Leaked ATF document regarding definitions, marking requirements, etc.......

[Telekinesis]

This is an area I have a lot of interest in, and I have not yet had time to read the entirety of the document for myself. Under their proposal, what would I need if I wanted to make a reciever for personal use, or for that matter if I have a reciever that I already made for myself that is currently unmarked?

Nothing would change regarding initial marking requirements (none) for privately made firearms. Only if it gets transferred to a FFL (for example, sale/repair/modification) at which point the FFL would be required to mark it/have it marked under the new rule. As Dogtown Tom mentioned, this helps clarify how FFLs are supposed to deal with privately made firearms for purposes of their A&D book and stolen firearm reporting (more examples are in the document).

I think the question is, under the new guidelines, are you required to mark it? If you are, you just became a gunsmith.

No you are not required to mark it, and you do not become a gunsmith just because you did mark it.

My understanding is that the clarification about “updating the definition of gunsmith to include those who mark privately made firearms” is more about letting companies who ONLY provide marking services (like laser engravers) to acquire a FFL. That greatly simplifies the process of transferring firearms to get them marked.

For example, say a normal 01 FFL gun store gets 50 privately made firearms in, but they don’t have the machinery to add the necessary serial numbers. They decide to have another company with the necessary equipment to do the markings for them.

If that company does not have a FFL that means a bunch of 4473s/transfers and probably requires both companies are in the same state (or possibly another setup where an employee of the FFL has to be physically present - Dogtown might know the rules on this). If the company doing the marking does have a FFL the process is greatly simplified and the gun store can ship the firearms directly to the company, even if it is across state lines.

This just means a company that has the machinery to do the marking doesn’t have to be engaged in other gun sales, gun smithing, or gun manufacturing services in order to get that FFL.



I know it’s a lot of text, but I really suggest everybody read the document. I was honestly surprised at how it was set up - it doesn’t just give you the new proposed text of the CFR, it actually explains (in sort of normal English) what they are trying to change and why they want to do it.

(it also answers all the questions about what happens to several existing “split receiver” designs like ARs, several types of pistols, and other guns)

 

[CapnMac]

Uh, you do realize the comment period is just to appease right?

Actually, no. ATFE has reacted to consistent, cogent, objections to Proposed Rule Changes. Refer to the PRC for the M885 ammo.

This is middling benign as PRC go.
However, there are items worthy of comment within this.

One is that there's a presumption the PMF are only used for crimes (either in execution of, or by possession of).

There is also the question of changing the long-standing rules about the ability to create a PMF for clearly lawful purposes.

The proposed "solution" to the PMF "problem" is to require them to be marked by some licensed professional--which flies in the face of American jurisprudence. By this same token, persons making beer, wine, or spirits, must needs present their goods to licensed persons and be subject to tax, before consumption, on a presumption that any and all use will be criminal. This flies in the face of centuries of law as practiced in the United States.

While they propose to define "readily" their proposed definition does not improve comprehension. No measure of the skill set is included--"readily" is different for an experienced machinist than for a hobbyist accountant. No way other than the subjective opinion of future Directors or their agents is offered to define readily. That's clearly capricious and felicitous enforcement.

The lack of clarity on just what makings are to be required, as @dogtown tom cogently points out is also worthy of specific objection. That such determination appears to be tossed upon the licensed "marker's" opinion and interpretation also appears capricious and felicitous.

Additionally, comment ought be made on how the PRC post dates PMF marking requirements back to 1969, which presents what is going to be an undue burden on the tens of thousands of PMF and "parts kits" already extant. People who have already bought and paid for taxed, serialized, regulated receivers and then assembled upon those "parts kits" would appear to now be required to take each and every one of those to one of the newly-created licensed "markers" to have "manufacturer" data applied to them. What of those who have restored a firearm? If a person had bought , say, a 1903 receiver and barrel alone, and then fitted it with all the parts to convert it from a sporter to full military configuration, would that build require all new markings, conspicuous markings?

I chose a 1903 receiver and barrel on purpose, as that assembly is not readily able to discharge ammunition. And, merely owning a trigger and sear would not change that status, either.

In the Comments phase, ATFE ought be praised for attempting to better define what "frame and receiver" are under the law. Further, limiting silencer parts to the actual registered shell/tube/carrier would considerably improve the present situation where every part of a silencer is a silencer itself--which has been absurd for a long time.

 

[230RN]

Is that $200 stamp amount for ownership part of the original statute or part of the regulatory baggage?

To my mind, that was a deliberate attempt at "infringement," far beyond covering any costs to the government of record-keeping. Nowadays that's almost pocket change on a good date with a nice lady. It's conservatively (3%/year) a little more than $2600 in today's IOU currency. Enough for a date with a not-so-nice lady.

Is the door open for a regulatory (by fiat) change in the infamous "tax stamp" amount?

Does that need "clarification" (hack-koff-koff) now?

...maybe I shouldn't have asked...???

Terry, "Yeah, I'm paranoid... wanna make something of it, buster?", 230RN

 

[Harriw]

The proposed "solution" to the PMF "problem" is to require them to be marked by some licensed professional--which flies in the face of American jurisprudence. By this same token, persons making beer, wine, or spirits, must needs present their goods to licensed persons and be subject to tax, before consumption, on a presumption that any and all use will be criminal. This flies in the face of centuries of law as practiced in the United States.

I haven't finished reading the entire document yet, but this was not the take-away I have at about half-way through. My understanding was that they're only proposing to require marking of PMF's if/when those PMF's are "acquired" by an FFL. I understood this to mean that if an FFL buys your PMF (presumably with intent to re-sell it to someone else), they are required to mark it accordingly. But perhaps this applies if you bring a PMF simply for repair as well? I don't see a clear definition of "acquired" anywhere. I think most of us are fine with the former (I believe that's already the case - you're currently fine with un-marked privately-made fire-arms, as long as you keep them and don't try to sell them). But requiring serialization because you dropped off a gun to be re-finished or something.....?

This is based on the section starting near the bottom of page 40 titled "4. Marking of privately made firearms."

While they propose to define "readily" their proposed definition does not improve comprehension. No measure of the skill set is included--"readily" is different for an experienced machinist than for a hobbyist accountant. No way other than the subjective opinion of future Directors or their agents is offered to define readily. That's clearly capricious and felicitous enforcement.

Agreed - their definition of "readily" struck me as pretty vague as well. I'm not sure I have a suggestion for something better. Perhaps they're worried that if they draw a line in the sand at "80% lowers" where-ever they determine that line to be, then the market will be flooded with 70% lowers? But I would think that's going to happen no matter what they do - the market will find that line one way or another. But you'd think everyone would be better off if that line were clearly defined and couldn't easily be moved over the years.

Finally, regarding the marking of both uppers/lowers... It does become clearer the further you read that the intent is indeed to maintain the current marking scheme for current existing designs (AR's, 1911's, striker-fired pistols, etc.) and not to require serialization for an AR upper receiver for example.

 

[Harriw]

Adding to the above... from Page 42, end of the 4th line from the bottom of the page:

"At the same time, consistent with the intent of the GCA, nothing in this rule would impose any undue or unnecessary Federal restrictions or burdens on law-abiding citizens to make their own firearms at home without markings solely for personal use (not for sale or distribution) in accordance with Federal, State, and local law."​

 

[Harriw]

• Update Record Retention
Currently, FFL's must keep their 4473's for twenty years, after which time they can destroy them. If they go out of business before the twenty years, they are required to send them to ATF. A dealers bound books are never destroyed, but sent to ATF when the dealer goes out of business. This proposed change will have dealers keeping their 4473's forever.

"What a complete waste of taxpayer dollars. As if a crime victim knows or cares whether he was shot with a “ghost gun” or a factory made one."​

Well, while I think gun traces work best on TV and the movies, the fact remains that most gun traces ARE NOT on firearms used to shoot someone. They are on firearms recovered by police officers at traffic stops for example. This is how many stolen guns are recovered.
.

Interesting... I didn't know that, and had never thought of it that way. Do you happen to have any source for that info? Not that I doubt you, I'd just like to have something to support the claim if I use it in the future. That fact certainly supports the notion that traces rarely solve crimes.

All the same, I do believe I'd happily give up any chance of a stolen gun being returned to me (due to lack of ability to trace it back to me in order to inform me of its recovery) in return for having 4473's destroyed within a reasonable amount of time in order to foil any potential future attempt at confiscation. I suspect many here would agree. I can make an insurance claim and replace a stolen gun (though I understand sentimental value can't be replaced). Confiscated guns are a bit harder to replace. Perhaps that's worth mentioning in any comments made to ATF on this proposal. Particularly if Dogtown Tom DOES know of any data that might support the above claim.

 

[Elkins45]

I will admit I didn’t read the document and this question is purely an act of laziness on my part. Would the marking requirement be retroactively applied to “ghost guns” that have already been assembled prior to the promulgation of a new rule? If so, does that mean one would need to pay a licensed gunsmith to do the marking? If further so, doesn’t that essentially mean unlicensed citizens can no longer make their own guns unless they start by purchasing a serialized receiver?

Answered my own question:

“but such term shall not include a person who occasionally repairs or customizes firearms, or occasionally makes or fits special barrels, stocks, or trigger mechanisms to firearms.”​

 

[gyp_c2]

Read more. They are proposing extending the time 4473s are kept to infinity.
The troublesome part for me..is the reference to discretionary powers granted to the new "director".
I think there are parts of this that will not be in the final rules.
There are disclaimers on several pages of the descriptions to that effect. Still pretty muddy.

 

[tarosean]

4473 forever??

Geesh wonder what brought that one about??

 

[dogtown tom]

Interesting... I didn't know that, and had never thought of it that way. Do you happen to have any source for that info? Not that I doubt you, I'd just like to have something to support the claim if I use it in the future. That fact certainly supports the notion that traces rarely solve crimes.

All the same, I do believe I'd happily give up any chance of a stolen gun being returned to me (due to lack of ability to trace it back to me in order to inform me of its recovery) in return for having 4473's destroyed within a reasonable amount of time in order to foil any potential future attempt at confiscation. I suspect many here would agree. I can make an insurance claim and replace a stolen gun (though I understand sentimental value can't be replaced). Confiscated guns are a bit harder to replace. Perhaps that's worth mentioning in any comments made to ATF on this proposal. Particularly if Dogtown Tom DOES know of any data that might support the above claim.

From ATF: https://www.atf.gov/resource-center/fact-sheet/fact-sheet-national-tracing-center
"Combating Violent Crime Each year thousands of firearms are reported lost or stolen, and some end up being used in criminal activities." Note "some", not many or most or an overwhelming majority.
450,000 ATF firearm traces in FY2019.

According to the Brady Campaign https://www.bradyunited.org/key-statistics "Every year, 115,551 people are shot..." That's a LOT of gun traces not connected to a shooting.

It's my belief that gun trace data is used far more often to identify customers who are engaging in the business of dealing in firearms without an FFL (ie flipping) or exhibit a pattern of multiple purchases and to identify those dealers who have a lot of guns recovered from criminals or crime scenes. Dealers who have a lot of gun traces showing a short "time to crime" have additional recordkeeping requirements that are quite onerous.

 

[dogtown tom]

4473 forever??

Geesh wonder what brought that one about??

The desire by ATF to more easily trace firearm transaction over age twenty. If the dealer destroyed his 4473's as they reach age twenty, all a gun trace can find is the buyers full name, date of transfer and whether he had an NTN or state permit that exempted the NICS check. No address on the buyer, no ID, nothing but name.

 

[tarosean]

The desire by ATF to more easily trace firearm transaction over age twenty. If the dealer destroyed his 4473's as they reach age twenty, all a gun trace can find is the buyers full name, date of transfer and whether he had an NTN or state permit that exempted the NICS check. No address on the buyer, no ID, nothing but name

one has to wonder how often that happens though?

The mass shooters that are bringing this all on are generally fairly close to purchase (Well within 20yrs)

 

[dogtown tom]

one has to wonder how often that happens though?

The mass shooters that are bringing this all on are generally fairly close to purchase (Well within 20yrs)

Information geeks don't like data being destroyed. Gun regulators and gun grabbers don't like information on guns and gun buyers not being available immediately.

Whether a proposed regulation actually reduces crime or criminal activity is irrelevant to those writing the regulations. While I do think background checks prevent criminals from obtaining a firearm from a licensed dealer, it doesn't prevent them from having a friend/relative/spouse or other straw purchaser acquire the firearm.....its just a law that puts a small hurdle for those criminals stupid enough to try and buy from a licensed dealer.

 

[gyp_c2]

All the above and it's a probe.
They wanna' see what will be tolerated as insults to the Constitution. It's bad enough when they try to legislate.
This is gonna' be results from an EA. They are in the media 24/7 honkin' their horns about every lil' thing.
This'll just be the greatest thing since sliced bread is the way it'll be promoted.

 

[toivo]

The grip modules are designed to hold the entire FCU - which is a superset of the fire control components. So it would essentially make the FCU + grip module = frame of a "standard" pistol.

Well, considering that the FCU is the serialized part and is already considered the "gun," that would be kind of redundant, wouldn't it? Unless I'm reading it incorrectly, the grip module by itself can't be the "gun" -- and if I'm wrong and the ATF designates it that way, we can expect to hear a lot of howling about "all-plastic guns" that can beat metal detectors.

 

[DoubleMag]

I see some of '' ghee, that's not so bad'' reading of these new proposed (...LEAKED, but generally considered reliable sources ) rules. Are some ppl forgetting these rules are put forth by...an Admin which is ACTIVELY searching out ways to BAN guns? Among other recent revelations?



My glasses with ANY Admin of govt >>little alone THIS one<< are not quite so rosey

 

[jmorris]

I've been grousing about our tendency to call them "upper receivers" and "lower receivers" since I first heard it. This for the reason that the terminology opens the door to serialize those "upper receivers."

And the Ruger “mark” pistols always had the upper as the serialized part on the grip/fire control portion.

 

[danez71]

This is really simple.

Many of the answers to questions asked can be ascertained by looking at 3 things:

- Who is the current VP and who is the current HHS Secretary (& many others in the current admin)

- Who were the last 2 AG's for CA (see above) (& many others in the current admin who came from anti 2A states)

- What CA has done (& some of the other anti 2A states); particularly regarding marking, UBC, registration, & indefinite record keeping via the CA DROS



I've posted this pic (or very similar) a few times over the years in response to many members/mods/admins that have taken the attitude of

- 'You reap what you sow' while ignoring that what you don't help your neighbor sow, you won't be able to reap either

- 'Not my state, not my problem' while ignoring our common objective to keep our Rights for all people.

- 'All politics are local' while ignoring the fact that many of the local politicians (and their nonesense ideas) will end up being on the national stage

- 'States Rights' while ignoring 'United We Stand, Divided We Fall'.

The 2A community has been divided for far too long spewing things like the above as a way to justify thier lack of involvement or active support for others.


I can only hope the current situation will help change the lack of forward thinking and selfishness that got us here and that people from all states can finally start working together rather than mock/ignore/be dismissive those that were having thier Rights chipped away.






Any vagueness in the definitions are intentional loop holes only to be corrected later in the name of comments sense to further chip away at ALL of our 2A Rights.

(Flame suit on.)

 

[230RN]

And the Ruger “mark” pistols always had the upper as the serialized part on the grip/fire control portion.

Yes, as has been mentioned previously. And might well be another can of worms. However, the Ruger Standard (now sometimes called the Mark 1) was designed more like a rifle than a pistol anyway, somewhat like the Luger 08 pistol.

But this illustrates the usual futility in trying to codify everything into a nice clean "cookie cutter" scheme and why the ATF gets in trouble with its determinations on a case-by-case basis.*

I agree with gyp_c2 (and others, I'm sure) that this is a "probe," a trial balloon instigated by the most virulent anti-2A elements ever in power.

Regardless of the process, the outcome will be touted as "reasonable regulation," in keeping with the philosophy that "no right is absolute" and that the Constitution is a "living document" subject to the whims of the big-city population and politicians at any given time.

Hmmm... let's see.... did I leave anything out of that rant?

Well, I'll think of something sooner or later.

Terry, 230RN

*I sometimes amuse myself by thinking that with the constant wrangling with what regulations are legal and what ain't, the underlying enabling legislation is obviously unconstitutionally vague on its face and ought to be declared as such and hence invalidated.

That always brings a grin to add to my wrinkles.

 

[CapnMac]

Regardless of the process, the outcome will be touted as "reasonable regulation," in keeping with the philosophy that "no right is absolute" and that the Constitution is a "living document" subject to the whims of the big-city population and politicians at any given time.

It's easy, all too easy, to frame this exactly that way.

However, the wheels of government spin slowly. These Rule Change Documents typically take a year to get into print. The required Procedures in applying them are convoluted, but are followed. Every Comment submitted is required to be answered in like form to how it's presented (so, if you submit by email or e-form, the response is in like format). The volume and character of those comments is also noted. (Far, Far better to not cut-n-paste a Comment, since they all have to be read and addressed.)

Is it ideal? No, little in government is. We get to Comment on this Proposed Rules Change, and to have those comments heard and responded to. Not the sort of opportunity to be scoffed at, or defamed as pointless.

These things have been shot down, even improved, through Comments.

If a person owned a Pawn Shop and accepted a PMF, it certainly looks like they would have to send it off to be marked, probably at their own expense (or they would have to become certified for marking PMF to do it themselves). That sounds like an unreasonable burden on a significantly-sized industry.

If a person ran a machining company and turned out sub-contract parts for a firearm manufacturer, would they have to mark those parts, either after becoming certified to do so, or by sending to a specialty vendor? Again, a significant burden. (This harkens back to the dilemma of getting a Manufacturer, manufacture date, serial number, and "For Law Enforcement or Military Use Only" all on a single machine gun belt link--which took ATFE close to eight years to sort out.)

 

[230RN]

It's easy, all too easy, to frame this exactly that way.
....
Again, a significant burden. (This harkens back to the dilemma of getting a Manufacturer, manufacture date, serial number, and "For Law Enforcement or Military Use Only" all on a single machine gun belt link--which took ATFE close to eight years to sort out.)

Sorry, I can't agree with your general apology.

Neither you nor I developed the legal mechanism to make it possible for anyone to even think about requiring the information be put on each link. But that's a good tidbit for future use, so thanks for that "ammo."

And you seem to be clinging to the illusion that the ATF enabling statute was Constitutional anyhow, since nobody successfully challenged it at the SCOTUS level due to unusual circumstances.

So you and I must fundamentally disagree on that level. Sorry 'bout that.

And yes, it is easy to frame it that way. The sky is blue and the grass is green, too, bureaucratic logjams notwithstanding.

Terry, 230RN

Edited for housekeeping.

 

[dogtown tom]

..... Are some ppl forgetting these rules are put forth by...an Admin which is ACTIVELY searching out ways to BAN guns?

Good grief. PLEASE stay on topic. Nobody has forgotten a darn thing because the battle for gun rights has been going on for DECADES.
So far this "Admin" hasn't banned anything, unlike the past "Admin".
The Trump White House ordered ATF to redefine the definition of machine gun to include bump stocks. So far one Federal Circuit has ruled against that new definition. Others likely to follow.

The document isn't a first step, precursor or prelude to banning anything either. "Banning" guns will take Congressional action.....just like it did in 1984. So as far as "ACTIVELY searching out ways to BAN guns?"...there's only one way to do that.



Nothing in the document I linked to REMOTELY approaches "banning" anything......it's about the problems dealers encounter EVERYDAY with accurate recordkeeping.
This ATF document provides an explanation of how certain firearms will be recorded in a dealers records and the need for a serial number and other information for "privately manufactured firearms". It explains how marking requirements may change.

 

[Tommygunn]

Good grief. PLEASE stay on topic. Nobody has forgotten a darn thing because the battle for gun rights has been going on for DECADES.
So far this "Admin" hasn't banned anything, unlike the past "Admin"..........

In a few years, that may change cosmically.

I did not like the way bumpstocks were banned but I thought they were stupid and not a "hill to die on." In a couple years there may be a number of hills for us to "die on" .... like General Custer ......"from Garry Owen to Glory."

 

[Slotback]

To me it was like the authors said: "Technology advanced a whole lot since the 1968 GCA. And now we're trying to catch up and make some sense while we've got everyone breathing down our necks".

 

[230RN]

Leave us not forget that legislative "banning" is not the only way to eliminate firearms use. The other way is by instituting successive regulatory choke points. We do use "banning" a bit loosely, but the effect of tighter and tighter regulation is also a strategy of the "banners."

As I am fond of pointing out, if they can regulate down to ten-round magazines, they can regulate down to one-round magazines.

And require special permits and $2600 "tax stamps" for you to use one-round magazines.

So, Original Poster, you drop seeds like that, you've got to expect the discussion to expand to the related number one concern of most of us: dissolution of the meaning of the shortest and most clear Amendment in the Bill Of Rights.

So go ahead and close the thread... it seems to be a general policy of The High Road staff to clamp any discussion of the real issues involved in 2A matters.

Terry, 230RN

REF: