80% kerfluffle

There's been some activity on the interwebz about 80% receivers, firearm receivers that have enough of the machining not done to qualify as a non-firearm (wow, that was confusing!). This after Mike V at Sipsey St alerts us to a shot across the bow. David Codrea analyses further, and other bloggers are getting into the act.

Some of the comments I've seen say that if the product doesn't meet the criteria of 80% receiver, then it's a firearm.

Tactical Machining might beg to differ. Seems the ATF revised their ruling about TM's 80% receivers because their competitors had complained about an unfair advantage.

This is the real point about the situation. The ATF has no rules; they make them up as they go. And that's the way Congress allows them to operate, how most government letter agencies work. Congress authorizes the agency to regulate something, and then allows the secretary to coime up with the regulations to make that happen.

And the ATF is the absolute worst. They rule favorably about one group of firearms until they see more folks requesting rulings about similar firearms and so they change their mind. And there's no recourse for citizens. Calling your elected representatives? You really think that'll help? Maybe if you were fantastically wealthy, and made up a good portion of an elected officials' campaign funds.

It doesn't matter if your 80% receiver is 80% or not; if the ATF doesn't want you to make them, they'll find a way to make you stop.

pm