You want to have some more fun with the law?
27 CFR § 478.11 defines a frame or receiver as this:
"Firearm frame or receiver. 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."
Do you see the problem with this? The AR-15 pattern rifle (among others) has a split receiver, where not all of the moving parts are contained in a single housing. ATF, in its infinite idiocy, determined that the lower receiver should be classified as the receiver, and be the serialized part. This has come back to bite them in the arse in court, and they are unwilling to go full tilt in prosecuting cases based on posession of lower receivers, as a ruling on that classification would wreck their peckers.
Want another fun topic for discussion?
If the 80% rule was appiled uniformly, wouldn't nearly all fully finished AR-15 pattern lowers be greater than 80% finished machine gun receivers? Clearly, the small amount of machining necessary to convert most semi lowers into auto lowers is less than 20% of the finished product. Yes, I know the fire control group would have to be swapped out, but the parts aren't the issue, the receiver is. So why aren't AR lowers considered to be greater than 80% completed machine gun receivers, and regulated as such?
I could come up with more crazy crap if you want to hear it, but that's enough for now, I think.
27 CFR § 478.11 defines a frame or receiver as this:
"Firearm frame or receiver. 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."
Do you see the problem with this? The AR-15 pattern rifle (among others) has a split receiver, where not all of the moving parts are contained in a single housing. ATF, in its infinite idiocy, determined that the lower receiver should be classified as the receiver, and be the serialized part. This has come back to bite them in the arse in court, and they are unwilling to go full tilt in prosecuting cases based on posession of lower receivers, as a ruling on that classification would wreck their peckers.
Want another fun topic for discussion?
If the 80% rule was appiled uniformly, wouldn't nearly all fully finished AR-15 pattern lowers be greater than 80% finished machine gun receivers? Clearly, the small amount of machining necessary to convert most semi lowers into auto lowers is less than 20% of the finished product. Yes, I know the fire control group would have to be swapped out, but the parts aren't the issue, the receiver is. So why aren't AR lowers considered to be greater than 80% completed machine gun receivers, and regulated as such?
I could come up with more crazy crap if you want to hear it, but that's enough for now, I think.
