« Mass murders are not increasing | Main | LOL! »
ATF drops case over manufacture of "80% receivers"
Story here.
Here is the ruling. Its format suggests that the judge issues tentative rulings, so counsel can prepare their oral argument in light of what he is inclined to do. I can see why ATF chose to abandon the case. He was prepared to rule that (1) the legal "receiver" of an AR-15 is NOT its lower receiver (ATF's longtime position) since it doesn't meet the definition used in ATF's regulations; (2) ATF's practice of declaring or classifying receivers doesn't comply with the Administrative Procedures Act (and by implication, a lot of ATF procedures do not) and (3) ATF's position here would make the statute (!!!) and its regulation void for vagueness.
UPDATE: the practical significance of this is (at the very least):
1. The legal "receiver" of an AR-15, the firearm under GCA, is (interpreting the ATF reg) the upper receiver rather than the lower. Needless to say, the required markings on every AR-15, tens of millions of firearms, is on the lower and not on the upper.
2. Any past conviction for anything regarding a lower receiver (manufacturing them or selling them without an FFL) is called into doubt.
3. ATF should (and I've said this for years) specify by regulation, for any multi-part receiver, which part is the legal "receiver." It's one of many areas where ATF relies on internal interpretations and "if you ask us, we will tell you." All that is supposed to be published in regulations so that (1) the public is on notice as to what they must do and (2) they can't be changed without a public process.
11 Comments | Leave a comment
WOW, shocker!
The ATF is making it up as they go along, based on what is expedient at the moment. Not much of a surprise and nothing new. Fast & Furious and the bump stock ban immediately come to mind, and I bet there are thousands of other examples. I am surprised at a judge who actually read the regulation and didn't knuckle under to the whim of the bureaucrats.
Was this a case of poor choices when judge-shopping?
"Firearm frame or receiver. That part of a firearm which provides housing for the hammer, bolt or breechblock, and firing mechanism, and which is usually threaded at its forward portion to receive the barrel."
(27 C.F.R. § 478.11.)
An AR-15, according to this definition, can have two receivers, the upper and the lower. Or, maybe just one - the upper OR the lower.
Interestingly, in 2008 ATF changed the definition of a receiver for the FN FNC rifle from the lower to the upper because to install a registered auto sear in the lower receiver would require drilling of the receiver thus making it a new machine gun, which is prohibited by 18 U.S.C. 922(o).
So, to allow FN FNC owners to legally install a registered auto sear, the upper receiver was re-defined as the "receiver" and modifying the lower receiver for an auto sear is now legal.
I know this is very hypothetical, but if the ATF followed the statute and the APA and redefined uppers as the receiver, what would that mean for all the existing unserialized uppers? Would they suddenly become technically illegal as unserialized "firearms"? Yikes!
This is interesting because California and NJ both are saying that an un-serialized lower is a "ghost" gun and illegal. California saying that you have to register it and get a state supplied serial number. NJ has be leaning the same way.
Would this now trash that whole concept?
@NewEnglandMan: the upper doesn't meet the definition either -- it doesn't have a hammer or a firing mechanism. There doesn't appear to be any part of an AR15 that meets the definition.
Not just AR-15's.
Look at a 1911.
Frame holds hammer.
Slide holds breech and barrel.
Neither the upper nor the lower receiver is a firearm. Only a ONE-PIECE AR receiver would be a firearm.
Under the US Code of Federal Regulations, a firearm frame or receiver is defined as: “That part of a firearm which provides housing for the hammer, bolt or breechblock, and firing mechanism, and which is usually threaded at its forward portion to receive the barrel.”
The lower is not threaded for a barrel and the upper has no firing mechanism.
The ATF bends the rules and sometimes even ignores them to define a firearm.
But how does this thinking/logic apply to semi-auto handguns where the trigger and hammer are in the frame and the breach block is in the slide? On many Sig Sauer P-series pistols the "upper" (slide) can be interchangeably used with "lowers" (frames) from various models. For just one example the slide from a P228 can be put onto the frame of a P229, etc. Does that mean a handgun frame from such a pistol is not itself a firearm, per the definitions used by ATF?
And, what about a striker-fired handgun? There is a trigger in the frame, but there is no hammer anywhere, frame or slide? The gun has no hammer, so is it even a firearm?
The early FNC upper receiver was the serialized component. I know, I had one.
This doesn't make any sense, the AR15 lower or upper is not a receiver by that definition UNTILL IT IS ASSEMBLED.
So in practical terms - what does this mean?