BOO! Ghost Guns!

BullDawg327

Plinker
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
May 15, 2019
18
3
North Indy
The problem with the whole p80 debacle is the uselessness of any law that doesn’t outright ban self manufactured arms. With the proliferation of cheap and accessible 3d printing, anyone could make a lower receiver with only a few hundred dollars in initial investment. It doesn’t take an engineer or tech genius to reliable print firearms anymore.
 

Magneto

Expert
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Dec 6, 2009
2,066
48
New Albany
I wish I had gotten into the whole P80 thing a few years ago when I first started looking at it. I will just add this to the list like when I passed on Saigas when they were $300.
 

Tombs

Grandmaster
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Jan 13, 2011
7,677
113
Martinsville
The problem with the whole p80 debacle is the uselessness of any law that doesn’t outright ban self manufactured arms. With the proliferation of cheap and accessible 3d printing, anyone could make a lower receiver with only a few hundred dollars in initial investment. It doesn’t take an engineer or tech genius to reliable print firearms anymore.

There's a bigger issue with the whole farce. The AR15 lower receiver does not meet the definition of a firearm receiver under US law. Yet they declare it anyway in complete defiance of their own rulings. They've had 5 years to correct this situation, and yet they haven't bothered yet continue to flaunt the nonsense.

How can an 80% lower be a firearm, when the lower receiver of an AR15 doesn't meet the definition of a firearm as it is?
 

Timjoebillybob

Grandmaster
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Feb 27, 2009
5,721
99
There's a bigger issue with the whole farce. The AR15 lower receiver does not meet the definition of a firearm receiver under US law. Yet they declare it anyway in complete defiance of their own rulings. They've had 5 years to correct this situation, and yet they haven't bothered yet continue to flaunt the nonsense.

How can an 80% lower be a firearm, when the lower receiver of an AR15 doesn't meet the definition of a firearm as it is?
I keep hearing that, here is the definition from the US Code. It would seem to meet the definition specifically (B)
(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.

Yes I know the lower doesn't contain all the parts per the definition, but they had to pick one. Most my guns frame/receiver don't contain all the parts.
 

DoggyDaddy

Grandmaster
Site Supporter
Rating - 100%
73   0   1
Aug 18, 2011
42,636
77
Southside Indy
I keep hearing that, here is the definition from the US Code. It would seem to meet the definition specifically (B)
(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.
I think there's an argument to be made that the upper would be the receiver, since that's where the cartridges go. For example, if you took the trigger group out of a bolt action rifle, I'm pretty sure that the ATF would still consider it to be a gun. However if you had a stock with a trigger group (no barrel or receiver) in it, they would not. An AR lower is more like the latter.
 

Timjoebillybob

Grandmaster
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Feb 27, 2009
5,721
99
I think there's an argument to be made that the upper would be the receiver, since that's where the cartridges go. For example, if you took the trigger group out of a bolt action rifle, I'm pretty sure that the ATF would still consider it to be a gun. However if you had a stock with a trigger group (no barrel or receiver) in it, they would not. An AR lower is more like the latter.
Here is the definition for receiver. "That part of a firearm which 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 lower contains the firing mechanism and hammer, the upper contains the bolt and breechblock, they could either pick one of the two or consider them both to be firearms and require both to be serialized. Which would you prefer?
 

DoggyDaddy

Grandmaster
Site Supporter
Rating - 100%
73   0   1
Aug 18, 2011
42,636
77
Southside Indy
Here is the definition for receiver. "That part of a firearm which 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 lower contains the firing mechanism and hammer, the upper contains the bolt and breechblock, they could either pick one of the two or consider them both to be firearms and require both to be serialized. Which would you prefer?
For the sake of consistency, at least as it pertains to rifles, I tend to favor the upper. But I agree there is some ambiguity there.
 

Timjoebillybob

Grandmaster
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Feb 27, 2009
5,721
99
For the sake of consistency, at least as it pertains to rifles, I tend to favor the upper. But I agree there is some ambiguity there.
Actually the lower would be more accurate at least in the case of ar-15s and such, it contains the firing mechanism and hammer. The upper only contains the bolt. So the lower has 2 required parts compared to the uppers 1. Where compared to quite a few semi-auto handguns the reverse is true.
 

DoggyDaddy

Grandmaster
Site Supporter
Rating - 100%
73   0   1
Aug 18, 2011
42,636
77
Southside Indy
Actually the lower would be more accurate at least in the case of ar-15s and such, it contains the firing mechanism and hammer. The upper only contains the bolt. So the lower has 2 required parts compared to the uppers 1. Where compared to quite a few semi-auto handguns the reverse is true.
Fair enough.
 

Tombs

Grandmaster
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Jan 13, 2011
7,677
113
Martinsville
I keep hearing that, here is the definition from the US Code. It would seem to meet the definition specifically (B)
(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.

Yes I know the lower doesn't contain all the parts per the definition, but they had to pick one. Most my guns frame/receiver don't contain all the parts.

You're missing the important part here. The ATF knows the lower receiver is legally not a firearm and are wrongfully applying the law. This is why they were given a time span to revise their definitions.

Since they refuse to revise their definition to correctly categorize it, it means that they'd rather flaunt the law than actually abide it.
 

Timjoebillybob

Grandmaster
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Feb 27, 2009
5,721
99
You're missing the important part here. The ATF knows the lower receiver is legally not a firearm and are wrongfully applying the law. This is why they were given a time span to revise their definitions.

Since they refuse to revise their definition to correctly categorize it, it means that they'd rather flaunt the law than actually abide it.
It contains 2 out of 3 parts for the definition of a "frame or receiver" the upper contains one. I can see two options for them, pick one which they did and they chose the part that contained the majority of the parts required. Or label both the upper and lower receivers "firearm". Which would you prefer? What is the obvious choice if they had to pick a part to be considered the "firearm"? What would you label as a firearm if you were them and had to pick?
 
Top Bottom