https://ktla.com/2019/10/11/feds-fear-prosecuting-la-habra-based-gun-dealer-would-hurt-gun-control-efforts/?fbclid=IwAR0aguJ-AZDILYDlOuI4gGNoHymUFmR1wTYA9drO60uGUhRqw5EUY5KpOCU



The article is somewhat overdramatic, but the whole idea is very interesting.

Pretty sure the issue presented in this article was brought up numerous times before the 2014 arrest but oh well...

In any event, it should be noted that in question are ATF's "Definitions".  This alone brings into question Bump Stocks and Binary Triggers but better still is pretty much the exact same situation applies.  Food for thought.

This (hopefully) will help in the bump stock case and if it proceeds without further definition of firearm may make lowers a non-firearm. Just have to wait and see.

I found it interesting that they don't want to appeal the decision. Even in Commifornia

Heh, I forgot about the contradicting opinions on pistol braces.

Taking a look at the receiver definition again I realized there are quite a few receivers that wouldn't be receivers according to the current definition.  For example, MK I, II, III, 22/45, 700, any Anschutz, etc.  The firing mechanisms aren't housed within the receiver.

I get the feeling the definition was written by someone who doesn't know a lot about firearms.  This just seems like a bad idea in general, defining something one has little familiarity with...  Makes one wonder why Laws are passed with such frequency by people with little to no expertise on the subject the Laws are pertaining to.

Heh, I forgot about the contradicting opinions on pistol braces.

Taking a look at the receiver definition again I realized there are quite a few receivers that wouldn't be receivers according to the current definition.  For example, MK I, II, III, 22/45, 700, any Anschutz, etc.  The firing mechanisms aren't housed within the receiver.

I get the feeling the definition was written by someone who doesn't know a lot about firearms.  This just seems like a bad idea in general, defining something one has little familiarity with...  Makes one wonder why Laws are passed with such frequency by people with little to no expertise on the subject the Laws are pertaining to.

I'm confused ( as usual)
I assume you mean Ruger MK I,II,III and 22/45 pistols?
The only 700 I know of is a Remington rifle.
if you can afford an Anschutz more power to you.
With the exception of the Rem 700 you seem to like 22LR.
Could you clarify?
Thanks!

I'm confused ( as usual)
I assume you mean Ruger MK I,II,III and 22/45 pistols?
The only 700 I know of is a Remington rifle.
if you can afford an Anschutz more power to you.
With the exception of the Rem 700 you seem to like 22LR.
Could you clarify?
Thanks!

In the examples the uppers contain no firing mechanism, however is the serialized part.

ATF definition
rule defines a receiver, in the context of being a firearm, as a “housing for the hammer, bolt or breechblock, and firing mechanism, and which is usually threaded at its forward portion to receive the barrel.”

I'm confused ( as usual)
I assume you mean Ruger MK I,II,III and 22/45 pistols?
The only 700 I know of is a Remington rifle.
if you can afford an Anschutz more power to you.
With the exception of the Rem 700 you seem to like 22LR.
Could you clarify?
Thanks!

Indeed, I am referencing the firearms you're thinking of.

I have been focusing more on 22LR since on Oahu, most of us can only shoot out to 100 yards on a whim.  For the Remington, I was actually going to mention the 40X Rimfire but I figured the 700 is more common.

In any event, as my firearms have either been scratch built or assembled from parts except for my Remington 870, Glock 32, Savage MK 1, and Remington Speedmaster, I tend to "see" the inner workings of various firearms in my mind so as I read the second article Heavies linked to, the models I mention popped into my mind for the reasons stated in the previous post.