Airsoft Insanity. ATF,

Just in time for Christmas: ATF Deputy Director Kenneth Melson as the Grinch. "Idle bureaucrats are the devil's playthings."

So, the ATF doubles down on stupidity with this ruling from the Grinch. I can't wait to see the PR consequences of this one, and, better, what the GOP oversight committees dig out about the hows and whys of the agency covering for the oversteps of a moronic field supervisor. I love it. What I'd love even more is to watch while Melson takes his life in his own hands and actually SHOOTS one of these ATF-modified Airsofts while holding it. Odds of Melson becoming an ex-Grinch? Substantial, I should think.

18 U.S.C. 921(a)(3): DEFINITIONS (FIREARM) 27 CFR 478.11: DEFINITIONS (FIREARM FRAME OR RECEIVER)

Air gun (i.e., a gun that expels a projectile using compressed air, carbon dioxide, propane, or similar gas) replicas of AR/M-16 variant firearms that provide housing for a hammer and firing mechanism with substantially the same design as AR/M-16 variant firearm receivers, and mounting points for attaching an upper assembly containing a barrel and bolt, are "firearm frames or receivers," and are, therefore, "firearms," as that term is defined by 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(3)(B), and its implementing regulation, 27 CFR 478.11.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has received requests for evaluation and classification of air gun replicas of AR/M-16 variant firearms. Specifically, ATF was asked whether these air guns are considered "firearms" under Federal law.

The M-16 is a military style combat machinegun. The AR style firearm is a semi-automatic version of the M-16, and both are produced using a variety of model designations. ATF evaluated two air gun replicas of AR/M-16 variant firearms. These particular air guns are manufactured with non-ferrous metal and duplicate the appearance of various types of AR and M-16 rifles. They are designed to expel projectiles using compressed air, carbon dioxide, propane, or similar gas.

The first sample ATF examined was an air gun replica of an M-16 rifle that has the physical features of an M-16 firearm. It has all M-16 fire-control assembly pin holes formed or indexed for fire-control components (i.e., hammer, trigger, disconnector, selector lever, and machinegun sear). It utilizes fire-control components that differ only slightly in design from M-16 fire-control components. The receiver of this air gun is identical to an M-16 receiver, except for two features. The slot for the bolt-stop has been altered to make room for a proprietary bolt-stop by reducing the height of the wall separating the fire control cavity from the magazine well. Also, the ledge has been removed from the fire-control cavity upon which an M-16 machinegun sear would normally sit.

In conducting the evaluation of sample #1, the upper assembly was removed, the existing bolt-stop was removed to allow movement of the hammer, and an M-16 upper assembly was installed. A test fire was then performed with the original automatic fire sear, and the test demonstrated that the sample was capable of firing a conventional .223 caliber cartridge semi-automatically, expelling a projectile by the action of an explosive. The original automatic fire sear was then replaced with an M-16 machinegun sear. A second test firing was performed, and the test demonstrated that the sample was capable of firing semi-automatically, expelling a projectile by the action of an explosive. Sample #1 did not expel more than one projectile by a single function of the trigger and is not a "machinegun" as defined in 26 U.S.C. 5845(b).

The second sample ATF examined was an air gun replica of an M-16 rifle that has the physical features of an M-16 firearm. It has all M-16 fire-control assembly pin holes formed or indexed, and utilizes a proprietary drop-in fire-control mechanism that did not include an automatic-fire sear. The receiver of this air gun is identical to an M-16 receiver, except for two dimensions. The length between the takedown pins is approximately 1/8 longer than on an M-16 receiver, and the width of the fire-control cavity is approximately 0.31 greater than an M-16 receiver.

ATF conducted a test of this air gun. In conducting the evaluation of this sample, the upper assembly was removed, the proprietary drop-in fire-control mechanism was removed, the proprietary bolt-stop was removed, the indexed pin holes were drilled to allow installation of M-16 fire-control components, and an M-16 upper assembly was installed. A test fire was then performed, and the test demonstrated that the sample was capable of firing semi-automatically, expelling a projectile by the action of an explosive.

The Gun Control Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(3), and its implementing regulation, 27 CFR 478.11, define the term "firearm," in part, as "any weapon...including a starter gun...which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon..." Under 27 CFR 478.11, the term "firearm frame or receiver" is defined as "[t]hat 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."

The air gun replicas of AR/M-16 variant firearms examined have the appearance, dimensions, and substantially the same design as AR/M-16 variant firearm receivers and completed weapons. The air gun replicas provide housing for a hammer and firing mechanism, and mounting points for attaching an upper assembly containing a barrel and bolt. Because the air gun replicas provide housing with substantially the same design as AR/M-16 variant firearm receivers, they incorporate firearm receivers. Moreover, though not necessary for classification, once the upper assemblies (and, in the second sample, fire-control components) were installed and test fired, they both expelled projectiles by the action of an explosive. Because the air gun replicas of the AR/M-16 variant firearms incorporate firearm receivers, they are "firearms," as defined by the Gun Control Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(3), and its implementing regulation, 27 CFR 478.11.

Held, air gun (i.e., a gun that expels a projectile using compressed air, carbon dioxide, propane, or similar gas) replicas of AR/M-16 variant firearms that provide housing for a hammer and firing mechanism with substantially the same design as AR/M-16 variant firearm receivers, and mounting points for attaching an upper assembly containing a barrel and bolt, are "firearm frames or receivers," and are, therefore, "firearms," as that term is defined by 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(3)(B), and its implementing regulation, 27 CFR 478.11.

To the extent this ruling is inconsistent with any prior classifications, they are hereby superseded.

Over at TheHighRoad, "Spec ops Grunt" from Broken Arrow, Oklahoma comments: "Idle bureaucrats are the devil's playthings."

What exactly is the argument that leads to the conclusion they should be abolished?

Here's ATF's theory: The particular AirSoft gun in question has a lower receiver that is the same dimensions as an AR15-M16 lower. It can accept a genuine AR15 upper, and with lots of modifications accept a magazine, trigger group, hammer group, etc., to make a functioning lower.

The lower is the 'controlled' item because it is the piece with the serial number. If you're prohibited from purchasing a firearm (due to felony conviction, etc.,) you cannot buy an AR15 lower.

But you can buy an upper, since it's not the 'controlled' item. You can also buy an AirSoft gun.

So, some criminal somewhere might get the bright idea to buy an AR15 upper, an AirSoft lower, and make himself an otherwise unobtainable rifle.

Not that said criminal couldn't simply buy or steal such a weapon...

According to the article, the ATF actually MADE the modifications and SHOT the weapons. Are we saying they are lying about doing that? Or am I missing something here?

The M16 is made up of two parts, the upper receiver and the lower receiver. They monkeyed with the lower receiver and were able to install M16 parts. Big deal. The article went on to say that they installed an M16 upper receiver and fired the contraption. That told me the airsoft upper receiver was inadequate for the job and they knew it.

Only people who are unfamiliar with firearms in general and M16/AR15's specifically would take this seriously.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.