http://www.atf.gov/firearms/rules/atf_ruling2008-1.pdf

(read the file)

"ATF has reconsidered its classification of the lower assembly of the FNC rifle as the receiver. The upper assembly of the FNC rifle is more properly classified as the receiver. The upper assembly of the FNC rifle houses the bolt and provides a connection point for the barrel. Moreover, the upper assembly is classified as the receiver on similar types of firearms, to include other FN rifles, such as the FN FAL and FN SCAR. Reclassification of the upper assembly as the receiver will also allow the continued installation of a lawfully registered sear into an FNC rifle because no modification to the receiver, which is the upper assembly, is required to properly install the sear."

The upper assembly of the FNC rifle is more properly classified as the receiver. The upper assembly of the FNC rifle houses the bolt and provides a connection point for the barrel.

oh shit. anyone see where this could lead?

Next will be AR uppers.:shaking:

The upper assembly of the FNC rifle is more properly classified as the receiver. The upper assembly of the FNC rifle houses the bolt and provides a connection point for the barrel.

oh shit. anyone see where this could lead?

Uh a quick Ctrl F, Find - replace = Fawked.

Next will be AR uppers.:shaking:




was just gonna say....

As far as I understand, this means that they could continue this with ARs and thus start to bust people for M16 BCGs because they are FA parts? Or am I just dumb?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but other then changing the rules midway as per this gun....how is this really a big deal? FAL upper recievers are the registered part...so bfd if other guns are like that as well.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but other then changing the rules midway as per this gun....how is this really a big deal? FAL upper recievers are the registered part...so bfd if other guns are like that as well.

Yeah but say another AWB comes. No more 1 receiver 12 guns type deal. All AR lowers are the same so you couldnt quick change on the cheap for a new configuration.

Millions and Millions of AR uppers have been built without manufacturers markings. There is no way you could change the definition now. It would mean that every single AR upper would be illegal due to lack of markings. There a clause in the Constitution about making things illegal after the fact, it's called ex post facto.

Yeah but say another AWB comes. No more 1 receiver 12 guns type deal. All AR lowers are the same so you couldnt quick change on the cheap for a new configuration.

Where are they talking about AR's? I'm all for conspiracy theories, but you definitely need to loosen up the tinfoil

Millions and Millions of AR uppers have been built without manufacturers markings. There is no way you could change the definition now. It would mean that every single AR upper would be illegal due to lack of markings. There a clause in the Constitution about making things illegal after the fact, it's called ex post facto.

:laughing:

:lmao:

:thud:

He mentioned the Constitution. :laughing: ah here I go again...



Since when does that matter to the BATFE? They get to MSU at will and back it up with a "because we said so" .pdf file.

Since when does that matter to the BATFE? They get to MSU at will and back it up with a "because we said so" .pdf file.


Again millions of AR uppers, millions of owners, lots of manufacturers. A change to the definition of the AR, a rifle that has been manufactured for almost 50 years now is going to result in a deluge of phone calls and letters to congress.

Again millions of AR uppers, millions of owners, lots of manufacturers. A change to the definition of the AR, a rifle that has been manufactured for almost 50 years now is going to result in a deluge of phone calls and letters to congress.

How'd that work out in 1994?

How the fawk did those mouth breathers come up with that brilliant idea?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v171/deathray187/fn_fnc1.jpg


It has more in common with it's upper and lower layout with the AR15 than the FAL.

How'd that work out in 1994?

Apples and oranges.

The AWB did not make AR's manufactured prior to 1994 illegal. It also did not technically make ARs manufactured after 1994 illegal, just had to have the flash hider and bayo lug removed. There were what 3-4 manufacturers at the time? How much machining/tooling was required to comply with the change? Not much. It actually removed a step from the manufacturing process. Hell some of the early ban rifles had regular front sight bases with the lug cut off and reparked.

If they were to today come out and say that the AR upper receiver was the firearm it would mean that all uppers would need to be engraved with manufacturers name, city, state, model, caliber, and a unique serial number. I believe the change would also effect weapons owned by the DoD, OGAs, NGAs, and LEOs.
So the options are

Send the upper back to the manufacturer for marking
Do it yourself
Send the upper to the ATF for destruction


This would also require a change in tooling.
I sell 8 different manufactures uppers. If I don't tag them when they come in its pretty difficult to tell them apart. I suck at record keeping, I have receipts from some sales that just say "cash purchase" not even if it was an upper or not. I am sure there are plenty of people out there that may not be sure which upper they have any more.

There would be a HUGE expense behind this ruling.

Apples and oranges.

The AWB did not make AR's manufactured prior to 1994 illegal. It also did not technically make ARs manufactured after 1994 illegal, just had to have the flash hider and bayo lug removed.

I disagree. The BATFE, et al redefined what was considered an "assault weapon". All on paper. This ruling doesn't make the weapon illegal or even reclassify the it, just which part is now to be controlled, and it is in direct opposition to their earlier decision. The similarities between an AR and the FNC are such that it is scary to look at the parallels that could and may likely be drawn between this decision and one that may come later for AR's.

[]There were what 3-4 manufacturers at the time? How much machining/tooling was required to comply with the change? Not much. It actually removed a step from the manufacturing process. Hell some of the early ban rifles had regular front sight bases with the lug cut off and reparked.

So what? How much additional tooling is required to stamp a serial number into an upper? Not much.

If they were to today come out and say that the AR upper receiver was the firearm it would mean that all uppers would need to be engraved with manufacturers name, city, state, model, caliber, and a unique serial number. I believe the change would also effect weapons owned by the DoD, OGAs, NGAs, and LEOs.

Pete, I like you man, but wake your brain housing group up this morning. Infringements upon our rights are NEVER, perpetrated agaisnt the chosen ones. The DoD is exampt from such stupidity qas forced by the civilian side, and LEOs are ALWAYS excluded from such bans and infringements. Do you recall the markings on 30 round AR mags from just a few short years ago? "For GOVT/LEO use only". (A travesty in and of itself.)


So the options are

Send the upper back to the manufacturer for marking
Do it yourself
Send the upper to the ATF for destruction


<snip>

There would be a HUGE expense behind this ruling.

Do you really think they give half of a shit about the expense? What did they do to all pre-1968 .22's that did not have serial numbers? Did they recall them and order them destroyed? Nope. Does the NHTSA force recalls of all older vehicles to bring them into compliance with current regulations? No sir, they don't.

I disagree. The BATFE, et al redefined what was considered an "assault weapon". All on paper. This ruling doesn't make the weapon illegal or even reclassify the it, just which part is now to be controlled, and it is in direct opposition to their earlier decision.

The 94 AWb was a law passed by congress which defined what an AWB was.

Regarding the ruling, yes the reclassification to the upper being the weapon would mean that all unmarked uppers would be illegal. The controlled item must be properly marked. If a similar reclassification was made on the AR today how do you know when the upper was made? Everything currently in circulation has no manufactured date. You think they will grandfather those in and allow them to not require a number? They change the definition then every lower made from this point forward would not require a serial number. I would be buying a bunch of new lowers and matching them up with pre-change un-numbered lowers.


The DoD is exampt from such stupidity as forced by the civilian side, and LEOs are ALWAYS excluded from such bans and infringements. Do you recall the markings on 30 round AR mags from just a few short years ago? "For GOVT/LEO use only". (A travesty in and of itself.)


No, you are wrong here. The government still must follow the law. The AWB specifically stated that the AWB did not apply to gov/leo, same as with post 86 machine guns and the exemption from transfer tax. Its all written in the laws. The firearm must be properly marked, which includes a serial number. Show me a single military, leo, OGA, NGA firearm in the USA that does not have the appropriate markings. Why because the law doesn't state all firearms except those in the possession of gov/leo.

Do you really think they give half of a shit about the expense? What did they do to all pre-1968 .22's that did not have serial numbers? Did they recall them and order them destroyed?


No I do not think they would care one bit about the cost, but do you think all the manufacturers and owners would? I do and those are the voices I would see calling congress to complain. I am not saying that the ATF could not issue such a rulling about the AR I am just saying I don't see it lasting.

Regarding the law that required all newly manufactured items to be properly marked, no items made prior to then were not marked. But all ARs have been manufactured with a serial number. Changing where that number had to be placed would effect all ARs.

Millions and Millions of AR uppers have been built without manufacturers markings. There is no way you could change the definition now. It would mean that every single AR upper would be illegal due to lack of markings. There a clause in the Constitution about making things illegal after the fact, it's called ex post facto.

I live in Mass (yeah I know) and they passed a law in 1998 that mirrored the 1994 AWB and rewrote it in 2004 with the sunsetting of the ban. In both of those laws they ban anything not in Mass prior to 1994. I know that is unconstitutional, you know that is unconstitutional and I'm pretty sure the Mass supreme court justices would know of its unconstitutionality. I certainlt don't want to be the test case for the state!! Especially with recent court cases like Olefson (sp) convicted of transfering a machine gun for a malfunctioning AR.

I am one of the lucky ones with a Mass CCW

The 94 AWb was a law passed by congress which defined what an AWB was.

Regarding the ruling, yes the reclassification to the upper being the weapon would mean that all unmarked uppers would be illegal. The controlled item must be properly marked. If a similar reclassification was made on the AR today how do you know when the upper was made? Everything currently in circulation has no manufactured date. You think they will grandfather those in and allow them to not require a number? They change the definition then every lower made from this point forward would not require a serial number. I would be buying a bunch of new lowers and matching them up with pre-change un-numbered lowers.

I disagree. Pre-68 .22's and the like don't have serial numbers, or at least were not required to. The 68 GCA required S/N's on ALL firearms, but it was not retro active. The same could be done for AR uppers if it was decided that the upper was a/the receiver. All they have to do it require that both the upper and lower have a S/N.



No, you are wrong here. The government still must follow the law. The AWB specifically stated that the AWB did not apply to gov/leo, same as with post 86 machine guns and the exemption from transfer tax. Its all written in the laws.

Pete, did you read what I wrote? MIL/GOVT/LEO's always, get an exception to the rules that apply to mere citizens.



Regarding the law that required all newly manufactured items to be properly marked, no items made prior to then were not marked. But all ARs have been manufactured with a serial number. Changing where that number had to be placed would effect all ARs.

Who's "changing" it. They could easily ID the upper as a separate but integral receiver and require both upper and lower to carry a S/N. The only thing "changed" would be an extra serial number.

Pete, did you read what I wrote? MIL/GOVT/LEO's always, get an exception to the rules that apply to mere citizens.


In regard to firearm serial numbers, no they don't.

ALL firearms manufactured or imported into the USA since 1968 must have a serial number.

In regard to firearm serial numbers, no they don't.

ALL firearms manufactured or imported into the USA since 1968 must have a serial number.

S/Ns yes, but everything else they get a free pass on. I don't think it would or will end with the simple addition of S/Ns if they chose to reclassify the AR and to that end the LEO and GOV employees will be left unrestricted.

So you are claiming that the ruling you posted about the FNC does not apply to leo/gov?

So you are claiming that the ruling you posted about the FNC does not apply to leo/gov?

No, we progressed (quickly) beyond that to how it could affect AR's based on

"The upper assembly of the FNC rifle houses the bolt and provides a connection point for the barrel."

and how that could affect ARs.

No.

But you are saying that similar type of ruling on ARs would not apply to the gov/leo?

But you are saying that similar type of ruling on ARs would not apply to the gov/leo?

Let me list how I viewed this conversation to go.

P_D: "Hey, the BATFE reclassified the upper assembly of the FNC as the receiver" here's their reasoning.

Doc: OMFG, anyone see where this could lead?

P_D: Yes, explains how it may affect ARs. Others concur.

More speulating as to how it could go down to affect us as AR owners and how the law might be targeted.

*Numidian and Aloha rover disagree*

P_D: Expaning on the "if the AR's are next" the .gov will get an exemption to any further restrictions resulting from both uppers and lowers being required to carry serial numbers.

Alohrover: Maintains that the .gov has to abide by laws and S/Ns are on all guns.

P_D: Sickers at the .gov following the law., does not disagree that the 68GCA mandated S/N's on all firearms. Maintains that any restriction put upon the citizens of this country as a result of the BATFE reclassifying the upper of an AR as a 'receiver' using the same logic they used to classify an FNC will not affect military, leo, or other government officials because they are always exempt from the usurpation of our rights.

Oh and BTW the FNC upper is already serial numbered and is concidered to be the weapon by the manufacturer. Wonder if they asked for this redesignation?

What is similar to an upper on an AR on the Ruger 10/22 and Mini14 have been the receiver for how long now? If they wanted to they could have used those as examples a long time ago.

thanks for the convo pony and pete....but, to put it in the language of the PBB..


get to the point, fukkers...:flipoff2:


what does this mean for lil Brian looking to do a couple EBR builds in the near future.

should i still buy several lowers? and several uppers? i think I like the beowolf upper, and the 6.8 and the 5.56...

what to do?

what does this mean for lil Brian


Nothing.

thanks for the convo pony and pete....but, to put it in the language of the PBB..


get to the point, fukkers...:flipoff2:


what does this mean for lil Brian looking to do a couple EBR builds in the near future.

should i still buy several lowers? and several uppers? i think I like the beowolf upper, and the 6.8 and the 5.56...

what to do?


At its face value it doesn't mean shit to you right now.

It is another example of the BATFE changing their minds on what's what though. It may have been at the manufacturers request, or maybe not. The justification they used is scary, at leat to me, since they could say nearly the same thing about the AR. Pete's contention is that there is a bazillion AR uppers out there in circulation that would need to be retrofitted to be in compliance.

Buy one of each, then buy more. :flipoff2:

hey Pete,I guess you never got to see any of those MAC10/45's that had NO markings at all?
those were a special run for the govt and were used in viet nam...saw one in a museum...

So is the FNC lower, serial-numbered, available separately, etc?

Does the auto sear install into the upper like on an FAL?

hey Pete,I guess you never got to see any of those MAC10/45's that had NO markings at all?
those were a special run for the govt and were used in viet nam...saw one in a museum...

pre 1968 then?