ATF Agent Teaches Legal Differences Between Weapons

On April 7, President Biden issued several executive orders related to gun control. The first was that the Justice Department would issue a rule to help stop the proliferation of “ghost guns.” A leaked document of the proposed rules from the ATF came out this week.

In this rule, the ATF addresses the first problem they have and that is the actual definition of a receiver. The ATF admits that, based on the courts’ interpretation of the ATF’s regulations, it could mean that as many as 90 percent of all firearms now in the United States would not meet the definition of a firearm.

The ATF admitted in the document that “neither the upper nor the lower portion of a split/multi-piece receiver firearm alone falls within the precise wording of the regulatory definition” but lashed out in the document at the “erroneous district court decisions” that employ a “narrow interpretation” of the definition.

It is funny how the ATF doesn’t like it when their vague rules get interpreted based on what they actually say and not by what the ATF would like them to say. The video above may be a parody but it is closer to reality than fiction.

The document reworks and broadens the definition of what parts constitute a regulated firearm receiver.

The current definition is in regulations as that part of a firearm that provides housing for the hammer, bolt or breechblock, and firing mechanism, and which is usually threaded at its forward portion to receive the barrel. 

The new definition further expands what will be considered a receiver and will require the parts to be serialized and go through a licensed dealer for purchase. The proposed receiver definition would only require one fire control component, such as a trigger mechanism, cylinder, or firing pin, instead of requiring multiple parts as the current definition does.

The document then proceeds to address “ghost guns” or privately made firearms.

The definition of a firearm is any weapon (including a starter gun) which will, or is designed to, or may readily be converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an explosive.

The term readily is addressed as a process that is fairly or reasonably efficient, quick, and easy, but not necessarily the most efficient, speedy, or easy process. 

How precise is that definition?

It further lists factors relevant in making this determining to include:

(a) time, i.e., how long it takes to finish the process;

(b) ease, i.e., how difficult it is to do so;

(c) expertise, i.e., what knowledge and skills are required;

(d) equipment, i.e., what tools required;

(e) availability, i.e., whether additional parts are required, and how easily they can be obtained;

(f) expense, how much it costs;

(g) scope, i.e., the extent to which the subject of the process must be changed to finish it; and

(h) feasibility, i.e., whether the process would damage or destroy the subject of the process, or cause it to malfunction.

This definition and factors considered in determining whether a weapon, including a weapon parts kit, or unfinished frame or receiver may readily be assembled, completed, converted, or restored to function are based on case law interpreting the terms “may readily be converted to expel a projectile."

The proposal provides only subjective standards for what makes an unfinished part “readily” convertible into a finished firearm but provides footnotes to court cases where the term has been applied. One court example included in the document said a part completed in “around an eight-hour working day in a properly equipped machine shop” was considered “readily” convertible. The only example of a ruling defining when a part is not “readily” convertible involved a process that “required [a] master gunsmith in a gun shop and $65,000 worth of equipment and tools.”

As always, the ATF continues to make rulings that are more vague than clear.

What I’m not sure about is how the ATF will make these changes. Obviously, they are just changing their interpretation of the current law but in order to actually do this I believe it requires a law change via Congress. As I have stated in the past, the ATF has a history of overstepping their authority, and in this very document, they express disdain for the courts who “misinterpret” the definition. What they really mean to say is that the courts who interpret the law as written and not how the ATF would like them to interpret.

This is just another attempt by the Biden regime acting with authority that they don’t have to pass their agenda that is not supported by the people.