National Hypothetical - gun confiscation - all parts, or just the serial numbered?

[The Heretic]

I know this requires a lot of guess work and "what ifs", but it has been rambling around in my mind for some time now.

Let's say that a law is passed where "evil guns" (e.g.,, semi-autos with "hi cap" mags) are to be turned in and the gov (state, fed, whatever) gives gun owners 90 days to turn them in or face prison/fines/etc., and they were using BGC/4473/etc. data to enforce it.

What if - you turned in only the part of the gun with the serial # attached/engraved/etc.? E.G.,, for a Glock, if you only turned in the frame, and not the trigger workings or the barrel & slide. Or for an AR, you only turned in a stripped lower.

Setting aside (ignoring) the attempt by the ATF to serialize almost every part of a gun, and to therefore make almost every part of a gun a "firearm" - how would the gov (especially courts) respond?

I suspect this is one reason why the ATF wants to push for more parts of guns to be legally considered firearms.

Read More

 

[Stomper]

If it ever gets to that point, I'd say on day 91 things will get two-way SPICEY….

 

[Member 34319]

Id say it depends on how it is enforced.

If they start pulling 4473s, than you might get away with some of what you said. However, if it says you bought a pistol and you only turn in a receiver, they might not like you very much and possibly shoot your dog.

 

[The Heretic]

My prediction is that it would wind up in court after a few people try to get away with turning in only the serialized part. Either that, or the pols that write the law would take it into account, but even then it would still be a bunch of "what ifs".

I have read that gun buy backs require a working gun? But that is a buy back, not a mandatory turn in.

 

[kmk1012]

As far as AR's go, if you bought a stripped lower, other than markings on it from assembly/disassembly how would anyone know it was ever assembled? Especially if it were sanded down to remove any surface coating.

 

[The Heretic]

As far as AR's go, if you bought a stripped lower, other than markings on it from assembly/disassembly how would anyone know it was ever assembled? Especially if it were sanded down to remove any surface coating.

Or wear marks were removed. Valid point.

Again, this is what I think is an ulterior motive behind the ATFs push to serialize other parts of firearms. I think somebody at the ATF (and possibly higher up), saw an opportunity in the controversy/conflict/arguments regarding uppers/lowers/etc., and the existing law (GCA & NFA).

 

[nwslopoke]

As much as they can get away with. Gun owners are villains to the LEO'S sent to confiscate them, based on the videos I've seen. Never to arrest the person, just take their guns. How dangerous are they?

 

[wired]

I know this requires a lot of guess work and "what ifs", but it has been rambling around in my mind for some time now.

Let's say that a law is passed where "evil guns" (e.g.,, semi-autos with "hi cap" mags) are to be turned in and the gov (state, fed, whatever) gives gun owners 90 days to turn them in or face prison/fines/etc., and they were using BGC/4473/etc. data to enforce it.

What if - you turned in only the part of the gun with the serial # attached/engraved/etc.? E.G.,, for a Glock, if you only turned in the frame, and not the trigger workings or the barrel & slide. Or for an AR, you only turned in a stripped lower.

Setting aside (ignoring) the attempt by the ATF to serialize almost every part of a gun, and to therefore make almost every part of a gun a "firearm" - how would the gov (especially courts) respond?

I suspect this is one reason why the ATF wants to push for more parts of guns to be legally considered firearms.

The reason they want to serialize more parts is because they screwed up 60 years ago and allowed Armalite/Colt to call the lower the firearm section and serialize it instead of the part almost every other rifle calls the receiver which the the part the barrel screws into. That potentially becomes a problem when dot gov tries to prosecute someone for producing receivers in bulk out of 80% lowers . Its already been used in court and the results didnt go well for dot gov. Its a ruling that will get challenged in court some day once someone has standing and money for lawyers.

 

[Koda]

My take is unless the law specified all gun parts, just turning in the serialized part would suffice. Since this question points suarely at the 80% club I suspect that they will pass a law prohibiting posession of unserialized guns long before they pass a law confiscating guns.

 

[The Heretic]

My take is unless the law specified all gun parts, just turning in the serialized part would suffice. Since this question points suarely at the 80% club I suspect that they will pass a law prohibiting posession of unserialized guns long before they pass a law confiscating guns.

Delaware already did - just recently

 

[wired]

My take is unless the law specified all gun parts, just turning in the serialized part would suffice. Since this question points suarely at the 80% club I suspect that they will pass a law prohibiting posession of unserialized guns long before they pass a law confiscating guns.

Your suspicion would be pretty good. Not a law. Just an administrative ruling . Its already had the comment period per the Chevron deference ruling and is in the rule making period now. Final ruling to be announced any day now.

 

[Nosferatu]

The water in the sound was rough this past weekend. I lost my favorite fishing rod too.

 

[Koda]

Your suspicion would be pretty good. Not a law. Just an administrative ruling . Its already had the comment period per the Chevron deference ruling and is in the rule making period now. Final ruling to be announced any day now.

however they do it, but Id also guess there will be a law prohibiting private manufacture for even personal use.
The interesting thing about all this though is... the data to DIY guns is already out there. So banning it plus confiscating law abiding guns is like literally arming the bad guys only.

 

[wired]

however they do it, but Id also guess there will be a law prohibiting private manufacture for even personal use.
The interesting thing about all this though is... the data to DIY guns is already out there. So banning it plus confiscating law abiding guns is like literally arming the bad guys only.

That would take a law. The serializing thing they can squeeze by without a law. They have some dedicated lawyers working on this stuff and are doing everything they can to push "rulings" through that squeak by without having to pass actual laws.

Want a $15 hour minimum wage but Congress wont play along? Create a labor shortage with extra unemployment benefits and milk a pandemic for all its worth.

Want gun legislation but Congress wont play along? Get the best and brightest liberal layers and find everything that hasnt been exploited within the letter of the law. Exploit it.

 

[JohnnyMac]

The water in the sound was rough this past weekend. I lost my favorite fishing rod too.

Exactly. When this becomes law, on day one I buy an old beater skiff and on day 89 I report to the Coast Guard that my boat just sank, but I made it safely to shore. I only lost the belongings I had in the boat. Then ask for copy of the report, and put said report in my files that I keep in my gun safe.

 

[TTSX]

The what ifs eventually become the whens. Unfortunately for me, I don't own a single firearm I did not make myself that does not have a 4473 attached to it so I'd be particularly vulnerable to this scenario.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Federal Firearms Act 1938 had this tidbit.
3) the term "firearm" means any weapon by whatever name is known, which is designed to expel projectile or projectiles by the action of an explosive and a firearm muffler or a firearm silencer, or any part or parts of such weapon.

The Gun Control Act of 1968 repealed most of the Federal firearm act but kept some aspects such as the FFL and Prohibited Persons class.. and had to change the definition of the Firearm as "that part which is serialized"

 

[wired]

The what ifs eventually become the whens. Unfortunately for me, I don't own a single firearm I did not make myself that does not have a 4473 attached to it so I'd be particularly vulnerable to this scenario.

The 4473 is just a record that shows the dealer sold it to you. What you did after that is your call. Sold it private party, threw it into the ocean whatever. If I had every gun I ever bought on a 4473 my safes would runneth over and I'd have to buy 10 more safes. Guns come and go.

 

[TTSX]

The 4473 is just a record that shows the dealer sold it to you. What you did after that is your call. Sold it private party, threw it into the ocean whatever. If I had every gun I ever bought on a 4473 my safes would runneth over and I'd have to buy 10 more safes. Guns come and go.

In Oregon, those rules of freedom no longer apply. What I meant was, if not clear enough, is that I personally filled out a 4473 for all my firearms. I have exactly zero bought private party so if .gov had all my 4473s in hand, I wouldn't have any that weren't on that list. There would, of course, be many on that list I do not have from as you suggested, selling. Kind of my Achilles heel

 

[nammac]

So, me thinks, for an Oregon resident, anything acquired prior to August 2015 they'd be hard pressed to prove you still owned as private sales without a BGC we're still perfectly legal. Anything acquired after July 2015 you'll be on the hook for chain of ownership…