Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.8
Site Design by Sekimori

« ATF revising 4473 | Main | Florida AW ban initiative fails »

More on what is an AR-15 "receiver"

Posted by David Hardy · 7 February 2020 11:26 AM

The legal problem is that the lower meets part of the regulatory definition -- it houses the firing mechanism and hammer -- and upper meets part of it -- it houses the bolt and is fitted with the barrel. Now it turns out that ATF has known about this problem for years, and refused to deal with it by regulation.

9 Comments | Leave a comment

oldguy | February 8, 2020 8:22 AM | Reply

I guess my question is: How can this be resolved without causing huge damage to us as gun owners? The after market/ custom building your own configurations the whole thing?

Flight-ER-Doc | February 8, 2020 10:36 AM | Reply

So this guy was happy to spend 26 years enforcing this law, and now is saying it's bogus?

Michael Murray | February 8, 2020 1:01 PM | Reply

The judge nailed it with the comment "misapplying the law for a long time provides no immunity from scrutiny." I yearn for the day when a majority of SCOTUS applies that and original intent to the mess that has been made of the Constitution. How will new rules affect those of us who like building AR's or machining our own 80% lowers? We can't know until until we see any proposed regulations. God help us if it is a Buttigieg, Bloomberg, or Warren administration proposing them. Will Trump be better than that? Maybe, but with his bump-stock dance and comments about "silencers" who really knows?

Dave D. | February 8, 2020 3:56 PM | Reply

...we need a congressional investigation into how an agency willfully misinterpreted the law by giggering their application of it. Somebody made this decision long ago to lie about it. Rip off the scab and reveal the truth. Then go back and vacate the convictions that resulted from this misconduct. Class action settlement of wrongfull prosecutions. Mass pardons for the victims.

Anonymous | February 8, 2020 4:17 PM | Reply

But we are supposed to accept Chevron/Auer deference as law.

It is time for the SCOTUS to look closely at agency regulations and not just accept that the agency knows best.

Evidentiary hearings that look at both sides of an issue without bias. What a novel concept.

wrangler5 | February 9, 2020 6:57 PM | Reply

Am I right in thinking that the law specifies there be ONE part in a gun that is the "firearm" subject to serialization and FFL transfer procedures, and the litigation here was just about whether the ATF regulations had properly/adequately conformed to that law in cases where several different parts might reasonably be used as "THE" part?

BTW, it occurs to me that the Ruger standard 22 pistol (and its Mk II et seq descendants) matches the AR-15 pattern - barrel & bolt in one (upper) assembly, with the hammer, trigger, recoil spring, mag well and grip in another (lower) assembly. Except on the Ruger, the serial number goes on the upper.

I wonder who made the decision that THAT was OK? The Ruger long-predates the GCA, so was probably being numbered on the "upper" when the law was passed (I don't have one that old to confirm.) But if the "lower" is the proper place to number an AR-15 pattern gun, what had to happen to let Ruger keep numbering the "upper?"

Jeff | February 10, 2020 8:22 AM | Reply

A concern is that the ATF will begin requiring both upper and lower receivers to be serialized. On some rifles (the SCAR, for example), the upper is the serialized portion. While "doing it wrong" may not generally be justification for continuing a course of conduct, it may be the best path in this instance. There are millions of guns built to this standard. Changing course today would be like deciding that we're going to start driving on the left side of the road.

Fyooz | February 10, 2020 9:42 AM | Reply

"It is time for the SCOTUS to look closely at agency regulations and not just accept that the agency knows best."

That would lead to SCOTUS arguing over the power of executive agencies to create regulations instead of legislative bodies creating enforceable laws.

Anonymous | February 15, 2020 6:04 PM | Reply

Let us also remember that ATFE has also ruled that .50 BMG bolt action uppers for AR lowers are firearms that required serial numbers and transfer through a FFL.

Leave a comment