New ATF rule in effect

[Holland&Holland]

So now that the new ATF rule is in effect yesterday regarding firearm kits and serial numbers (I refuse to use the Biden tik tok term). Does anyone have a good run down of what it all means? I tried to read it back when it was being proposed but found it confusing. I need simple crayon drawings to understand things.

Thank you!

[870TC]

" found it confusing"....
Written vague enough to allow for manipulation. At "the moment", everyone is saying no new UN-serialized frames can be sold. ie polymer 80 or other 80% frames/lowers. If you already have one, nothing has changed, you can keep it but if you sell it...it needs a serial number.
The early fear or threat to expand this to include uppers or other misc parts has not materialized... yet.

[Lumpy]

Wait until they want controls on CNC milling machines.

[Holland&Holland]

Got it. Confused is the new normal.

[Jackpine Savage]

I understand they changed some of the wording two days before it took effect, unlawfully of course. On another forum, a guy from FL that owns a company that manufactures 80 percent AR receivers, said they were ceasing sales for the time being. They are involved in the Firearms Policy Coalition lawsuit and are hoping that the regulation gets thrown out.

As of right now I'm guessing that you won't see any unserialized 80% receivers for sale until something changes.

[Sorcerer]

Dremel. You will just need to decide which felony to commit. Old 80% or s/n removed. If memory serves me the only time a 80% needs a s/n is when selling it, definitely if selling to an FFL.

[Holland&Holland]

Dremel. You will just need to decide which felony to commit. Old 80% or s/n removed. If memory serves me the only time a 80% needs a s/n is when selling it, definitely if selling to an FFL.

I try to avoid most felonies.

[Rowdy Roddy]

An email I got from Grid Defense said they will still be able to ship 80% lowers but you will have to buy the jig and accessories elsewhere. I think some companies are playing it uber-conservative and ceasing all sales until the dust settles but as I understand it nothing has really changed for the individual. If an FFL takes in an 80% lower for work for more than one consecutive day they will have to mark it, but if you drop it off and pick it up the same day no marking is necessary. Just like the pistol brace directive, there is a lot of gray area and deliberately I expect.

[Holland&Holland]

An email I got from Grid Defense said they will still be able to ship 80% lowers but you will have to buy the jig and accessories elsewhere. I think some companies are playing it uber-conservative and ceasing all sales until the dust settles but as I understand it nothing has really changed for the individual. If an FFL takes in an 80% lower for work for more than one consecutive day they will have to mark it, but if you drop it off and pick it up the same day no marking is necessary. Just like the pistol brace directive, there is a lot of gray area and deliberately I expect.

Gotta distinguish between “peaceful protestors” and “insurgents” somehow.

[LarryFlew]

Gotta distinguish between “peaceful protestors” and “insurgents” somehow.

"peaceful protester" defined as Democrat friendlies - does not matter what they are actually doing
"insurgent" defined as republicans - does not matter what they are actually doing either

[Holland&Holland]

Gotta distinguish between “peaceful protestors” and “insurgents” somehow.

"peaceful protester" defined as Democrat friendlies - does not matter what they are actually doing
"insurgent" defined as republicans - does not matter what they are actually doing either

Got it, confused again.

[Bearcatrp]

Did ATF demand records of sales? Waiting to hear folks claiming they had a visit from the ATF.

[Jackpine Savage]

I understand they changed some of the wording two days before it took effect, unlawfully of course. On another forum, a guy from FL that owns a company that manufactures 80 percent AR receivers, said they were ceasing sales for the time being. They are involved in the Firearms Policy Coalition lawsuit and are hoping that the regulation gets thrown out.

As of right now I'm guessing that you won't see any unserialized 80% receivers for sale until something changes.

Here's a link to some nice lowers for sale by the guy mentioned above.

https://www.tacticalmachining.com/fjb-multi-caliber-lower-receiver-stripped-unanodized-ffl-required/

[Jackpine Savage]

Good news!

FPC Secures Partial Preliminary Injunction in Lawsuit Challenging ATF “Frame or Receiver” Rule
September 2, 2022

FORT WORTH, TX (September 2, 2022) – Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) secured a partial victory in VanDerStok v. Garland, in the form of a partial and limited injunction in its lawsuit challenging the ATF’s rule that would create new terms and enact a slew of regulations for the agency to enforce. The opinion can be viewed at FPCLegal.org.

“The Final Rule’s redefinition of ‘frame or receiver’ conflicts with the statute’s plain meaning,” wrote Federal District Court Judge Reed O’Connor in his Order. “The definition of ‘firearm’ in the Gun Control Act does not cover all firearm parts. It covers specifically ‘the frame or receiver of any such weapon’ that Congress defined as a firearm. 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(3)(B). That which may become a receiver is not itself a receiver.”

.
.
More at link: https://gunandsurvival.com/2022/09/02/fpc-secures-partial-preliminary-injunction-in-lawsuit-challenging-atf-frame-or-receiver-rule/

[Holland&Holland]

Good news!

FPC Secures Partial Preliminary Injunction in Lawsuit Challenging ATF “Frame or Receiver” Rule
September 2, 2022

FORT WORTH, TX (September 2, 2022) – Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) secured a partial victory in VanDerStok v. Garland, in the form of a partial and limited injunction in its lawsuit challenging the ATF’s rule that would create new terms and enact a slew of regulations for the agency to enforce. The opinion can be viewed at FPCLegal.org.

“The Final Rule’s redefinition of ‘frame or receiver’ conflicts with the statute’s plain meaning,” wrote Federal District Court Judge Reed O’Connor in his Order. “The definition of ‘firearm’ in the Gun Control Act does not cover all firearm parts. It covers specifically ‘the frame or receiver of any such weapon’ that Congress defined as a firearm. 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(3)(B). That which may become a receiver is not itself a receiver.”

.
.
More at link: https://gunandsurvival.com/2022/09/02/fpc-secures-partial-preliminary-injunction-in-lawsuit-challenging-atf-frame-or-receiver-rule/

Hope yet!