National Former ATF agent says no part of an AR 15 is regulated by GCA 68

[slimmer13]

He's at the center of a brewing legal dispute that federal prosecutors say has the potential to upend the 1968 Gun Control Act and "seriously undermine the ATF's ability to trace and regulate firearms nationwide."



As O'Kelly sees it, the ATF has been deliberately misinterpreting a key gun control regulation for decades because officials fear that following the letter of the law would allow criminals to build AR-15s and other firearms piece by piece with unregulated parts.
He said he voiced his concerns to an ATF official two decades ago, but was rebuffed.
Now, however, his view is gaining traction in courtrooms around the country.

Former ATF agent at center of legal dispute over AR-15 | CNN

Ex-ATF agent Dan O'Kelly says federal law does not apply to a key component of the AR-15 and many other weapons, creating a loophole through which convicted felons could acquire a firearm piece by piece.

www.cnn.com

Read More

 

[cookie]

Pretty much the politicians and unionized government employees are a crime gang. Committing crime against the taxpayers for a wonderful pension. Retribution is necessary.

 

[nammac]

It'll get squashed and swept under the carpet. Nothing to see here...

 

[awshoot]

It's interesting that in WA law (as distinct from Federal) a "firearm" is defined as something that shoots projectiles. A lower cannot shoot projectiles. All of the WA laws we have on the books are aimed at firearms (the whole lead slinging kit an kaboodle) and the only limitation on making one for yourself is that it must be detectable by Xray machines and metal detectors and you don't intend to sell it.

I know people have buying AR lowers to avoid the pistol/semi-auto registry, but I also wonder if a legal case could be safely, as in nobody risks jail time, brought on this issue. To have lowers declared as not firearms under WA law would be pretty interesting.

RCW 9.41.010: Definitions.

(11) "Firearm" means a weapon or device from which a projectile or projectiles may be fired by an explosive such as gunpowder. "Firearm" does not include a flare gun or other pyrotechnic visual distress signaling device, or a powder-actuated tool or other device designed solely to be used for construction purposes.
(12) "Gun" has the same meaning as firearm.

 

[ACO]

That would apply to all stripped recievers then. AKs as well.

 

[awshoot]

That would apply to all stripped recievers then. AKs as well.

pistol frames, bolt action receivers -- anything you can think of.

 

[dangerranger60]

This is a CNN article that was written to sway people to think that we are arming felons! They left out the part that these are not stripped receivers but 80% blank paperweights! Remember the source. DR

 

[arakboss]

This is a CNN article that was written to sway people to think that we are arming felons! They left out the part that these are not stripped receivers but 80% blank paperweights! Remember the source. DR

Is he only talking about 80% receivers or all receivers? My understanding is he is referring to all receivers.

I wonder what he thinks about Sig P320 FCG assy being labeled a firearm?

 

[arakboss]

My guess is, the AG's office will fix this with some word games. If the AG can turn a bumpstock in to a machine gun then they will easily be able to fix this "problem". Good luck finding a FFL who will transfer these without BG check based on this former Agents observations, which are 100% correct. His observation should also apply to the 50cal uppers that the ATF has regulated as firearms.

There are three out of four things required under the law to define a firearm. The AR15 lower receiver only has two.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

My guess is, the AG's office will fix this with some word games.

This....!
When the other side controls the language , as well as changes definitions and terms ...it makes it difficult to keep up , let alone fight the laws and rules...
Andy

 

[awshoot]

This is a CNN article that was written to sway people to think that we are arming felons! They left out the part that these are not stripped receivers but 80% blank paperweights! Remember the source. DR

Not quite -- this is about the spate of recent prosecutions the Feds are losing because a lower receiver is not a receiver under the Federal definition. The Federal definition requires the receiver to accept a barrel. You cannot attach a barrel to an AR lower. You can attach a barrel to an AR upper, and attach the upper to the lower, but the lower in and of itself, is not a receiver under the Federal definition.

If a finished lower is not a receiver under Federal law, it should be a commodity good like replacement grips or scope rings or trigger springs or whatever -- completely outside the BG check regime.

In WA law, as I pointed out above, lower receivers are not "firearms" because the WA definition requires that a firearm shoot projectiles. Lower receivers by themselves shoot projectiles as well as a red dot shoots projectiles, i.e., it's impossible.

So under Federal law the AR lower is not a reciever and under WA law the lower is not a firearm. You should be able to buy these like lollipops -- walk in, lay your money down, walk out.

 

[Member 34319]

Maybe we should write the ATF asking for opinions over and over and over like other things in the past!

 

[awshoot]

My guess is, the AG's office will fix this with some word games. If the AG can turn a bumpstock in to a machine gun then they will easily be able to fix this "problem". Good luck finding a FFL who will transfer these without BG check based on this former Agents observations, which are 100% correct. His observation should also apply to the 50cal uppers that the ATF has regulated as firearms.

There are three out of four things required under the law to define a firearm. The AR15 lower receiver only has two.

I don't think we need an actual transfer. I could see a lawsuit working out like this:

Customer signs an affidavit saying that if WA state and the Federal Gov't did not do a background check, he/she would buy a stripped lower from Dealer, that it is legal for the person to own firearms, but the person is interested in privacy. Dealer signs an affidavit saying that he/she wants to sell stripped lowers over the counter but declines because of the way the state and the Feds are interpreting the law and that doing so would cause legal or licensing consequences.

Now you have the states/Feds interfering with commerce based on an interpretation of the law. The courts should determine how to interpret the law and issue a ruling on whether the OTC transaction would be OK under the law. Nobody would face any criminal/licensing consequences if the case loses because no transaction ever actually happened.

 

[Jonnyuma]

A long article filled with factoids and minutiae without ever once addressing the central tenant of what they see as the "problem":

"...federal prosecutors say has the potential to upend the 1968 Gun Control Act and "seriously undermine the ATF's ability to trace and regulate firearms nationwide."

What, precisely, does the ability to Trace unregistered firearms offer to the law enforcement community with regards to crime prevention or clearance rates?

Canada has admitted that their registration scheme has assisted in 0 murder investigations. Not one.

The bueracracy exists only to perpetuate the bueracracy. The BATFE needs to have its wires ripped-out with alacrity and great prejudice... most ricky-tick.

 

[awshoot]

A long article filled with factoids and minutiae without ever once addressing the central tenant of what they see as the "problem":

"...federal prosecutors say has the potential to upend the 1968 Gun Control Act and "seriously undermine the ATF's ability to trace and regulate firearms nationwide."

What, precisely, does the ability

The Federal law defines a frame or receiver as: ""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."

The reason this is such a big deal, is that it doesn't apply only to AR lowers receivers, it applies to all firearms. Here are pics of a 1911 frame as an example: 1911 frame at DuckDuckGo The key part is "usually threaded at its forward portion to receive the barrel." This is being interpreted to mean that the receiver must hold the barrel (and usually but not always, the attachment mechanism is threading).

A Walther PPK would be covered by the 1968 law because the barrel attaches to the frame, same is true with a revolver. In contrast, a recoil action pistol usually locks the barrel to the slide, not the frame. Because most recoil operated pistols (which are the vast majority sold these days), would be outside the scope of the law, you could buy a 1911 frame (or Glock or S&W or Whatever) and a parts kit over the counter, then go home and put it together in the privacy of your own home.

The weakness here is the word "usually". Is it merely descriptive of one type of frame/receiver -- the types which accept barrels -- or is it descriptive only of the method of attachment using threaded as one example, but requires a barrel attachment point? The interesting thing about the 1911 is that it was in wide use for half a century when Congress wrote the GCA and it is presumed to know what it is doing when writing a law that excluded that mechanism. The counter to this is that the general topic of the law was gun control and that excluding certain types of operation was clearly not intended. The counter to that is that it was aimed at Saturday Night Specials, most of which were tiny revolvers or blow back (barrel fixed to frame) semi-autos so it makes sense to exclude larger weapons like the 1911.

Anyway, interesting issue.

 

[Meravokas]

Not quite -- this is about the spate of recent prosecutions the Feds are losing because a lower receiver is not a receiver under the Federal definition. The Federal definition requires the receiver to accept a barrel. You cannot attach a barrel to an AR lower. You can attach a barrel to an AR upper, and attach the upper to the lower, but the lower in and of itself, is not a receiver under the Federal definition.

If a finished lower is not a receiver under Federal law, it should be a commodity good like replacement grips or scope rings or trigger springs or whatever -- completely outside the BG check regime.

In WA law, as I pointed out above, lower receivers are not "firearms" because the WA definition requires that a firearm shoot projectiles. Lower receivers by themselves shoot projectiles as well as a red dot shoots projectiles, i.e., it's impossible.

So under Federal law the AR lower is not a reciever and under WA law the lower is not a firearm. You should be able to buy these like lollipops -- walk in, lay your money down, walk out.

Indeed, but under the interpretation of various federal gun laws, WA FFL's consider lower receivers to be the 'firearm' due to being the more potentially traceable serial number piece of one. While not genuinely a firearm under any true definitions, they are considered the traceable piece due to being cheap, serialized and widely accessible. By comparison, complete upper receivers are expensive and in many cases building your own upper is even more expensive. In many cases the parts aren't even matching in serial number in uppers, let alone if they're custom part built. It's just a case of arbitrarily calling one piece of a weapon that can be built from the ground up or highly customized, as being the thing that classifies it as a firearm for background checks and federal (Or now local in WA) registration.

 

[Jonnyuma]

The reason this is such a big deal, is that it doesn't apply only to AR lowers receivers...

No, the GCA68 applies across the board and was manipulated to attempt to regulate things that it didn't regulate.

I totally get that when you're a regulator everything appears to need regulation. What I'm wondering about is what benefits do the regulations have in the real world. My guess is that it's unquantifiable and therefore unjustafiable.

Usually articles like to cite statistics, eithe real or made-up. Debunked studies or junk science known to be false but convenient for the author... this article has none of that, only buzzwords and rhetoric.

My post wasn't about contents of the law itself, (thank you for the synopsis which is informative) but about the efficacy of the law and what/who it benefits.

 

[leadcounsel]

Thankfully President Trump is installing now nearly 200 Federal Judges and his criteria, along with McConnell's, is to pick Constitutional scholars. Hopefully we can win the long game.

 

[Meravokas]

Thankfully President Trump is installing now nearly 200 Federal Judges and his criteria, along with McConnell's, is to pick Constitutional scholars. Hopefully we can win the long game.

I wouldn't rely on them. Most people Trump puts in place are lackeys to his own whims, and I wouldn't trust McConnell as far as I could throw him. But then I don't have much trust in either of the main parties. Both are overly fanatical about something. Right now it just so happens that the pubs are seemingly fanatical about Trump (and denying a good few rights) and the dems are overly fanatical about messing with 2A rights.

 

[DunRanull]

What is a "pub"- a place to drink??? The word doesnt fit the subject discussed...