Help me /k/, my friend is an indoctrinated liberal, and is convinced that an ar15 upper reciever is a firearm. What do the laws and regulations regarding upper recievers? His arguement is that under U.S. code, Title 18 chapter 44 states:
(3)The term “firearm” means (A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon; (C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or (D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm.
What laws and regulations specifically govern ar15 upper recievers? The law seems pretty vague.
None. The part of the gun that's serialized is legally the gun.
tell him he's clearly not a lawyer.
Uppers @re not considered firearms. You can order one off funbroker, and have it shipped right to your door, no FFL required. The lower receiver is considered the "gun,"
Tldr, your friend is wrong.
>>29083605
Is there a serial number on the upper? No? Then it cannot be a firearm
>Firearms cannot be purchased online and shipped to your home unless you have an FFL or in some cases C&R
>AR15 upper can be purchased online and shipped to your home
>AR15 upper is not a firearm
>>29083605
Upper is a firearm because pressure from the cartridge act upon it. The lower receiver is not a firearm, so you don't need a permit to buy one.
None. The part of the AR-15 that is legally considered the firearm is the lower receiver. You may buy uppers to your hearts content.
HOWEVER, if the barrel with the upper is under 16" and you put it on a lower with a stock, then you have constructed an SBR which requires a tax stamp from the ATF or you will get a visit from the ATF Party Bus. Alternatively, if the upper receiver is in a caliber greater than .50" in diameter, and you proceed to assemble it with the lower, now you would have a destructive device, which also requires a tax stamp from the ATF.
Tell him he's a retard. Then tell him he's a retard because an upper receiver is not A, B, C, or D under title 18 chapter 44. It's parts for the gun, much like buying a new trigger. Then remind him he's a fucking retard.
>>29083605
he is an idiot
Well, depends on what country you're in, actually.
See, as guns have many parts, and it's not practical or reasonable to put a serial number on all of them, someone has to decide which parts should have them. They choose this by picking which parts they think would be best regulated if they were the one part subject to the firearm trade regulations.
In the US, it's been decided that the serial number goes on the part of the gun you would be the least likely to replace, which in the case of the AR-15, is the lower receiver, as stocks and stuff are often replaced for various reasons and bolts and barrels wear out.
In some countries, the parts under pressure are considered the firearm, as these are theoretically the only ones needed to actually cause the bullets to fire. It also makes it easier to determine when a blob of metal becomes a firearm (when its capable of firing).
This is a nicer way to phrase your response.
>>29083713
Yes, but his arguement is that since section b doesn't differentiate between upper and lower recievers, the upper is a firearm. I need a specific law to cite, or else hell keep arguing that he's right.
>>29083811
why argue with him at all? hes a retard
>>29083811
>I want to argue with indoctrinated neoliberal
Howbout you just let him sleep in your garage and forget to turn your car off. Better results.
>>29083811
Ask him if the hand guard is a firearm too, then.
Show him you can buy uppers over the internet without a background check
Your friend is a retard.
>>29083811
>I need a specific law to cite
No, you don't.
HE needs a specific law to cite, as the one he's using doesn't support his position at all.
>>29083811
The burden of proof is on him. His "argument" is as much in favor as the lower being the "firearm" as the upper. If it doesn't differentiate, why isn't it the lower?
>>29083919
/thread
>>29084042
But the lower is considered the firearm, but he is convinced that since both the upper and lower are recievers, they are both firearms.
>>29084253
Section B names a singular receiver. There is only one that is classed as the firearm according to the letter of the law.
A lot of you guys are acting like liberals, you all are arguing based on what you feel is true and right and just name-calling, instead of having actual facts of authority.
Under federal regulation, a receiver is "[t]hat part of a firearm which provides housing for the hammer, bolt, or breechblock, and firing mechanism, and which is usually threaded at its forward portion to receive the barrel." 27 CFR 478.11, 27 CFR 479.11. Where are those parts on an AR-15?
There are lots of weapons for which the upper receiver is considered the firearm: FAL, G3, MP5, SG550, etc. Here's a recent ATF decision that the upper receiver of a FNC is the firearm.
>https://www.atf.gov/file/55436/download
So in this thread, I see a lot of spurious examples as proof. Lots of parts of a gun get serialized. My handguns usually have serial numbers on the frame, the slide, and the barrel, so does that mean each individual part is the firearm?
>>29084279
first of all the OP asked about AR-15 upper receivers specifically, which is not a firearm. Regarding handguns the frame is generally considered the "firearm". This thread is retarded just like OPs friend
>>29083605
>being friends with liberals
>>29084279
>expects a 30 page dissertation on something that is common knowledge and was affirmed by the ATF decades ago
>>29084253
Your friend is a complete fucking retard. Tell him that he is a retard. Tell him even his anti-gun retard organizations such as the ATF would tell him that he is a retard.
The LOWER RECEIVER of the AR-15 is the firearm. The upper receiver is NOT. This has been well agreed upon and is how the law is currently written.
Other weapon platforms have the upper receiver as the "firearm" because they are designed differently. It might be a shock to your friend, but some weapons are made differently than others. As far as the AR-15 goes, the lower receiver is the weapon. End of story.
>>29083779
yup, and while the U.S. serializes the receiver places like the U.K. serialize the barrel
>>29084363
If this is common knowledge and affirmed by the ATF decades ago, can you cite something? Or is it "Because I say so!"? Typical liberal.
>>29084588
are you stupid? buy a upper online then buy a lower online ya retard
>>29084588
Only the lower required an FFL transfer. If you're too stupid to observe that you can buy any and all parts of an AR15 without an FFL transfer except for the stripped lower, or to even just fucking google it, maybe you shouldn't be arguing at all.
Would you also like a citation for why 1+1=2?
But since I can tell you're going to keep spouting HURR MUH LIBERAL ARGUMENTS, here. Refer to this document and fuck off, retard.
https://www.atf.gov/file/58196/download
>>29083605
Your idiot friend can think what they want, but the us gov doesnt consider it one
>>29083811
>Yes, but his arguement is that since section b doesn't differentiate between upper and lower recievers
generally speaking, most firearms do not have separate upper and lower receivers, there is just "the receiver" and whatever parts are attached to it to make a gun. the term upper and lower receiver was coined for the AR-15 in the late 1950's due to the (at the time) new innovation of effectively completely changing the firearm's with a different "upper".
from my FFL documents, a receiver is defined in 27 CFR 478.11 which says "That part of a firearm which provides housing for the hammer, bolt or breechblock, and firing mechanism, and which is usually threaded at its forward portion to receive the barrel."
because in the AR-15 the attachment point of the barrel is the upper, but the lower contains the firing control components, the ATF decided the lower should be the receiver as that is both (1) where the manufacturer has placed their information, and (2) what enables the upper to function as a firearm when complete.
i am an 07FFL, and this is both how i was instructed and how i understand the definitions.
an example counter to this would be the G3 or FAL which has the upper as the receiver as that is where the manufacturer's information is applied.
the receiver of the late import FS2000's is the metal rail on top of the ejection chute. it varies greatly between firearms.
>>29086564
Hurr post citations not just "because I said so"
>>29084279
>So in this thread, I see a lot of spurious examples as proof. Lots of parts of a gun get serialized. My handguns usually have serial numbers on the frame, the slide, and the barrel, so does that mean each individual part is the firearm?
it's whichever part that the ATF decides is the receiver from the parts serialized and submitted to the FTB for evaluation.
>>29086572
i did. re-read.
>>29086588
Not seeing any links to peer reviewed studies. Information invalidated.
>>29083619
This
>guns have to be serialized right?
>an upper is not serialized
>lower is
>???
>>29086597
>Not seeing any links to peer reviewed studies.
what studies? the law is as it is. there is no "study".
go read 27 CFR 478.11 under 18 USC Chapter 44
>>29086624
Then post the law that explicitly states "the upper receiver of an AR15 is not a firearm" ;-)
>>29083605
The serialized part is the "firearm" legally.
The frame is the serialized part.
The upper assembly is a collection of gun parts, but not a firearm.
>>29086597
>peer reviewed studies of the law
lmao anon get the fuck out
>>29086645
So if I finish an 80% lower, and put a serial on the upper instead, is the upper the firearm?
>>29086637
oh, a troll, amazing. this is why i don't post on /k/ anymore.
>>29086663
I'm making fun of OP, dipshit. Your situational awareness needs work.
>>29086662
it would be, yes, although you would have a very hard case to serialize an AR-15 upper as a firearm as the commonly understood industry practice is to serialize the lower.
>>29086680
Once finished, the 80% is the firearm regardless of serialization or not.
>>29086662
No, it's an unserialed lower and an upper with random numbers that don't do anything
>>29086677
no. you are being purposely aggravating. OP is ignorant. there is a difference there. trolling serious replies that spell out the information OP wants by being a troll is equivalent to shitposting cancer threads on /b/.
>>29086693
the specific example is an ar-15 80% lower. where you would be correct, but this is because it is the common industry practice that an ar-15 lower is a firearm. likewise an 80% FAL receiver (the "upper") is also a firearm. because when challenged in law, and the law scrutinized, the judge is almost certainly going to note that there is a common practice of serializing a certain part, and that part would be the firearm regardless if any other part is serialized and sold as a firearm.
let's assume a completely different firearm, one that you designed from scratch (as a 0%). the serialized part is whatever you want it to be, as in the ridiculous FS2000 i mentioned prior.
>>29086762
Cry about it faggot.
>>29083660
This is beyond wrong.
