BREAKING ‘Draft’ of ATF Ghost Gun Rule

Share this Shit:

According Gat daily

TheReload.com has a 107 page pdf that appears to be the current draft proposal of the ATF’s response to Biden’s requirement that they “do something” about Ghost Guns.

it appears they are drastically expanding the definition of what is a “frame or receiver” by saying, ‘well… in 1968 guns kinda usually had one receiver, so this whole notion that Glock and Sigs and AR’s have working parts housed in two receivers is blowing our minds a little…’

Under the GCA and implementing regulations, the term “firearm” includes:
“(A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be
converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive.” 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(3); 27
CFR 478.11 (emphasis added). Although weapon parts kits in their unassembled,
incomplete, and/or unfinished state or configuration generally will not expel a projectile
by the action of an explosive at the time of sale or distribution, weapon parts kits that are
designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an
explosive are “firearms” under the GCA.
 – Proposed Definition Change.

Page 5 and 6 of the draft is basically just saying that under older firearm designs picking the receiver was easier. They go onto say that the old regulations were “never meant to be exhaustive” so they can make up new ones. It then goes into how “newer” firearms like the AR-15 (whose origin starts a decade prior to the GCA so there is no reason they should have missed that development) don’t have parts that necessarily fit the definition of receiver but the regulatory bodies picked the part that best “fit” the definition of frame or receiver, usually the part that help many of the fire control components. But one part was designated the receiver and controlled as ‘the firearm’ under law.

It then goes on to highlight just how easy it is to make a unserialized receiver, which is legal to do, but that is now “untraceable” … which makes sense too, considering it was home built. They made it themselves, trace over. PG 11, 12, and 13 cover this.

The line I’m dying over is, “An accurate firearm description is necessary to trace a firearm…” yet when I gave an exact definitive description and serial number to law enforcement after a theft it was completely lost in the reporting by the time the second officer involved (that I interacted with) was talking to me to confirm. “Accurate” was clearly not a priority in that reporting.

Share this Shit: