Comments by "gary K" (@garyK.45ACP) on "ATF's New Rules For 80% Firearms" video.

  1. It's fun to imagine things like a drop in trigger to be considered a "firearm" but the ATF has specifically determined the particular parts that are classed as firearms. Could someone, in the future, interpret that to mean a drop in trigger is a firearm? Yes, I suppose they could. Is it likely? Is it even plausible? No. That really isn't the issue...if you read all 115 pages of the proposed change in regulation. Obviously the ATF is between a rock and a hard place here. They cannot write legislation or change law. They go to great lengths to state that they are clarifying "what congress meant" and "updating" regulations to "meet modern technology". Forgetting that the pistol that started WW1, the Browning/FN 1910 was a striker fired pistol whose parts do not meet the definition of a "firearm" under the GCA '68. If legislation needs to be updated...it needs to be re-legislated. OR, Congress needs to amend the GCA '68. It is not the responsibility of Administrative agencies to try to determine "what Congress meant". Vague laws are unconstitutional. Like the bumpstock ban which got struck down...ATF cannot make something illegal that is not in violation of a statute. Well...they CAN, but it can be struck down by courts. I believe this regulation, if implemented, WILL be struck down by federal courts, likely by one of the 200+ judges Trump appointed. The best thing we can do? Write to oppose this regulation during the comment period. If it is implemented, we can support the 2A organizations that will bring suits in Federal courts to strike it down.
    1