Ghost Guns

[howdy]

I am sure this is answered somewhere but I can't find it. Biden said someone could buy a gun kit on line, build it and there would be no serial number. I have never built a firearm but I think that is false. I know if you buy a complete lower that it must be shipped to a FFL. Does that not have a serial number on it?

[eyedoc]

I am sure this is answered somewhere but I can't find it. Biden said someone could buy a gun kit on line, build it and there would be no serial number. I have never built a firearm but I think that is false. I know if you buy a complete lower that it must be shipped to a FFL. Does that not have a serial number on it?

You are correct. A finished lower receiver will have a serial number. He is talking about an unfinished hunk of metal that does not meet the legal definition of a receiver that people buy and machine into a receiver.

[cyphertext]

Ghost guns refer to the 80% kits that are sold online. The lower receiver is only milled out to 80% completion. You have to finish the lower by drilling holes and removing material. These are available for both rifles and pistols.

A lower receiver that is completely milled but you add the trigger assembly, grip, bolt stop, etc. are complete lowers and are serial numbered and require a background check to purchase from a FFL.

[srothstein]

I believe the specific case that Biden referred to, and that touched this all off, was that a company put together kits that had everything needed to build a complete firearm with the lower being an 80% lower. It included all the interior parts for the lower, the barrel, slide, etc. I have a vague memory of ATF raiding a store front doing this and selling the kits through the internet. I do not think they were breaking the law but they sure pushed the limits of it.

I am sure that the only way the ATF can do anything is by defining a ghost gun as a kit that can be used to assemble a complete firearm that has a partially milled frame. If they do anything else, they will kill the used and accessory parts market (which I doubt would bother them other than their losing the cases in court). If they try to define an 80% lower, people will go one step further from complete and sell 75% frames, ad infinitum. This can only result in defining blocks of metal as firearms and that won't fly either.

I predict that some definition of a kit to make a firearm will be created and then banned (well, maybe just defined as a firearm and the dealer would have to be an FFL and run a background check, which implies a serial number on the frame). Even this is pushing the limit of the law, but would be harder to find someone to fight it in court.

[eyedoc]

Legally an AR lower is not a receiver.

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/the-a ... s-trouble/

[Syntyr]

I am sure this is answered somewhere but I can't find it. Biden said someone could buy a gun kit on line, build it and there would be no serial number. I have never built a firearm but I think that is false. I know if you buy a complete lower that it must be shipped to a FFL. Does that not have a serial number on it?

Polymer 80 AR15 hunk of plastic and drilling jig.

https://www.primaryarms.com/p80-rl556v3 ... stem-black

[eyedoc]

I am sure this is answered somewhere but I can't find it. Biden said someone could buy a gun kit on line, build it and there would be no serial number. I have never built a firearm but I think that is false. I know if you buy a complete lower that it must be shipped to a FFL. Does that not have a serial number on it?

Polymer 80 AR15 hunk of plastic and drilling jig.

https://www.primaryarms.com/p80-rl556v3 ... stem-black

Might as well just print a plastic one.

[Syntyr]

I am sure this is answered somewhere but I can't find it. Biden said someone could buy a gun kit on line, build it and there would be no serial number. I have never built a firearm but I think that is false. I know if you buy a complete lower that it must be shipped to a FFL. Does that not have a serial number on it?

Polymer 80 AR15 hunk of plastic and drilling jig.

https://www.primaryarms.com/p80-rl556v3 ... stem-black

Might as well just print a plastic one.

Yep. That's been done but you are going to spend more than 80 bucks of filament and that's before the printer.

Plus its not easy to make a weapon that works and doesn't break after 2 or 3 rounds. It's also not quick. Takes a few days. As I have said this is all smoke and mirrors. Mush Brain Biden can't stop the signal.

[Rex B]

Might as well just print a plastic one.

The 80% poly lower referenced is quite a step above a 3D printed lower. It has threaded brass insets where needed, and is reinforced and strengthened in other area. Plus it comes with a jig set. It's much better than the 100% poly lowers I have used in the past.

[ScottDLS]

I believe the specific case that Biden referred to, and that touched this all off, was that a company put together kits that had everything needed to build a complete firearm with the lower being an 80% lower. It included all the interior parts for the lower, the barrel, slide, etc. I have a vague memory of ATF raiding a store front doing this and selling the kits through the internet. I do not think they were breaking the law but they sure pushed the limits of it.

I am sure that the only way the ATF can do anything is by defining a ghost gun as a kit that can be used to assemble a complete firearm that has a partially milled frame. If they do anything else, they will kill the used and accessory parts market (which I doubt would bother them other than their losing the cases in court). If they try to define an 80% lower, people will go one step further from complete and sell 75% frames, ad infinitum. This can only result in defining blocks of metal as firearms and that won't fly either.

I predict that some definition of a kit to make a firearm will be created and then banned (well, maybe just defined as a firearm and the dealer would have to be an FFL and run a background check, which implies a serial number on the frame). Even this is pushing the limit of the law, but would be harder to find someone to fight it in court.

I think this is the most likely. Either that or defining down the 80% lower to something short of a hunk of metal. There are also non-AR15 pattern "80%" receivers out there, for Glocks I think.

Another angle might be to require a serial number on home built guns then require any further transfer go through a FFL. Contrary to current internet wisdom, it is NOT illegal for a private individual (non-FFL) to transfer a home built gun intrastate to another individual.

And currently, though ATF tries to say otherwise, no serial number is required for a private transfer. There is an article out there where the author gets the ATF to admit this in a private letter. More importantly they are unable to cite the law or CFR requiring an individual privately transferring home made gun to add a maker and serial number (like you HAVE to do for NFA Form 1 builds). If you think about it the serial number in this case would be useless since there is no record of it anywhere, where there is for a FFL Manufacturer made gun that they report upon making.

[ELB]

Yes, there are hundreds of gang members sitting around carefully drilling out polymer80 80% receivers, ordering lower parts kits off of eBay, and assembling complete uppers out of slides, barrels, and all the little pins and springs required. And doing it with enough quality to that the finished product will not only work but be cheaper than buying a stolen Glock. (Hint, the sum of the parts for polymer80 right now is more than a whole Glock. Thanks Joe).

Not.

[Rex B]

The 80% is an arbitrary number chosen by the ATF.
They could just as easily redefine it to 75% or any other number and require all the manufacturers to get a new signoff on a modified design.

[Soccerdad1995]

If they redefine it closer to a basic hunk of metal, does that mean I can take a chunk of metal to a "gun buyback" and get $75 for it?

[Rex B]

Sure you can! I could make money on my o% lowers

[Rafe]

Wish it was just a funny meme, but this is an actual quotation from Senator Kevin de Leon (D - California) at a press conference the day before he introduced his anti-ghost-gun bill years ago. Jerry Miculek responded with a YouTube video of his own, doing a great job of keeping a straight face while he tried testing the senator's claims of a ghost gun with an astounding rate of fire from a one of those .30 caliber 30 magazine clips: