A discussion on firearms-related EOs ONLY (no political rants)

[DDTSGM]

@Dan Lehr

Because what you propose is fine here in General Discussion - Would you like to repurpose this thread into what you propose or do you want to start a new thread? If so, I'll copy the text from my Biden Executive Action post in the Poli forum over minus the last bit of political commentary I added. I think it would provide some basic information as to the state of what we're seeing here.

Sounds like a good idea.

[DDTSGM]

The Justice Department, within 30 days, will issue a proposed rule to help stop the proliferation of “ghost guns.”.......When these firearms turn up at crime scenes, they often cannot be traced by law enforcement due to the lack of a serial number.

So what is a common sense answer to the 'proposed rule?'

Would it make sense to allow 30-40% lowers to be sold w/o serial numbers, while anything else would require serial numbers?

From my experience in looking at 80% lowers, fully finished generic stripped lowers (PSA, Anderson, Mega, etc.) can be found cheaper than the 80% blanks. That, plus the jig I wanted is back-ordered till eternity, quenched my desire to go the 80% route. Plus, if I gifted one to one of my grandkids, I'd have to go through the whole engraving and notifying ATF thing, so WTF.

Obviously, there are hobbyists who just want to do it themselves, but I think that most folks who build 80% lowers want a firearm the government can't possibly know they have. I'm not sure what, if anything, will appease the latter.

The Justice Department, within 60 days, will issue a proposed rule to make clear when a device marketed as a stabilizing brace effectively turns a pistol into a short-barreled rifle subject to the requirements of the National Firearms Act.

I agree with rcbusmc24's opinion:

On the braces.... keeping in mind that the following is my personal opinion, I could see some of the original non adjustable braces on slick receiver extensions making the cut as a tool to allow disabled shooters to utilize a AR pistol but I think that anything with a folder or with adjustment built in will be eventually determined to be bad to go.... So pretty much everything from the blades onward....Not saying this is what should be, but in my mind I can see this being the dividing line that the ATF takes between what they determine is acceptable for disabled utilization vice crossing into NFA territory...

I would envision a tube cover with ONLY straps to attach to the forearm - the bottom of the tube cover could be padded or formed to fit the person's forearm, but the rear portion of the device could in no way be configured to function as a butt/recoil pad.

The Justice Department, within 60 days, will publish model “red flag” legislation for states.

My concerns about PROPERLY CONSTRUCTED Red Flag Laws are minimal. To me a properly constructed law: 1) requires a probable cause hearing before a judge; 2) includes a requirement for an initial appeal within a reasonable time (1 month is my gut feeling), mandatory review at six months and a rehearing at one year - NO AUTOMATIC RENEWALS; 3) requires the agency to maintain the firearms in the same condition they are found with the exception of REQUIRED actions to prevent damage from corrosion, etc. during storage; 4) requires court appointed counsel for indigent persons; 5) sets penalties for nuisance red flag claims and perjury in affidavits.

The Administration is investing in evidence-based community violence interventions. Community violence interventions are proven strategies for reducing gun violence in urban communities through tools other than incarceration.

1) The American Jobs Plan proposes a $5 billion investment over eight years to support community violence intervention programs. A key part of community violence intervention strategies is to help connect individuals to job training and job opportunities.

2) The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is organizing a webinar and toolkit to educate states on how they can use Medicaid to reimburse certain community violence intervention programs, like Hospital-Based Violence Interventions.

3) Five federal agencies are making changes to 26 different programs to direct vital support to community violence intervention programs as quickly as possible. These changes mean we can start increasing investments in community violence interventions as we wait on Congress to appropriate additional funds.

I'm not opposed to this EXCEPT when a firearm has been used in the furtherance of a criminal act, incarceration for some period of time is the answer.

For existing programs there needs to be some benchmark to measure program effectiveness before Congress allocates additional funds. Same for new or repurposed programs.

[okie john]

@Dan Lehr

Because what you propose is fine here in General Discussion - Would you like to repurpose this thread into what you propose or do you want to start a new thread? If so, I'll copy the text from my Biden Executive Action post in the Poli forum over minus the last bit of political commentary I added. I think it would provide some basic information as to the state of what we're seeing here.

Quoting Rob back to Rob to clarify for all hands:

Remember that Executive Actions are NOT Executive Orders - An Action is effectively a memo, ordering that agencies attempt to rectify certain issues within the existing confines of the law.

I like to think of this as little more than the Biden administration shaking their tiny fists in rage but I do not find that reassuring.


Okie John

[5pins]

Didn't the AFT go after Polymer 80 for their build and shoot kits because it included everything needed to make a shootable pistol in only a few minutes? Maybe that is the angel they will approach. If the manufacture or retailer sells an 80% frame and all the parts and tools needed to finish it, then the AFT will consider it a firearm.

The only other way I can think they may try is to say once the mag well is cut then it's a frame. Cutting the mag well is something beyond what most people can do easily.

[Borderland]

[B]

From my experience in looking at 80% lowers, fully finished generic stripped lowers (PSA, Anderson, Mega, etc.) can be found cheaper than the 80% blanks. That, plus the jig I wanted is back-ordered till eternity, quenched my desire to go the 80% route. Plus, if I gifted one to one of my grandkids, I'd have to go through the whole engraving and notifying ATF thing, so WTF.

I'm not up on the price of finished lowers but I recall here in WA a few years ago people were buying them in large numbers just to avoid the new state restrictions. IIRC you could buy a metal one for about $50-$60. My dealer friend told me he sold hundreds of them and people were telling him that if they ever decided to build an AR they didn't want the rifle it in the state database nor did they want the extended waiting period or the medical records waiver to buy one. I didn't buy a lower but I bought a carbine a few months before the new law went into affect.

[DDTSGM]

My dealer friend told me he sold hundreds of them and people were telling him that if they ever decided to build an AR they didn't want the rifle it in the state database nor did they want the extended waiting period or the medical records waiver to buy one.

Living in Kansas, those type things weren't in my thought process. In fact:

Kansas: Senate Passes Two Pro-Gun Measures with Bipartisan Support

https://www.nraila.org/articles/2021...representative

[CleverNickname]

Plus, if I gifted one to one of my grandkids, I'd have to go through the whole engraving and notifying ATF thing, so WTF.

There's no requirement in federal law for an unlicensed person to ever put a serial number or any other identifying information on a title I firearm that they make, even if they later sell it or give it away. There's no requirement to notify the ATF if you do, either. A unlicensed person can't make a firearm with the intent of selling or giving it away, so if you had bought and completed some 80% lowers, depending on your intent it might or might not have been legal for you to give them to your grandkids. But whether such a firearm had a serial number on it wouldn't have made a difference in the legality.

[BehindBlueI's]

If your post is missing, read the thread title again.

[DDTSGM]

There's no requirement in federal law for an unlicensed person to ever put a serial number or any other identifying information on a title I firearm that they make, even if they later sell it or give it away. There's no requirement to notify the ATF if you do, either. A unlicensed person can't make a firearm with the intent of selling or giving it away, so if you had bought and completed some 80% lowers, depending on your intent it might or might not have been legal for you to give them to your grandkids. But whether such a firearm had a serial number on it wouldn't have made a difference in the legality.

I'm aware I can't build a specific firearm with the intent of selling or giving away. My thought is that since the grandkids I'm referring to are seven or eight years away from being old enough to have AR's I would build 80%'s and when the time came pass on whichever rifles weren't striking my fancy at the time, whether completed from 80% lower or stripped lower. So my intent would not be to build a specific firearm to sell or give away, at a later date that could change - as is allowed by law. In that respect I should be good to go.

As far as serial number or no serial number when transferring a homemade firearm, I've read opinions in both directions. I don't want to be the test case. It looks to me like many folks, including this guy, just keep casting their nets until they get the answer they want:

In the letter signed by Sterling Nixon, Chief, Firearms Technology Branch, Nixon makes the statement:

…a nonlicensee may manufacture a semiautomatic rifle for his or her own personal use…However, if the firearm is transferred to another party at some point in the future, the firearm must be marked in accordance with the provisions set forth in 27 CFR § 478.92 (formerly 178.92).

Since the words “must be marked” appear, people sometime assume that means the personally made and used firearm that is now being transferred must be marked. However, the full statement includes “must be marked in accordance with…27 CFR § 478.92”, which clearly only applies to FFL holders. In other words, as I understand it, not placing markings on the gun would not take you out of compliance with 27 CFR § 478.92, so long as you did not otherwise fall under the requirements of the CFR.

I confirmed this through a series of e-mails with Specialist Babbie when I asked this question:

For clarification, if I (not a licensed manufacturer or importer) make a firearm for personal use and at some later date I decide to sell it, am I required to have it marked with any information? If so, what information would be required?

Specialist Babbie provided this clear and unambiguous response:

Firearms markings are only required by those who are licensed importers, licensed manufacturers, and those who make an NFA firearm for personal use.  Those marks would be made at the time of import, manufacture, or when an NFA firearm was made for personal use. Under Federal law, no markings would be required in your circumstance. (emphasis added)

https://www.gunsholstersandgear.com/...emade-firearm/

[Bergeron]

[B]T

The Justice Department, within 60 days, will issue a proposed rule to make clear when a device marketed as a stabilizing brace effectively turns a pistol into a short-barreled rifle subject to the requirements of the National Firearms Act.

For what little this comment is worth, there is a stabilizing brace, and there is a stock. The two things are different, and I would most strongly disagree with the notion that a brace "effectively turns a pistol into a short-barreled rifle." It is a stabilizing brace, or it is a stock.

All of this "effectively" and "simulated" sort of language creates only terrible standards and case law, and I oppose it in the strongest possible manners.

Get fucked hard, ATF.