Your feedback ensures we stay focused on the facts that matter to you most—take our survey.

Definition of "Frame or Receiver" and Identification of Firearms rule (2022)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
New Administrative State Banner.png
What is a significant rule?

Significant regulatory action is a term used to describe an agency rule that has had or might have a large impact on the economy, environment, public health, or state or local governments. These actions may also conflict with other rules or presidential priorities. As part of its role in the regulatory review process, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) determines which rules meet this definition.


Administrative State
Administrative State Icon Gold.png
Five Pillars of the Administrative State
•Agency control
• Executive control
• Judicial control
•Legislative control
• Public Control
Click here for more coverage of the administrative state on Ballotpedia.
Click here to access Ballotpedia's administrative state legislation tracker.


The Definition of "Frame or Receiver" and Identification of Firearms rule is a significant rule issued by the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) in the U.S. Department of Justice effective August 24, 2022, that amended ATF's regulatory definitions relating to the definition of firearm frame or receiver under the Gun Control Act of 1968. The rule also amended regulations related to the marking and recordkeeping of firearms.[1]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • Name: Definition of “Frame or Receiver” and Identification of Firearms
  • Code of Federal Regulations: 27 CFR Parts 447, 478, and 479
  • Agency: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, U.S. Department of Justice
  • Action: Final rule
  • Type of significant rule: Other significant rule

    • Timeline

    The following timeline details key rulemaking activity:

    Background

    The National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) was signed into law by President Franklin D. Roosevelt (D) to impose taxes and registration requirements on certain firearms. The Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA) was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson (D) in an effort to enact "stricter licensing and regulation on the firearms industry," according to the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).[2]

    The GCA and the NFA contain definitions for the terms "firearm frame or receiver" and "frame or receiver," which ATF argued did "not describe the frame or receiver of most firearms currently in circulation in the United States," according to the rule. ATF, under the authority of the GCA, proposed a rule to amend the definitions in an effort to provide clarity on what the regulations covered. The rule proposed amendments to the definition to include handguns and their variants and amended the term firearm to include weapons parts kits and apply licensing, marking, and recordkeeping requirements to such kits.[1]

    Summary of the rule

    The following is a summary of the rule from the rule's entry in the Federal Register:[1]

    “ The Department of Justice ('Department') is amending Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives ('ATF') regulations to remove and replace the regulatory definitions of 'firearm frame or receiver' and 'frame or receiver' because the current regulations fail to capture the full meaning of those terms. The Department is also amending ATF's definitions of 'firearm' and 'gunsmith' to clarify the meaning of those terms, and to provide definitions of terms such as 'complete weapon,' 'complete muffler or silencer device,' 'multi-piece frame or receiver,' 'privately made firearm,' and “readily” for purposes of clarity given advancements in firearms technology. Further, the Department is amending ATF's regulations on marking and recordkeeping that are necessary to implement these new or amended definitions.[3] ”

    Summary of provisions

    The following is a summary of the provisions from the rule's entry in the Federal Register:[1]

    “

    The final rule adopts, with minor clarifying changes, the proposed clarifications to the marking and recordkeeping requirements for licensees. First, the rule finalizes the definitions for 'complete weapon' and 'complete muffler or silencer device,' and adds a new definition for 'multi-piece frame or receiver' under the new definition of 'frame or receiver.' The rule also specifies a reasonable time period in which a complete weapon or a complete muffler or silencer device, or the frame or receiver of a weapon or device (including a modular subpart of a multi-piece frame or receiver), must be marked with a serial number and other identifying information and recorded. Second, the rule finalizes the proposed updates to the information required to be marked on the frame or receiver, clarifies the meaning of the marking terms 'identify,' 'legibly,' and 'conspicuously,' and authorizes firearms licensees to adopt identifying markings in the manufacturing process. Third, the rule finalizes the proposal to require all licensees to consolidate their records of manufacture, acquisition, and disposition of firearms, and to eliminate duplicate recordkeeping entries. Fourth, with respect to parts defined as firearm mufflers or silencers, which are difficult to mark and record, this rule finalizes with minor clarifying changes the proposed amendments that allow for them to be transferred between licensees qualified under the NFA for purposes of further manufacture or repair of complete devices without immediately marking and registering them in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record ('NFRTR'). Fifth, the rule finalizes with minor clarifying changes the proposed amendments that set forth the process by which persons may voluntarily seek a determination from ATF on whether an item or kit they wish to manufacture or possess is a firearm or armor piercing ammunition subject to marking, recordkeeping, and other applicable Federal laws and regulations. These amendments to the regulations will help ensure that firearms can be traced efficiently and effectively by law enforcement through the records of licensees, and help prevent the acquisition of easy-to-complete firearms by prohibited persons and terrorists.

    Lastly, the rule finalizes with minor changes the proposed requirement that all licensees retain their records until the business or licensed activity is discontinued, either on paper or in an electronic format approved by the Director of ATF ('Director'), at the business or collection premises readily accessible for inspection. This includes authorization of licensees to store their “closed out” paper records and forms older than 20 years at a separate warehouse, which would be considered part of the business or collection premises for this purpose and subject to inspection. These provisions will enhance public safety by ensuring that acquisition and disposition records of all active licensees are not destroyed after 20 years and will remain available to law enforcement for tracing purposes.[3]

    		”

    Significant impact

    See also: Significant regulatory action

    Executive Order 12866, issued by President Bill Clinton (D) in 1993, directed the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to determine which agency rules qualify as significant rules and thus are subject to OMB review.

    Significant rules have had or might have a large impact on the economy, environment, public health, or state or local governments. These actions may also conflict with other rules or presidential priorities. Executive Order 12866 further defined an economically significant rule as a significant rule with an associated economic impact of $100 million or more. Executive Order 14094, issued by President Joe Biden (D) on April 6, 2023, made changes to Executive Order 12866, including referring to economically significant rules as section 3(f)(1) significant rules and raising the monetary threshold for economic significance to $200 million or more.[1]


    The text of the Definition of “Frame or Receiver” and Identification of Firearms rule states that OMB deemed this rule significant, but not economically significant:

    “ The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at OMB has determined that while this final rule is not economically significant, it is a 'significant regulatory action' under section 3(f)(4) of Executive Order 12866 because this final rule raises novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates. Accordingly, the rule has been reviewed by OMB.[3] ”

    Text of the rule

    The full text of the rule is available below:[1]

    Noteworthy events

    SCOTUS agrees to hear case challenging ATF rule (2024)

    The Supreme Court of the United States on April 22, 2024, agreed to hear Garland v. VanDerStok—a case challenging the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives' (ATF) authority to issue a rule regulating firearm parts kits, which the agency refers to as ghost guns.

    The case challenged the ATF's 2022 rule to amend the definition of a firearm to include weapon parts kits. Gun owners and advocacy groups challenged the rule, arguing that the ATF did not have the statutory authority under the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA) to issue the rule. Judge Reed O'Connor for the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas in 2023 blocked enforcement of the rule throughout the United States, arguing that the rule exceeded ATF’s statutory authority and conflicted with the GCA.[4][5][6]

    The Supreme Court of the United States voted 5-4 in August 2023 to allow the rule to be temporarily reinstated while the case was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Upon appeal, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s decision. Judge Kurt Engelhardt argued in the ruling, “Because Congress has neither authorized the expansion of firearm regulation nor permitted the criminalization of previously lawful conduct, the proposed rule constitutes unlawful agency action, in direct contravention of the legislature’s will.”[4][7]

    The Biden administration appealed the decision to the Supreme Court and the case was scheduled for argument in the October 2024-2025 term.[4]

    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 Federal Register, "Definition of “Frame or Receiver” and Identification of Firearms," April 26, 2022
    2. ↑ Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, "Gun Control Act," accessed September 7, 2023
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 SCOTUSblog, "Justices take up 'ghost guns' case for next term," April 22, 2024
    5. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Ghost guns, six-person juries, and discretionary visa decisions," April 19, 2024
    6. ↑ Federal Register, "Definition of 'Frame or Receiver' and Identification of Firearms," April 26, 2022
    7. ↑ United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, "No. 23-10718," November 9, 2023
    v • e
    The Administrative State
    MainThe Administrative State Project Badge.png
    Pillars
    Reporting
    Laws
    Administrative Procedure Act • Antiquities Act • Civil Service Reform Act • Clayton Antitrust Act • Communications Act of 1934 • Congressional Review Act • Electronic Freedom of Information Act • Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 • Federal Housekeeping Statute • Federal Reserve Act • Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914 • Freedom of Information Act • Government in the Sunshine Act • Independent Offices Appropriations Act of 1952 • Information Quality Act • Interstate Commerce Act • National Labor Relations Act • Paperwork Reduction Act • Pendleton Act • Privacy Act of 1974 • Regulatory Flexibility Act • REINS Act • REINS Act (Wisconsin) • Securities Act of 1933 • Securities Exchange Act of 1934 • Sherman Antitrust Act • Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act • Truth in Regulating Act • Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    Cases
    Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner • A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States • Association of Data Processing Service Organizations v. Camp • Auer v. Robbins • Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council • Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe • Federal Trade Commission (FTC) v. Standard Oil Company of California • Field v. Clark • Food and Drug Administration v. Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation • Humphrey's Executor v. United States • Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) v. Chadha • J.W. Hampton Jr. & Company v. United States • Lucia v. SEC • Marshall v. Barlow's • Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency • Mistretta v. United States • National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) v. Sebelius • National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning Company • National Labor Relations Board v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. • Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan • Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation • Skidmore v. Swift & Co. • United States v. Lopez • United States v. Western Pacific Railroad Co. • Universal Camera Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board • Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council • Wayman v. Southard • Weyerhaeuser Company v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service • Whitman v. American Trucking Associations • Wickard v. Filburn • Wiener v. United States
    Terms
    Adjudication (administrative state) • Administrative judge • Administrative law • Administrative law judge • Administrative state • Arbitrary-or-capricious test • Auer deference • Barrier to entry • Bootleggers and Baptists • Chevron deference (doctrine) • Civil servant • Civil service • Code of Federal Regulations • Codify (administrative state) • Comment period • Compliance costs • Congressional Record • Coordination (administrative state) • Deference (administrative state) • Direct and indirect costs (administrative state) • Enabling statute • Ex parte communication (administrative state) • Executive agency • Federal law • Federal Register • Federalism • Final rule • Formal rulemaking • Formalism (law) • Functionalism (law) • Guidance (administrative state) • Hybrid rulemaking • Incorporation by reference • Independent federal agency • Informal rulemaking • Joint resolution of disapproval (administrative state) • Major rule • Negotiated rulemaking • Nondelegation doctrine • OIRA prompt letter • Organic statute • Pragmatism (law) • Precautionary principle • Promulgate • Proposed rule • Publication rulemaking • Regulatory budget • Regulatory capture • Regulatory dark matter • Regulatory impact analysis • Regulatory policy officer • Regulatory reform officer • Regulatory review • Rent seeking • Retrospective regulatory review • Risk assessment (administrative state) • Rulemaking • Separation of powers • Significant regulatory action • Skidmore deference • Statutory authority • Substantive law and procedural law • Sue and settle • Sunset provision • Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions • United States Code • United States Statutes at Large
    Bibliography
    Agencies
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Definition_of_%22Frame_or_Receiver%22_and_Identification_of_Firearms_rule_(2022)&oldid=10442260"