ATF's New 'Ghost Gun' Rules Are as Clear as Mud
The ATF used a lot of words that invite lawsuits and leave industry insiders baffled.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives' (ATF) finalized "ghost gun" rule surprised Cody Wilson, the head of Ghost Gunner. His company manufactures CNC mills that turn unfinished firearm receivers into products that can be included in completed firearms that have no serial numbers and are, hence, called "ghosts." He'd anticipated a more-or-less explicit ban on so-called "80 percent receivers" which would leave his Ghost Gunner 3 that can turn a raw block of metal into an AR-15 receiver as the simplest remaining solution. Instead, by his reading, the new rules consumed a lot of pages to go after the most basic end of the DIY market.
Well, maybe. Other industry experts aren't sure what the rules mean. That uncertainty poses huge challenges for manufacturers, vendors, and anybody trying to establish what is and isn't legal.
"It looks like there is room still to sell 80 percent receivers, especially ones that have had determination letters," Wilson told me over the phone. "But they aren't saying they're grandfathering those determinations [about the legality of existing products]; they're saying everybody has to resubmit."
Wilson's impression is that "they're trying to prevent the evolution of something like the Polymer80 kit from happening again. And that's very clear. It's more about the Polymer80 in this reemphasis."
The White House itself implied such a focus in its April 11 "fact sheet" preceding publication of the rule: "This final rule bans the business of manufacturing the most accessible ghost guns, such as unserialized 'buy build shoot' kits that individuals can buy online or at a store without a background check and can readily assemble into a working firearm in as little as 30 minutes with equipment they have at home."
On display at the presidential press conference announcing the new rule was what appeared to be a Polymer80 kit of the sort that Reason's Mark McDaniel used to construct a pistol in 2018. But such all-you-need-minus-a-few-parts kits aren't the only way to go. I separately purchased an unfinished aluminum AR-15 receiver, jig, and parts to complete a rifle through drilling, milling, and assembly for a project featured in a separate Reason article in 2021. Or you could use one of Wilson's Ghost Gunner machines. Or you could use widely available designs to craft a firearm with 3D printers. And then there are the many people who use standard home-workshop tools to make what they want. According to the plainest reading of the ATF's language, those approaches remain legal at the federal level.
"ATF has maintained and continues to maintain that a partially complete frame or receiver alone is not a frame or receiver if it still requires performance of certain machining operations (e.g., milling out the fire control cavity of an AR-15 billet or blank, or indexing for that operation) because it may not readily be completed to house or hold the applicable fire control components," the document says.
ATF adds that new restrictions would apply if the partial frame or receiver is indexed or dimpled to indicate where to drill, or through "the aggregation of a template or jig with a partially complete frame or receiver." Minus such clear markings or accessories, though, unfinished receivers would appear to retain a viable market without having to go to the raw blocks of aluminum and polymer necessarily exempted in the rules (unless you want to subject hardware stores to gun regulations) and with which Ghost Gunner has a distinct advantage. Wilson still sees an opening, though, in states that have tighter rules than those imposed by the ATF.
"I would say if they maintain an 80 percent space and don't allow people to buy a simple kit, then Ghost Gunner market share goes way up and then the zero-percent conversation becomes a conversation about the state level on 80s" in places like Connecticut and New Jersey that have banned unfinished receivers, Wilson told me. "I was just assuming that the feds would also be shutting that door and I'm just surprised to see that they're not."
But not everybody is convinced that the ATF rules leave an opening for the existing 80 percent receiver market to continue to operate. That's because the agency dumps its old guidance with regard to the unfinished components, creates untested new terminology, and leaves an awful lot to the interpretation of federal bureaucrats.
"You gotta remember that that's in their Q&A section," Matthew Larosiere, policy counsel attorney with Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), cautioned me by phone about the language that seems to leave space for partially complete frames and receivers. "The rule itself refers to those partially completed receivers that are 'readily' manufactured or convertible into a complete firearm."
Larosiere pointed out that "'readily' has its own definition here which is meaningless because all we have to go on is the wildly vague notion that incomplete receivers which are 'fairly or reasonably efficient, quick, and easy' to complete into firearms are firearms. So, we don't actually know what their position is now. What we do know for sure is that they've rescinded all previous guidance on all incomplete frames or receivers." Included in the ATF's holistic definition of "readily" convertible frames and receivers is the availability of tools, parts, and instructions from the same vendors, Larosiere emphasized.
"The point of these rule-makings is supposed to be to clarify the law," he told me. "And I don't see any clarification here at all."
There is something that everybody does agree on: The new gun rules will end up in court. "Based on the comments received in opposition to this rule, there is a reasonable possibility that this rule will be subject to litigation challenges," acknowledges the ATF. Wilson agrees that "a lot of people" are going to sue, as does Larosiere. The fact that individuals with deep knowledge of firearms and applicable laws have widely different interpretations of the government's language probably necessitates courtroom drama so that somebody can hammer out what those words actually mean.
The finalized ATF rule, which takes effect 120 days after publication in the federal register, also requires permanent records-retention by licensed gun dealers instead of allowing for disposal after 20 years as in the past, changes marking requirements for adding serial numbers to guns, and anticipates a growing market for privately made firearms which, of course, the government intends to regulate. But the greatest legacy of this rules update is to issue hundreds of pages of firearms regulations that are as clear as mud and leave experts in the field disagreeing over the interpretation.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Didn't a majority of Reason people vote for Biden?
This article isn’t about Biden, it’s about the ATF. He’s not even mentioned a single time in it.
LOL
Well done.
Applauding someone for acting like a thirteen year old. Classy.
Sarc called Mike a 13 year old.
So he finds Mike sexy then?
Show username on a muted person shows the name on the account, not what they changed it to while acting like a juvenile.
It's R Mac, not Mike.
Being a tattling little bitch is pretty juvenile as well.
According to the Reason people the majority voted for Jo Jo.
https://reason.com/2020/10/12/how-will-reason-staffers-vote-in-2020/
But don't listen to them. Listen to the people in the comments. They know how the Reason people really voted.
You tell 'em, totally-not-a-leftist.
Unless they would have seen a chance for Trump to win. Or Biden, if he had chosen Gabbard as his veep. And other drivel like that. They are Biden supporters. Drop your illusions and move on dude.
And Jo Jo supports illegal immigrants. Most radically, actually, because she wants to just do away with their illegality. Not sure if voting Jo Jo is much better than Biden.
Don Boudreaux has a good article on the subject of illegal immigration today on cafehayek.
https://cafehayek.com/2022/04/new-york-daily-news-how-immigrant-labor-helps-us-all.html
So this talks about the benefits of immigrant labor and addresses concerns related immigrants stealing jobs. However it avoids the word "illegal" and talks about "peaceful immigration", interesting term. If we substitute "illegal" instead of peaceful here, are the labor benefits we get out of them possibly based on them remaining illegals? Because that would be consistent with what OBL says.
Illegal immigrants are ready to break the law. They cut in line before legal immigrants. Their mentality is different.
I'm for preserving freedom inside the bounds of the US. But that requires defending the freedom against threats. That requires borders. One big threat to American freedom are large parts of the European mentality. And many asians too. Many of them, even after coming here, do not develop a grasp on what makes the better life they found here possible. And these are mainly legal.
Is the mentality of someone who is ready to break the law and cut in line conducive to everyones freedom?
The legal immigration process at least vets people for qualities like punctuality, ability to follow procedures and a base level of intelligence. In fact, legal immigrants are by far not as liberal as the administration would probably like them to be.
Illegal immigration does not vet anyone at all. If anything, it filters for readiness to be a criminal. Guess I'm not a libertarian anymore. Fortunately, labels were never important to me.
Equating "illegals" with dangerous criminals is disingenuous or ignorant. They're not all gang banging terrorists who pop out anchor babies while simultaneously stealing jobs, being layabouts, and committing felonies for fun. Sure it sounds good when rightwing pundits say it, and raises the blood pressure, but it's a myth to say that describes most illegal immigrants.
A good portion are people who entered the country legally but let their paperwork lapse.
In reality most of them just want to seek out a better life for themselves and their families in The Land of Opportunity.
His post didn’t contain the word “dangerous”. You added that in because you’re dishonest.
And I didn't even equate them with dangerous criminals but I made a reasonable prediction about what such a mentality may impart. Higher levels of disregard for the law and being especially lax about the most essential things in life is required to be an illegal.
As someone who went through the entire legal procedure myself, I think it requires a special kind of carelessness to let your paperwork "lapse". His points are out of touch with reality.
But he's gotta dance with strawmen if no real person wants to dance with him.
And I didn't even equate them with dangerous criminals but I made a reasonable prediction about what such a mentality may impart.
It was implied. Excuse the fuck out of me for reading to far into what you said.
As someone who went through the entire legal procedure myself, I think it requires a special kind of carelessness to let your paperwork "lapse". His points are out of touch with reality.
That's you. You're not everyone. I've known people who let visas lapse because they weren't as responsible as you. Though from what you're saying that makes them too irresponsible to be allowed into the country.
Though what that sounds like is when a liberal whines about something like how they pay taxes and it's not fair that others get out of it. And the solution is to make sure the other person pays more taxes.
The idea that maybe they both should pay less isn't even a consideration.
"The idea that maybe they both should pay less isn't even a consideration."
We can talk about this part. But let me tell you something out of first hand experience: The USCIS becomes your friend for years whether you want it or not. As someone who managed to get into the US legally, you are normally really really aware of their requirements, because your entire life is tied to it. Is this too high stakes? Possibly. But it's not like immigration judges wouldn't often rule favorably on cases where someone was just being neglectful with their paperwork. Denials of immigration benefits and becoming an illegal from there are different kind of animal.
If you want, you can tell us about people you know who let their visas lapse and what happened then. Because the US is actually not terribly hostile to their legals. However, the process does take ridiculously long, is really bloated, tedious, a bit humiliating and can actually cause a level of psychological damage, I won't deny that lol
“It was implied”
If his own words implied it, why did you have to lie about what he said?
"However, the process does take ridiculously long, is really bloated, tedious, a bit humiliating and can actually cause a level of psychological damage, I won't deny that lol"
Yeah, I handled all the paperwork for my fiancee's visa, personally, to avoid the expense of a lawyer. It IS possible to do yourself if you pay attention and do the research, but it's stupidly complex and, well, stupidly stupid.
Like, we got the fee schedule from a guy at the US embassy, who didn't bother to mention that the fee was going up $5 in a couple weeks. So I send all the paperwork in by priority mail with the required check, and over a month later it all comes back via parcel rate with a voided check, because they couldn't bother to just ask for another $5. So, back it goes by priority mail again, with a new check, and me looking to see that they didn't have another fee increase in the works.
"It IS possible to do yourself if you pay attention and do the research, but it's stupidly complex and, well, stupidly stupid."
Yeah, I did it on my own, without a lawyer. I used a lot of advice from immigration forums, especially visajourney was a blessing. The worst part was before I had a visa to marry my fiancee in the US. Wasn't able to see her for almost a year while waiting because I wasn't able to travel.
It's also that some of the questions are surprisingly vaguely worded and you have to do some big-ish research for certain items.
Bs like this, now from the naturalization application: "Have you EVER been a member of, involved in, or in any way associated with any organization, association, fund, foundation, party, club, society, or similar group in the United States or in any other location in the world?"
What, wanna see my costco card? Honor society? Swinger club? NRA? Panties? Of course, some of the advice online tells you you can skip "unsubstantial" memberships and, fortunately, immigration officers are human and you will not be in trouble for forgetting something that doesn't matter. But after having to tell them my entire employment and residence history for the n-th time, I got a bit "moody".
(And I was unable to travel for other reasons, not because the immigration process denied it, to be fair, as opposed to travelling while waiting for the green card, because for that you do need a re-entry permit as you probably know).
"and over a month later it all comes back via parcel rate with a voided check, because they couldn't bother to just ask for another $5."
And this is the kind of bullshit that makes this process so borderline-traumatic, because, especially if you are new to this, you always have to worry that you are in major trouble because of some stupid detail.
I remember sending in one of my applications but because immigration services had month long delays because of covid, I thought they would not process it on time and it would be denied, despite being submitted weeks before the deadline.
And I like it that the conversation is now about me as a person, not immigration.
That's why I have R Mac on mute and don't read his shit. It's never on topic and always about the person.
When you lie about what people say you make it about you.
"about what such a mentality may entail", not impart. Yes, English isn't my first language either. Here's my coming out lol
(If it wasn't obvious already)
You're well ahead of the national standard, no worries.
So? People who break into other people’s homes just want to make a better life for themselves too.
Nice straw man. Nobody said that describes “most illegal immigrants.”
As long as it’s only some, tho, it’s ok?
Why should we put up with any like that?
I don't blame you for feeling that way. Hostility to immigrants seems to be human nature. Heck, one of the first federal laws was a ban on immigration from China.
“I don't blame you for feeling that way. Hostility to immigrants…”
Also a dishonest characterization of what he said.
It's especially funny because I'm an immigrant myself. A legal one though.
"Hostility to immigrants seems to be human nature."
I am actually not "hostile to immigrants" though. I'm plausibly very skeptical of illegals due to reasons stated above.
Oh and what I said here
"One big threat to American freedom are large parts of the European mentality. And many asians too. Many of them, even after coming here, do not develop a grasp on what makes the better life they found here possible. And these are mainly legal."
If you interpret this as hostility for immigrants, I would say I'm not hostile, but a bit disaffected. I get really odd questions from my non-US family members on all sorts of things Americans just do because their constitution protects their rights to do them. You are in an endless loop of justifying yourself when talking about your 2A activities to Europeans. You will see the hardest, most oblivious and most degenerate levels of TDS when talking to Europeans. They only adapt the bad stuff we do. They blindly incorporate "wokeness" and think it will automatically make them more successful somehow. They are wannabe americanizing in a sense, while totally missing the point on many of the most essential things that make the US great.
And there's a big difference between voting for Biden and voting against Trump. Most of them said they would do the latter.
Personally I couldn't bring myself to do either, so I didn't vote. At this point I'm not even registered.
By "either" I meant Trump or Biden. Jo Jo didn't impress me.
How does this look on someone’s ballot? Do they put a big X over Trump’s name, negating someone else’s vote for Trump?
Because if they fill in the circle next to Biden’s name, that means they voted for Biden. That’s how it works.
I actually like that idea... Make protest votes a real thing.
I was talking about real candidates, not joke candidates.
Didn't a majority of Reason people vote for Biden?
And, knowing what they know now, are planning to vote for him again.
Remember that cartoon about the bill sitting on the steps of Congress?
Do we no longer make any laws that way?
Remember that newer SNL skit about an executive order? So, no, we mostly don't.
Is it possible for an administrative rule to be declared void for vagueness? Because this one seems to be intentionally vague in order to create fear and uncertainty, and prevent vendors from knowing what would be legal.
And gives the ATF as much latitude as possible; the whole point of delegation/ feature not bug.
^
" . . . shall not be infringed . . . "
No uncertainty.
No bafflement.
No percentage of completion.
Simple clear English.
For our newcomers - -
No será infringido
According to progressives, all the 2A means is that states can hand you a gun and draft you into a militia. And according to progressives, the only rights you have are the ones explicitly enumerated in the Constitution and its amendments, while the federal government has unlimited powers. "Living Constitution!"
...Or specifically; Progressives only refer to the Constitution in counter-debate and only to deceitfully cherry-pick words to fit their UN-Constitutional narrative.
Like chopping the (2) words "General Welfare" out of the taxing clause, throwing away all of it's context and pretending those two found words THWARTS the rest of the entire document.. "General Welfare of ______what_________" doesn't matter. Being but words of a taxing clause doesn't matter either.......
They really don't care at all what it has to say; It's all about which [WE] mob gets the Power to dictate and steal.
To be clear: the "general welfare" clause is a limitation on how taxes can be spent, not an obligation to provide for the general welfare.
That is, the clause means something like: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, for the limited purpose of paying the Debts, paying for the common Defence, and paying for activities that relate to the general welfare of all states, without benefiting specific states or groups disproportionately.
I disagree profusely.. There is no authority given to even support State Welfare (as you sneakily stuffed that wording in).
The "general welfare" clause is for the United States Government. (*exactly* as it is written)....
It is not for the States or the People; as that noun usage is specifically used *everywhere* else in the Constitution.
As it also fits exactly within the other 'duties' of the United States Government for Defense and Debt Bills.. "General" is obviously just a catch-all Taxing purpose to maintain the existence and "General Welfare" of the Federal Government (The Union Government named the United States government).
Not a single part of the Constitution even implies the wording "United States" would refer to the states or the people.
Correction; Not the "The 'general welfare' clause" (as that doesn't even exist) but the 'general welfare' *PHRASE* in the Taxing Clause.
I didn't postulate such an authority. I stated a limit on the use of such spending.
"The general welfare of the federal government" is a nebulous concept itself. But certainly a necessary requirement for "general welfare" is that it favors no state or group.
The wording "United States" literally refers to the set of states who formed the union and was frequently used that way.
Incorrect; The wording "United States" literally refers to the set of states who formed the union
Example Amendment X, Lets suppose the wording "United States" meant the 'states' of the Union. What would that read like?
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the United States, are reserved to the United States, or the people????????
It is illogical to accept that the "United States" in the Constitution refers to anything but the U.S. Union Government...
The Constitution doesn't delegate those powers to "the set of states" but to the U.S. Government.
Promises Made: Gun Control Legislation
Promises Kept: Gun Control Legislation
Thank you President Biden. I will be sure to vote for your left-libertarian platform again in 2 1/2 years because you are healthy and competent leader!
competent Nazi-Regime leaders.... Taking over the USA...
Don't forget the unions, Rabbi. Don't forget the unions!
"Well, maybe. Other industry experts aren't sure what the rules mean. That uncertainty poses huge challenges for manufacturers, vendors, and anybody trying to establish what is and isn't legal."
You do understand that's the point, right?
You do understand that's the point, right?
Yes. Unrelatedly, if I have a cordless drill or impact driver, made by an obscure Austrian manufacturer that you wouldn't have heard of, I'm still able to print a fully indexed and even drilled replacement handle for my circular saw, right? Did I say circular saw? I meant hand plane.
Well, you may or may not be in violation of the law. My advice is don't lock your doors, that way the AFT SWAT team won't need to kick it in.
Stay frosty.
The law even before this was stupid enough that you could own a Gatling gun, (Fires continuously as long as you turn the crank.) or a rechargeable screwdriver, but if you owned both they could nail you for constructive possession of a machine gun.
What they're working towards is making simultaneous knowledge of how to build a gun, and the means, (Which are pretty widespread!) constructive ownership, so that it becomes legally perilous to even know how.
Good luck with that.
Only people you can blame here is Congress that enacted the 1934 NFA that defined machine guns. That was maybe 70 years after Gatling Guns were used in combat.
I can blame every subsequent administration that claimed to respect the 2nd amendment but didn't lift a finger to repeal any gun laws. And the Supreme court which spent 78 years after Miller refusing all 2nd amendment cases, and then returned to its slumber after McDonald.
Imagine if you'd gotten Brown v Board of Education, and then the Supreme court had just stopped granting certiori on 14th amendment cases for a decade or two. The lower courts would have treated the 14th amendment about the way they currently treat the 2nd.
Under the war on drugs, sales of common laboratory glassware and common chemicals are now either reportable to the government or simply illegal. And anti-drug warriors are going to try to do the same thing to metalworking and machining.
BIg corporate donors are all in favor: they aren't affected significantly by these regulations, but it hurts small competitors, small shops, and inventors. And the average American will become more and more a consumer of, and dependent on, manufactured, throw-away products.
Does anyone have stats on the number of people shot with completed lower 80% receiver weapons every year? How much crime are we really talking about here?
Almost none; the fact that they don't give you numbers to justify this legislation tells you that already. (The statistics they cite to justify this legislation apparently include regular guns whose serial number has been removed.)
“legislation”
When you call it legislation you give them a free base.
The only numbers I've seen were ghost guns recovered from crime scenes. I don't remember the number except that it was in the thousands, but it's meaningless because "crime scene" doesn't mean "murder." It could mean anything.
Could easily mean the owner of one had their house burglarized, and the police found it while investigating.
Could mean they confiscated it after someone was accused of domestic violence. A felon in possession of a firearm. It was in the house when someone got busted for drugs.
The cops have way too many excuses to steal our guns.
The Biden administration was going to limit those excuses. They told us that before 2020.
When was that?
I believe that was the Police Reform that the Washington post whined he "struck out on".
All I remember is him always being a gung-ho-gun-grabber. Tiger don't change its stripes.
I suspect that's why his police reform didn't go anywhere.
Found it. According to the White House.gov:
"Last year alone, there were approximately 20,000 suspected ghost guns reported to ATF as having been recovered by law enforcement in criminal investigations"
But they don't identify what was being investigated.
20,000 "suspected ghost guns"? You mean they couldn't tell if the object was a homemade gun or not? If I find a house with 20,000 blocks of unworked plastic or aluminum are all of those "suspected" guns? If I collect a gun from a crime scene but don't bother to inspect its serial number, can it be a "suspected" ghost gun? It turns out ghost guns can be a lot like ghosts: phantasms.
Good point. A lot of them were probably airsoft.
They're not *biologists*, man!
We can’t expect cops to be metallurgists.
It turns out ghost guns can be a lot like ghosts: phantasms.
The 3D printing noises were coming from inside the house!
What is a "suspected ghost gun"? Are they unsure about whether there is a serial number? Or are they unsure about how far they can inflate this statistic?
Actually, they are unsure about either, at least until their armorer tells them for sure that the device is not a super-soaker.
IIRC that figure is for all firearms without serial numbers, including those normally manufactured that had their serials defaced or removed, not just homemade firearms
That makes more sense. Though it's totally disingenuous to lump the two together since one is perfectly legal and the other a felony.
Just speculating, but I’d guess the majority of them found at crime scenes had their serial number scraped off.
"IIRC that figure is for all firearms without serial numbers, including those normally manufactured that had their serials defaced or removed, not just homemade firearms."
It might also include those shotguns and rifles manufactured before 1968 which may or may not have been stamped with serial numbers. Remington, as well as Winchester, and I believe H&R and Stevens, especially with their rimfire and single-shot shotguns, often had no serial numbers. And, if present, such numbers were never recorded anyway.
it's obvious these numbers are more specious than the wuhan coronavirus numbers
I have heard [but have no actual cite for] that guns that have had their serial numbers obliterated are now being classified as "ghost guns." Which is likely how they have been "increasingly showing up at crime scenes."
Biden is a natural liar/ dumbfuck [take your pick] to begin with, so this play on meaning and data is hardly out of step.
But remember people, PEN America and the ALA's list of some books that are being excluded by some libraries, varyingly, is the real threat to our freedoms. The FedGov is doing its darnedest to literally ban the firearm equivalent of the printing press and force everyone to buy weapons through a Federally licensed and regulated network of dealers, but if you have to go to Amazon and order your LGBTQIA book delivered to your front door rather than go to the library the next county over, you're being oppressed.
Ok groomer.
Look, when the government comes for your free speech, free association, private property, or reproductive rights, what's going to be more essential to your defense of those rights? The 3 gun ranges/stores in Cook County or the 20ish public libraries and several dozen school libraries in Cook County that will *only* lend you Oscar Wilde and Gertrude Stein books? When the Anti-Transgender Faction kicks in your door in the middle of the night, where will you be without your copy of Maia Kobabe's Gender Queer?
So like, a rainbow shield?
Might as well bite the bullet and go straight to starting with raw billets. You KNOW the feds are going to raid the 80% manufacturers for their sales records at some point, right? And the credit card companies probably already report all transactions with them to the feds on the sly.
So you're only fooling yourself if you think an 80% lower is under their radar, unless maybe you bought it cash at a gun show.
You can also be pretty sure that if you buy anything from Ghost Runner, you ARE going on a covert list. Because, screw privacy where there's a constitutional right that needs infringing.
You KNOW the feds are going to raid the 80% manufacturers for their sales records at some point, right?
Do you have any idea how many of those things were sold? Hundreds of thousands if not millions. They're not going to follow up on all of those transactions.
Yeah, this was half the point. Having the ATF chase down, say, 80,000 individually-sold paper wieghts all with the serial number "BRRRRRRRRR". Molon Labe.
How many of those 80% lowers are nothing but paperweights?
A lot. I know people who have been buying them for years, JIC.
If they come for mine I'll tell them I fucked up one of the holes and threw it out in frustration. Sold the upper and the rest of the parts on Uncle Henry's.
Why bother. Not being serialized, they don’t (yet) have to be registered or sold through an FFL. You sold them at a local gun show, and took cash. All perfectly legal. You didn’t check the guy’s ID, because there was no legal reason to. Or, you lost them in a tragic boating accident, but if that’s going to happen, you should probably fill up your boat with guns that the ATF might (legally) know about.
I actually store my guns in two different locations. There's the guns I bought at a store that could possibly be traced, and the ones I purchased completely legally through private sales. If the gun grabbers ever come I'll show them the case with the ones they could possibly know about.
Two houses - two gun safes. But I might have misplaced one or two somewhere when I was finishing the walls, up in the attic, buried in the yard, or may have even experienced an unfortunate boating accident. Know one guy who may have a gun or two in a watertight container at the bottom of a lake - accidentally of course. My guess is that it accidentally fell off the end of his dock.
And J6 was a heinous insurrection that the FBI was completely uninvolved in.
No, but the potential for following up on some is scary enough.
Most likely scenario is that, if your name comes up for some other reason, they've got an excuse to tear your house apart looking for a gun. Worst case, an excuse to say you're presumed armed and dangerous.
It’s not about following up on all of them. It’s about having the list, to be cross referenced with other lists of legal but icky political behavior.
Such as the list compiled by the 1/6 commission that you and Reason have no issue with.
Except, as pointed out by Sarcasmic, there is nothing legally keeping you from reselling unfinished AR-15 lowers to whomever you want, for cash. And it’s just going to get worse, with Cody Wilson’s Ghost Gunner machines now capable of turning solid blocks of aluminum into AR-15 lowers.
Emphasis on "unfinished."
I think that you get into gray territory when you sell one or two finished AR-15 lowers to strangers. The issue is whether you are engaged in the business of selling firearms. And not coincidentally, whether the sale effects interstellar commerce. This is essentially the (fairly rare in reality) Gun Show Loophole. Build a gun and give it to your kid? Arguably doesn’t violate federal law (but may violate state law).
I think people like you and me should be cautious about buying into the language supporting the unconstitutional extension of interstate commerce to me "everything". In particular, the text of the constitution empowers Congress to legislate things regarding interstate commerce, not "things that affect" interstate commerce.
Let's not lend the slightest support that is anything legitimately constitutional about the "having moved in interstate commerce" bullshit... Yes I know, it's settled law as far as the supremes are concerned, but that just reflects on their legitimacy.
It's even more capable of turning them into unfinished lowers.
The problem with Wilson's machine is that their definition of "unfinished" hinges on how much time and skill is necessary to finish it. If you were to take their standards seriously, any machinist with a raw billet possesses a gun, and his machine removes the requirement that you be a machinist.
It's only a fairly short matter of time before they act on that.
I thought about buying a "polymer 80" mostly because I wanted to assemble my own [gen 3] Glock to increase my knowledge; however I decided I just didn't need another striker fired pistol.
Now I'm glad I am not on any of those customer lists [I am on enough already].
Sloppy drafting leading to endless costly litigation with unpredictable results == FEATURE (not a bug) for anyone set on destroying an industry.
Vague rules mean arbitrary and capricious enforcement, which is how they like it.
The federal and local governments spent a lot of Covid money on "funding the police." A lot of that went towards militarization, such as APCs.
It's almost like they're bracing for unrest.
It's not just the regulation; this whole article is incomprehensible to me. As somebody who's not familiar with DIY gun manufacture, maybe it would have been nice to introduce some of the concepts.
As far as the ATF is concerned, only one part of a gun is the gun. The lower receiver. Everything else can be swapped out, but the lower is core of the firearm. Every lower that is completed for sale must be stamped with a serial number, place of manufacture, and company name. In order to purchase one through a dealer you have to go through a background check.
To get around this people sell 80% lowers, which is a lower receiver that needs material removed before it can function. It is not required to have any markings and anyone can buy one because it's not considered to be a firearm.
So anyone including a felon can buy an 80% lower, and with a vise, jig, router and drill turn it into a completed lower. Add the rest of the parts and you've got a fully functional gun with no markings.
The feds don't like this for obvious reasons.
the exact same reasons why the feds hate this are the same reasons why we love it. screw the government.
yup
the exact same reasons why the feds hate this are the same reasons why we love it. screw the government.
Does this mean that you don't really see any significant benefit to being able to obtain a gun with no serial number other than to give the government your middle finger?
Thanks!
No, dumbass - you don't tell them anything because lying to a fed is a crime in itself.
"I am not making a statement or answering questions before consulting with legal counsel".
Thread fail?
Part of the confusion is that the ATF is trying to solve at least three problems with the same set of regulations:
- 80% AR-15 (etc) lower receivers. They are used to build firearms from components. Even short barreled AR-15 pistols are too bulky to conceal easily. They are almost never used in crimes because of this. The left rightfully fears them because they are the ultimate militia gun, and that is why the ATF wants to regulate them. The more authoritarian the government gets, the more popular these guns are, and the more the left fears them - because they worry that they will go too far some day, and the gun safes that these are stored in will be unlocked and passed out.
The ATF has some serious problems though regulating them. They almost never pass in interstate commerce. With a history predating the Revolutionary War, they are at the core of the 2nd Amdt. Moreover, because we are talking highly modular AR-15s, they are easily interchangeable with serialized AR lowers bought through FFLs. And now, of course, Wilson is providing a mechanism for creating them from solid blocks of aluminum (they can also be created from plastic using standard manufacturing tools - they just don’t last very long when used - yet).
- Polymer80s. Conceptually, these are the handgun equivalents of AR-15 lower receivers, but typically constituting blocks of polymer that can be finished into handguns (conceptually, you could probably use aluminum, and build a 1911, but polymer guns are much more popular). These guns use after market gun parts, often from the manufacturers, to build untraceable handguns. Police around the country are finding many more of these all the time in the hands of criminals, because they are probably easier to acquire than stealing handguns, and are a good way for prohibited persons to acquire handguns almost legally.
- Real Ghost Guns, that are typically built of plastic and are hard to detect. They aren’t that useful, because they disintegrate so quickly, except for rare instances where they can be gotten through security. They scare those involved with security (remember that Clint Eastwood movie where he was a Secret Service agent?) but no one else. If metal detectors aren’t involved, then the other types of unserialized firearms are always much preferred, because they aren’t going to fall apart after shooting a couple rounds, are more accurate, etc.
Part of the confusion is that the ATF is trying to solve at least three problems with the same set of regulations:
The government's problems are your freedoms.
The government's problems are your freedoms.
That sounds great until it is the things that you do want the government to being doing that it has problems accomplishing. Do you want the government to be able to respond to crime? Defend the country from foreign threats? Engage in diplomacy effectively with both friendly and adversarial nations to advance our interests and way of life? And those are just national level issues. Do you want government to successfully inspect public infrastructure to ensure public safety? Respond to natural disasters? Provide for publicly funded education? Maintain environmental standards that affect public health?
Maybe you want to go beyond libertarianism into anarcho-capitalism and almost entirely do away with government doing any of that. In reality, I'm fairly sure that would simply be trading what you may view as 'government overlords' for corporate overlords that couldn't even be voted out in principle, let alone practice.
For an organization and website that calls itself "Reason", very little of that seems to take place in the comments among its self-described libertarian fans. Slogans, ideological cliches, and attempts at being clever are the common substitutes for actually thinking deeply about issues.
They're really only trying to solve 1 problem: That the Constitution has a right in it that they really don't like.
They're really only trying to solve 1 problem:
ThattheConstitution has a right in itpeople that they really don't like.FIFY.
Or they could just not regulate any of it.
'The left rightfully fears them because they are the ultimate militia gun,' I will say that they are a larger caliber stand-in for a submachinegun, so, maybe useful. But ultimate militia gun? Pistol-barreled anything would tend to rule this out for use that involved longer range shooting. Pistols lend themselves well to self-defense, sidearms, and committing crime. AR pistols would work well in the latter niche, once stolen from their owner.
You misread Bruce, though admittedly it might have been put a little more clearly.
He's saying that AR platform as a pistol isn't that useful for criminals because it's hard to conceal, but that isn't what the government fears in the first place -- It fears the rifle/carbine version because *that* definitely is the current-day ultimate militia weapon.
except for rare instances where they can be gotten through security.
Let me know when you can get bullets through security. In the mean time, barrels are still metal.
"(unless you want to subject hardware stores to gun regulations)"
Well, duh. We need background checks and waiting periods before buying anything made of metal.
Or PVC (Google "potato cannon")
Next thing they're going to ban is roasting marshmallows.
So now we have another gun control myth.
The original myths were:
1: "The Gun Show Loophole" which basically went "A whole shitload (I use that term to maintain the precision with which "the studies" established the "facts" which led them to their conclusions) of [very dangerous] guns are sold at gun shows and these [very dangerous] guns end up in the hands of [very dangerous] criminals. Utter bullshit, a vanishingly small number of guns sold at gun shows end up in the hands of criminals.
2: A popular meme in the international media; in the USA teenagers can legally buy machine guns on the internet. Fact: while one can technically "buy guns on the internet" no one can legally actually physically take delivery of any firearm without doing so through a licensed firearms dealer (FFL holder) after passing a background check. As to a "machine gun", the process to obtain one is extremely expensive and convoluted. As to "teenagers buying machine guns on the internet", the only case I have run across is a Welsh 17-year-old responding to an entrapment site set up by the police.
3: So now we have added the "ghost gun" myth. Same old bullshit, different day.
You could easily buy guns through the mail when I was a kid; They had ads for anti-material rifles in the backs of magazines. Sweet!
That asshole LBJ signed the law putting an end to that while I was still in elementary school, by the time I could have afforded one it was all fake cardboard Polaris submarines, which did NOT look anything like the ad even after you assembled them.
I remember seeing them in surplus stores. Also the barrels full of No. 1 and No. 4 Enfields for $12. Never bought one because I could barely afford to feed my .22.
I agree in some respects with what you wrote. The "gun show loophole" was not a loophole and it wasn't about gun shows. The issue was that private sales did not need to be documented nor involve background checks of any kind in those states. It got called that because, sometimes, individuals that went to gun shows would bring guns that they were looking to sell or trade and would meet up with other individuals at the shows. Actual licensed dealers at the shows still needed to meet all of the laws regulating background checks and waiting periods. (I know, because I've been to gun shows in Florida and waited to actually pick up a gun I bought from a dealer at one after going through the background check there before the sale would be approved and I paid the money.)
The argument of gun control advocates is that no one should ever be able to buy a gun without going through the background check. (They call this "universal background checks".) I can sympathize with that position. If I have to wait a few days to pick up a handgun, and have to go through a background check in order to buy a gun from a licensed dealer, why should someone else be able to legally avoid that simply by buying a gun from someone that isn't a licensed dealer? That sounds like it just encourages "straw buyers" and the like and enable guns getting into the hands of people that virtually everyone agrees shouldn't be getting them.
"Machine gun" is a term that usually applies to rifled fully automatic weapons built for sustained fire in military contexts. It isn't just that they are fully automatic, but are meant for at least squad-level infantry use. That is, a machine gun is not designed to be used by a single person unsupported by other soldiers. Even "light" machine guns are usually larger and heavier than a single infantryman operating independently would want to be carrying.
People that don't know often conflate portable fully automatic rifles and 'submachine guns' with this kind of weapon. (Submachine guns are fully automatic weapons that fire rounds normally designed for automatic pistols. The Terminator wanted the "Uzi 9mm", for instance, when the "phased plasma rifle in the 40 Watt range" wasn't something the store had in stock. "Hey, just what you see, pal.")
And yes, legally buying and possessing any fully automatic weapon is extremely difficult. (And shouldn't it be that way?)
The thing about "ghost guns" is that I don't understand what benefit they have for people that want to use a gun legally. Quite frankly, I am suspicious of anyone that would want their guns to be untraceable. I rather prefer the guns I own to have serial numbers that would allow them to be traced if they were ever stolen from me and used in a crime.
If a law was vague it was often ruled unconstitutional. Laws like this are open to interpretation and allow the executive and judicial branches to enforce and prosecute according to party affiliations. This law like Operation Chokepoint and/or Fast&Furious give Uncle Sam enough lee way to do as they please. Ironically that encourages more ordinary citizens to consider Ghost Guns. It's a win/win for the Fed to get fed.
Assume that every government action at every branch and every level is an attempt to screw you, and you'll be right far more often than not.
I'd feel better if I was murdered by a gun with a serial number on it.
You wouldn't feel anything. You'd be dead. But there are the people you would leave behind that care about you. Say a gun that was used to murder you was discovered, but it couldn't be traced to a suspect because it lacked any identifying markings. Making it more difficult to find justice for you would certainly make them feel worse. Of course, they also might wonder if you might not have been murdered if the person that did that was enabled in his crime by more easily being able to obtain an untraceable gun. Maybe that person was a convicted violent felon that couldn't buy a gun legally. And if no licensed dealer responsible for maintaining records of all guns with serial numbers that they sell and being able to show that they perform background checks on purchasers would sell them a gun, then that would have been an obstacle for that violent felon to obtaining a gun.
What are the benefits to society of allowing untraceable guns that outweigh the benefits of being able to trace them?
NFG. Just more rules to ignore.
Isn't it wonderful to live in the great Dictatorship of the USA where one man's decree (executive order) can override the Constitution and Bill of Rights?
Glad we got Biden and not the Dictator Trump! (sarc)
The statute defines exactly what a firearm is. Frames and lowers don't meet the statutory definition, ATF to the contrary. This is bureaucratic overreach of the kind that got ATF spanked by Congress in the late '80s. I see another spanking coming. Some people never learn.
The statute defines exactly what a firearm is.
This whole issue seems like a gun rights version of the <a href="https://open.library.okstate.edu/introphilosophy/chapter/ship-of-theseus/"Ship of Theseus" paradox. It comes down to creating a self-consistent definition of what a single gun is. What parts are essential to the gun being functional, and which parts can be replaced without making it a different gun. You could even go to Hobbes' extension of that paradox and imagine which parts that are replaced could be gathered to make another functioning gun.