Biden's Plan To Stop Ghost Guns Is Doomed To Fail

[CountryGent]

One take on it from Reason TV:

Read More

 

[Flopsweat]

Regulations.gov

www.regulations.gov

They seem to be claiming that, because their vague definition of "frame or receiver" says that it contains 3 parts (hammer, bolt and firing mechanism) and some spit receivers have some in one half and some in the other, courts have ruled that the wording leaves some receivers outside the definition. There are other issues too, like handguns that have some parts in the frame and some in the slide or elsewhere, or have a striker instead of a hammer, but they probably play a lesser part. They are worried that a large number of guns could have no part that is legally a receiver, and if the court findings were "broadly followed" chaos would ensue. It seems to me that a simple solution might be to require that the manufacturer put the serial number on the part that most closely matches the description and leave it at that. Or, and here's a novel approach, what if you just remove one or two of the components from the description, thereby simplifying and narrowing the definition, which is what they were concerned about in the first place? How about wherever the hammer or striker is?

The next issue is that people are making guns at home and that ATF can't trace them, in of all things, straw purchases. This makes no sense to me. It's my understanding that a serial number is already required for transfer of a gun. An FFL wouldn't want a non-serialized gun on their books in the first place. Does anyone have an insight into this? I'm off to do other weekend stuff now.

EDIT: Grammar and new thought.

 

[Jonnyuma]

It's my understanding that a serial number is already required for transfer of a gun

Correct. You can build and own an unserialized firearm, but it's illegal to sell it that way.

Golly... it almost sounds like they're some kinda control freaks, don't it.

 

[FireArm]

Correct. You can build and own an unserialized firearm, but it's illegal to sell it that way.

Golly... it almost sounds like they're some kinda control freaks, don't it.

they arent illegal to sell when done properly. just like selling any firearm (except black powder currently).

 

[wjv]

With the help from the media they are agonizing about something that contributes to probably 0.000001% of violent crime.

Ghost Guns!!!!!!

 

[Martini_Up]

Sure wish they'd work on ghost voters instead

 

[2Wheels4Ever]

I'm surprised they don't go down the "intent" path. Not that I want them to, but it would please the brainless mobs. If an object is built with or sold with the intention of being used as a receiver, then it needs a serial number. Not that it would stop the dedicated, but it would make it more difficult to source all the parts, and make complete build kits go away.

I'm also surprised that they aren't trying to make it illegal to manufacture a firearm without a license.

Fortunately, that cat's out of the bag, so to speak. It's already illegal to kill, for a felon to own a firearm, to give a firearm to a felon, and for prohibited persons to carry a gun in public.

Evidently, those laws are just too complicated for some to comprehend. I'm sure this vaguely written new regulation will clear the air and put a stop to these unfortunate misgivings.

 

[223to45]

. This makes no sense to me. It's my understanding that a serial number is already required for transfer of a gun. An FFL wouldn't want a non-serialized gun on their books in the first place. Does anyone have an insight into this? I'm off to do other weekend stuff now.

EDIT: Grammar and new thought.

Well the ATF says it is recommends that a serial number be added, but not a requirement.
State laws may differ

 

[Dinglenutz]

I'm also surprised that they aren't trying to make it illegal to manufacture a firearm without a license.

It is already. Manufacturing is not the same as making.

 

[Capn Jack]

They should have stuck with outlawing any ah-salt rifle that fires 1,000 rounds a second and that shoulder thingy that pops up.

 

[FireArm]

I'm surprised they don't go down the "intent" path. Not that I want them to, but it would please the brainless mobs. If an object is built with or sold with the intention of being used as a receiver, then it needs a serial number. Not that it would stop the dedicated, but it would make it more difficult to source all the parts, and make complete build kits go away.

I'm also surprised that they aren't trying to make it illegal to manufacture a firearm without a license.

Fortunately, that cat's out of the bag, so to speak. It's already illegal to kill, for a felon to own a firearm, to give a firearm to a felon, and for prohibited persons to carry a gun in public.

Evidently, those laws are just too complicated for some to comprehend. I'm sure this vaguely written new regulation will clear the air and put a stop to these unfortunate misgivings.

So your against someone manufacturing a firearm without asking big bro for approval?

founding fathers shaking their heads at you. You should probably just hand over those firearms at the next buy back, and get a fishing pole, because that AR isn't for hunting(same boat).

 

[2Wheels4Ever]

So your against someone manufacturing a firearm without asking big bro for approval?

founding fathers shaking their heads at you. You should probably just hand over those firearms at the next buy back, and get a fishing pole, because that AR isn't for hunting(same boat).

No, I'm not. You completely misread my post.