Definition of “Frame or Receiver” and Identification of Firearms (Final Rule)

[F-111 John]

From the ATF: https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/definition-frame-or-receiver

Definition of “Frame or Receiver” and Identification of Firearms
On April 11, 2022, the Attorney General signed ATF final rule 2021R-05F, Definition of “Frame or Receiver” and Identification of Firearms. The goal of the final rule is to ensure the proper marking, recordkeeping, and traceability of all firearms manufactured, imported, acquired and disposed by federal firearms licensees.

Please note that this is the text of the final rule as signed by the Attorney General, but the official version of the final rule will be as it is published in the Federal Register. The rule will go into effect 120 days from the date of publication in the Federal Register.

Download the final rule (PDF, 3.46 MB)

Summary

On April 11, 2022, the Attorney General signed ATF final rule, Definition of “Frame or Receiver” and Identification of Firearms, amending ATF’s regulations by removing and replacing the regulatory definitions of “firearm frame or receiver” and “frame or receiver” using examples and diagrams to clearly convey what is a “frame or receiver,” amending the definitions of “firearm” and “gunsmith,” providing definitions of terms such as “complete weapon,” “complete muffler or silencer device,” “privately made firearm” and “readily,” and amending regulations on marking and recordkeeping.

Read the full summary

Related Resources

• Regulatory Impact Analysis and Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (PDF, 1.04 MB)
• Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)
• NPRM Regulatory Impact Analysis (PDF, 430 KB)
• NPRM Comments
• ATF eRegulations

 

[F-111 John]

Of note, beginning on PDF page 324:

§ 478.12 Definition of Frame or Receiver. (a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, the term “frame or receiver” means the following— (1) The term “frame” means the part of a handgun, or variants thereof, that provides housing or a structure for the primary energized component designed to hold back the hammer, striker, bolt, or similar component prior to initiation of the firing sequence (i.e., sear or equivalent), even if pins or other attachments are required to connect such component to the housing or structure. (2) The term “receiver” means the part of a rifle, shotgun, or projectile weapon other than a handgun, or variants thereof, that provides housing or a structure for the primary component designed to block or seal the breech prior to initiation of the firing sequence (i.e., bolt, breechblock, or equivalent), even if pins or other attachments are required to connect such component to the housing or structure.​

Which would imply that AR style rifles would have the upper receiver designated as the serialized part, as that is the part which houses the bolt.

However, on PDF page 331 it says:

§ 478.12 Definition of Frame or Receiver.
...
(f)(1) Frame or receiver classifications based on which part of the weapon was classified as such before [FEDERAL REGISTER: PLEASE INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION]. Except as provided in paragraph (2), the terms “frame” and “receiver” shall include the specific part of a complete weapon, including variants thereof, determined (classified) by the Director to be defined as a firearm frame or receiver prior to [FEDERAL REGISTER: PLEASE INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION]. Any such part that is identified with an importer’s or manufacturer’s serial number shall be presumed, absent an official determination by the Director or other reliable evidence to the contrary, to be the frame or receiver of the weapon. The following is a nonexclusive list of such weapons and the specific part determined by the Director to be the firearm frame or receiver as they existed on that date:

(i) AR-15/M-16 variant firearms: The receiver is the lower part of the weapon that provides housing for the trigger mechanism and hammer (i.e., lower receiver).
​

It is unclear, to me at least, if the above 478.12(f)(1)(i) provides an exception for ALL AR style rifles to have the lower receiver the serialized part, rather than the upper, or if it only grandfathers existing firearms, but future new manufactured AR platform firearms will need to have their upper receivers serialized.

 

[giggitygiggity]

Of note, beginning on PDF page 324:

§ 478.12 Definition of Frame or Receiver. (a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, the term “frame or receiver” means the following— (1) The term “frame” means the part of a handgun, or variants thereof, that provides housing or a structure for the primary energized component designed to hold back the hammer, striker, bolt, or similar component prior to initiation of the firing sequence (i.e., sear or equivalent), even if pins or other attachments are required to connect such component to the housing or structure. (2) The term “receiver” means the part of a rifle, shotgun, or projectile weapon other than a handgun, or variants thereof, that provides housing or a structure for the primary component designed to block or seal the breech prior to initiation of the firing sequence (i.e., bolt, breechblock, or equivalent), even if pins or other attachments are required to connect such component to the housing or structure.​

Which would imply that AR style rifles would have the upper receiver designated as the serialized part, as that is the part which houses the bolt.

However, on PDF page 331 it says:

§ 478.12 Definition of Frame or Receiver.
...
(f)(1) Frame or receiver classifications based on which part of the weapon was classified as such before [FEDERAL REGISTER: PLEASE INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION]. Except as provided in paragraph (2), the terms “frame” and “receiver” shall include the specific part of a complete weapon, including variants thereof, determined (classified) by the Director to be defined as a firearm frame or receiver prior to [FEDERAL REGISTER: PLEASE INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION]. Any such part that is identified with an importer’s or manufacturer’s serial number shall be presumed, absent an official determination by the Director or other reliable evidence to the contrary, to be the frame or receiver of the weapon. The following is a nonexclusive list of such weapons and the specific part determined by the Director to be the firearm frame or receiver as they existed on that date:

(i) AR-15/M-16 variant firearms: The receiver is the lower part of the weapon that provides housing for the trigger mechanism and hammer (i.e., lower receiver).
​

It is unclear, to me at least, if the above 478.12(f)(1)(i) provides an exception for ALL AR style rifles to have the lower receiver the serialized part, rather than the upper, or if it only grandfathers existing firearms, but future new manufactured AR platform firearms will need to have their upper receivers serialized.

That is how I understand it too. Basically ARs and other types of common designs of split receiver firearms whose receiver the ATF has already clarified will remain the receiver and not subject the other receiver to treatment as a separate firearm. I have not read every single word of the final rule’s ridiculousness though.

 

[Otto]

I don’t see how an AR could have two or more different serial numbers.
I also understand that the rule will not go into effect for 120 days.

 

[Navy87Guy]

In typical Government fashion, they created vagary with the use of the phrase "AR-15/M16 variant firearms". How far does that definition extend? Does it include the Sig MPX? What about the CZ Bren 2? Does the term "variant" depend upon the controls used, the general arrangement of the weapon -- what??

 

[barnetmill]

In summary it is stated:

Addresses technological advancements and judicial developments since the regulatory definitions were originally set forth in 1968 and 1971.

The AR15 and AR10 finalized prior to 1968.
What I want to see is at what stage an AR15 lower becomes a receiver needing a serial number.
Because in the summary it states

Definition of a “frame or receiver” includes a partially complete, disassembled, or nonfunctional frame or receiver that has reached a stage in manufacture where it may quickly and easily (“readily”) be made to function as a “frame or receiver” and expressly excludes a block of metal, liquid polymers and other raw materials or a frame or receiver that has been destroyed.

So at what state does the rule regulate what had been a block of metal.
The keep talking about kits:

Partially complete, disassembled, or nonfunctional frames or receivers, including parts kits, that ATF did not classify as “frames or receivers” prior to the rule will not be grandfathered in under the final rule and will need to be re-evaluated.

 

[F-111 John]

In typical Government fashion, they created vagary with the use of the phrase "AR-15/M16 variant firearms". How far does that definition extend? Does it include the Sig MPX? What about the CZ Bren 2? Does the term "variant" depend upon the controls used, the general arrangement of the weapon -- what??

From the PDF page 342:

§ 478.92(v) Frames or receivers designed before [FEDERAL REGISER PLEASE INSERT EFFECTIVE DATE OF RULE]. Licensed manufacturers and licensed importers may continue to identify the same component of a firearm (other than a PMF) defined as a frame or receiver as it existed before [effective date of the rule] with the same information required to be marked by paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (a)(1)(ii) of this section that were in effect prior to that date, and any rules necessary to ensure such identification shall remain effective for that purpose. Any frame or receiver with a new design manufactured after [effective date of the rule] must be marked with the identifying information and within the period prescribed by this section. For purposes of this paragraph, the term “new design” means that the design of the existing frame or receiver has been functionally modified or altered, as distinguished from performing a cosmetic process that adds to or changes the decoration of the frame or receiver (e.g., painting or engraving), or by adding or replacing stocks, barrels, or accessories to the frame or receiver.​

 

[berettaprofessor]

Do I correctly understand that they said nothing at all about braces today?

This directive about the serialization is pretty light, in my opinion, compared to what it could have been. Not that I approve of it, mind you, but it could have been much worse. What am I missing?

 

[Navy87Guy]

From the PDF page 342:

§ 478.92(v) Frames or receivers designed before [FEDERAL REGISER PLEASE INSERT EFFECTIVE DATE OF RULE]. Licensed manufacturers and licensed importers may continue to identify the same component of a firearm (other than a PMF) defined as a frame or receiver as it existed before [effective date of the rule] with the same information required to be marked by paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (a)(1)(ii) of this section that were in effect prior to that date, and any rules necessary to ensure such identification shall remain effective for that purpose. Any frame or receiver with a new design manufactured after [effective date of the rule] must be marked with the identifying information and within the period prescribed by this section. For purposes of this paragraph, the term “new design” means that the design of the existing frame or receiver has been functionally modified or altered, as distinguished from performing a cosmetic process that adds to or changes the decoration of the frame or receiver (e.g., painting or engraving), or by adding or replacing stocks, barrels, or accessories to the frame or receiver.​

That doesn’t define what they mean by “AR15/M16 variant”…there are plenty of existing designs that are similar to - if not based exactly on - the AR15 design. Are they “variants”?? They didn’t draw the line…so there will be disagreements and gray areas that will be decided in the courts.

 

[barnetmill]

Do I correctly understand that they said nothing at all about braces today?

This directive about the serialization is pretty light, in my opinion, compared to what it could have been. Not that I approve of it, mind you, but it could have been much worse. What am I missing?

While I have not read 300 plus pages of the final ruling, the brace ruling was a different ATF ruling and that has not come down yet from on high to us lowly commoners and subjects.
I have found that while a brace is convenient many pistols can be cheek rested and a brace/stock is not needed for accurate shooting.

 

[Styx]

Question: Can the ATF do this legally? Can they redefine definitions that were previously defined on the federal level? Do we have a STRONG legal argument that may get this overturned.

 

[DoubleMag]

Question: Can the ATF do this legally? Can they redefine definitions that were previously defined on the federal level? Do we have a STRONG legal argument that may get this overturned.

They actually state, the 1968 law is outdated and needs...fixed. Therefore, the fix as the usual method being an adaptation to the law, having not been done as of yet, is being circumvented via the rule making process.

IMHO/ my limited knowledge rule making is a clarification of a known point. This is making new points, and a good many of them.

So YES, there is a strong position against this so called rule making. It just takes $ for the attorney fees, and the correct initial filing in both wording and locale.

 

[AlexanderA]

This rule converts certain "non-guns" into "guns." While this may be understandable for precursors ("non-guns") that are in fact made by their owners into working guns, it makes no sense for non-guns that are slated to remain non-guns (dummy displays). This is particularly worrisome for display machine guns, which could become instant NFA violations, with serious penalties.

 

[Styx]

They actually state, the 1968 law is outdated and needs...fixed. Therefore, the fix as the usual method being an adaptation to the law, having not been done as of yet, is being circumvented via the rule making process.

IMHO/ my limited knowledge rule making is a clarification of a known point. This is making new points, and a good many of them.

So YES, there is a strong position against this so called rule making. It just takes $ for the attorney fees, and the correct initial filing in both wording and locale.

My limited understanding is they are new rules and clarifications based on the Chevron deference doctrine. I heard some talk about Chevron deference is not meant to be applied to criminal law. Hopefully one of the legal gurus could shed some light on this.

 

[dogtown tom]

Question: Can the ATF do this legally?

Yes.

Can they redefine definitions that were previously defined on the federal level?

ATF wrote the previous definitions.

Do we have a STRONG legal argument that may get this overturned.

Doubtful.

 

[Styx]

Yes.


ATF wrote the previous definitions.



Doubtful.

I am not referring to what the ATF wrote in the past. I am referring to what Congress and the president signed into law. I understand that the ATF is making this rulings based on the Chevron deference doctrine. I do not recall all the details, but I do recall that most recently there was a favorable ruling for bumpstock in Federal courts which stated the ATF overreached. There was another ruling in military court where someone who had a bumpstock on their rifle was found not guilty of possession of a NFA item in direct opposition to the ATF ruling. It would help if you could give a little more than an one word answer.

 

[dogtown tom]

That is how I understand it too. Basically ARs and other types of common designs of split receiver firearms whose receiver the ATF has already clarified will remain the receiver and not subject the other receiver to treatment as a separate firearm. I have not read every single word of the final rule’s ridiculousness though.

This.
ATF wanted to update the definition of firearm frame or receiver because of some fairly recent judicial opinions that an AR lower by itself was not a firearm.
https://apnews.com/article/nv-state...h-state-wire-396bbedbf4963a28bda99e7793ee6366

IMO, this definition has been out of date since the day it was written. "Split receivers" have been in common use for decades before ATF ever arrived. Despite what the current definition states, ATF only cared that one half of a "split" receiver had to have the required markings. When they wrote this definition the idea of building your own AR/FAL/etc just wasn't there. On some split receiver firearms, ATF chose the upper receiver to be "the firearm", others the lower half. I remember reading some place that originally ATF wanted the AR upper to be marked, but the industry requested the lower receiver because it offered more flat space. Marking technology in the 1960's wasn't what it is today.

ATF would be foolish to require both upper and lower to be marked, as many firearms have the serial# on several parts. Imagine a gun trace where multiple parts having different serial#'s are involved. Thats a nightmare ATF should not want.

 

[dogtown tom]

I am not referring to what the ATF wrote in the past. I am referring to what Congress and the president signed into law.

Congress doesn't write regulations, federal agencies do. It's been that way two hundred years. It's called administrative law and those regulations are supposed to be based on the intent of Congress.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_law

What makes it legal? The Administrative Procedures Act: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_Procedure_Act_(United_States)

Congress might pass the Red Lollipop Prohibition Act of 2022:
"An Act prohibiting the manufacture, sale, possession and consumption of red lollipops because of the clear and present dangers to public health such candies present." There will be a lot of other blather about the need for such a bill, why red is bad, why candies capable of being fully concealed inside the possessor mouth are not prohibited, etc.
The President signs the bill.

A federal agency undoubtedly has statutory authority over foods, so is the designated agency to develop the regulations that will define:
-what is/is not a lollipop. Such as "must have a stick, handle or other physical means to hold the item without actually touching the candy".
-what determines red. Such as "Color red as determined by the Pantone system" or color tone and shade reference system.
-exemptions. Such as lollipops with a permanent and reusable handle or red lollipops that do not turn the possessors lips red.

I understand that the ATF is making this rulings based on the Chevron deference doctrine.

I'm quite sure it's because of situations such as the article I linked to above. Firearm technology has advanced, yet ATF regs are stuck in 1972.

I do not recall all the details, but I do recall that most recently there was a favorable ruling for bumpstock in Federal courts which stated the ATF overreached.

As well as unfavorable rulings: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bump_stock#Federal_lawsuits

There was another ruling in military court where someone who had a bumpstock on their rifle was found not guilty of possession of a NFA item in direct opposition to the ATF ruling.

Which doesn't affect anyone but members of the military.

It would help if you could give a little more than a one word answer.

Feel better?

 

[Styx]

Congress doesn't write regulations, federal agencies do. It's been that way two hundred years. It's called administrative law and those regulations are supposed to be based on the intent of Congress.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_law

What makes it legal? The Administrative Procedures Act: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_Procedure_Act_(United_States)

Congress might pass the Red Lollipop Prohibition Act of 2022:
"An Act prohibiting the manufacture, sale, possession and consumption of red lollipops because of the clear and present dangers to public health such candies present." There will be a lot of other blather about the need for such a bill, why red is bad, why candies capable of being fully concealed inside the possessor mouth are not prohibited, etc.
The President signs the bill.

A federal agency undoubtedly has statutory authority over foods, so is the designated agency to develop the regulations that will define:
-what is/is not a lollipop. Such as "must have a stick, handle or other physical means to hold the item without actually touching the candy".
-what determines red. Such as "Color red as determined by the Pantone system" or color tone and shade reference system.
-exemptions. Such as lollipops with a permanent and reusable handle or red lollipops that do not turn the possessors lips red.





I'm quite sure it's because of situations such as the article I linked to above. Firearm technology has advanced, yet ATF regs are stuck in 1972.



As well as unfavorable rulings: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bump_stock#Federal_lawsuits


Which doesn't affect anyone but members of the military.



Feel better?

Yes i feek better when someone can take the time to explain their point of view instead of giving one word answers. If you cant do it without coming across as if you have an attitude, being rude, and snarky, then please bypass my post going forward. I'd politely ask that you allow someone else to politely respond.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Keep things substantive and on point.

 

[herrwalther]

Question: Can the ATF do this legally? Can they redefine definitions that were previously defined on the federal level? Do we have a STRONG legal argument that may get this overturned.

I don't know about how far we can go. But the first step, as always when overreaching gun control like this happens, is write your Congress critters. Reference the gun control decision and your opposition to it. Clearly, appealing to the executive branch is not going to get us anywhere. But blowing up the lines of communication to the legislative and judicial ones, might.

 

[LiveLife]

Question: Can the ATF do this legally?

Break down efforts to stop the ATF's new rule on frames and receivers before it goes into effect by Anthony Miranda, an attorney in California

Game Changing ATF Rule On Frames & Receivers Block By Congress!!!

https://rumble.com/v115wto-game-changing-atf-rule-on-frames-and-receivers-block-by-congress.html

 

[Insignificant bill]

I don't know about how far we can go. But the first step, as always when overreaching gun control like this happens, is write your Congress critters. Reference the gun control decision and your opposition to it. Clearly, appealing to the executive branch is not going to get us anywhere. But blowing up the lines of communication to the legislative and judicial ones, might.

Already did weeks ago

 

[thagunman]

The atf's release clearly states that only ONE part of the firearm can be considered the firearm. They can't regulate both.

 

[dogtown tom]

The atf's release clearly states that only ONE part of the firearm can be considered the firearm. They can't regulate both.

Shhhhh..........people that post facts on a gun forum get banned for life.