The first article publishewd August 1, 2011, below, is at http://www.examiner....ed-as-firearms.
The second article, published August 2, 2011, is at http://www.examiner....earm-is-who-can and appears below the first article. The second article provides an example of potential confusion arising from ATF firearms classifications, which are identified in the first article.
Be sure and check out the slide show: "Firearms, frames and receivers, oh my!" at http://www.examiner....-picture<br />.
Are .50 BMG upper conversions going to be reclassified as firearms?
David Codrea, Gun Rights Examiner
August 1, 2011
An open letter to ATF
John R. Spencer, Chief
Firearms Technology Branch
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
Dear Chief Spencer,
For some time, I’ve been hearing rumblings from sources in the firearms industry that your branch is going to classify .50 BMG upper conversions for AR-15 rifles as firearms, a departure from the past practice established by your office of considering them parts. I have since been informed this was confirmed by your office in a telephone conversation with a national firearms publication. Because this could have such profound and far-reaching effects, not only within the firearms industry, but also among private owners who have been in compliance with currently written regulations, I’m seeking to document if this is true.
Is it?
If not, I’m sorry to bother you and take you away from your busy and demanding schedule. My intent is either to confirm what I’ve been hearing or put it to bed. Please let me know so that I can share a denial with interested gun owners.
If it is true, here are some additional questions I’d like to get for-the-record answers to:
As per Federal Firearms Act. 15 U.S.C. Chapter 18, a firearm for intents and purposes of this inquiry is “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; the frame or receiver of any such weapon,” and a firearm frame or receiver is “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.”
Historically, based on rulings established by ATF, the regulated part of the AR-15 classified as a firearm and requiring a serial number and attendant compliance with possession and transfer laws has been the lower receiver—which is curious, because that part houses the trigger assembly. The upper receiver has been considered a part, and no such restrictions have applied. The result has been a market with American companies putting forth the investment to fill demand in accordance with existing regulations, and because a conversion part offers a more affordable alternative than expensive .50 BMG rifles, untold thousands of Americans have purchased these parts in good faith and in compliance with the law.
Will that change? When?
Under the statutory definition, how can a firearm contain more than one frame or receiver?
If you do make this change, what other conclusion can be drawn other than ATF regulated the wrong part as a "frame or receiver" of the AR-type firearm for over 40 years?
If the upper conversion part is determined to be a firearm, what will happen to existing stock and currently-owned parts?
What impact will this have on past determinations and legal cases based on the lower receiver being the “firearm”?
How would it be determined if an unserialized part is old or new? Would the automatic assumption be that a part without the number is “grandfathered,” or would the possessor assume risks if they can’t prove when they received the part?
Would those who manufactured, distributed, transferred and purchased such parts without going through a Federal Firearms Licensee and the attendant paperwork and background check —prior to such a ruling—be in violation and subject to criminal penalties and confiscation?
Will this new approach by your office apply to any other firearms and calibers? If not, why not—what in the code makes this part and this caliber different?
To your knowledge, is this part of President Obama’s promised “under the radar” gun control, where representatives accountable to the people are bypassed and blanket bans are created out of administrative fiats? I guess what I’m asking here is, whose idea was this? Yours? Did someone higher up in the administration, either at ATF or from the Department of Justice, ask you to make this happen? If so, who? Would I need to complete a Freedom of Information Act request to try to get an answer to that?
How are Americans supposed to proceed without clear and defined standards, and know that property they lawfully invest in will not suddenly be declared contraband and criminal to possess—by mutable and arbitrary edicts from a regulatory agency that appears to be either making things up as it goes along or following an agenda not shared with the public?
Your prompt attention to this matter will be appreciated.
------------
Help wanted--inquire within
Regular readers: If you agree that mainstream press coverage of the gun rights issue demands a counter-balance, please help me spread the word by sharing Gun Rights Examiner links with your friends via emails, and in online discussion boards, blogs, social media sites, etc. Then get more commentary at The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance.
And don't forget to check out my War on Guns Resistance Radio show, weekdays at 7:00 AM Pacific and 10:00 AM Eastern on NBC 1260 Scottsdale, or by listening live, through weekend encores, or downloading archived programs.
..
Continue reading on Examiner.com Are .50 BMG upper conversions going to be reclassified as firearms? - National gun rights | Examiner.com http://www.examiner....s#ixzz1TszkI8Vt
NOTE: The second article, which follows, is an Addendum to the Open Letter to John Spencer, from http://www.examiner....arm-is-who-can. The article is illustrated with color photographs of the AA Arms firearms discussed therein.
If ATF can’t tell us what a ‘firearm’ is, who can?
David Codrea, Gun Rights Examiner
August 2, 2011
Dear Chief Spencer,
Yesterday’s post “Are .50 BMG upper conversions going to be reclassified as firearms?” pointed to a glaring inconsistency in how the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives treats the application of federal statutes in its rulemaking, particularly as it applies to AR-15 rifles. In those, as you know, the lower receiver is considered the “firearm,” requiring a serial number and subject to regulation, while the upper receiver has been treated as a part. As I asked yesterday, is what I’ve been told true—that the Bureau now intends to treat upper conversions for ARs as firearms?
It’s more than just chasing after a rumor, which would be easy to dismiss or just flat-out ignore. A friend of mine has given me a real-world example, and per the concern I expressed yesterday, it involves a completely different firearm and a completely different caliber—meaning precedent has already been established—years ago—to mess with millions of gun owners based entirely on mercurial and mutable agency inconsistencies in application of rules.
Here—let me let him tell it:
David,
Attached are the photos I was telling you about...[See sidebar slideshow—DC]
They are of two AP-9 pistols made by AA ARMS INC. MINT HILL, N.C.
One is S/N 4320, the other is S/N 6880
The lower serial number and manufactures information is marked on the "upper". The higher serial number and manufactures information is marked on the "lower".
They are both identical dimensionally and operationally. All parts of one will fit the other. Meaning if I switched the "uppers" I would have one firearm with no serial number and makers info, and another firearm with two serial numbers...not good, and no I did not do that.
What happened for the manufacturer to move the serial number and maker’s info? Did ATF or Firearms Technology Branch mandate it? Which firearm was correctly marked on the frame or receiver? Is it the upper or the lower that is the frame or receiver?
When I did a Google search…I noticed this posting:
"I am looking for a replacement receiver for a 9mm AP-9 (A A Arms inc. Mint Hill N.C.). My friend broke his at the magazine well. thanks John"
We can only hope that "John" did not have the misfortune of getting hands on a "replacement" lower that was not marked if his upper was also not marked. Assembling the two would result in a firearm with no serial number or maker’s information...a felony that could result in up to 10 years in prison.
The above is a perfect illustration of the law of unintended consequences when you start shifting what is and is not the frame or receiver...It also demonstrates the hazards to unsuspecting gun owners if the ATF ever changes its mind and doesn't notify the public.
I note that A. A. Arms is no longer in business, Chief Spencer, but here’s one thing for certain—they didn’t just do this on their own without ATF oversight. So now the question becomes, what rule or directive were they operating under to make this expensive—and profoundly far-reaching change that, if consistently applied, would affect far more than just this one model firearm, and, in fact, potentially put millions of gun owners at severe risk?
Any for-the-record enlightenment you would care to share with us, sir? Do I need to file a FOIA request?
..
Continue reading on Examiner.com If ATF can’t tell us what a ‘firearm’ is, who can? - National gun rights | Examiner.com http://www.examiner....n#ixzz1TuGFCNv6
While related to other topics on the board, I don't want to post in those and lose focus;
As a licensee I have noticed an impact of the "Gunwalker" scandal.
First, if you dial any of the phone numbers in the back of the "FFL Newsletter" that ATF publishes you are connected now with ATF public affairs office...They appear to have transferred all calls there.
Second; After multiple voice mails left after two weeks I received a call from Firearms Technology Branch (FTB), Assistant Chief Rick Vasquez (as my company has a couple of submission samples there). I don't know whether to laugh or cry at his response...
In short FTB has completed it's examination and evaluation of my company's products and has even completed the "letter ruling" but are unable to reveal it's content or send it to my company because ATF Chief Counsels Office is focusing it's attention on the current events and has not responded to FTB [who according to Rick MUST sign off on it].
My question to the board {both FFL's and ATF employee's} are you running into the same situation? Has CCO effectively prevented ATF from regulating the Firearms industry by not responding to you in a timely manner?
