AFT coming in hot. Brace for impact (pun intended) but actually this one is concerning the frames and receivers.

AR10ShooterinNC said:
Not worth jail time and lose of rights...It's up to the legal system now.
Click to expand...
And you don't think that if people decide that they are going to stop complying that they would also be willing to put up a fight instead of submitting before the illegitimate legal system? If only a small percentage of the population were to rise up and revolt, the law enforcement and judicial system would fall very quickly.
 
AR10ShooterinNC said:
In the proposed rules, the upper of an AR doesn't get serialized, it stays the same as it is now. Same for the Sig p320 & P365.
Click to expand...
I’ve gotten myself a little confused by what was in the proposed rule vs what is in the final rule. I’m going to finish reading the full doc and then go back and just read the final rule.
Me. said:
There will be way too many people who let some dipshit on YouTube summarize all this for them, without ever reading the only real source of info as to what's happening. The more informed we are, the better off we are.
Click to expand...
Yup, folks in such a big a hurry to spread the news, be an influencer, be the first to know that they spread misinformation. Happens on every topic. Heck most stuff is reposted before it is even read.
 
JimB said:
If I form 1 an SBR today, will they permit “multi” for caliber or configuration, or does this rule make it all a part of one rifle. I am thinking about squeezing an sbr lower in asap, suppose that I can just not build it if the rules change in the middle.
Click to expand...
They used to accept Multi, but haven’t in several years.

You can request a refund on the stamp if you filed one now and didn’t build it. You have three years from the time you paid the tax to request it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Me.
BigWaylon said:
They used to accept Multi, but haven’t in several years.

You can request a refund on the stamp if you filed one now and didn’t build it. You have three years from the time you paid the tax to request it.
Click to expand...
Is it possible to SBR a finished 80%?
 
Timfoilhat said:
Is it possible to SBR a finished 80%?
Click to expand...
Yes. But you do have to create a serial number. Model name is optional.

No different than making your own silencer…at least before the recent changes to that fiasco.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Me.
AR10ShooterinNC said:
At this point just spend the $200 and form 1 a lower, then you can keep all your "pistol" uppers. You just need 1 lower that is an SBR and have many "pistol" uppers.
Click to expand...

Nah…

I hold it against no one who takes this route, but it ain’t for me.
 
BigWaylon said:
Yes. But you do have to create a serial number. Model name is optional.

No different than making your own silencer…at least before the recent changes to that fiasco.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't go that route because it's a little backwards to create a gun off books just to put it on books.
It was a curiosity question.
 
Timfoilhat said:
I wouldn't go that route because it's a little backwards to create a gun off books just to put it on books.
It was a curiosity question.
Click to expand...
A lot of people do it just to have a certain rollmark, etc…not just to keep it off the books. I get your point, and theirs.
 
Me. said:
Combat Armory didn't take long.....

Their marketing banner is a poor choice (IMO)
View attachment 461840
View attachment 461841

I guess with the discount you can use the $25 to pay your FFL....
Click to expand...
Many companies have been offering that on ARs and the glockenspiel clones for several years, mainly because of commie 80% ban states.
 
Johnny said:
Many companies have been offering that on ARs and the glockenspiel clones for several years, mainly because of commie 80% ban states.
Click to expand...
Indeed. Sometimes people just wanted a functional, turn key frame that was not a glock.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Me.
noway2 said:
And you don't think that if people decide that they are going to stop complying that they would also be willing to put up a fight instead of submitting before the illegitimate legal system? If only a small percentage of the population were to rise up and revolt, the law enforcement and judicial system would fall very quickly.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

Laws "work" only when society decides to abide by them.
 
Like most gun laws, it will not be enforced until after you do something dumb or get red flagged. Then you will be screwed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Me.
noway2 said:
If only a small percentage of the population were to rise up and revolt, the law enforcement and judicial system would fall very quickly.
Click to expand...

It only took 3% in 1776. Looks like we're not the same sort of men they were.

Terry
 
Jeppo said:
I lost track of the number of times he mentioned “The AFT”. 🤪

He explained that once a pawn shop buys a ghost gun, it’ll need to “make it/mark it” with a serial number before it can resell it. So, how are pawn shops gonna serialize guns and with which number? Might be a good time to be selling Dymo label makers. 🤔
Click to expand...
With their laser engraver and the number they get from the Fed's after submitting the appropriate forms.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Me.
YeeHaa said:
So,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Click to expand...
It too bad that wasn’t a real insurrection. I read a quote about how if we were to take just 100 of these rats, haul them out and execute them, that it would likely be enough for the others to either decide to retire or clean up their act and it would fix most of the problems we have today.

Here: https://ncrenegade.com/depressing-or-uplifting/
 
What does it mean? Absolutely nothing but a hassle from the BATFE.

Discussion: When Obama acted like a king, bypassing Congress to ban "the gun show loophole" which meant citizens privately selling their firearms without NICS, all that changed was the Form 4473 added transfers between individuals through an FFL dealer to make it look like this was the law. In the same way without an act of Congress Biden's EO only affects the BATFE. There interpretation of a "receiver" will be reinterpreted if possible. Previously anything over 80% complete was considered a "receiver or firearm" and needed to be serialed and Form 1 ed by the manufacturer. Now the BATFE will require all receiver blanks no matter the % complete to be serialed and registered as firearms. What if a manufacturer refuses to? Well if they have the money they can go to the Supreme Court which hopefully rightfully determines that an EO does not have the authority to force such a radical change to the idea of firearm, that only Congress can reinterpret that by law, but today that is a longshot, because "the industry" is not protected by 2A because it is not an individual citizen, therefore it is still subject to BATFE interpretations and regulation and is only 2A protected in the sense of guns need to be available for citizens to excercise their 2A rights. In otherwords the manufacture of firearms for sale can never be banned under 2A.

What does this mean to the individual who makes a "ghost gun" themselves from scratch. It means absolutely nothing! the GCA of 1968 makes no law that stops an individual from making there own gun for their own use, no form 1 registration required or serial number required. There is a slippery slope here though, if that citizen or any inheritor decides to sell the ghost gun it crosses the line of manufactured for sale and I do not know a court precedent that has covered this ground. Tecnically, if you sell the gun you need to serial it, put your name and zip on it (as maufacturer) and register it Form 1 before you sell it by my understanding. The other issue you will run into is that this is such an untested area of law, what do you do if you are found by law enforcement have an unserialed homemade gun. usually LE has no clue about gun law. Then there are State laws, luckily in NC there is no law banning private for personal use manufacture, but again selling a gun you made crosses an invisible line that I have never seem a ruling on yet concerning just where that line is.

In no way does the private personal manufacture include felons. Under the GCA felons cannot be in possession of any firearm homemade or not.
 
Multy said:
What does this mean to the individual who makes a "ghost gun" themselves from scratch. It means absolutely nothing! the GCA of 1968 makes no law that stops an individual from making there own gun for their own use, no form 1 registration required or serial number required. There is a slippery slope here though, if that citizen or any inheritor decides to sell the ghost gun it crosses the line of manufactured for sale and I do not know a court precedent that has covered this ground. Tecnically, if you sell the gun you need to serial it, put your name and zip on it (as maufacturer) and register it Form 1 before you sell it by my understanding.
Click to expand...

If you're not "engaged in the business" of manufacturing, there is no requirement as a non-licensee to serialize a privately made firearm that you sell. ATF suggests that you do so, but it's just that, a suggestion.

Like you say, there can be a slippery slope. As a hypothetical, someone who finishes 500 unserialized P80's a month and sells them out of a car trunk is clearly an unlicensed manufacturer operating illegally. On the other hand, there should be nothing to worry about for someone who sells an unserialized P80 to a friend because they built it 2 years ago and got tired of it. Clearly they are not in the business of manufacturing and selling, and that was not the original intent behind making it. Between those two extreme examples, there's a lot of gray area.

As a disclaimer, I'm speaking here only of free states that don't impose additional restrictions on home-made guns. This is what applies on a purely federal level.
 
So what about the polymer/resin pour kits?
There's no receiver at any % made, just a mold that you fill with your choice of epoxies/plastics/etc. You can even put in supports and mold in rails if you so desire...
 
DrScaryGuy said:
So what about the polymer/resin pour kits?
There's no receiver at any % made, just a mold that you fill with your choice of epoxies/plastics/etc. You can even put in supports and mold in rails if you so desire...
Click to expand...

If you're asking in reference to the new rule, ATF said several times that raw material (block of aluminum, chunk of plastic, whatever) can never be a frame or receiver. The mold could be considered like a jig, but jigs are only a problem if they're sold together with a readily convertible receiver.

I think this scenario is legally equivalent to having a CNC machine and a block of aluminum. Once you press the button and mill the block into a receiver, you've got a gun. But until that point, it's nothing in the ATF's eyes.

However, if the polymer pour kit was easy to do at home and became popular to the level of a P80 kit, they would probably bend over backwards to find some other interpretation that would let them regulate it. That's why the frame/receiver rule is so weird and contorted, they started from an end result and worked backwards to find a legal framework to achieve it.
 
shackleford said:
If you're asking in reference to the new rule, ATF said several times that raw material (block of aluminum, chunk of plastic, whatever) can never be a frame or receiver. The mold could be considered like a jig, but jigs are only a problem if they're sold together with a readily convertible receiver.

I think this scenario is legally equivalent to having a CNC machine and a block of aluminum. Once you press the button and mill the block into a receiver, you've got a gun. But until that point, it's nothing in the ATF's eyes.

However, if the polymer pour kit was easy to do at home and became popular to the level of a P80 kit, they would probably bend over backwards to find some other interpretation that would let them regulate it. That's why the frame/receiver rule is so weird and contorted, they started from an end result and worked backwards to find a legal framework to achieve it.
Click to expand...
The mold would be a true ghost gun…as the void inside is an invisible firearm. Bazinga!
 
Me. said:
In your sentence, who is "they"? The ATF, or the 80% lower makers?
Click to expand...

ATF. They were tasked with a political objective: eliminate the 80% market, because it's an obvious problem for a government that wants universal registration (don't forget about the indefinite 4473 retention part of this rule). And secondarily, deliver a "win" (however small it may be) for the Democrat gun control agenda, which so far has been a conspicuous failure.

Me. said:
I'm no ATF apologist, but it was clearly people wanting to skirt ATF regs who came up with the "80% receiver" in the first place. It was a case of "how far can we push before we've crossed the line" on the side of manufacturers.
Click to expand...

Words mean something, and the letter of the law matters. Either someone is complying with a law, or they aren't. If compliance is impossible because nobody understands what the law means, that's kind of a problem if you want to be a law-abiding citizen. I suspect a lot of people on this forum would consider themselves literalists when it comes to the Constitution -- it means what it says, right? Why are lesser laws different, that not only the literal law must be obeyed, but also a constantly shifting interpretation of what the law is supposed to be for?

Is it "skirting" the law if someone downloads an STL and prints a Glock frame on a $150 3D printer with less effort than even a P80 frame requires? If not, why not?

The simple fact is, technology has marched on since 1968. 3D metal printers exist too and will become more affordable over time. Same with CNC machines that can be run at home. This cat is not going back in the bag, no matter what. Unless our society becomes an absolute North Korea style police state that most people would find unimaginable (and a few people would love to implement).
 
Me. said:
In your sentence, who is "they"? The ATF, or the 80% lower makers?


I'm no ATF apologist, but it was clearly people wanting to skirt ATF regs who came up with the "80% receiver" in the first place. It was a case of "how far can we push before we've crossed the line" on the side of manufacturers.

This isn't some sort of "OH NOES GUBMINT OVERREACH" situation (IMO). This is a case of folks pushing the boundary, and the boundary pushing back.


The ruling has little effect on the home builder of guns. It's pointed at makers of guns who wink-wink-nod-nod pretend they are not makers of guns.


The ATF isn't saying this is a pie:

View attachment 462517

They are not even saying this is a pie:

View attachment 462518 View attachment 462520


They are saying THIS is a pie:
View attachment 462519





Already over at Polymer80 I'm sure they are brainstorming the new definition of "readily" and working on the next thing that pushes the limits.




I assume the P80 market is primarily the shooting hobbyist and in a far-far-distant second place criminals who want to obtain guns illegally. Still, the "shooting community" (if there is such a thing) fancies itself a law-abiding lot. Many on this forum are old enough to remember when these ready-to-bake frames didn't exist. If we return to those days, who really cares?


The loss of the 80% market won't prevent any crime, but it won't prevent a single law-abiding person from getting their hands on a gun either.


Maybe I'm Fudding out in my old age. 😕
Click to expand...
The ATF isn't saying this is a pie:

Today they aren't, but we all know that within 5 years they will move the goal post. Then they will...

Maybe I'm Fudding out in my old age.

I appreciate you, and your opinion, but I disagree with it. Now is the time to push the limits. Evolve and, when necessary, get these things struck down in the courts, just like bump stocks.

It doesn't matter if you own or agree with bump stocks, 80% frames, Form 1 suppressors, FRTs, etc. At least agree that we, as Americans, need to push back on every piece of nonsense that the ATF throws at us.

As said above, the ATF is a gov controlled group with a gov pushed agenda. We have to push back, in the courts, at every bit of overreach, until the day it's time to push back in a much more aggressive and physical way.
 
Last edited:
Me. said:
In your sentence, who is "they"? The ATF, or the 80% lower makers?


I'm no ATF apologist, but it was clearly people wanting to skirt ATF regs who came up with the "80% receiver" in the first place. It was a case of "how far can we push before we've crossed the line" on the side of manufacturers.

This isn't some sort of "OH NOES GUBMINT OVERREACH" situation (IMO). This is a case of folks pushing the boundary, and the boundary pushing back.


The ruling has little effect on the home builder of guns. It's pointed at makers of guns who wink-wink-nod-nod pretend they are not makers of guns.


The ATF isn't saying this is a pie:

View attachment 462517

They are not even saying this is a pie:

View attachment 462518 View attachment 462520


They are saying THIS is a pie:
View attachment 462519





Already over at Polymer80 I'm sure they are brainstorming the new definition of "readily" and working on the next thing that pushes the limits.




I assume the P80 market is primarily the shooting hobbyist and in a far-far-distant second place criminals who want to obtain guns illegally. Still, the "shooting community" (if there is such a thing) fancies itself a law-abiding lot. Many on this forum are old enough to remember when these ready-to-bake frames didn't exist. If we return to those days, who really cares?


The loss of the 80% market won't prevent any crime, but it won't prevent a single law-abiding person from getting their hands on a gun either.


Maybe I'm Fudding out in my old age. 😕
Click to expand...
But is anyone here naive enough to believe they intend stop here?
 
Last edited:
noway2 said:
It too bad that wasn’t a real insurrection. I read a quote about how if we were to take just 100 of these rats, haul them out and execute them, that it would likely be enough for the others to either decide to retire or clean up their act and it would fix most of the problems we have today.

Here: https://ncrenegade.com/depressing-or-uplifting/
Click to expand...
You can't getrid of cockroaches by only killing the colony in the kitchen! And this is a much worse infestation!😊
 
Last edited:
Gunbelt said:
You can't getrid of cockroaches by only killing the colony in the kitchen! And this is a much worse infestation!😊
Click to expand...
If we’re lucky, they’re like mice, kill a few and get a cat. The rest scatter and go elsewhere. Besides, if the initial 100 isn’t enough, we can keep going. My grandparents generation kept going until both Germany and Japan lost the will to fight anymore.
 
Me. said:
I'm no ATF apologist, but it was clearly people wanting to skirt ATF regs who came up with the "80% receiver" in the first place. It was a case of "how far can we push before we've crossed the line" on the side of manufacturers.

This isn't some sort of "OH NOES GUBMINT OVERREACH" situation (IMO). This is a case of folks pushing the boundary, and the boundary pushing back.
Click to expand...

The boundary was established December 15, 1791. It tells the government, “This, you shall not do.”

Unfortunately, .gov has made it a practice to fabricate methods that skirt the law they are bound to follow.

Maybe, just maybe, 80% lowers, 3D printing, pistol braces, forced-reset triggers and the like are not folks trying to circumvent the “law”, but to retake a bit of the liberty that was rightfully theirs to begin with.

That, right there, is the “boundary” pushing back.

WE are in the right…not them.
 
Last edited:
Dale Gribble said:
WE are in the right…not them.
Click to expand...
The irony is that the only tool they really have to uphold their illegitimate declarations is physical force, and the ironic part is that We The People outnumber them and can out force them 1,000x over or more. Anyone who accepts the Crown‘s shekel in exchange for being a force arm of wrong is the enemy.
 
noway2 said:
The irony is that the only tool they really have to uphold their illegitimate declarations is physical force, and the ironic part is that We The People outnumber them and can out force them 1,000x over or more. Anyone who accepts the Crown‘s shekel in exchange for being a force arm of wrong is the enemy.
Click to expand...
Testify!
 
Me. said:
In your sentence, who is "they"? The ATF, or the 80% lower makers?


I'm no ATF apologist, but it was clearly people wanting to skirt ATF regs who came up with the "80% receiver" in the first place. It was a case of "how far can we push before we've crossed the line" on the side of manufacturers.

This isn't some sort of "OH NOES GUBMINT OVERREACH" situation (IMO). This is a case of folks pushing the boundary, and the boundary pushing back.


The ruling has little effect on the home builder of guns. It's pointed at makers of guns who wink-wink-nod-nod pretend they are not makers of guns.


The ATF isn't saying this is a pie:

View attachment 462517

They are not even saying this is a pie:

View attachment 462518 View attachment 462520


They are saying THIS is a pie:
View attachment 462519





Already over at Polymer80 I'm sure they are brainstorming the new definition of "readily" and working on the next thing that pushes the limits.




I assume the P80 market is primarily the shooting hobbyist and in a far-far-distant second place criminals who want to obtain guns illegally. Still, the "shooting community" (if there is such a thing) fancies itself a law-abiding lot. Many on this forum are old enough to remember when these ready-to-bake frames didn't exist. If we return to those days, who really cares?


The loss of the 80% market won't prevent any crime, but it won't prevent a single law-abiding person from getting their hands on a gun either.


Maybe I'm Fudding out in my old age
Click to expand...
P80 has made readily available completed frames with SN which go thru a FFL. Those old enough will also remember the machine gun parts kits in the early 80s, you just had to make your own receiver after getting ATF approval. Snail mail and it paid to know someone who already ventured into this realm. I had a STEN MkII parts kit in 86' when I turned 21 yo but the Hugh's Amendment closed the NFA registry that year for full autos. Didn't get it done.

CD
 
Dale Gribble said:
The boundary was established December 15, 1791. It tells the government, “This, you shall not do.”

Unfortunately, .gov has made it a practice to fabricate methods that skirt the law they are bound to follow.

Maybe, just maybe, 80% lowers, 3D printing, pistol braces, forced-reset triggers and the like are not folks trying to circumvent the “law”, but to retake a bit of the liberty that was rightfully theirs to begin with.

That, right there, is the “boundry” pushing back.

WE are in the right…not them
Click to expand...
During the American Revolution thru the War of Northern Aggression, all guns were Ghost guns.

CD
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom