Addendum to “An open letter to ATF”
Dear Chief Spencer,
Yesterday’s post “Are .50 BMG upper conversions going to be reclassified as firearms?” pointed to a glaring inconsistency in how the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives treats the application of federal statutes in its rulemaking, particularly as it applies to AR-15 rifles. In those, as you know, the lower receiver is considered the “firearm,” requiring a serial number and subject to regulation, while the upper receiver has been treated as a part. As I asked yesterday, is what I’ve been told true—that the Bureau now intends to treat upper conversions for ARs as firearms?
It’s more than just chasing after a rumor, which would be easy to dismiss or just flat-out ignore. A friend of mine has given me a real-world example, and per the concern I expressed yesterday, it involves a completely different firearm and a completely different caliber—meaning precedent has already been established—years ago—to mess with millions of gun owners based entirely on mercurial and mutable agency inconsistencies in application of rules.
Here—let me let him tell it:
David,
Attached are the photos I was telling you about...[See sidebar slideshow—DC]
They are of two AP-9 pistols made by AA ARMS INC. MINT HILL, N.C.
One is S/N 4320, the other is S/N 6880
The lower serial number and manufactures information is marked on the "upper". The higher serial number and manufactures information is marked on the "lower".
They are both identical dimensionally and operationally. All parts of one will fit the other. Meaning if I switched the "uppers" I would have one firearm with no serial number and makers info, and another firearm with two serial numbers...not good, and no I did not do that.
What happened for the manufacturer to move the serial number and maker’s info? Did ATF or Firearms Technology Branch mandate it? Which firearm was correctly marked on the frame or receiver? Is it the upper or the lower that is the frame or receiver?
When I did a Google search…I noticed this posting:
"I am looking for a replacement receiver for a 9mm AP-9 (A A Arms inc. Mint Hill N.C.). My friend broke his at the magazine well. thanks John"
We can only hope that "John" did not have the misfortune of getting hands on a "replacement" lower that was not marked if his upper was also not marked. Assembling the two would result in a firearm with no serial number or maker’s information...a felony that could result in up to 10 years in prison.
The above is a perfect illustration of the law of unintended consequences when you start shifting what is and is not the frame or receiver...It also demonstrates the hazards to unsuspecting gun owners if the ATF ever changes its mind and doesn't notify the public.
I note that A. A. Arms is no longer in business, Chief Spencer, but here’s one thing for certain—they didn’t just do this on their own without ATF oversight. So now the question becomes, what rule or directive were they operating under to make this expensive—and profoundly far-reaching change that, if consistently applied, would affect far more than just this one model firearm, and, in fact, potentially put millions of gun owners at severe risk?
Any for-the-record enlightenment you would care to share with us, sir? Do I need to file a FOIA request?
------------
Help wanted--inquire within
Regular readers: If you agree that mainstream press coverage of the gun rights issue demands a counter-balance, please help me spread the word by sharing Gun Rights Examiner links with your friends via emails, and in online discussion boards, blogs, social media sites, etc. Then get more commentary at The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance.
And don't forget to check out my War on Guns Resistance Radio show, weekdays at 7:00 AM Pacific and 10:00 AM Eastern on NBC 1260 Scottsdale, or by listening live, through weekend encores, or downloading archived programs.
Comments