National Court Strikes Down ATF Frame/Receiver Rule

[PiratePast40]

I am glad they are taking it up but I would be lying if I said I have high hopes for a good decision from them. Although they didn't require serial numbers back in the 1700s so who knows.

According to William Kirk with Washington Gun Law, the SCOTUS decision won't have any effect on states like Oregon, in which the legislature has actually passed laws defining a firearm. The case is really about the authority of agencies to make law, not specifically about PMFs or parts. In other words, at least in Oregon, incompetent leadership sold us out. They either did not understand the ramifications or didn't feel it was worth the effort. Knoop was crowing that HB2005 didn't make any difference since it was just parroting federal regulations. Now we know he was completely wrong. They thought that removal of the 18-20 year olds clauses would fix everything but they got it wrong so they mistakenly called it a win.

Any Oregon legislators reading this! Yes, it's me again, like a bulldog holding on. ANSWER YOUR F'ING MAIL!

 

[Yarome]

According to William Kirk with Washington Gun Law, the SCOTUS decision won't have any effect on states like Oregon, in which the legislature has actually passed laws defining a firearm. The case is really about the authority of agencies to make law, not specifically about PMFs or parts. In other words, at least in Oregon, incompetent leadership sold us out. They either did not understand the ramifications or didn't feel it was worth the effort. Knoop was crowing that HB2005 didn't make any difference since it was just parroting federal regulations. Now we know he was completely wrong. They thought that removal of the 18-20 year olds clauses would fix everything but they got it wrong so they mistakenly called it a win.

Any Oregon legislators reading this! Yes, it's me again, like a bulldog holding on. ANSWER YOUR F'ING MAIL!

"High level"... the impact in OR would be minimal, but it's not an entire wash since HB2005 is really two pronged. A ban on 80%'s and a SN requirement for PMF's. What vanderstock will have an immediate impact on would be the 80% portion.

OR HB2005 defines a frame as:



The definition of receiver is also similarly defined and dependent on the expanded definitions created by the alphabet under Title 27.

So, when HB2005 says we can't sell, offer for sale, or import a frame or receiver without a SN that would no longer apply to 80%'s if the expanded definitions in Title 27 are undone.

That doesn't, however, change the definition of "firearm" once an 80% is turned from a chunk of plastic or metal into a "firearm". They would still require a SN.

That opens up a whole can of worms for HB2005 though and strength's the legal argument against the SN requirement for simple possession of a PMF for personal use. There would exist an inconsistency of law where lawfully obtained items and the exercise of lawful action suddenly makes you a criminal.

 

[PiratePast40]

"High level"... the impact in OR would be minimal, but it's not an entire wash since HB2005 is really two pronged. A ban on 80%'s and a SN requirement for PMF's. What vanderstock will have an immediate impact on would be the 80% portion.

OR HB2005 defines a frame as:

View attachment 1868417

The definition of receiver is also similarly defined and dependent on the expanded definitions created by the alphabet under Title 27.

So, when HB2005 says we can't sell, offer for sale, or import a frame or receiver without a SN that would no longer apply to 80%'s if the expanded definitions in Title 27 are undone.

That doesn't, however, change the definition of "firearm" once an 80% is turned from a chunk of plastic or metal into a "firearm". They would still require a SN.

That opens up a whole can of worms for HB2005 though and strength's the legal argument against the SN requirement for simple possession of a PMF for personal use. There would exist an inconsistency of law where lawfully obtained items and the exercise of lawful action suddenly makes you a criminal.

You're right. Thanks for pointing that out.