« Now, this is a shocker | Main | Heller wait continuing.... »
ATF ruling on autosears and receivers
ATF Ruling 2008-1 is here, in pdf. On its face, it changes the definition of which receiver half is legally the "firearm" for an FNC rifle.
What is of concern is part of its reasoning. There are autosears for the FNC; if installed these allow it to fire full-auto. Autosears have been held to require NFA registration, as a device designed to allow automatic fire; each one is serial numbered, registered, and traditionally treated as the registered machine gun. To the best of my knowledge, it was never argued that putting one into a semiauto made the remainder of the semiauto a machinegun with a separate registration requirement. But this Ruling's reasoning is that since you would have to drill and mill a semiauto FNC receiver to accomodate the autosear, doing so would make the receiver a full-auto receiver, and violate the 86 ban.
7 Comments | Leave a comment
well, what can a postban semiauto AR-15 owner do to avoid becoming a casualty of this ridiculous precedent? have the manuf. modify their bolt assembly?
Who thinks that AR uppers are getting ready to be re-classified as the "receiver" thereby killing the AR upper market?
From a careful reading, what they say regarding other FN rifles is pure horse manure. The FN FAL and CAL upper (and in fact, actual) receivers, while containing the bolt and providing an attachment point for the barrel, also accept ("receive") the magazine. Under the old way of thinking, the FNC lower contains the fire control group and accept the magazine, just like the AR lower. Under this ruling, the FNC and the AR, while functionally identical, have differently classified receivers. This is a very troubling ruling.
Did they comply???
"Background: agencies are supposed to follow detailed rules when issuing a "regulation": publish a proposal in the Federal Register, receive public comment, then publish a final rule with preamble answering the major comments. Plus comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act, Regulatory Reform Act, etc.."
See David's:
"Possible limits on ATF "letter rulings"" in the BATFE archive.
I don't think this is a "letter ruling." Letter rulings, at least as I understand them, are written in actual letters to specific people who have made inquiries to the BATFE about this, that, or some other firearms issue.
But, I could be wrong on that.
I have the feeling that ATF's inconsistencies are about to blow up in their faces. That, and the ex-post-facto law effects of many of their rulings.
You almost wonder if somebody in the NFA Branch is setting the ATF up to lose a lawsuit. Certainly all the people who paid top dollar for papered FNC auto sears could make a very good case that the ATFs inconsistent rulings have cost them a mountain of money.