ATF wants everyone to serialize everything, even existing homemade firearms.
Here are the details....
https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regula...ceiver/summary
Printable View
ATF wants everyone to serialize everything, even existing homemade firearms.
Here are the details....
https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regula...ceiver/summary
I can see how it could be used to declare uppers to require FFL transfers and serialization by mere future edict on top of all the other issues with this.
Fun times.
Mine are all gonna be serial numbered #1.
There you go. I don't see where it requires more digits....
"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]?)."
[ROFL2]
between 3d printers and home machine shops , sure . Who's grandfathered, or not, is this retro active, or when they arbitrarily issue the edict??
How it reads, they don't intend to grandfather anything. All will need to be serialized in 60 days from when the rule become final.
"Properly mark each PMF acquired before the effective date of the rule within 60 days after the rule becomes final"
FU-ATF-001
Fvck. Dumbo brown is quoted in this article.
Consider the proposal final now that this asshat is being quoted as a creditable source.
The responsibility to engrave and log serial numbers is on the FFLs. How many are going to be willing to do that? Probably very few...
I foresee the new regulation allowing the maximum price FFLs are allowed to charge per firearm being $40, although in practice, they will charge $150 while calling it something different.Quote:
Originally Posted by hollohas
QFT. And there will be no shortage of FFL's willing to stumble all over themselves for pure, high wage pure profit. But something tells me there's only about 100 "ghost guns" in the state of Colorado. Luckily there will be exceptionally high compliance rates because the purpose of legislation like this surely wouldn't be to make lots of ordinary people with different opinions than the legislators criminals subject to extreme punishment for mere possession or use of something.Quote:
Originally Posted by kidicarus13
I used pocket knife KER345348 to sharpen stick HIC3406980. I really didn't need the extended range of my rock FF0909BR.
I sure hope a bunch of LGS don't invest in engraving equipment when just a handful of newly minted federally controlled ghost guns need to be serialized.
Of course there will be. I remember when that last slew of laws went into effect and everybody within an hour and a half drive who even thought they might have some firearm related inventory closed for a day or two for time to check compliance.Quote:
Originally Posted by FoxtArt
Can I suggest a certain font?Quote:
Originally Posted by TEAMRICO
But defacing a serial number is illegal. Surely a criminal wouldn't break a law.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric P
More nonsense and virtue signaling.
Says they must be marked.
Doesn’t say anything about legible markings.....
Good point.
There's all sorts of fun symbols that can be used.
I know i'll be standing in line to get my receiver engraved. I look forward to see what our overlords demand of us, next
I assume they will follow the same standards for marking of firearms.Quote:
Originally Posted by BPTactical
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I sure hope the lines are not as long as those for people turning in their bump stocks.
I guess I am not "getting it"
4. Marking of privately made firearms
Because privately made firearms do not have the identifying markings required of commercially manufactured firearms, this rule proposes to amend 27 CFR 478.92 to require FFLs to mark, or supervise the marking of, the same serial number on each frame or receiver (as defined in this rule) 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]?). Unless previously identified by another licensee, PMFs acquired by licensees on or after the effective date of the rule would need to be marked in this manner within seven days of receipt or other acquisition (including from a personal collection), or before the date of disposition (including to a personal collection), whichever is sooner.65 For PMFs acquired by licensees before the effective date of the rule, licensees would be required to mark or cause them to be marked by another licensee either within 60 days from that date, or before the date of final disposition (including to a personal collection), whichever is sooner. With respect to polymer firearms, including those that are produced using additive manufacturing (also known as ?3D printing?), the method of marking would typically require the licensee to embed (or use pre-existing) metal serial number
plates within the plastic to ensure they cannot be worn away during normal use.
66 Incorporation of this metal plate along with other metal components would also help ensure that the polymer firearm does not violate the Undetectable Firearms Act, 18 U.S.C. 922(p), which prohibits the manufacture and possession of firearms that are not as detectable as the ?Security Exemplar? that contains 3.7 ounces of material type 17-4 PH stainless steel.67
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. Also, this proposed rule would not require Federal firearms licensees to accept any PMFs, or to mark them themselves. Licensees would be able to 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. To provide greater access to professional marking, as stated previously, this rule would clarify that the meaning of the term ?gunsmith? includes persons who engage in the business of identifying firearms for nonlicensees so that gunsmiths may become licensed as dealer-gunsmiths solely to provide professional PMF marking services.
Consistent with the language and purpose of the GCA, this proposed provision is necessary to allow ATF to trace all firearms acquired and disposed of by licensees, prevent illicit firearms trafficking, and provide guidance to FFLs and the public with
respect to PMF transactions with the licensed community. This provision is crucial in light of advances in technology that allow unlicensed persons easily to produce firearms at home from parts ordered online, or by using 3D printers or personally owned or leased equipment. Such privately made firearms have and will continue to make their way to the primary market in firearms throughout the licensed community.
68 At the same time, consistent with the intent of the GCA,69 nothing in this rule would restrict persons not otherwise prohibited from possessing firearms from making their own firearms at home without markings solely for personal use (not for sale or distribution) in accordance with Federal, State, and local law.70 Persons should consult the laws and officials in their own States and localities to determine the lawfulness of PMFs.
What I am not getting.
It seems as long as you make the firearm at home, you still don't need a serial number.
If you decide to sell the firearm (through a dealer) the dealer must mark a serial number on the "ghost gun".
It also seems to say the items like Polymer80 need to be sold by dealers within 60 days of the adoption OR serial numbers are marked.
I dont see where current P80s (and 80% receivers) that are not moved through a dealer need to be marked.
What am I missing?
Admittedly I only initially read the summary and not the 115 page proposal so I didn't see that they say homemade guns don't need to be marked. I'm ashamed to admit that I didn't know a Privately Made Firearm was apparently not a homemade firearm. ;)
This whole thing covers the new term, privately made firearms as those that are sold by FFL's. By this new definition, PMF are any firearm receiver or frame without a serial number, but then must be given one by the FFL selling it. This proposal also reclassified a firearm frame or receiver as including those partially completed to the point of being "clearly identifiable as a incomplete component of a weapon". Which could literally be anything beyond a virgin block of aluminum.
So what sort of PMF will FFL's even have? None. No FFL is going to bring in a bunch of Polymer 80's or similar, then take on the responsibility of serializing them. And even if they did, no one is going to buy them because why buy a serialized but unfinished firearm? Especially when they will cost more than the real thing because the FFL will have to greatly mark them up to cover the overhead and liability of serializing them.
And following that same path, if only FFL's can sell PMF (80%'s) that are serialized, who's going to be making homemade guns that don't require a serial #? Only people with the ability to turn blocks of aluminum into receiver, that's who. (Or 3D printing which let's be honest, really isn't reliable for firearms yet).
So yeah, even if this proposal still allows "homemade firearms" to forgo serial #'s, it effectively makes that the exclusive territory of actual machinists again. Even the ghost gunner cnc is designed to use 80%'s.
This proposal IS as bad as it sounds. It's going to effectively kill the homemade firearm hobby as we know it. You simply won't be able to buy 80%'s without a serial# anymore if this is implemented.
The intent is to stop companies like P80.
That is extremely clear. P80 used the letter of the law to manufacture / sell their product. The lawman didn’t like that. They also got around federal excise tax. The tax man didn’t like that.
You won’t have to worry about FFLs not carrying 80% receivers because of engraving cost; the 80% companies will be out of business because demand will drop off.
As far as it killing the hobby. Maybe. I have never finished an 80% but have done plenty of lego build ARs.
I hear rumors goat farmers in Afghanistan can make an AK from scrap metal and camp fire. Maybe the hobby of manufacturing homemade firearms will just get to the same skill level as goat farmers?
If you read through the background of the proposal (I think I made it to about page 40 so far), they mention a case in 2020 where someone was acquitted of charges of unlicensed firearms manufacturing of AR-15 lowers because the letter of the law states the fire control components are in the receiver, and the lower only has 2 of the 3 stated in the law.
This is a huge, gaping hole in the law that the antis are squirming to fix.
This proposal by the ATF is actually trying to re-write the definition clearly stated in the law. Basically, this is the Executive branch stepping into the territory of both the Legislative and Judicial branches. This is a HUGE overreach, and one that I hope they get their dick slapped for proposing.
QFEQuote:
Originally Posted by hollohas
This would also have the effect of scrubbing most un-serialized PMFs after one generation. The few that are inherited and kept in-family will survive in states that don?t have a BGC requirement for in-family transfers. A great deal of others will be sold off or destroyed. The ones that get sold off will get serialized through the proposed process.
I believe this is the end game - attrition.
That is the end game with ALL gun control.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frac
even if gun owners were to revert to the "muskets" of our forefathers. They would be surprised what weaponry one was capable of making within those guidelines. Especially when they woke up and saw black powder was needed.Quote:
Originally Posted by DDT951
I black powder legal to make at home?Quote:
Originally Posted by Great-Kazoo
I suspect if medieval alchemists could do it, it isnt that hard.
It's really only 3 ingredientsQuote:
Originally Posted by DDT951
https://www.skylighter.com/collectio...s-black-powder
Not that I have any of these kits laying aroud...
Funny. That "ball mill" from the skylighter instructions looks suspiciously like my wet tumbler for cleaning brass...Harbor Freight FTW.
That's exactly what it is, and exactly what I forgot to grab at HF the other day.Quote:
Originally Posted by hollohas
Firing golf balls gets expensive on commercial powder
So I was trying to make a comment of the rule proposal but I can’t seem to find it. Does anyone have a link for the comments?
It's at the very bottom of the proposalQuote:
Originally Posted by esaabye
https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regula...submit-comment
Yes, I follow the comment link to the Regulations.gov page where I can not find the atf rule to comment on, every search term I can think of comes up with nothing.
So here is a question.
The proposed rule:
For purposes of this definition, the term ?partially complete,? as it modifies ?frame or receiver,? means a forging, casting, printing, extrusion, machined body or similar article that has reached a stage in manufacture where it is clearly identifiable as an unfinished component part of a weapon.
Is this clearly identifiable as a component?
https://preview.redd.it/kx0jg0zjqxsy...=webp&4b4ced39
https://preview.redd.it/kx0jg0zjqxsy...=webp&4b4ced39
(edit.... i cannot make picture work... but it is airsoft so you get the idea)
"clearly identifiable" seems like a very movable goalpost, since their definition of "readily convertible" seems to involve specialized tools and multiple hours...
I agree with you. It is far too ambiguous and that leaves interpretation to political whim.Quote:
Originally Posted by CS1983
They did their homework and included footnotes that cite case law that sets the standard for the time it takes to complete.
I still don?t understand how rulemaking applies here. The law states the requirements (in the proposal they try to address this and say it isn?t clear. But it is clear). The courts have ruled on how the law is to be interpreted (see the brief about 2020 acquittal for illegally manufacturing AR-15 lowers). This decision should be earth shattering, and only legislation can change it. This proposal is a poorly concealed overreach of the separation of powers.
Then this is clearly a ghost gun:
https://i.imgur.com/Rzm99GN.png