
    I'm pretty sure slides and uppers can be made into 80's just as easily as the lowers.
    And im also pretty sure there are a few that can make slides and uppers out of plain barstock or sheet metal.

    They are pissing in the wind and gonna get it all over themselves doing so.
    All we will have then is both uppers and lowers being made out of so called 80's instead of just the lowers.
    Jokes on them.

  3. #3
    UZI Talk Supporter
    sniperdoc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    4,984
    80% barrels, bolts, triggers, hammers, and springs.
    80% stocks have been around as long as I can remember!

  4. #4
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    646
    Trouble is, how any million unserialized uppers already exist?

  5. #5
    UZI Talk Life Member
    kanewtervalve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,120
    I have 3 A3 uppers in my parts containers, they're basically worthless to me, got the complete uppers for a steal and switched them all to A2s, wonder what non serialized uppers will go for in the future?

  6. #6
    UZI Talk Supporter

    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    42
    Would our Lage uppers be safe? I thought that there was a good chance that bumpfire stocks would be banned at some point but I assumed that the existing ones would be grandfathered in. I was right on the first point but wrong on the second. Anecdotally speaking it looks as though the ATF is already pumping the brakes on the MAC family uppers. Just look at the Tenko (great product) and the Max 11/15 (also great) for the baby MAC and fat MAC. Seems it *should* be an easy pass at least for the Lage uppers considering the same configuration has already been passed for the M-11 but that doesn't seem to be the case.

  7. #7
    UZI Talk Life Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Near Houston, TX
    Posts
    2,695
    Seems to me that the current administration and the media are lowering expectations of 'what is possible' on a Federal level and instead encouraging states to pass restrictions.

    But unarguably the BATF can drag their feet and make many things difficult for entrepreneurs and manufacturers.

    Going to be a long 4 or 8+ years.

    My personal plan is to selectively acquire more than I need for my lifetime - any mag and firearm that might get restricted - and hope there is a grandfather clause that applies to them.
    My name is actually Scott and I really do live in Texas.

    I know, not very creative but it is factual.

    By the way - Facebook is truly evil; resist the urge to participate.

  8. #8
    UZI Talk Life Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Southern New Hampshire
    Posts
    2,190
    As stated in the article:

    " 27 C.F.R. 478.11, the definition of firearm frame/receiver states that it is 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.”

    As written, neither a Mac style lower receiver nor an AR-15/M16 lower contains all of the features listed. But neither does the upper. It is my understanding that the "mechanism" is basically the recoil spring. So it would seem to me that the problem of the definition has existed since the enactment of the National Firearms Act of 1934. The original model of 1921/28 Thompson sub machinegun has most of those items listed in the definition, in the upper receiver, which is considered the registered part. But the part that strikes the firing pin is in the lower receiver.

    A privious Chief of the Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division, complained about the very issue that the lower of the AR-15/M16, which is the registered part, only has half the features listed in the definition 30 years ago. It is my understanding that he testified for the guy in CA accused of having an AR-15 lower receiver build party. Congress makes laws. The BATF&E is part of the Executive Branch, which enforces the laws. This is Congress's problem to fix. The BATF&E can make recommendations to Congress period. If an object must have all of the features listed to be legally considered a "firearm", then there are lots of objects with maker's information and serial numbers that are not legally firearms. The only way that I know of to fix that is for Congress to amendment the definition of "firearm frames or receiver". YMMV.

    Scott

  9. #9
    UZI Talk Supporter
    root's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    3,299
    Ummm there is no way to fix it.
    It's to little to late.

    Can't stop the SIGNAL now, that's for sure.

    They even waited to long to even begin to get control of 3d printers.

  10. #10
    Registered User Deerhurst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    230
    Quote Originally Posted by root View Post
    Ummm there is no way to fix it.
    It's to little to late.

    Can't stop the SIGNAL now, that's for sure.

    They even waited to long to even begin to get control of 3d printers.
    3D printers we're out of their control from the start. There was never a feasable way to control what you print.


    As Scott said, it's not an ATF thing but a congress thing. ATF has done so much rule making they think they are actually allowed to do it and we let them.

  11. #11
    UZI Talk Supporter
    root's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    3,299
    They have floated the idea of tagging 3d printers like drones and then only allowing them to print when connected to the internet on a certain up addy.

    Problem is like a lathe they are self replicating and anything that can be done with software can be reversed by someone else.
    So even if put on a monitored internet connection the spoofing possibilities are endless. So endless they are beyond the scope of this thread.

    As far as laws? Im pretty sure it's a free for all behind that fence in DC right now. And they will and are doing anything they want.

    They would be better off passing a law to make crime ilegal with punishment by fines and jail time.
    Last edited by root; 03-31-2021 at 09:48 AM. Reason: Mr potato fone written by Dr suess

  12. #12
    UZI Talk Supporter
    sniperdoc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    4,984
    Yep, just outlaw crime!

  13. #13
    UZI Talk Life Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Southern New Hampshire
    Posts
    2,190
    It seems to me that the "firearm frame or receiver" definition could be fixed with a more precise definition with priorities for the features listed. Our system is designed to have one specific part be designated the "firearm frame or receiver" that is the regulated part. The Europeans have focused on the parts that hold the cartridge pressure, the bolt or breach and the barrel. But that is not the system we have chosen.

    As far a 3D printing, certainly the Technology has developed to the point where some models of firearm frames or receivers can be printed. But 80% metal or polymer frames or receivers can be machined from solid metal, and finished at home. So again there would need to be a law change because non firearms frames or receivers are not regulated under current law.

    Scott

  14. #14
    UZI Talk Life Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    DFW
    Posts
    987
    The problem is even if Congress could agree on something, it is almost impossible to define a "firearm receiver" that would apply to all situations. If you change the definition to say a receiver contains A, B, and C, someone will design a firearm that has A and B in the lower and C in the upper and neither is a receiver. The only way a universal definition would work is to say a receiver normally has A, B, C, D, and E and the component of the complete firearm that has the majority of the enumerated features is the receiver. Unfortunately even this approach would entail some interpretation by the BATF to determine which component has the majority of the listed features.

  15. #15
    UZI Talk Life Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Southern New Hampshire
    Posts
    2,190
    Quote Originally Posted by nklf View Post
    The problem is even if Congress could agree on something, it is almost impossible to define a "firearm receiver" that would apply to all situations. If you change the definition to say a receiver contains A, B, and C, someone will design a firearm that has A and B in the lower and C in the upper and neither is a receiver. The only way a universal definition would work is to say a receiver normally has A, B, C, D, and E and the component of the complete firearm that has the majority of the enumerated features is the receiver. Unfortunately even this approach would entail some interpretation by the BATF to determine which component has the majority of the listed features.
    Well, to me there are the the hammer, bolt or breechblock, firing mechanism, and its forward portion to receive the barrel could be prioritized such that the part that houses the most of the four features listed would be the regulated part. If the four features are split evenly, then there would be a tie breaking feature like the hammer (to be determined by Congress) which was take president as to which housing would be the regulated part. The firearms that have already been determined as to the regulated part could be included in the legislation. It seems to me that is what the BATF&E has already been doing. Just a thought.

    Scott

  16. #16
    Registered User Deerhurst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    230
    Quote Originally Posted by A&S Conversions View Post
    It seems to me that the "firearm frame or receiver" definition could be fixed with a more precise definition with priorities for the features listed. Our system is designed to have one specific part be designated the "firearm frame or receiver" that is the regulated part. The Europeans have focused on the parts that hold the cartridge pressure, the bolt or breach and the barrel. But that is not the system we have chosen.

    As far a 3D printing, certainly the Technology has developed to the point where some models of firearm frames or receivers can be printed. But 80% metal or polymer frames or receivers can be machined from solid metal, and finished at home. So again there would need to be a law change because non firearms frames or receivers are not regulated under current law.

    Scott
    There are metal printers too and people are EDM rifling barrels in their living rooms. We can make every part of a firearm from home depot and amazon right now.

  17. #17
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    646
    Quote Originally Posted by A&S Conversions View Post
    Well, to me there are the the hammer, bolt or breechblock, firing mechanism, and its forward portion to receive the barrel could be prioritized such that the part that houses the most of the four features listed would be the regulated part. If the four features are split evenly, then there would be a tie breaking feature like the hammer (to be determined by Congress) which was take president as to which housing would be the regulated part. The firearms that have already been determined as to the regulated part could be included in the legislation. It seems to me that is what the BATF&E has already been doing. Just a thought.

    Scott
    I hold a .22LR bbl in my left hand with a chambered round. I use a 3lb sledge hammer in my right hand to slam against the base of the cartridge and fire it. Is my left hand or my right hand the receiver? Any definition that sez "houses A B and C" or similar you simply split the assembly into more pieces. There are already "modular" AR15 lowers where the magwell portion dovetails onto the rear so you can swap magazine platforms from standard AR15 to Ak47 to pistol caliber subgun mags. What about Browning type MGs? A sideplate houses nothing, it merely encloses the works on one side.

  18. #18
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    in the wilds
    Posts
    284
    In England and many parts of the EU as I understand it at least until the currenty rounds of guns laws any part that bore pressure was the control part so for a long time M16 lowers full auto stuff like that were just that a chunk of metal .. But barrel , bolt , the like were the controled part .. As I guest they firg you could have all the lowers you want dont mean diddly if you had no barrel or way of shooting em ... Now with the recent gun changes who knows what us ..


    And I see this being a massive issue here as how many AR15 uppers etc are out there millions .. Few firearms the upper is the controled part ( FAL and the like come to mind ) .. Never mind spare pistol slides like Glock , Sig etc .. Or guns that use the FCG as the serial part like the 320 and the other sigs ..

    This would be a massive undertaken ...

  19. #19
    UZI Talk Life Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Southern New Hampshire
    Posts
    2,190
    Quote Originally Posted by slimshady View Post
    I hold a .22LR bbl in my left hand with a chambered round. I use a 3lb sledge hammer in my right hand to slam against the base of the cartridge and fire it. Is my left hand or my right hand the receiver? Any definition that sez "houses A B and C" or similar you simply split the assembly into more pieces. There are already "modular" AR15 lowers where the magwell portion dovetails onto the rear so you can swap magazine platforms from standard AR15 to Ak47 to pistol caliber subgun mags. What about Browning type MGs? A sideplate houses nothing, it merely encloses the works on one side.
    It would seem to me, the 3lb hammer would be the regulated part as it would be the closest item to the definition. Of course I would think that bringing a pipe and a hammer to market as a .22 caliber would fire would have liability issues. To be clear the current definition of firearm frame or receiver has no mention of ammunition feeding. So the magwell/ammunition feeding part of the receiver makes no difference. As far as the right side plate, again that was a determination that could be written into the new definition. Why the right side plate was chosen 100 years ago, I don't know.

    Scott
    Last edited by A&S Conversions; 03-31-2021 at 03:10 PM.

  20. #20
    UZI Talk Life Member
    strobro32's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    7,248
    I think America should start seriously considering dismantling the BATFE. It's a redundant federal agency that could be better managed under a number of newer, better managed, existing agencies. After all, it was originally an excuse to retain employees of our government prohibition era entitlement programs. We can do better.

Closed Thread

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts


Please consider becoming an UZI Talk Supporter.