Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

From Our Friends at Gunlearn

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    From Our Friends at Gunlearn

    Several people here have taken the Firearms Specialist course offered by the International Firearms Specialists Academy, AKA Gunlearn.com. The instructor I had for the course, Dan O'Kelly (please excuse me if I got his name wrong, it's been several years) has opined that the ATF's interpretation of Federal law's definition of a firearm actually excludes the AR15 lower. The definition of a receiver is "The part of a firearm that houses the hammer, breech block, and firing mechanism, and which is usually threaded at its forward portion to receive a barrel." An AR lower is not that, according to Gunlearn.

    Today, Gunlearn posted this on their Facebook page. What it means for us, I have no idea, but it sounds like changes are a comin.

    "It was just learned yesterday from reliable sources in ATF that the agency has announced internally that they have decided to re-write the definition of frame/receiver of a firearm. This comes on the heels of the December ruling by Federal Judge Carr’s decision that AR15 lowers do not meet the definition of a firearm frame/receiver, and are therefore not firearms. The announcement is the result of a decision made during last week’s conference of Special Agent’s in Charge (SAC) of their 25 Field Divisions. Since 1968 ATF has been treating a part of many gun models as a firearm, and exerting administrative sanctions over the manufacture of them, as well as prosecuting the manufacture or possession of them, despite the fact that they do not fall within the definition found in 27 CFR 478.11. The expected change will, according to the announcement, take 2-5 years to finalize as it moves through the various required approvals. No other info is available at this time."













    3333

    29 Comments91 Shares









    "The devil doesn't come dressed in a red cape and pointy horns. He comes as everything you've ever wished for.”
    Tucker Max

    Infirmitate Invitat Violentiam
    Finicky Fat Guy

    #2
    If it looks like a firearm, works like a firearm and shoots bullets like a firearm, will it soon be classified as a firearm?
    Giza Development: Building and Renovating Pyramids of Distinction Since 2435 BC 631-427-1691 (Beware the Sea People)

    Comment


      #3
      Originally posted by spider View Post
      If it looks like a firearm, works like a firearm and shoots bullets like a firearm, will it soon be classified as a firearm?
      Well, does the upper look like a firearm or does the lower, or does it only look like a firearm when attached to each other. Like, the sum is greater than the parts.
      "The devil doesn't come dressed in a red cape and pointy horns. He comes as everything you've ever wished for.”
      Tucker Max

      Infirmitate Invitat Violentiam
      Finicky Fat Guy

      Comment


        #4
        Change is not always good. I agree much change is needed but this is the sort of thing that can turn gubmint into a design/build shop or reverse engineering house. They wait until you build it and then decide why you cannot have it.
        I hope I am misreading these tea leaves...time will tell.

        Comment


          #5
          Huntington Guy called it, this will result in uppers and lowers both becoming restricted parts.
          Know your rights/Refuse peacefully to consent to a search /Ask if you are free to go or are being detained/Even if you are not doing anything wrong the 4th Amendment protects you against unreasonable searches/Never say anything to law enforcement even if you think it will help you/If questioned you should clearly and unequivocally request that you would like to have an attorney present and defer any questions until then/Never go to prison because you are afraid to go to jail.

          Comment


            #6
            Sounds like these guys did us a favor the same way DSI did.
            Exercise the Bill of Rights. It's good for your Constitution.

            Comment


              #7
              https://www.longislandgunclub.com/fo...-familiar-face

              https://www.longislandgunclub.com/fo...ver-definition

              https://www.longislandgunclub.com/fo...-popular-rifle
              Steve

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by Barnslayer View Post
                Sounds like these guys did us a favor the same way DSI did.
                I kinda' understand that view - but it is what it is. Dan has testified on the side of accused gun-owners, in court, that an AR receiver is not a firearm, according to ATF definition. Accused gun-owners have benefited from he, and many others, pointing this out. But at the same time many gun owners have been wrongfully convicted, with courts ignoring the obvious contradiction. It's time that the ATF contradictory "rulings" are brought to light and fixed. The bump stock "ruling" doesn't make sense either. It clearly doesn't fit the ATF definition of a machine gun, but it's.....law?

                I sure hope that any new ATF rulings don't make things worse for us - but I'm thinking that they'll be taking all those years so that there will be very little to challenge in a SCOTUS 2A case. Fingers crossed.
                "The Open Carry guy is my decoy."

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by Dan 0351 View Post

                  I kinda' understand that view - but it is what it is. Dan has testified on the side of accused gun-owners, in court, that an AR receiver is not a firearm, according to ATF definition. Accused gun-owners have benefited from he, and many others, pointing this out. But at the same time many gun owners have been wrongfully convicted, with courts ignoring the obvious contradiction. It's time that the ATF contradictory "rulings" are brought to light and fixed. The bump stock "ruling" doesn't make sense either. It clearly doesn't fit the ATF definition of a machine gun, but it's.....law?

                  I sure hope that any new ATF rulings don't make things worse for us - but I'm thinking that they'll be taking all those years so that there will be very little to challenge in a SCOTUS 2A case. Fingers crossed.
                  Maybe the ATF shouldn’t be making definitions? It seems they’re not up to the job.
                  Exercise the Bill of Rights. It's good for your Constitution.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by Barnslayer View Post

                    Maybe the ATF shouldn’t be making definitions? It seems they’re not up to the job.
                    Many have been saying that for decades - including me.
                    "The Open Carry guy is my decoy."

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X