Quote of the day—Matthew Varisco & Kristen Detineo

Based on the above, partially complete Polymer80, Lone Wolf, and similar pistol frames with any kind of indexing or material removed from the front or rear fire control cavities for installation of the trigger mechanism and sear, or slide rail attachments to connect the trigger mechanism and sear to the frame, have reached a stage of manufacture where they “may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted” to a functional frame. As examined, they are classified as a “frame” and also a “firearm,” as defined in the GCA, 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(3)(B), and implementing regulations, 27 CFR 478.12(a)(1), (c). They are classified as firearms even if they are not sold, distributed, marketed, or possessed with any associated templates, jigs, molds, equipment, tools, instructions, or guides.

Matthew Varisco
ATF Assistant Director
Enforcement Programs and Services
Kristen Detineo
ATF Assistant Director
Field Operations
December 27, 2022
Impact of Final Rule 2021-05F on Partially Complete Polymer80, Lone Wolf, and Similar Semiautomatic Pistol Frames
[I look forward to their lawyers justifying this ruling and the existence of their agency in light of the Bruen decision. The ATF did not exist at the time of the creation of the 2nd or 14th Amendment.

I hope they enjoy their trials.—Joe]


9 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Matthew Varisco & Kristen Detineo

  1. The “readily converted” phrasing only exists in 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(3)(A), not in 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(3)(B).

    The BATFE’s lawyers have either entirely and obviously screwed up, or they’re hoping to shop this around to a corrupt judge to get a sign-off on a expansion of the agency’s powers.

    Remember the Waco raid was a big PR action that the BATFE wanted on the news just before their budget review in committee. They’ve always been empire building, and they’re not above building on top of the bones of freshly killed citizens. They should have been left in Treasurer where they were created, as revenuers.

    • Excellent point on the (A) versus (B). They are talking about two different things. In (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;” it is a weapon which readily convertible. An 80% receiver is not a weapon. In (B) it is “the frame or receiver of any such weapon;”.

      Words mean things. If they want to law to mean something else, then they have to change the words. And, most importantly, they need those words to pass the Bruen test. Which means 99% of the gun laws in the country should be ruled unconstitutional.

      • Not to be to nit-picky. But when the law says; “by the action of an explosive.”
        I was always under the impression that smokeless powder was classified as a flammable solid. Not as an explosive.
        The burn rate being to slow to be considered as such.
        As indeed, C4 would not make a very good propellant charge in any cartridge.
        Just wondering.
        I could see politicians getting the two mixed up. But they are two completely different things.
        And bullets are not propelled by the action of an explosive.
        Claymore mines are.

        • Mass drivers like railguns and coilguns definitely aren’t powered by explosives! Current examples are about half as powerful as a .22. Energy density of batteries is an issue, which is a problem that either needs a true break-through in material science, or a work-around dodge. Accelerating a projectile is a matter of capacitors, magnets, timing, and (ultimately) cooling, which are all things some engineering can be applied to overcome.

          Airguns aren’t firearms either, even if they’re powerful enough to hunt with.

          I’m sure the BATFE will find any chemical reaction sufficient to propel an projectile to an ‘explosive’. No chance you’ll find a resurgence in gyrojet projectiles.

          • There are a bunch of state statutes and regulations that specifically define air guns as firearms, in spite of the plain meaning of the words.

          • Re energy storage, you might be surprised. A single AA alkaline cell can supply arouns 13.5 kJ (2.5 A-hr x 1.5 V x 3600 sec/hr). A single 5.56 round (M855A1) has a muzzle energy of around 1.9 kJ. (Battery cap and muzzle energy as per Wikipedia.)

            The problem is, in the case of a railgun or other DE supplying the energy fast enough to do something useful. That typically requires a big capacitor – which are even worse, storage density wise, than batteries – so there are size issues as well as charging times.

        • I was told that smokeless powder is a propellant, not an explosive. Black Powder is an explosive.

          A distinction lost on the ignorant science-deniers making the laws and regulations here.

        • The law says “brass or iron knuckles” are dangerous weapons in my state, but that didn’t stop a judge from dismissing an appeal by someone convicted for his aluminum “paperweight” in his lunchbox.

  2. Why do I suspect that neither of those two named “directors” know which way a cartridge goes into a magazine?

Comments are closed.