Has there ever been any discussion about how the ATF (or whoever) made the decision that the AR-15 lower, not the upper, would be the accountable, serialized part? It seems to me the lower is just a stock and trigger housing, while the upper mounts the barrel and BCG, etc. - the parts that seem to me to be the analog of the receiver, barrel, and bolt of a bolt action rifle - and that's where the SN has traditionally been.

Not sure why, but it's a good thing.

You can have one lower and multi uppers that will fit, even in different calibers.

The "Rock & Roll" parts are in the lower!

Ivan

The receiver is the serialized part, same thing on all my handguns

The receiver on an AR-15 is the upper, not the lower.

I agree completely - that's one of the rifle's best qualities, but it's also another reason why it would make more sense to serialize the upper.

It's just like everyone of my 3 Generation S&W Pistols I own.

Three words - fire control system. On the AR pattern lower the trigger and related parts are attached to the serialized part of the gun. On a bolt action the trigger just happens to be permanently attached to the barrel and receiver.

This is how the serialized part of the Sig modular handgun is the trigger module, or whatever its official name is. The authorities couldn’t care less about the grip module, barrel or slide to which it attaches (for now).

__________________
Alan
SWCA LM 2023, SWHF 220

I think it is comparable to the "fire control group" being the legal gun on newer pistol designs. The lower contains the parts (trigger, sear, etc.) that enable the gun to fire.

Alan beat me to it!

__________________
Kevin Williams SWCA1649 HF208

AR15 lower is not the receiver according to this case.

The ATF's Definition of an AR-15 Lower as a 'Firearm' Is In Serious Trouble - The Truth About Guns

On the FAL rifle, it's the opposite.

The UPPER receiver is registered part.

The LOWER is just a gun part.

Go figure.

__________________
BTDT, Got The T-Shirt

So…the fire control parts are in the lower so the lower is the receiver and thus the firearm.

Yet the M1 Garand, M1 Carbine, M1A, Mini 14, 10/22, MP5, and many other all have the fire control parts in a detachable trigger assembly. Many other firearms like the Model 9422, Model 1890, Model 1906 have the fire control parts attached to the lower tang assembly attached to the butt stock.





The M6 Scout has the fire control parts in the stock, not the break open barrel or receiver that holds the barrels.



All of those firearms are serial numbered on the “upper” receiver, while the component that holds the fire control parts is not serialized.

I had an imported Argentine M-1927 45 ACP semi-automatic handgun made by Colt. It is an completely interchangeable copy of a US M-1911. The only two serial numbers are on the slide and the magazine. The importers mark was on the frame!

As an aside: That gun operated on 230 grain ball ammo right out of the box! But when I detail cleaned it, I removed about 5 CC's of black dust (maybe graphite) from every open space inside the mechanisms, The gun would no longer function. Failed to Feed, Fire, Eject, also stove piped. I replaced every spring in it with a Wolff 1911 Spring Kit. Worked fine then.

Ivan

If you remove the MSH you'll find Colt's SN inside.

__________________
Kevin Williams SWCA1649 HF208

Belongs to one of my son's now, sometime I check it out.

Ivan

Wow! It's like they read my post all those months ago, even though I just wrote it tonight.

Ruger .22 pistols have the serial number on the upper receiver, where the barrel is attached by threads. The lower, which holds the trigger parts (like a 1911) is not serial numbered (opposite of a 1911).

Not to put too fine a point on it, but what the hell difference does it make? You can't really do anything without both an upper and a lower (whether an AR15 or a Ruger .22 Auto) so as long as one of them is serialized, the BATF is satisfied. "Making sense" doesn't enter into it.

I couldn't find any information on when the law/regulation was changed. Could you please provide a link?

Also, if the law/regs changed why is the lower still considered the firearm?

To be fair it’s a 2019 article and the ATF finally seems to have figured out it has a problem and has tried to plug the holes.

The fact that the ATF has been inconsistent and has essentially been enforcing “policy” rather law for the last 50 years isn’t a real shocker. The “law” generally consists of statute, regulations and sub regulatory guidance in the form of opinion letters issued by the ATF. However, they can’t just make it up. It has to be consistent with what is in the statute (as well as any committee notes if they exist). Under Chevron deference (high has been around as long as the ATF) they can make an interpretation of the law provided it is not specifically referenced in statute, and it is a reasonable construction based on the statutory language.

In this case, the definition was specified in statute, contained in GCA 1968, although it was a bit muddled by the inclusion of the hammer as while the receiver is the item that holds the bolt and connects to the barrel, it often doesn’t contain the hammer and that is nothing new.

But, when you let attorneys with limited subject matter knowledge start writing regs or giving guidance without proper adult supervision (subject matter experts) things that are often terms of art and or have subtle but important nuances are not understood and you end up with poorly written regulations and guidance that is not consistent.

——

Now…to be fair back in 1964 when the treasury Department approved the AR-15 for civilian sales I doubt anyone in the ATF looked at the AR-15 and decided the larger lower should be the receiver. That’s because:
- there was no serial number requirement; and
- no formal definition of “receiver” until the gun control act of 1968; and
- the ATF didn’t even exist until 1972.

With GCA of 1968, the definition of receiver became much more important and the GCA of 1968 would have been a good time to address the issue of split receiver firearms like the AR-15.

Even then it was clear that the definition adopted in GCA 1968 didn’t address firearms like the Winchester 1890, where the hammer wasn’t located in the receiver, meeting only 2 of the 3 criteria in the definition.

In short, the Treasury Department did a really poor job of educating congress on the issue and or did a really poor job of drafting the implementing regulations.

ATF isn’t innocent however as it took them from 1972 to 2022 to make the required definitional changes.

They did that here:

Federal Register
::
Definition of “Frame or Receiver” and Identification of Firearms

See my post above. The final rule was published 4-26-2022.

Federal Register
::
Definition of “Frame or Receiver” and Identification of Firearms

Link is given in Posts 10 and 16. Article just brings out the fact the fallacy is being looked at by judicial and government agencies - and possibly covered up!

The military is responsible for the location of the serial number on the AR15. For the military the serial number is for inventory purposes so the location of serial number is for ease in reading it. When the AR-15 was approved there was no legal reason to change the location of the serial number. Also no one back then could have anticipated how popular the AR-15 would become.

That was my point.

However in 1968 GCA ‘68 created a reason to address the serial number location, either by requiring it to be moved or duplicated on the upper, or by writing the statute and regulations in a manner that clarifies the definition - along the lines of what the ATF did, 54 years after the fact, and 50 years after it came into existence.

More to the point, even in 1968 there were numerous rifles for which the definition of “receiver” was fatally flawed when the Treasury department wrote the implementing regulations.

Why did it take them 50 years to change the regs? Because most fed attorneys believe that being consistent is far more important than being accurate or fixing a mistake. The ATF only moved to fix this 54 year old mistake when it became clear that courts were very rigidly applying that 50 plus year old incorrect definition.

——

I disagree with your thoughts on AR-15 popularity.

Yes, no one envisioned it being the most prolific civilian rifle in US history. That’s mostly an artifact of the 1994 AWB and subsequent efforts to ban the AR-15 and other modern semi auto sporting rifles.

But prior to 1994 Colt still sold on average about 10,000 of them per year, and that’s a significant number, and roughly 300,000 since 1964, not counting the small number of SGW copies that started showing up after the Colt Patents expired.


More to the point, Colt has to jump through a lot of hoops and make a number of changes to AR-15 parts to satisfy the ATF that it was not readily convertible to a select fire or full auto configuration. Colt would not have bothered if it didn’t think there would be a substantial market for it.

You have to consider that surplus, rebuilt and even new manufacture M1 Carbines were very popular in the 1960s. Consequently, for the same reasons the USAF was interested in replacing the M1 carbine with the M16, it was reasonable for Colt to assume the semi auto only AR-15 would find a viable and even lucrative commercial market.

Yes, and it did not contain ant citation or reference that indicated the ATF has changed the definition.

slides 15-16. The lower is still considered the AR15 receiver.

While it calling the lower on an AR the "firearm" appears to be an anachronism, this situation is not of my making, and I will continue to make the best of it.

__________________
Release the Kraken