Analysis: “Definition of “Frame or Receiver” and Identification of Firearms”

107 pages of garbage; but I’m done. I’ll go over the high points that concern me. About half of the NPRM is new regulatory language to implement the changes in the first half.

These are my interim comments; but unless the NPRM actually published differs significantly from the draft, I’m going to formally submit the following.


I oppose this proposed rule. In elaborating on specific issues, I will quote from the NPRM with the quotes set apart from my comments with “=====”.

=====

A. Definition of “Firearm”

“[t]he term shall include a weapon parts kit that is designed to or may readily be assembled, completed, converted, or restored to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive.”

=====

This definition is useless without establishing a threshold for “readily completed.” For years, the ATF has held that an 80% frame/receiver required sufficient work to not be “readily completed. By stating that now they are, without an OBJECTIVE THRESHOLD, anything becomes a firearm: a pistol-shaped solid block; a solid ingot that can be milled into a pistol shape; a pile of soda cans that can be melted down into a block to be milled; a few cases of soda that can be emptied, melted down into a block, and milled; raw ore that can be processed into said block for milling.

There is no objective threshold.

=====

B. Definition of “Frame or Receiver”

“First, there would be a general definition of “frame or receiver” with non-exclusive examples that illustrate the definition.”

=====

That invalidates the rule. A rule that does not set an all-encompassing objective definition is not a definition.

=====

“Frame or receiver. A part of a firearm that provides housing or a structure designed to hold or integrate one or more fire control components, even if pins or other attachments are required to connect those components to the housing or structure. Any such part identified with a serial number shall be presumed, absent an official determination by the Director or other reliable evidence to the contrary, to be a frame or receiver. For purposes of this definition, the term “fire control component” means a component necessary for the firearm to initiate or complete the firing sequence, including any of the following: hammer, bolt or breechblock, cylinder, trigger mechanism, firing pin, striker, or slide rails.”

=====

By that nonsensical definition, an AR-pattern lower and AR-pattern upper are EACH firearms in their own right. Likewise, a semiautomatic frame and its slide are TWO separate firearms. In fact, it would appear to make the BOLT holding the firing pin/striker a THIRD firearm.

It would be far more rational to class the ASSEMBLY — frame AND slide, upper AND lower — as a single firearm.

=====

2. Firearm muffler or silencer frame or receiver

Because under the NFA each individual part of a firearm muffler or silencer is a “firearm” 41 that must be registered in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record (“NFRTR”), the
regulations currently assume that every part defined as a silencer must be marked in order to be registered, and expressly require that they be marked whenever sold, shipped, or otherwise disposed even though they may be installed by a qualified licensee within a complete muffler or silencer device.

=====

This is exactly the problem the proposed rule would inflict upon frames and receivers.

=====

Under the proposed rule, the term “frame or receiver” means, “in the case of a firearm muffler or firearm silencer, a part of the firearm that provides housing or a structure, such as an outer tube or modular piece, designed to hold or integrate one or more essential internal components of the device, including any of the following: baffles,
baffling material, or expansion chamber.”

=====

Sensible for once.

=====

3. Split or modular frame or receiver
This second supplement would define “frame or receiver” to include “in the case of a firearm with more than one part that provides housing or a structure designed to hold or integrate one or more fire control or essential components . . . each such part, unless one or more specific part(s) of the weapon is or has previously been determined by the
Director to be the frame or receiver.”

=====

This would create a regulatory nightmare. Is the lower a firearm? I guess it will depend on when it was made. Ditto the upper, and the bolt. What happens when a slide cracks on a pistol that previously determined that the frame was a firearm, and is replaced with a new frame that IS a firearm. How does an FFL log that (those?) into his records. How does this impact buyers in jurisdictional with a “one gun a month” limit? Do they buy the frame one mon thnd the slide the next. Unless it’s a used gun where just the frame is the firearm? But what if it had a replacement slide.

Is there anyone in the ATF with two functional brain cells?

=====

4. Partially complete, disassembled, or inoperable frame or receiver

For clarification, “partially complete” for purposes of this
definition “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.”

=====

Congratulations. You propose defining paperweights as firearms. I suspect the use of recreational pharmaceuticals.

=====

C. Definition of “Readily”
Thus, defining the term “readily” is necessary to provide further clarity
in determining when incomplete weapons or configurations of parts become a “firearm” regulated under the GCA and NFA.

=====

This “definition” is pointless checklist of arbitrary guesstimates. Provide an objective threshold for each.

=====

D. Definitions of “complete weapon” and “complete muffler or silencer device”

=====

This would be unnecessary if you stopped mucking with the definition of “firearm.”

=====

4. Marking of privately made firearms

=====

This proposed rule was in response to the alleged proliferation of personally made firearms outside of the regulatory system and used in crimes. Does the ATF believe that creating a system to allow the voluntary marking of PMFs will induce criminals to suddenly decide to mark and register the firearm they intend to use in crime or sell illicitly.

The question of recreational pharmaceuticals comes to mind again. Or perhaps medication is NEEDED.

To summarize, I oppose this irrational, and sometimes self-conflicting rule. It fails to address the criminal activity it alleges as its prompting. It imposes complex and expensive games of “guess if it’s a firearm, or which parts are” on FFLs. The record-keeping and retooling costs are grossly underestimated.

Rather than engage in this drug-induced rights infringement, I proposed that, in the spirit of “shall not be INFRINGED,” The National Firearms Act of 1934, Gun Control Act of 1968, and all firearm regulations be repealed,, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives be permanently disbanded. All former ATF employees should be investigated for civil rights violations under 18 U.S. Code § 242 – Deprivation of rights under color of law.

“Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.”


If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in my tip jar. I could really use the money, what with ISP bills, rabbit feed, and general life expenses.Click here to donate via PayPal.

Draft of Proposed Rule-Making “Definition of “Frame or Receiver” and Identification of Firearms” Dropped

I’ll post an analysis of the whole thing when I’m done. Right now I’ve made it to page 32 of 107. I’m copying sections and drafting my comments for submission when commenting opens for real.

To give you an idea of how bad this is, let me show you a couple of excerpts of my comments.

Is there anyone in the ATF with two functional brain cells?

I figured I’d edit that out of the formal comment, but then I got to the next part, and this emerged from my busy fingers.

Congratulations. You propose defining paperweights as firearms. I suspect the use of recreational pharmaceuticals.

So both of those will in the formal submission.

If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in my tip jar. I could really use the money, what with ISP bills, rabbit feed, and general life expenses.Click here to donate via PayPal.

Prison? I WISH

If what we’ve been hearing for years is even partly true, LaPrick should go to prison.

NRA’s LaPierre Voiced Fear of Prison Time, Ad Exec Testifies
Makris testified that he asked LaPierre at the meeting why he was turning his back on everyone who’d helped him over the years in favor of Brewer and his Dallas law firm. LaPierre responded that “Bill Brewer is the only one who can keep me out of jail,” Makris said.

Makris didn’t specify why LaPierre feared jail, but The Wall Street Journal reported in October that the Internal Revenue Service is investigating the former NRA leader for possible criminal tax fraud related to his personal expenses.

If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in my tip jar. I could really use the money, what with ISP bills, rabbit feed, and general life expenses.Click here to donate via PayPal.

Updated TZP Column

I have an update to [Update] Indianapolis Prosecutor Still Lying.

I contacted the prosecutor’s office to ask why IMPD didn’t comply with IC 35-47-14-3. Now the prosecutor has changed the story from we didn’t want chumbucket to win in court and get his gun to we didn’t have time.

I’ve contacted the MCPO again.

If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in my tip jar. I could really use the money, what with ISP bills, rabbit feed, and general life expenses.Click here to donate via PayPal.

“Facemasks in the COVID-19 era: A health hypothesis”

A study out of Stanford, published by the National Center for Biotechnology Information

Facemasks in the COVID-19 era: A health hypothesis

Conclusion

The existing scientific evidences challenge the safety and efficacy of wearing facemask as preventive intervention for COVID-19. The data suggest that both medical and non-medical facemasks are ineffective to block human-to-human transmission of viral and infectious disease such SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19, supporting against the usage of facemasks. Wearing facemasks has been demonstrated to have substantial adverse physiological and psychological effects. These include hypoxia, hypercapnia, shortness of breath, increased acidity and toxicity, activation of fear and stress response, rise in stress hormones, immunosuppression, fatigue, headaches, decline in cognitive performance, predisposition for viral and infectious illnesses, chronic stress, anxiety and depression. Long-term consequences of wearing facemask can cause health deterioration, developing and progression of chronic diseases and premature death. Governments, policy makers and health organizations should utilize prosper and scientific evidence-based approach with respect to wearing facemasks, when the latter is considered as preventive intervention for public health.

If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in my tip jar. I could really use the money, what with ISP bills, rabbit feed, and general life expenses.Click here to donate via PayPal.

Prosecutor: Cops didn’t do their job

I told you so.

Prosecutor: Man who fatally shot 8 at FedEx facility never had ‘red flag’ hearing, even after mom warned of suicide risk
INDIANAPOLIS (AP) — Prosecutor: Man who fatally shot 8 at FedEx facility never had ‘red flag’ hearing, even after mom warned of suicide risk.

Added:More

“Absolutely there needs to be some intervention and absolutely the firearm needs to be taken away. … But the risk is if we move forward with that (red flag) process and lose, we have to give that firearm back to that person,” Mears said. “That’s not something we were willing to do.”

Translation: Better to get the shotgun off the street than to get the dangerous person off the street and keep him from getting another gun. You peasants are expendable. Doing our jobs is too much work.

If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in my tip jar. I could really use the money, what with ISP bills, rabbit feed, and general life expenses.Click here to donate via PayPal.

Wordy guy

What AOC Just Got Wrong About the Supreme Court and Separation of Powers
Like every new member of Congress, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez pledged to uphold the Constitution when she was sworn into office. But the socialist congresswoman’s latest criticism of the Supreme Court reveals that she lacks even the most basic understanding of the document she promised to protect.

Sheesh. Almost six hundred words to say Occasionally-firing-Cortex is an idiot who hasn’t read the Constitution and doesn’t grasp the difference between a constitutional republic and an unrestrained direct democracy.

If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in my tip jar. I could really use the money, what with ISP bills, rabbit feed, and general life expenses.Click here to donate via PayPal.

“Assault rifles”

I was struck by the lack of identification of the weapons used by the Indy FedEx shooter, by any official source, other than “assault rifles.” News reports cite the ATF as the source of the acquisition info, so I went to them for for more details.

  1. What is the make and model of each assault rifle?
  2. Which was purchased on what date?
  3. How was it established that these were select-fire rifles?

Astonishingly, less than two hours later on a Sunday I got a response (if you’ve ever tried communicating with the ATF, you probably realize how amazing that is). Not that it helped much.

Please direct your inquiry to the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department. Here is their email: IMPD.PublicAffairs@indy.gov .

I asked the ATF, because they’re the ones who told the press. But whatever. I sent the same questions to IMPD.

I got a response in three minutes. Not much of one, though.

None of this information is being released at this time.

I find that somewhat odd, since the sole alleged shooter is already dead and they’ve already traced the firearms. And they’ve already said they are assault rifles (yeah, right; select-fire; sure). What could be the big secret?

I asked to be sent any press releases on the subject that they may issue in the future. We’ll see.

If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in my tip jar. I could really use the money, what with ISP bills, rabbit feed, and general life expenses.Click here to donate via PayPal.