For all those who are that lazy to take time to read a document designed to take your rights away, here you go.
ATF proposes to replace the respective regulatory definitions of “firearm frame or receiver” and “frame or receiver” in 27 CFR 478.11 and 479.11 because they too narrowly limit the definition of receiver with respect to most current firearms and have led to erroneous district court decisions. Indeed, most firearms currently in circulation in the United States do not have a specific part that expressly falls within the current “frame or receiver” regulatory definitions. Most concerning is that the interpretation of these definitions by some courts, relying on the current regulations, would make it easier to obtain the majority of existing firearms, including some of the most advanced semiautomatic weapons, without complying with the requirements of the GCA, and make it far more difficult to trace those firearms after a crime. Should the current definition remain in place and courts continue to interpret it such that no part or parts of most firearms are defined as the frame or receiver, these unserialized parts, easily purchased and assembled to create functioning firearms, would be untraceable, thereby putting the public at risk. While a “frame or receiver” is clearly within the statutory definition of what constitutes a “firearm” under the GCA, 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(3)(B), clarifying that this term includes how most modern-day firearms operate would help ensure that the regulatory definition of “frame or receiver” will not be misinterpreted by the courts, the firearms industry, or the public at large to mean that most firearms in circulation have no part identifiable as a frame or receiver.
www.atf.gov
