Review of the Leaked Ghost Gun Rule – Pt. I
April 22, 2021
Legion,
These notes reflect my understanding of the 107-page text leaked on April 19 as applied to the 80% trade. I do not bring to this analysis knowledge or interpretations from outside the text.
ATF offers the motive of clarifying the definition of a “frame or receiver.” The first ten pages are a justification for how the Agency has classified “split/multi-piece receiver[s]” for decades, despite the inadequacy of these classifications in recent court decisions. The next seven pages are about how “privately-made firearms,” or PMF’s, escape and negatively affect industry recordkeeping obligations. This is summarized on pg. 18.
Pg. 19 introduces a re-interpretation of “readily convertible” and is applied to complete parts kits, making them “firearms” under GCA. The definition is meant to mirror recent federal court decisions on this question, provided in the footnotes.
Pg. 21 begins the expanded categories of “frame or receiver.” ATF proposes a general definition along with several “supplemental” definitions. The general definition is: any part of a firearm that provides housing or a structure designed to hold or integrate any fire control component is a “frame or receiver.”
The supplements to this list are four:
The “split or modular frame or receiver” supplement walks back the expanded definition of receiver on pg. 21 for those parts of firearms that have “previously been determined by the Director to be the frame or receiver.” The supplement will include a list of split receiver firearms that only have one receiver per prior ATF determination, to include AR’s, Glocks, Sigs, etc. New split receiver guns not on the list have more than one receiver unless ATF says otherwise.
Pg. 30 introduces the “partially complete” receiver class, which is any part or parts that have reached a stage in manufacture where they “may readily be completed, assembled, converted, or restored to a functional state.” Partially complete will further mean any forging, casting, printing, extrusion, machined body, or similar article that has reached a stage in manufacture where it is clearly identifiable as an unfinished component part of a weapon.
To determine partially complete status, the Agency will look at instructions, included jigs and tooling, as well as marketing materials. ATF will deem any component that is “readily convertible” to a receiver to be a receiver.
The expanded definition of “readily” begins on pg. 32 and is said to mean: “a process that is fairly or reasonably efficient, quick, and easy, but not necessarily the most efficient, speedy, or easy process.” ATF then outlines an insane 8-part, subjective test to determine how “readily convertible” is a partially complete receiver and/or a weapons parts kit.
Pg. 34 begins the new definition of PMF, or “privately made firearm,” and the next 20 pages include a new Gunsmith definition, outline how ATF wants licensees to mark PMF’s for A&D, and list more burdensome recordkeeping requirements.
The new Rule’s cost/benefit analysis begins on pg. 54. Of note is an analysis of “partially complete firearms kit” sellers on pg. 56. Here ATF considers non-FFL manufacturers who make:
1) kits that allow a person to make only a frame or receiver, and
2) kits that allow a person to make a complete weapon.
ATF says if a receiver kit is “readily convertible,” it is a receiver, and if a weapons parts kit contains an unfinished receiver it is a “firearm.”
Finally, pg. 57 has a sentence so mystically turgid that I have tried to mark it with waypoints. The Agency predicts non-FFLs “[will] either [1] become FFLs or [2] would take a loss in revenue to sell a parts kit that does not contain a frame or receiver, or [3] simply sell the frame or receiver, but [4] not both.”
After three days, I cannot interpret this beyond understanding not to sell frames with parts kits. For more details, we are asked to refer to Chapter 3 of the Rule’s Regulatory Impact Analysis.
In closing, the black letter of this rule outlaws all “complete kits” like the Polymer80 BBS, but it’s not clear what happens to the current 80% receivers.
Every 80% receiver would seem captured by one of the two proposed tests for “partially complete receivers,” on pg. 30, namely that they are either “readily convertible” to functional, or are “clearly identifiable” as an unfinished component of a firearm. So why does the rule continue to hypothesize a marketplace of receiver kits and sellers including instructions and jigs? Why even create the asinine test for “readily convertible” if “clearly identifiable” gets you there to begin with?
Lastly, on pg. 56 ATF expresses the belief “that the majority of the industry [already] complies with these requirements,” and that the “new definitions would mostly affect new designs or configurations of firearms.”
More analysis to follow. We’ll see if this version of the Rule makes it to publication before May 8.
If you would like to support these legal actions, please join LEGIO.
