- Messages
- 5,089
- Reactions
- 8,722
neverminded 
JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
National Court Strikes Down ATF Frame/Receiver Rule
- Thread Starter bradsteen
- Start date
- Messages
- 10,161
- Reactions
- 17,487
No it's not. A district court doesn't tell the ATF what to tell it's licensed manufacturers how to conduct business. In the case of all of the AK receiver manufacturing companies the ones who were selling 80% were told to stop or they would lose their manufacturing licensing so they stopped. It's either going to have to go all the way to SCOTUS like Thompson center did or the ATF isn't going to allow it. You can believe otherwise but I'm not sure the ATF cares about your belief system all that much.
- Messages
- 16,057
- Reactions
- 33,921
Watch for appeals from the DOJ/ATF and going to SCOTUS on this one
Sure does help though to provide a little firepower in any challenge to OR's new "unfinished receiver" BS. We'll see....
- Messages
- 16,057
- Reactions
- 33,921
9th Circus?
if 9th predictably says OR's receiver thing is "constitutional" and uses the 2 part balance test
- Messages
- 10,161
- Reactions
- 17,487
In a few years
- Messages
- 11,960
- Reactions
- 21,147
Sheesh, depending on the day of the week and where you live you could be a felon or totally within the law on any given day.
- Messages
- 230
- Reactions
- 353
HB2005 references that federal rule for how to serialize. Doesn't this technically mean it is referencing nothing at this point? In theory doesn't this work out better for OR's politicians as you can't even get your PMF's serialized before September 24?
- Messages
- 10,161
- Reactions
- 17,487
No. The ATF didn't change their ruling because of what a district court says. They dont ever work like that.
- Messages
- 230
- Reactions
- 353
I see so the rule is only vacated for the 5th district? We would have to file a similar lawsuit in the 9th or have the supreme court see the case for any relief.
Under the APA, vacating the rule has nationwide (universal) affect. IOW, the affect of a nationwide injunction... not limited to the 5th district.
Obviously, it's going to be appealed, but we'll have to wait and see how that goes.
- Messages
- 230
- Reactions
- 353
My understanding was it was nationwide too ... How can you be charged with a felony under hb2005 (if this holds) for having 2-80% receivers without serial numbers when what hb2005 references on how to do it can't be enforced?
Because the ruling only applied to the alphabets rule... not to individual state laws.
Serializing... I'm not versed enough to know the exact impact it may or may not have. I'm kind of thinking there are plenty of other alphabet sections pertaining to serialization. It wouldn't take much to change the citation as a correction(?) Would it even be necessary(?)
I honestly don't know how that plays. I'm fairly confident though that it won't matter to OR. If it bungles them up, they either won't care and enforce it anyway under some twisted logic, or make some kind of backdoor play to validate the requirements.
- Messages
- 230
- Reactions
- 353
I get it doesn't apply to state law, but the state law says to do what the federal law says to do in terms of how to serialize and to some extent who can. PMF's before this rule didn't have a legal mechanism to be serialized by FFLs under federal law.
The rule also opened it up so 01 FFL gunsmiths/dealers could serialize, now if vacated only an 07 manufacture can serialize. Even if the state wants to enforce the past tense it can't change what FFLs are allowed to do from a Federal perspective unless I am missing something here.
- Messages
- 42,667
- Reactions
- 110,783
The ATF has had a rule/reg for quite some time as to what a serial number and other markings (manufacturer, etc.) should be and how it should be applied. Also that all guns manufactured after 1968 need to follow this rule.
Firearms - Guides - Importation & Verification of Firearms, Ammunition - Firearms Verification Overview | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
Previous Page Table of Contents Download the Guidebook Next Page Firearms Verification Firearms Verification Overview Marking Requirements Serial Number Must be conspicuously engraved, cast or stamped (impressed) on the firearm frame or receiver The serial number cannot duplicate the serial...
But this only applied to licensed manufacturers (FFL 06, 07, 10), and importers - not to private citizens who make a firearm for themselves.
- Messages
- 230
- Reactions
- 353
Yes since 1968 for firearms they directly manufactured not one someone else has. The state law assumes the FFL will comply with the frame and receivers rule on how to serialize a pmf.The ATF has had a rule/reg for quite some time as to what a serial number and other markings (manufacturer, etc.) should be and how it should be applied. Also that all guns manufactured after 1968 need to follow this rule.
Firearms - Guides - Importation & Verification of Firearms, Ammunition - Firearms Verification Overview | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
Previous Page Table of Contents Download the Guidebook Next Page Firearms Verification Firearms Verification Overview Marking Requirements Serial Number Must be conspicuously engraved, cast or stamped (impressed) on the firearm frame or receiver The serial number cannot duplicate the serial...www.atf.gov
But this only applied to licensed manufacturers (FFL 06, 07, 10), and importers - not to private citizens who make a firearm for themselves.
This voids the instructions for how to do this kind of transfer. The rule also tells ffls how to log a pmf into their books and how to transfer a pmf to another party.
Last Edited:
- Messages
- 230
- Reactions
- 353
As an example a manufacture must serialize within 7 days making a firearm. In this case how do they accept one made previously that they can't verify the timeline on. They would be serializing it with the old rules that shows them as the manufacturer so they would have violated the law?
- Messages
- 10,161
- Reactions
- 17,487
Rules for manufacturers are different in most states. Federally when I build a gun for my business I have to serialize within a time frame. An individual doesn't have to do that. He only has to serialize if it sells through an FFL and most FFL's want nothing to do with that unless they happen to have laser engraving onsite they can charge for. Thats the rub here . While one district court might say this is on hold for dealers the ATF controls dealers and the ATF isn't going to budge for licensed dealers nationwide. They dont act by district. Dealers risk their licenses if they process transfers without serialization. Its really a moot point for most of the country outside of Oregon as there probably haven't been more than a handful of these guns serialized by dealers as most of that stuff would go private party anyway unless its an interstate sale and those are rare for 80%. Ive done them so its not totally unheard of. . Oregon doesnt fall in the 5th district so it wouldn't apply to Oregon anyway.
Last Edited:
Similar threads
