AR-15 lower NOT a firearm after all?

[Ziggidy]

Would the AR15 be easier to ban if it was not considered a firearm?

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Would the AR15 be easier to ban if it was not considered a firearm?

Yes, they could declare them unsafe toys. Look what they did with Jarts! I don't recall Congress passing a jart-control law, so whatever agency is in charge of toy safety must have banned them.

 

[cobber]

Let's see what Godawful "fix" they come up with...

 

[worddoer]

Let's see what Godawful "fix" they come up with...

That could be....but I also wonder if this same style of argument could be used in the bumpstock cases out there. Especially considering how similar the argument could be made for bump stocks......written law vs currently enforced regulation.

 

[Raskolnikov]

I also think that this could drastically backfire against us. When I read the CNN article on Friday, I imagined the RINOs agreeing to a compromise. AR's won't be banned under my imagined compromise, but they'd consider the upper and lower to be a firearm, at least for the AR-15. Maybe I'm wrong...I hope so anyway,

 

[cobber]

I also think that this could drastically backfire against us. When I read the CNN article on Friday, I imagined the RINOs agreeing to a compromise. AR's won't be banned under my imagined compromise, but they'd consider the upper and lower to be a firearm, at least for the AR-15. Maybe I'm wrong...I hope so anyway,

The next thing will be the "ghost" upper "loophole" and how all these unserialized uppers are out there wreaking havoc and causing mass shootings.

 

[cbhausen]

I’m sure the gun haters in Congress are looking at ways to actually use this to their advantage.

 

[Lex Concord]

Yes, they could declare them unsafe toys. Look what they did with Jarts! I don't recall Congress passing a jart-control law, so whatever agency is in charge of toy safety must have banned them.

I miss Jarts.

 

[Ingomike]

I miss Jarts.

You can order online a complete repair kit, even if you have no Jarts to repair. LOL

 

[Raskolnikov]

The next thing will be the "ghost" upper "loophole" and how all these unserialized uppers are out there wreaking havoc and causing mass shootings.

That's what the leftist politicians and the housewives demanding action never seem to remember: we're always​ going to innovate.

 

[JdsBiff]

I miss Jarts.

www.crowndarts.com/about

 

[KellyinAvon]

I also think that this could drastically backfire against us. When I read the CNN article on Friday, I imagined the RINOs agreeing to a compromise. AR's won't be banned under my imagined compromise, but they'd consider the upper and lower to be a firearm, at least for the AR-15. Maybe I'm wrong...I hope so anyway,

Why is the answer to bad government always more government?

 

[Raskolnikov]

Why is the answer to bad government always more government?

Definitely not - quite the opposite! I think you may have misunderstood what I was trying to say. I believe in repealing almost all firearms laws. I don't think a child should be able to walk into a store and buy a gun, but other than that, nothing. So, I get excited to hear that the whole definition of a firearm, as related to the AR-15, is in jeopardy. My fear is that this "confusion" will make things worse - not better. The compromising away of our rights could lead to more government in this instance, which has quelled my excitement.

 

[snorko]

I guess I see things oddly. As I read it..."houses the hammer, bolt or breechblock, and firing mechanism, and which is usually threaded at its forward portion to receive the barrel.” The lower receiver in Roh’s case does not have a bolt or breechblock and is not threaded to receive the barrel, Nicolaysen noted.

So to me if it houses one of the three items mentioned and the trigger it is a receiver. Threading is not required as it states "usually", implying not always.

 

[KLB]

I guess I see things oddly. As I read it..."houses the hammer, bolt or breechblock, and firing mechanism, and which is usually threaded at its forward portion to receive the barrel.” The lower receiver in Roh’s case does not have a bolt or breechblock and is not threaded to receive the barrel, Nicolaysen noted.

So to me if it houses one of the three items mentioned and the trigger it is a receiver. Threading is not required as it states "usually", implying not always.

It should have all of those items to be considered a firearm.

 

[HoughMade]

I guess I see things oddly. As I read it..."houses the hammer, bolt or breechblock, and firing mechanism, and which is usually threaded at its forward portion to receive the barrel.” The lower receiver in Roh’s case does not have a bolt or breechblock and is not threaded to receive the barrel, Nicolaysen noted.

So to me if it houses one of the three items mentioned and the trigger it is a receiver. Threading is not required as it states "usually", implying not always.

Says "and", not or....but I agree the "threaded" part is irrelevant as it says "usually".

Because the conjunctive "and" is used between "breechblock" and "firing mechanism", as written, to be a receiver (this is the definition of "receiver" or "frame", NOT "firearm"), it should be read as:

"houses the hammer and bolt or breechblock" and firing mechanism...."

So there's that.

...But let me add a level of complexity to this....since the definition getting all the press is for "frame or receiver", not "firearm".

The definition of "firearm" is:

(3) The term “firearm” means (A) 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; (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon; (C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or (D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm.

U.S.C. sec. 921.

Everyone is focussing on part B.....could there not be another operative section that could apply?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Good defense motion. You are not getting a federal Circuit to take that much power from fed.gov. No way, no how.

 

[Sigblitz]

I guess I see things oddly. As I read it..."houses the hammer, bolt or breechblock, and firing mechanism, and which is usually threaded at its forward portion to receive the barrel.” The lower receiver in Roh’s case does not have a bolt or breechblock and is not threaded to receive the barrel, Nicolaysen noted.

So to me if it houses one of the three items mentioned and the trigger it is a receiver. Threading is not required as it states "usually", implying not always.

The bolt (breech body) is in the upper receiver.