The Official Proposed Frame or Receiver Rule - Change Analysis

I did this change analysis between the leaked document and the proposed one we saw put up this week. I thought y'all might like to see it. They're insubstantial enough so as not to warrant another video - instead I'll be doing a video on how to write an effective regulatory comment. But I thought I'd share my revision analysis with you all!

Substantial changes:

• P7: They’ve added an analysis suggesting that whatever part of the gun accepts full-auto parts ought be considered the “frame or receiver” because the GCA and NFA refer to machinegun “frames or receivers.”
  • This doesn’t follow logically. If it’s a full auto, the receiver is the receiver just like it is for S/A. Especially given that the MG definition adds ‘will also include’ as an afterthought, not as something to direct what defines a frame or receiver.
• Needlessly doubles down on AR-15 being originally manufactured “almost exclusively for military use”.
  • Interesting grammatical slip-up, referring to “all of” AR15s being manufactured “almost exclusively” for such. Lol. They previously just straight referred to them, grammatically, as mil-only.
• P10 They double down on strikers (aka “linear hammers”, which have been known as such since the mid-1800s), not being around when the GCA was written.
• P11 Fixed an issue where they previously contended the GCA wanted all “major parts” serialized, they changed this now to “frame or receiver.”
• P12-14 They buttress their case for requiring homemade guns to be serialized by asserting that, since the government recovered PMFs, it is “not unexpected that numerous Federal criminal cases have been brought” to counter illegal trafficking in PMFs.
  • Inappropriately refers to PMFs presenting an international enforcement problem.
  • They’ve added just about every half-rate report on 3D printed guns used in crime, from a whole host of less-than-neutral sources.
• P15 They delete an admission that law enforcement records may over-include PMFs because LE often fails to include sufficient data to determine the origin of crime guns.
• Throughout: added express references to it being necessary for the frame or receiver to be visible from the outside of the gun, or at least some component be visible, including on the new suppressor “frames or receivers”.
• Throughout: More explicit references that ATF may decide guns have more than one frame or receiver.
• P32: They haven’t fixed the AR70 issue, which could make felons of AR70 kit owners upon final. This is of course right after asserting that it is NOT intended to reverse previous decisions, and then immediately reversing a long-held determination.
• P35: Partial frames: Specifically contemplates additive (3D printed) receivers that are not yet “readily made” into a frame or receiver. Excludes castings and forgings from definition, but refers to finished castings and broken molded designs as “partially complete” and thus regulated.
  • This assuredly would move the point of required recordkeeping further up the line on the manufacturing side.
  • Adds “damaged” frames or receivers. This might screw up re-weldable parts kits.
• P57: Made clearer that the purpose of recordkeeping modifications are so that any FFL who marks a PMF will have to keep the records forever like a manufacturer/importer.
• Absurdly, contention is made that the rule change is not economically significant.

Actual Definition

• Frame or receiver: added a note that it is a part that, when assembled, is visible from the exterior.
  • This could exclude bolts? But likely not as at least some of the bolt is generally visible from the outside.
  • Includes “bolt carrier” in “fire control component,” which may save them.
  • In “fire control component” adds “continue” to the definition “necessary for the firearm to initiate, complete, or continue” the firing sequence.
• They included the same image of an AK receiver twice at 83.
• Adds 7 factors for consideration in determining what part is the frame or receiver.
• 97 Problematically refers to “manufacturer{s}” of PMFs. This would be very difficult to square with the rest of the rule change.
• 106 Explicitly covers C&Rs in indefinite record collection.