AR lowers still receivers or not? Silly ATF....................
Close
Login to Your Account
Results 1 to 11 of 11
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pillager, MN
    Posts
    5,703
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1861
    Likes (Received)
    5174

    Default AR lowers still receivers or not? Silly ATF....................


  2. Likes mhajicek liked this post
  3. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Country
    ALAND ISLANDS
    Posts
    4
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    2

    Default

    Lol, yeah this is an interesting legal case.

    At this point it’s likely up to the individual judge. Some judges are undoubtly going to rule in favor of the ATF, while others, as we’ve seen, will rule against.

    Either way I don’t want to be the guy who gets stuck with the legal bills.


    Check out my website!
    The Ballistic Assistant

  4. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Location
    Posts
    44
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    18

    Default

    I read the CNN article. This does raise a lot of questions regarding numerous modern firearm designs.

    If we find ourselves in a situation where a rifle isn't a firearm until the two halves are put together by the buyer, where does this leave the industry? At that point why would anyone buy a complete rifle? Could a complete rifle be disassembled and both halves sold without a background check?

    The easy way out is for Congress to ban the manufacture of firearms by unlicenced parties. That would mean we would all have to buy reciever sets as both halves together do fulfill the definition of reciever. It would also mean no more home built rolling blocks.

  5. #4
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Minnesota
    Posts
    930
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1098
    Likes (Received)
    573

    Default

    Which part of this is the receiver?

    screw-together-lower.jpg
    mplpcs.jpg

  6. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Texas
    Posts
    191
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    52
    Likes (Received)
    164

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mhajicek View Post
    Which part of this is the receiver?
    Depends on the lawyer.

  7. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Oklahoma City, OK
    Posts
    4,167
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    719
    Likes (Received)
    1758

    Default

    Well that's interesting.

    Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

  8. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Oregon
    Posts
    2,528
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    567
    Likes (Received)
    764

    Default

    Federal law, to the degree that I understand it, is that anyone who has no background prohibitions can build a firearm of his/her own as long as he doesn't sell it, it's the selling that draws the legal problems. So if some kind hearted person makes a firearm and gives it to his kid (Of age) or a friend he knows there's no problem. Of course in states like mine where tyrants rule the Bill of Rights doesn't apply (Boggles my mind typing that) and I'd have to have a background check done to even give a gun I made to a friend I've known for 50 years, of course it doesn't make any sense, nor do tyrants need it to, the object is to restrict gun ownership and use, you know, the "Keep and bear" stuff.
    But the guy running the "Build your own AR" parties, did he get paid for the machine usage, or the knowledge of what to do?
    I don't understand why the BATF cannot consider two component parts of a single gun to both be the firearm, after all, any single baffle of a suppressor is considered a suppressor for legal means, how is that different?

  9. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    California, Ventura county
    Posts
    1,407
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    256
    Likes (Received)
    602

    Default

    hmmm by that logic most semi auto hand guns with out the slide attached aren't firearms either

  10. #9
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Minnesota
    Posts
    930
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1098
    Likes (Received)
    573

    Default

    Just goes to show how nonsensical it is to ban shapes.

  11. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Michigan
    Posts
    600
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    189
    Likes (Received)
    174

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by partsproduction View Post
    Federal law, to the degree that I understand it, is that anyone who has no background prohibitions can build a firearm of his/her own as long as he doesn't sell it, it's the selling that draws the legal problems. So if some kind hearted person makes a firearm and gives it to his kid (Of age) or a friend he knows there's no problem.

    The prohibition is on "INTENT TO TRANSFER" NOT sale.

  12. #11
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Minnesota
    Posts
    930
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1098
    Likes (Received)
    573

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MIBill View Post
    The prohibition is on "INTENT TO TRANSFER" NOT sale.
    Exactly. Manufacturing with intent to transfer. While intent can never be proven, the ATF will generally assume you made them with intent to transfer if you make more than three firearms per year or if you hold one for less than two years before transferring.


Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •