Last week was a busy week in the firearms community. Namely, the ATF dropped a 115-page document outlining their proposed changes to firearm definitions. This has caused a lot of commotion, some of it justified some of it a bit overblown. Since may potentially have an impact on our lives, discussing this proposed rule change will be pretty much the topic this week.
First off, here is the link to the document summary. From here you can go and read the full document. Yes, it is 115 pages, it covers a lot of information that is in legalese, which can be dry and hard to understand at times. However, unless you plan on looking up every reference and cross-referencing it, it reads a bit more like 60 pages. Still, a chunk of text to read, but that is where everyone should begin. The reason is simple, there are a lot of claims that are being made that either misrepresent or purposely mislead what this document seems to be actually saying. So take the time to read it for yourself and inoculate yourself against some of the BS coming from guys who make money off sensationalism.
What does it do?
Well, first off, it makes it clear what is considered a firearm and what is not. This is something that has been in the courts. The ATF obviously disagrees with recent court rulings that would make AR-15 lower receivers, striker-fired pistol receivers, FAL receivers, and other “Multipiece” firearm designs which do not neatly fit the 1968 Gun Control Act definition of a Firearm. Our side rightly points out the inconsistency here, and that under current rules, an AR-15 receiver technically is not a firearm, the ATF proposed rule change will change the definition to basically make clear to the Courts that at least one component of a multipiece firearm must bear a serial number and is defined as the transferable item.
Some people claim that this means that AR Uppers or Glock Slides are now going to be serialized and will also require a 4473. However, I do not think this is the intent, as at the end of the document (pages 86 thru 88) provide what parts of the firearm will be considered the receiver and require a serial number. None of the examples are different from what we are already used to. In fact, this may be, a bit of good news for some firearm makers. For example, those who make bolt action upper receivers that mount on AR-15 lower. The ATF sent a cease and desist to some companies, including a company in Utah claiming that they were making and selling a firearm. Clearing up this definition could allow these manufacturers to sell bolt action uppers without the requirement for a 4473.
It also provides manufacturers of suppressors some leniency when dealing with suppressor parts. Since a baffle, or a wipe, is considered a suppressor part, it is tightly controlled. However many of us will rightly ask, when does an O-Ring cease to be an O-Ring and instead becomes a suppressor wipe? The ATF does not seem to answer this, but they do seem to say that baffles and other internal components will not require individual serialization, or the transfer of parts during the manufacturing process from one company to another (for example, Nickle plating an internal component such as a baffle by a third party). This cuts down on the paperwork and tracking requirements for both parties. Does not do anything for people who privately own and would like to get parts to repair their own suppressor.
Defines what a Privately Made Firearm (PMF) is, and how it is to be handled. Honestly, this section is not clear to me. The way I understand it is that firearms made by an individual, and are for individual use are still legal. If I want to take a file to a piece of round stock and carve out my own receiver I can do that. However, if I wish to later sell that firearm, then I cannot do it unless it has a serial number, date of manufacture, and place of manufacture. These engravings must be done by a licensed gunsmith. If there are PMF’s in a gun store inventory then they must either be marked or be destroyed. So the bottom line is, if we want to turn out our own firearms, we are still legal to do so, but if we want to sell it, it has to be serialized and put “on record” by a gunsmith.
Here is what we get into the crux of the bill. The so-called “Ghost Gun” portion. The issue at hand here, is when does a firearm become a firearm? The ATF is basically expanding the definition that they can call just about anything, up to including a block of aluminum a receiver if they think it is too easy for a nefarious individual to turn it into something that can go “Bang”. Honestly, reading the wording, I was very surprised by how purposely vague it was.
I think this is going to have the intended effect of killing 80% of receivers, and receiver kits. Honestly, it may kill a lot of the important demilled kits. Like the kit, I purchased to build my own VZ-58. This is a real bummer for me because I really enjoy these kits and when I have a bit of time and money, my hope was to pick another one up and build it out. Of all the text that was in this document, this is what was probably the most constitutionally fraught, and is very likely where we will see the strongest court challenge.
I am not 100% up on the record-keeping requirements of FFL dealers but this proposed rule looks to be extending the requirements from 10 years to 20 years. Which, I can only imagine the burden that will be for some FFL’s who have high volumes of sales. That just seems completely arduous, and maybe even a bit punitive.
What are my overall thoughts on it? Quite frankly, for the average firearm owner, and even the above-average firearm owner, this is going to have very little effect. It will go mostly unnoticed, and I suspect the ATF intended it that way. They are not stupid, they know if they rock the boat too much they will get a Supreme Court ruling that goes against them, or they will motivate legislative action that will undue their administrative changes. What we should take away from it, it is an example of incrementalism. The slow erosion of freedoms that to directly impacts the free exercise of a constitutional Right.
The ATF wrote several long pages about how they are defending these rules changes, citing precedence and FBI data on ghost guns. It is important to remember when reading this you are getting only one side of the argument. Unfortunately, the data they cite does show that several thousand “Privately Made Firearms” are being recovered at crime scenes and the trend is on the upward climb. Which poses a question to us, what alternative solutions do we propose to reverse this trend, or do are we willing to argue that in the interest of the free exercise of a constitutional right that we must be willing to tolerate some level of illicit behavior. Personally, I find myself more drawn to the latter argument, but it is a harder argument to sell to the general public, regardless, I believe it to be the right one.
Anyway, as you read over the proposed rule change, let me know if presented a fair assessment. Again, I am not trying to be sensational in anything I present, just trying to understand it and understand its potential impacts on both my industry and my hobby.
Anyway, as you read over the proposed rule change, let me know if presented a fair assessment. Again, I am not trying to be sensational in anything I present, just trying to understand it and understand its potential impacts on both my industry and my hobby. This is a single topic post this week, since it a long one, I keep it to that. I’ve got some more stuff I’d like to share but I will save it for next week.
As always if you are looking to get in touch, best way is to send me an email jay@theballisticassistant.com. You may check us out on Parler, Facebook, Instagram, and Reddit. If you’d like to submit a load to our load database, the instructions are here.
As always, shoot straight and stay safe!
The Ballistic Assistant