Can we get an analysis of ATF proposed rule 2021R-05, Definition of “Frame or Receiver” and Identification of Firearms?

Timfoilhat

Time is my accomplice
2A Bourbon Hound 2024
2A Bourbon Hound OG
Benefactor
Life Member
Multi-Factor Enabled
Joined
Jan 28, 2020
Messages
9,679
Location
Matthews
Rating - 100%
17   0   0
Trying to get a comment submitted this week, but the over 100 pages of lawyer speak has made my eyes gloss over. Can we get some analysis and talking points to focus on. Specifically interested in the whole serializing of what were previously parts. Will we be expected to serialize currently owned uppers? Also interested if they're expecting serializing of existing home made firearms.


On May 7, 2021, the Attorney General signed ATF proposed rule 2021R-05, Definition of “Frame or Receiver” and Identification of Firearms. The goal of the proposed rule is to ensure the proper marking, recordkeeping, and traceability of all firearms manufactured, imported, acquired and disposed by federal firearms licensees.

This proposed rule would among others, provide new or amend previous definitions of terms related to or about “firearm frame or receivers” and “frame or receivers.” For more details on these definitions, please visit our website at: https://www.atf.gov/...ame-or-receiver.

What Can You Do
ATF requests comments on the proposed rule, Definition of “Frame or Receiver” and Identification of Firearms, from all interested persons.

ATF specifically requests comments on the feasibility of implementing the new definition of firearm “frame or receiver” in 27 CFR 478.11 and 27 CFR 479.11, and related definitions and amendments that ensure the proper marking, recordkeeping, and traceability of all firearms manufactured, imported, acquired and disposed by federal firearms licensees.

ATF also requests comments on the costs or benefits of the proposed rule and on the appropriate methodology and data for calculating those costs and benefits.

For more information on how to submit your comments visit our website at: https://www.atf.gov/.../submit-comment.


https://www.atf.gov/...eceiver/summary


Summary of Proposed Rule 2021R-05
ATF's proposed rule, Definition of “Frame or Receiver” and Identification of Firearms, would:
  • Provide new definitions of “firearm frame or receiver” and “frame or receiver”
  • Amend the definition of:
    • “firearm” to clarify when a firearm parts kit is considered a “firearm,” and
    • “gunsmith” to clarify the meaning of that term and to explain that gunsmiths may be licensed solely to mark firearms for unlicensed persons.
  • Provide definitions for:
    • “complete weapon,”
    • “complete muffler or silencer device,”
    • “privately made firearm (PMF),” and
    • “readily” for purposes of clarity given advancements in firearms technology.
  • Provide a definition of “importer’s or manufacturer’s serial number”
  • Provide a deadline for marking firearms manufactured.
  • Clarify marking requirements for firearm mufflers and silencers.
  • Amend the format for records of manufacture/acquisition and disposition by manufacturers and importers.
  • Amend the time period records must be retained at the licensed premises.
Proposed New Definition of Firearm “Frame or Receiver”
Under the proposed rule, a “frame or receiver” is any externally visible housing or holding structure for one or more fire control components. A “fire control component” is one necessary for the firearm to initiate, complete, or continue the firing sequence, including, but not limited to, any of the following: hammer, bolt, bolt carrier, breechblock, cylinder, trigger mechanism, firing pin, striker, or slide rails.
Any firearm part falling within the new definition that is identified with a serial number must be presumed, absent an official determination by ATF or other reliable evidence to the contrary, to be a frame or receiver.
More than one externally visible part may house or hold a fire control component on a particular firearm, such as with a split or modular frame or receiver. Under these circumstances, ATF may determine whether a specific part or parts of the weapon is the frame or receiver, which may include an internal frame or chassis at least partially exposed to the exterior to allow identification.
The proposed rule maintains current classifications and marking requirements of firearm frames or receivers, except that licensed manufacturers and importers must mark on new designs or configurations either: their name (or recognized abbreviation), and city and state (or recognized abbreviation) where they maintain their place of business; or their name (or recognized abbreviation) and their abbreviated FFL number, on each part defined as a frame or receiver, along with the serial number.
The proposed rule includes examples of types and models firearms and identifies the frame or receiver. Most examples also include an illustration identifying the frame or receiver. It also explains when a partially complete, disassembled, or inoperable frame or receiver is considered a “frame or receiver”, and explains that a destroyed frame or receiver is not considered a “frame or receiver”.
Firearm Parts Kits
The proposed rule explains that when a partially complete frame or receiver parts kit has reached a stage in manufacture where it may readily be completed, assembled, converted, or restored to a functional state, it is a “frame or receiver” that must be marked.
Weapon parts kits with partially complete frames or receivers and containing the necessary parts such that they may readily be completed, assembled, converted, or restored to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive are “firearms” for which each frame or receiver of the weapon would need to be marked.
A weapon, including a weapon parts kit, in which each frame or receiver of the weapon or within such kit is destroyed is not considered a “firearm”.
Licensing of Dealer/Gunsmiths
Under the proposed rule, dealers/gunsmiths can mark firearms for the maker or owner of a privately made firearm (PMF) and may be licensed to engage solely in that business.
Dealer/gunsmiths are not authorized to perform repair, modify, embellish, refurbish, or install parts in or on firearms (frames, receivers, or otherwise) for or on behalf of a licensed importer or licensed manufacturer because those firearms are for sale or distribution. A license as a Type 07 manufacturer would be required.
Marking Requirements for Firearms Other than PMFs
Under the proposed rule, licensed manufacturers and importers must identify each part defined as a frame or receiver (or specific part(s) determined by ATF) of each firearm they manufacture or import with a serial number, licensee’s name (or recognized abbreviation) where they maintain their place of business; or their name (or recognized abbreviation) and abbreviated federal firearms license number as a prefix, followed by a hyphen, and then followed by a number as a suffix (e.g., “12345678-[number]”).
Each part defined as a frame or receiver, machinegun, or firearm muffler or firearm silencer that is not a component part of a complete weapon or device at the time it is sold, shipped, or otherwise disposed of by the licensee must be identified with a serial number and all additional identifying information, except that the model designation and caliber or gauge may be omitted if that information is unknown at the time the part is identified.
Licensees must mark complete weapons, or frames or receivers disposed of separately, as the case may be, no later than seven days following the date of completion of the active manufacturing process or prior to disposition, whichever is sooner.
Marking and Recordkeeping Requirements for PMFs
Under the proposed rule, a “privately made firearm” (PMF) is a firearm, including a frame or receiver, assembled or otherwise produced by a person other than a licensed manufacturer, and without a serial number or other identifying markings placed by a licensed manufacturer at the time the firearm was produced. The term does not include an NFA registered firearm, or one made before October 22, 1968 (unless remanufactured after that date).
Licensees must:
  • Properly mark each PMF acquired before the effective date of the rule within 60 days after the rule becomes final, or before the date of disposition (including to a personal collection), whichever is sooner.
  • Properly mark previously acquired PMFs themselves or may arrange to have another licensee mark the firearm on their behalf. PMFs currently in inventory that a licensee chooses not to mark may also be destroyed or voluntarily turned-in to law enforcement within the 60-day period.
  • Once the rule becomes final, and unless already marked by another licensee, properly mark each PMF within seven days following the date of receipt or other acquisition (including from a personal collection), or before the date of disposition (including to a personal collection), whichever is sooner.
  • Mark PMFs acquired after the rule becomes effective themselves or under their direct supervision by another licensee with the supervising licensee’s information.
  • Mark PMFs with the same serial number on each frame or receiver of a weapon that begins with the FFL’s abbreviated license number (first three and last five digits) as a prefix followed by a hyphen on any “privately made firearm” (as defined) that the licensee acquired (e.g., “12345678-[number]”).
  • Record PMFs in their acquisition and disposition records, whether or not kept overnight, and update their acquisition entries with information marked on PMFs.
Licensees may refuse to accept PMFs or arrange for private individuals to have them marked by another licensee before accepting them, provided they are properly marked in accordance with this proposed rule.
Marking, Registration, and Transfer Requirements for Silencers
Under the proposed rule, a “frame or receiver” of a firearm muffler or silencer device is defined as a housing or holding structure for one or more essential internal components of the device, including, but not limited to, baffles, baffling material, or expansion chamber.
Manufacturers and makers of complete muffler or silencer devices need only mark each part (or specific part(s) previously determined by ATF) of the device defined as a “frame or receiver” under this rule. However, individual muffler or silencer parts must be marked if they are disposed of separately from a complete device unless transferred by qualified manufacturers to other qualified licensees for the manufacture or repair of complete devices.
A qualified manufacturer may:
  • Transfer a silencer part to another qualified manufacturer without immediately identifying or registering such part provided that, upon receipt, it is actively used to manufacture a complete muffler or silencer device.
  • Transfer a replacement silencer part other than a frame or receiver to a qualified manufacturer or dealer without identifying or registering such part provided that, upon receipt, it is actively used to repair a complete muffler or silencer device that was previously identified and registered in accordance with this part.
Persons may temporarily convey a lawfully possessed NFA firearm, including a silencer, to a qualified manufacturer or dealer for the sole purpose of repair, identification, evaluation, research, testing, or calibration, and return to the same lawful possessor without additional identification or registration.
Records of Acquisition and Disposition
Under the proposed rule, records of manufacture/importation/acquisition and disposition by manufacturers and importers must be consolidated into one book similar to dealers, and the format containing the applicable columns is specified as part of the regulation.
The proposed rule specifies required information for duplicate entries in licensees’ acquisition and disposition books so there are no open entries (i.e., bound books must be ‘closed out’).
Record Retention
Under the proposed rule, all licensees must retain forms, including ATF Forms 4473, and acquisition and disposition records until the business or licensed activity is discontinued.
Paper forms and records over 20 years of age may be stored in a separate warehouse, which is considered part of the licensed premises and subject to inspection. Paper acquisition and disposition records stored separately are those that do not contain any open disposition entries and with no dispositions recorded within 20 years.
Learn More
 
Last edited:
I read it yesterday. Was going to read again before commenting.

My take is that AR uppers and pistol slides are now “firearms” in and of themselves. They’ll require serial numbers. And, grandfathering seems to be in question.
 
I read it yesterday. Was going to read again before commenting.

My take is that AR uppers and pistol slides are now “firearms” in and of themselves. They’ll require serial numbers. And, grandfathering seems to be in question.
My take as well. I'd sure like some discussion so we can write intelligently when telling ATF to step off with the vague catch all phrasing.
 
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
 
100 pages of Bravo Sierra from a rogue , lawless organization that hates us, our freedoms and the Bill of Rights.

Affordable metal 3d printers can't come soon enough.
 
Last edited:
I read it yesterday. Was going to read again before commenting.

My take is that AR uppers and pistol slides are now “firearms” in and of themselves. They’ll require serial numbers. And, grandfathering seems to be in question.
I'm no lawyer, and no genius, but wouldn't this be a lawsuit waiting to happen?

If the lower and the upper of an AR are both firearms...and I pull the trigger...wouldn't that mean that, technically, two firearms fired for a single pull of the trigger, making all AR's illegal machine guns? Seems like a lawsuit waiting to happen.
 
100 pages of Bravo Sierra from a rogue , lawless organization that hates us, our freedoms and the Bill of Rights.

Affordable metal 3d printers can't come soon enough.
That's not true at all.

It's a group of law enforcement, bureaucrats and lawyer's. Who at the helm are political appointed.

If anti-gun is on the menu, we get this crap. If we get a wacko who pulls off the the blinders and exposes how inepth the government is, we get bump-stock bands.
 
I'm no lawyer, and no genius, but wouldn't this be a lawsuit waiting to happen?

If the lower and the upper of an AR are both firearms...and I pull the trigger...wouldn't that mean that, technically, two firearms fired for a single pull of the trigger, making all AR's illegal machine guns? Seems like a lawsuit waiting to happen.
Conflating the definition of machine gun which is roughly "Any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger"
Your example still only fires one shot.

A lawsuit is still one of the responses though.
 
Last edited:
What they’ve done, and honestly it’s hard to blame them on THIS POINT, is acknowledge that the definition of a firearm does not fit modern semi auto rifles and pistols.

The current definition of a firearm is - loosely translated - the housing/frame which contains the entire firing mechanism.

So, take an AR where the hammer and trigger are “lower” parts and the BCG is an “upper” part. Neither the lower nor the upper meet the definition of a “firearm”. The lower was arbitrarily decreed the S/N carrying part at some point. Same argument for a striker fired pistol which was not in existence when the definitions came about.

So, in an effort to enact more gun control, this is the legal “common sense” approach they’re taking - redefining what is a firearm.

“In before” those who can’t differentiate explanation from agreement start bashing me....
 
Last edited:
As I understand it, the AR15 was first sold in 1964. The Gun Control Act of 1968 established the need for serial numbers. With the exception of the AR15, rifles contained all firing components in the receiver. ATF could have advised lawmakers in 68 about the exception with the AR15, but at that point in time they didn't and here we are.

My further reading elsewhere says existing upper receiver for AR15 is spelled out as not a firearm in the proposal.

I'm with @Tim on the whole explanation and discussion isn't the same thing as agreement. We need to understand what is being proposed first so we can intelligently refute during comment period. We've stopped action banning ammo by commenting before. It's a long shot, but maybe we can stop this too.
 
For those of you who think the ATF won't be able to get away with making us label the lower and the upper as separate firearms...
Look up the SAFETY HARBOR FIREARMS bolt action .50 uppers. That came and became effective without a peep. They'll point to that as the example of how it worked already.
Except now they'll try to say that even factory shipped ARs will need separate SNs for uppers and lowers since it's so easy to separate and swap.
 
With regards to the classification of AR uppers as a separate firearm, the proposed rule pretty emphatically states that this is not the intent:

Although the new definition would more broadly define the term “frame or receiver” than the current definition, it is not intended to alter any prior determinations by ATF of what it considers the frame or receiver of a particular split/modular weapon. ATF would also continue to consider the same factors when classifying firearms...
...even though a firearm, including a silencer, may have more than one part that falls within the definition of “frame or receiver,” ATF may classify a specific part or parts to be the “frame or receiver” of a particular weapon...
One important goal of this rule is to ensure that it does not affect existing ATF classifications of firearms that specify a single component as the frame or receiver.

However, that being said, it does mean that for future designs, unless otherwise submitted to and cleared by the ATF, each receiver part housing fire control components will be considered a separate receiver.
...manufacturers may wish to submit samples to ATF for classification of one or more particular components as the frame or receiver so that they need only mark a specific part or parts of a weapon, rather than all qualifying parts.
However, if there is a present or future split or modular design for a firearm that is not comparable to an existing classification, then the definition of “frame or receiver” would advise that more than one part is the frame or receiver subject to marking and other requirements, unless a specific classification or marking variance is obtained from ATF, as described above.
 
Last edited:
What they’ve done, and honestly it’s hard to blame them on THIS POINT, is acknowledge that the definition of a firearm does not fit modern semi auto rifles and pistols.

The current definition of a firearm is - loosely translated - the housing/frame which contains the entire firing mechanism.

So, take an AR where the hammer and trigger are “lower” parts and the BCG is an “upper” part. Neither the lower nor the upper meet the definition of a “firearm”. The lower was arbitrarily decreed the S/N carrying part at some point. Same argument for a striker fired pistol which was not in existence when the definitions came about.

So, in an effort to enact more gun control, this is the legal “common sense” approach they’re taking - redefining what is a firearm.

“In before” those who can’t differentiate explanation from agreement start bashing me....
It's not really about cleaning up a definition. Anywhere there has been any part that was unclear they've specifically ruled which part makes a firearm for that particular gun.. lower on an AR, upper receiver on a fal, frame on a semiauto pistol, frame on a revolver, bare action on a bolt action, etc. It's all about restricting access to parts, if suddenly an ar upper is a firearm then they can't be sold without paperwork, if a parts kit is suddenly a firearm then they have to have paperwork. If an 80% is now a firearm... you get the picture. Nothing has radically changed in firearms since at least the 1960s, there's no sudden need to "clearly define" what is a gun. This is just another step in tighter and tighter control. It's not like "ghost guns" are the new crack epidemic, it's just what they don't like today. "Oh, you can make your own receiver, or finish out an 80%.. we don't like that, so we'll make it hard on you". You might as well look for it, eventually having a 3d printer and a file for a frame will be considered intent for legal purposes to railroad someone.

Pretty much every pro-gun org needs to be writing challenges to this and people need to raise hell. If they don't make enough noise then this will go into law by regulation instead of legislation just like every other agenda item they know wont pass a vote.
 
Wasn’t there some conversation a couple of months ago about how the current legal definition of “receiver” might open a loophole where anyone accused of possessing just a lower could get off? I remember we discussed why no lawyer had tried to use that one yet. Anybody remember that? Maybe they are trying to clean that up.

It sucks when you know they are up to something but you can’t tell how they are going to screw you with it.
 
Wasn’t there some conversation a couple of months ago about how the current legal definition of “receiver” might open a loophole where anyone accused of possessing just a lower could get off? I remember we discussed why no lawyer had tried to use that one yet. Anybody remember that? Maybe they are trying to clean that up.

It sucks when you know they are up to something but you can’t tell how they are going to screw you with it.
It's more than a conversation. ATF got boned trying to prosecute a guy over AR lowers. Guy argued that they weren't firearms because there was no bolt. Guy won.
 
Great time to remind eveof jury nullification. Just vote not guilty on every jury that involves any gun law that doesn't abide by the constitution.
 
Ive read through that cluster and still havent figured out what it means. Yeah , the ATF screwed up and called the lower of the AR the receiver 50 years ago. They are going in to "fix" it now but what that is supposed to prove I dont know. The millions of AR's out there with unserialized uppers . What about them? Using multiple uppers on one lower?
 
Ive read through that cluster and still havent figured out what it means. Yeah , the ATF screwed up and called the lower of the AR the receiver 50 years ago. They are going in to "fix" it now but what that is supposed to prove I dont know. The millions of AR's out there with unserialized uppers . What about them? Using multiple uppers on one lower?
As I understand it, the AR is a currently defined and classified firearm it is not subject to this part of the rule making. This rulemaking is forward looking to new designs, or modifications of existing designs.
 
The NFA was written to regulate criminal activity not to create a new class of criminals. The whole SBR vs pistol brace discussion is ding dong. The AR platform should be exempted from sbr classification. After all this time it hardly seems the root of all criminal enterprise.
 
The NFA was created to outlaw most firearms. Criminals dont follow gun laws. They wanted to include pistol in there but couldnt get the votes. $200 in 1934 money is about $6000 in 2021 money. Too much for a stamp.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom