https://apple.news/AGzFWvf6IQ62VULIIhFlgvA

This is not dispositive of the issue. The Court has simply allowed the refs to remain in effect until litigation is resolved.

No rational was given.

“Ghost Guns” are those kits. I have seen them marketed as 80 percent recovers and such.

Does this only apply to kits, or if I buy a billet of metal and make it from scratch is that banned as well?

The Zero Percent Receiver. Might be a clash here with First Amendment.

The Zero Percent Receiver. Might be a clash here with First Amendment

as in
raising your thumb, pointing your index finger over your closed 3rd,4th ,& 5th fingers-

it could be a gun , after all the silhouette is of a gun

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Does this only apply to kits, or if I buy a billet of metal and make it from scratch is that banned as well?

It would depend on the Kit. Those black powder kits are not considered Firearms by Feds.

A kit to build a AK (I have seen one of those) would appear covered by this ruling.

There is an GCA classification for building firearms for yourself and not sell/commerce as far a buying a bullet of steel and going to town. This does not apply to NFA or Title II firearms. If you want to build a NFA firearm for own use, you have to pay a tax and receive prior ATF approval, but you do not need a license. 18 U.S.C. 922(o), (p) and (r); 26 U.S.C. 5822; 27 CFR 478.39, 479.62 and 479.105]

The reg this ruling allows does not ban these kits/80 percent receivers/“ghost guns.” The regs define such as firearms subject to serialization, background checks, logging, and manufacturing subject to the GCA to be transferred and manufactured for commerce.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
. Those black powder kits are not considered Firearms by Feds.

bp muzzle loaders aren't firearms, jr

I said that big man.

Again, what is the ruling about?

Is it illegal to make your own cartridge gun, and what level of purchase makes it illegal to sell without going through the gun paperwork?

Simply:

It’s not illegal to make your own gun (it is illegal to possess a NFA item without permission- the making of an NFA item is a problem in you possess a NFA item without approval. Making a MG is what as long as it’s not completed and capable of function?

The ATF wants to regulate sales of kits as guns to prevent untraceable firearms.

What is a prohibited kit?

Is it tools (no law about owning a CNC machine)

No law against writing code for a CNC machine to make firearms parts and selling it.

No law about selling metal or polymer.

No law saying a self made weapon has to have a makers mark or serial number.

Yet they want to say these kits are a gun. Require them to have a SN, makers mark, and be subject to prior authorization to buy/make.

The parts separately are ok.

Why is the aggregate a problem, and chargeable without changing the law?

Again, 80 percent receivers and kits have to be serialized and sold as any other firearm under the GCA.

You as an individual can build your own firearm not intended for commerce from raw scratch. The exception is NFA items which you can build from raw material when you receive prior approval from the ATF, and pay the tax.

I gave you the specific Fed act if you want to explore self construction of firearms not for the purpose of commerce.

What level of selling that requires an FFL has always depended on factors such as intent, if you are buying and selling repeatedly, holding yourself out to be a dealer, whether your objective is to make profit regardless of profit realized or number of sales.No one factor is dispositive. You have to look at the totality of the circumstances. No one can tell you x sales require an FFL. That is because as little as one sake could require an FFL if other facts are present.

An 80 percent receiver is subject to this regulation. The reg would answer your question more direct. Below is the ATF’s position on what makes a regulated frame or receiver:

https://www.blumenthal.senate....ntguidanceletter.pdf

Here is the full reg:

https://www.govinfo.gov/conten...6/pdf/2022-08026.pdf

Where do they state 80%?

They use a statement of “easily made into” but no specific number.

Also note they decided that someone who identifies firearms (for business purposes, so I would assume like an insurance appraiser is now a gunsmith and must both keep records for the ATF, and be subject to tracing requests.


Sounds like a pretty strong overreach compared to what the law says.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Again, 80 percent receivers and kits have to be serialized and sold as any other firearm under the GCA.

You as an individual can build your own firearm not intended for commerce from raw scratch. The exception is NFA items which you can build from raw material when you receive prior approval from the ATF, and pay the tax.

I gave you the specific Fed act if you want to explore self construction of firearms not for the purpose of commerce.

What level of selling that requires an FFL has always depended on factors such as intent, if you are buying and selling repeatedly, holding yourself out to be a dealer, whether your objective is to make profit regardless of profit realized or number of sales.No one factor is dispositive. You have to look at the totality of the circumstances. No one can tell you x sales require an FFL. That is because as little as one sake could require an FFL if other facts are present.

An 80 percent receiver is subject to this regulation. The reg would answer your question more direct. Below is the ATF’s position on what makes a regulated frame or receiver:

https://www.blumenthal.senate....ntguidanceletter.pdf

Here is the full reg:

https://www.govinfo.gov/conten...6/pdf/2022-08026.pdf

What was sold as 80 percent meets the guidance from the ATF I provided you.

Litigation assuming the reg is not voided, will flesh out the extremes.

The final rule, however, is clear and unambiguous: a nearly-complete frame or receiver is a firearm. The rule does not cover only frames and receivers sold as part of a kit, but also frames and receivers that can be readily completed.
Now, to manufacture these things will require a Type 07 license to manufacture for commerce.

Such manufacturers must submit an example to the ATF who will determine through an Administrative Order whether the particular receiver or frame meets the rule. Then, the manufacturer can appeal that order; if they wish.

If a manufacturer does not want to get a Type 07, submit an example for a determination, or a seller sale with no FFL and other requirements the GC for asking a firearm, then said folks can be charged and go to prison (most likely).

Again, this assumes the rule is not held void.

Here is the definition of frame and receiver:

https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-...on-frame-or-receiver

Just skim of the GCA appears the reg is within the scope of the GCA which is the enabling act in question.

or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon;

The rule on its face appears to be reasonable given the above statutory language. However, the Courts shall Decide. A reg can be permitted under the Enabling Statute, but be void due to procedure.

quote:

Now, to manufacture these things will require a Type 07 license to manufacture for commerce.

To make a piece of metal/polymer/ceramic etc ---
that in its "as sold" form CANNOT fire a cartridge SHOULD NOT "require a Type 07 license to manufacture " as it IS NOT a firearm.

The "thing" ought to speak for itself" , barrister.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Again, 80 percent receivers and kits have to be serialized and sold as any other firearm under the GCA.

Have you ever made even a SINGLE chip from a mill or lathe == no,, a ryobi cordless drill doesn't count

the atf stated "readily assembled" aka, KIT -- peen over a couple rivets is one thing -- machining either a mag well or trigger pocket is an entirely different thing...

heck, have you even ever assembled an AR from parts?

No. That is not the issue. The issue is the manufacturer and sale of said kits/ frames/receivers/use whatever term you desire.

Those rebut AK kits the ATF has already rescinded.

I did take the engine out of a 777.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
No. That is not the issue. The issue is the manufacturer and sale of said kits/ frames/receivers/use whatever term you desire.

Those rebut AK kits the ATF has already rescinded.

I did take the engine out of a 777.

yep -- as the squire admits, he has zero experience in the difference between a parts kit and a slab of aluminum or polymer -

It IS the issue, squire, the ATF argues that an 80% is readily assemblyable- as if it where an actual parts kit --

I, personally, with due care, can assemble a complete parts kit is under an hour.

I, personally, can't take an 80% to assembled firearm in less than several days.

This is the ROOT of the argument, squire, and your ignorance of the subject SHOULD limit your utterance on the matter -- but, alas, you feel practical knowledge of the matter "is not the issue" ... I watched the cspan where the house grilled atf high ranking officials on the matter

churlish, at best

that you've never made a chip, and lump black powder kits in with ar kits, are representative examples of your profound lack of knowledge on this matter - oh, and jr, YOU are the only person trying to pull AK kits into this discussion -

Little lord fontleroy will never let his ignorance get in the way of his pontification!!!!

Typical over educated 12 year old.......


.

Actually, LHeym did give the relevant governmental code.

He is attempting to give the Government's "logical reasoning" such as it is.

My only concern is he does seem to be defending it.

How an 80% kit (with jigs, but without the drill or drill press) is readily converted, but a 70% one is not, or a 50% one (or a whatever) is a problem.

Regulations are supposed to be black and white. These are not. What law is based on a subjective "readily converted" basis? Is it murder if you commit 80% of an act, but refrain from the rest?

My point is that if congress wants to pass a law that says drilling jigs are a tool only ownable by 07 FFL holders, I guess while I think thats a bad idea, its a reasonable law.

Congress stated that a receiver is what is listed. A striker fired gun? Need to rewrite the law.

It should have been incumbent on the ATF to go to congress and state that these types of firearms are not covered by your law, and we cannot regulate them under the law you passed... and let congress change it.

That's supposed to be our system as it was taught back when I went to high school (in the dark ages of the late 1980's...) but it has become too difficult to pass laws like that through congress so the folks who want regulation just have it be placed executively. Unfortunately, that means that it can be changed pretty much at whim by bureaucrats based on whoever is in office at the time.

I could agree that if it was an AK kit with everything provided and all you did was take a hammer or rock and peen some rivets that might be "easily" done... but I kinda suspect it still would be very variable on how well that gun would work based on the ability and skill of the assembler.

quote:

should have been incumbent on the ATF to go to congress and state that these types of firearms are not covered by your law, and we cannot regulate them under the law you passed... and let congress change it.

That's supposed to be our system as it was taught back when I went to high school (in the dark ages of the late 1980's...) but it has become too difficult to pass laws like that through congress so the folks who want regulation just have it be placed executively. Unfortunately, that means that it can be changed pretty much at whim by bureaucrats based on whoever is in office at the time

Congress has abdicated their authority to unelected bureaucrats...

Our resident lawyers seem fine with this mess!

.

Can we be honest about this "mess" for just a moment?

These kits are an attempt to evade background checks and they are showing up more often in crimes. If you want a decent AR platform rifle, literally millions are available for sale through licensed dealers.

These kits should be regulated and serial numbered. Nobody is infringing on your second amendment rights.

Jeffe: I have made plenty of chips but can also proudly say I have not ever assembled an AR.

Not much less interesting in gun world to me. Slept through the AR class in school....

[QUOTE]Originally posted by skb:
Can we be honest about this "mess" for just a moment?

No, no, let's not. Let's run in circles, scream and shout.

Some are.

More are not.

I’d feel better about regulating ghost guns if we saw regular prosecution of folks involved in gun crimes via gun laws.

I’m not an LEO, but know several. These crimes are not prosecuted even though they would be simple to do so.

How often do you see someone who has a felony record getting arrested and having a gun in the police blotter… how many ineligible persons in possession convictions do you see? How many are even charged with it?

The problem isn’t inability to trace the firearm used in a crime, which all this law is trying to address.

quote:

Originally posted by skb:
Can we be honest about this "mess" for just a moment?

These kits are an attempt to evade background checks and they are showing up more often in crimes. If you want a decent AR platform rifle, literally millions are available for sale through licensed dealers.

These kits should be regulated and serial numbered. Nobody is infringing on your second amendment rights.

Jeffe: I have made plenty of chips but can also proudly say I have not ever assembled an AR.

Not much less interesting in gun world to me. Slept through the AR class in school....

Okay, Steve, but it's likely you put together an auto 5 after tearing it down, or a 1911 ...

and you aren't pontificating about something you have no comparative experience on -

these "kits" .. ahh, an 80% AR or glock aint a KIT .. and rationale being the build is immaterial - if one wants to "get around" a background check, there's way more efficient ways than carving out a working "frame" from a slab

Didn't the Court merely deny a request to stay the regs pending appeal? That's not surprising, if the Court is undecided.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Some are.

More are not.

I’d feel better about regulating ghost guns if we saw regular prosecution of folks involved in gun crimes via gun laws.

I’m not an LEO, but know several. These crimes are not prosecuted even though they would be simple to do so.

How often do you see someone who has a felony record getting arrested and having a gun in the police blotter… how many ineligible persons in possession convictions do you see? How many are even charged with it?

The problem isn’t inability to trace the firearm used in a crime, which all this law is trying to address.

quote:

Originally posted by skb:
Can we be honest about this "mess" for just a moment?

These kits are an attempt to evade background checks and they are showing up more often in crimes. If you want a decent AR platform rifle, literally millions are available for sale through licensed dealers.

These kits should be regulated and serial numbered. Nobody is infringing on your second amendment rights.

Jeffe: I have made plenty of chips but can also proudly say I have not ever assembled an AR.

Not much less interesting in gun world to me. Slept through the AR class in school....

So, the solution to the problem your LEO friends complain about is a bunch of unregistered, untraceable guns?

No, they complain about the turnstile justice where someone is caught with an illegal gun in hand while having a felony convictions threatening to shoot someone and they arrest him and the CA releases them and charges them with terroristic threats or whatever and they serve no time.

After a couple arrests they get caught shooting some kid in a drive by.

And the democrats answer is “ban ghost guns”…

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
No, they complain about the turnstile justice where someone is caught with an illegal gun in hand while having a felony convictions threatening to shoot someone and they arrest him and the CA releases them and charges them with terroristic threats or whatever and they serve no time.

After a couple arrests they get caught shooting some kid in a drive by.

And the democrats answer is “ban ghost guns”…

Lawyers are not in the least upset by this.......locking up criminals deny them customers.....


.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
No, they complain about the turnstile justice where someone is caught with an illegal gun in hand while having a felony convictions threatening to shoot someone and they arrest him and the CA releases them and charges them with terroristic threats or whatever and they serve no time.

After a couple arrests they get caught shooting some kid in a drive by.

And the democrats answer is “ban ghost guns”…

So, you just want to talk about something besides ghost guns, is that it?

No, what I am saying is that ghost guns and the ability to trace them is not really an issue.

They don't prosecute folks who have them illegally under the law when they find them now, except in rare, mostly politically correct cases.

Tracing a gun in a crime does what? Traditionally, if you found a gun at a crime scene you used the tracing as a point in the investigation to try and identify a suspect. How often does a gun get left at a crime scene? as opposed to finding a gun with the criminal and being able to subsequently trace it to a crime?

What is the point of making it "more illegaler" for a felon to have a gun when its already illegal, and they don't charge them for those gun crimes already?

At best, all this does is makes a guy selling a set of jigs and a piece of aluminum a criminal if he doesn't check who he gave/sold it to a criminal even if they don't charge the criminal with having a gun illegally. It just doesn't make sense to me.

Even in countries with draconian anti gun laws a criminal who wants a gun can get one, it just takes more effort.

The whole ghost gun issue is about gun crime/violence.

While there may be more homemade guns involved in crime than before, their use is pretty insignificant overall.

I have never built an AR. I have no desire to. But this is an infringement and yet another law that will serve no purpose in reducing gun violence, just make the cost of gun ownership and the associated bureaucracy more expensive.

quote:

What is the point of making it "more illegaler" for a felon to have a gun when its already illegal, and they don't charge them for those gun crimes already?

The meat of the whole conversation!!!!!

Lil Mikey and his type just want to do "something", " anything", except what would really work......

Put criminal in jail! Make them fear incarceration, too simple.


.

He is under a focused, direct Federal Investigation w the ability to be indicted anywhere in the Entire Country.