Taurus Firearm Forum banner

1 - 10 of 10 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,620 Posts
And it is an administrative definition so they can reword it anytime they want, just like the definition of "80% complete" or even the level of completion before they decide to prosecute. None of those things are "Law" just administrative decisions. There is a "de facto" issue based on acceptance of the "standard". Bear in mind that the Ruger Standard Auto was not registered by the "frame" as we know it, but by the upper that housed the bolt.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,283 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Looking at the definition, the AR-15 lower receiver does NOT house the bolt or breech block and is NOT threaded for the barrel.
All it has is the hammer and the firing mechanism. It is only 50%.
Maybe should look at the actual law in 27CFR.
Laws cannot be changed arbitrarily. Only Congress can change the law.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,283 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Going by the definition given, my 24/7 is not a firearm either.
The firing mechanism is in the slide, the barrel is a separate item, not threaded to anything.
The trigger is in the lower frame.
Now my Stevens probably qualifies as a firearm.
Everything is self contained. The barrel and receiver are one piece, the bolt is is the receiver and the trigger and firing mechanism are part of the frame.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,103 Posts
It does say USUALLY THREADED so that can really be taken out of the equation.
But since part of it is in the lower and part the upper both will be considered guns when they are done?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,283 Posts
Discussion Starter #7 (Edited)
Well, then, by this definition, even a full auto lower is NOT a receiver or firearm.
Or a stripped lower with no trigger group or other parts. And no threading for a barrel.
It isn't a firearm until ALL the parts are assembled.
(Which, BTW, is what I believed in the first place. How can it be a firearm if it cannot fire a cartridge?)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,152 Posts
If governmental past behavior is an indicator of future behavior, they will keep this "firearm" designation a moving target. Pun intended
 
  • Like
Reactions: TexasAviator

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,620 Posts
Looking at the definition, the AR-15 lower receiver does NOT house the bolt or breech block and is NOT threaded for the barrel.
All it has is the hammer and the firing mechanism. It is only 50%.
Maybe should look at the actual law in 27CFR.
Laws cannot be changed arbitrarily. Only Congress can change the law.
Maybe look at

The GCA, 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(3),

With particular attention to "readily converted". In the end a court gets to decide but in the absence of one monolithic firearm design the BATFE uses their own definition on a design by design basis and are free to do so as long as the court upholds it. If the BATFE had no 80% standard, as ridiculous as it might be, they could go a lot lower and claim it was "readily convertible". The 80& figure and definition is merely their way of saying "At or below this level we won't elect to call it "readily convertible". It isn't law and the definition is not further defined except o a case by case, or design by design, basis. So far the courts have been willing to accept the BATFE interpretation and metrics. There is no way, given the plethora of designs, that each design could have a specific law applied to it alone so a "general" definition is allowed by the courts. But again the 80% is a discretionary number that actually doesn't have a specific "all encompassing" metric. I can see that if it comes to pass tat it becomes to easy to "readily convert" from the current level, the BATFE could change their prosecution standard, as "readily" becomes easier.

The above should not be construed to imply that I agree with one darned bit of it at all or think that, especially today (curiously much like the days when a blacksmith could make the muzzle loader of the day) when our "personal technology" has caught up to the task of making state-of-the -art firearms, that it is practical or logical for the Govt to be regulating at all. In the day of the NFA and still later the GCA '68 there was just a smidgeon of logic to it in that in the days of the NFA, 1935, few could make a Thompson in their garage. The idea was still silly but there was at least some undeniable small logic to it. Today it is really no more effective than it would have been for the Continental Government to try and keep blacksmiths from being gunsmiths. Besides that, the principle of the Second Amendment haven't changed.
 
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
Top