Discontinuance of Accessory Classifications (ATF)

ATF email newsletter ^ | 2018-12-10 | ATF.GOV

[old-ager]

Discontinuance of Accessory Classifications Effective Immediately: The Firearms Technology Industry Services Branch (FTISB) classifies firearms as defined by the Gun Control Act (GCA) and National Firearms Act (NFA) based on the configuration and the design features of the firearm as submitted by members of the industry.

Effective immediately, any requests for a determination on how an accessory affects the classification of a firearm under the GCA or NFA must include a firearm with the accessory already installed. Except in cases of conditional import determinations, FTISB will not issue a determination on an accessory unless it is attached to the submitted firearm.

If you have previously submitted a sample accessory for classification, FTISB will be returning your sample without classification. FTISB will contact you in the near future with further instructions to facilitate the return of your sample.

[The Pack Knight]

I’m not sure it’s so far-fetched. From everything I’ve seen, the ATF has generally been pretty reasonable and practical in its legal interpretations in recent years, even during the Obama years. Do you think an activist ATF would ever have allowed 80% receivers and AR pistols in the first place?

They proposed the rule classifying bump stocks as “machine guns,” but only after the White House and the AG insisted they do so. We have Trump and Sessions to blame for that more than the ATF itself. They previously repeatedly told the Obama Administration that bump stocks were not machineguns and could not be regulated under the NFA.

Don’t get me wrong. I don’t think the ATF should exist at all, but I haven’t seen a lot of evidence that it is staffed with committed gun-grabbers in recent years.

[old-ager]

Absolutely, NRA, Sessions and the president are to blame for this mess.

[old-ager]

Couple of thoughts.

1. Strong case can be made that ATF never had any business evaluating accessories, because they are not firearms.

2. But now what will happen? There would seem to be two forces in play:
— without approval letters, vendors and purchasers could be afraid to buy something new
— but without disapproval letters on new designs, a lot more accessories might get purchased. If enough are purchased, there won’t be any option to ban.

So now, what if a NEW bumpstock design enters the market by some other name?

[OKSooner]

Pffft. Where's the bayonet? And the chainsaw too. Needs a chainsaw for tactical entry operations...

Yeah, that's the ticket...

[The Pack Knight]

The proposed rule would seem to cover anything that functions similarly to a bump stock, regardless of what it is called. Here's a copy of the notice of proposed rule making (the proposed rule itself is discussed beginning on the 6th page of the document.): https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2018-03-29/pdf/2018-06292.pdf.

With regard to evaluating accessories: This is something the ATF has been doing to help out manufacturers so that they can get a ruling that their AR "pistol" is not actually a short-barrel rifle before the thing is sold. No one is required to submit anything before selling a firearm. It's just that the line between "pistols" and "rifles" has become so arbitrary that AR pistol manufacturers understandably want to get the ATF's blessing before selling, lest they unwittingly sell something that turns out to be an NFA Class III weapon.

For example, we know today that an AR-15-pattern firearm with a 10" barrel is a rifle, and thus a "short barrel rifle" under the NFA, if it has a regular stock because it is designed to be fired from the shoulder. But, under recent ATF rulings, if it is fitted with a "brace," it is a pistol that can be sold just like any other handgun. The reasoning is that it is not "designed" to be fired from the shoulder, even though the "brace" looks suspiciously like a stock and even though virtually no one who buys an AR pistol uses the "brace" as anything other than a stock.

But add an angled foregrip to the picture. Is it still a pistol? Because it's hard to see how a firearm with an angled foregrip is not designed to be fired from the shoulder like a rifle.

With all this confusion, the ATF really should be ruling on these before people potentially become criminals by buying them.

Or, better yet, Congress should abolish the pointless restriction on SBRs that causes all of this confusion in the first place, which would make the ATF's job a whole lot easier. That's why I suggested that, counter-intuitively, the ATF might be supportive of taking SBRs out of the NFA. In a sane world, this would be uncontroversial even among supporters of gun control because the SBR restriction complicates enforcement and provides zero demonstrable public safety benefit. But, of course, the same could be said of any "assault weapons ban," and so we know we don't live in a sane world.

[ctdonath2]

“Effective immediately, any requests for a determination on how an accessory affects the classification of a firearm under the GCA or NFA must include a firearm with the accessory already installed.”

Oh, the unintended consequences.
Create new accessory of unknown classification.
Assemble for use.
Submit for classification.
BATFE classifies as NFA item.
BATFE presses charges for illegal manufacture of prohibited/illegal item.
Case appealed.
SCOTUS overturns NFA or 922(o).

[ctdonath2]

Remember, NFA and 922(o) have no exemptions for “evaluation”. A non-FFL building interesting new things and wanting them categorized are subject to serious prosecution if not ruled “ok”. They decide you made a machinegun, you’re in jail for 10 years.

[Blood of Tyrants]

[RandallFlagg]

Bookmarking

[oldasrocks]

How is any redneck supposed to interpret what that even says to do?

Why would we need all that crap on our muzzle loaders anyway?

[Lurker]

“We’ve overwhelmed them.”

Yep.

We need to keep it up.

L

[Big Red Badger]

Ruger,,,
Trend setters!

[old-ager]

> not “designed” to be fired from the shoulder

according to their latest non-reversal reversal.

what a mess.

[marktwain]

If there’s no determination, does that mean it’s ok?

It means they will not tell you if something is legal or not on a general basis.

This falls right into the court case on regulatory discretion now before he Supreme Court.

That case may be one reason for this letter.

[smokingfrog]

Sarah Sanders just announced at a White House press brieving that all bump stocks will have to be turned into the ATF.

https://6abc.com/trump-administration-issues-final-rule-banning-bump-stocks/4922904/