testtest

Call to action from Sig Sauer over firearm Serialization proposal from BATF

KillerFord1977

KillerFord1977

SAINT
Founding Member
Received this via email from Sig Sauer over proposed firearm definitions changes by the BATF.


mail

LEGION Members,

We need your help to fight back against the recent rule proposed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF) on firearm serialization. If this proposed arduous rule passes it will be nothing short of disastrous for the industry. The proposed rule ATF 2021R-05 is over 100 pages long and chief among the problems is that it is confusing and creates a problem where there is none - - at the expense of law-abiding firearms owners.

Help us fight unnecessary bureaucracy and submit your comments today by following these simple steps. All submissions must be received by BATF August 19th – but don’t wait – make sure your voice is heard today!

We’ve made it easy, submit your comments in these easy steps:

1. Visit regulations.gov
2. Enter ATF 2021R-05 in the search bar
3. Click the “Comment” button on the proposed rule
4. Cut and paste the following text in the comment section:

The proposed rules relating to changing how firearm frames or receivers are defined create problems and should not be adopted. Chief among the problems is the confusion they create - the NPRM is over 100 pages long and explains a very complicated scheme of how to define a frame or receiver. This is completely unnecessary. Where there was once a simple definition that was sufficient for decades, there are now a hundred pages providing more than a handful of poorly defined grandfathered configurations, a loose statement about similar configurations, a requirement that new designs be submitted to ATF for classification, and the requirement to engrave not just one but multiple serial numbers on potentially multiple receivers in a single firearm. The problems that recently developed with the definition after decades of use don’t need a hundred pages of re-definition and multiple serial numbers to be solved.

Even the statute that ATF is charged with enforcing by Congress indicates that a firearm has only one frame or receiver, yet ATF now wants to declare there can be multiple receivers in a single firearm, and in turn require that multiple serial numbers be marked on these receivers. It’s clear these serial number markings on a single new firearm must match, but thereafter serialized parts may be exchanged allowing different serial numbers on the same firearm. Is there a controlling serial number for the firearm, and which receiver does that serial number reside on? Which number(s) will be relayed by police in trace, or is every number on a firearm traced? What happens when a firearm with multiple serialized components is repaired with a component that has a different serial number? This just scratches the surface on the confusion this proposed rule creates about the definition of a firearm frame or receiver.

ATF should drop this complicated scheme and find a simple way as suggested above to follow the law. ATF needs to develop a simple definition that people can understand - like a single characteristic of a single part that all firearms have, and which does not have to be sent to ATF for an official determination.

5. Enter your e-mail address
6. Fill out the “Tell us about yourself” section
7. Hit submit

Thank you for your participation!
​
mail
​
 
KillerFord1977 said:
Received this via email from Sig Sauer over proposed firearm definitions changes by the BATF.


mail

LEGION Members,

We need your help to fight back against the recent rule proposed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF) on firearm serialization. If this proposed arduous rule passes it will be nothing short of disastrous for the industry. The proposed rule ATF 2021R-05 is over 100 pages long and chief among the problems is that it is confusing and creates a problem where there is none - - at the expense of law-abiding firearms owners.

Help us fight unnecessary bureaucracy and submit your comments today by following these simple steps. All submissions must be received by BATF August 19th – but don’t wait – make sure your voice is heard today!

We’ve made it easy, submit your comments in these easy steps:

1. Visit regulations.gov
2. Enter ATF 2021R-05 in the search bar
3. Click the “Comment” button on the proposed rule
4. Cut and paste the following text in the comment section:

The proposed rules relating to changing how firearm frames or receivers are defined create problems and should not be adopted. Chief among the problems is the confusion they create - the NPRM is over 100 pages long and explains a very complicated scheme of how to define a frame or receiver. This is completely unnecessary. Where there was once a simple definition that was sufficient for decades, there are now a hundred pages providing more than a handful of poorly defined grandfathered configurations, a loose statement about similar configurations, a requirement that new designs be submitted to ATF for classification, and the requirement to engrave not just one but multiple serial numbers on potentially multiple receivers in a single firearm. The problems that recently developed with the definition after decades of use don’t need a hundred pages of re-definition and multiple serial numbers to be solved.

Even the statute that ATF is charged with enforcing by Congress indicates that a firearm has only one frame or receiver, yet ATF now wants to declare there can be multiple receivers in a single firearm, and in turn require that multiple serial numbers be marked on these receivers. It’s clear these serial number markings on a single new firearm must match, but thereafter serialized parts may be exchanged allowing different serial numbers on the same firearm. Is there a controlling serial number for the firearm, and which receiver does that serial number reside on? Which number(s) will be relayed by police in trace, or is every number on a firearm traced? What happens when a firearm with multiple serialized components is repaired with a component that has a different serial number? This just scratches the surface on the confusion this proposed rule creates about the definition of a firearm frame or receiver.

ATF should drop this complicated scheme and find a simple way as suggested above to follow the law. ATF needs to develop a simple definition that people can understand - like a single characteristic of a single part that all firearms have, and which does not have to be sent to ATF for an official determination.

5. Enter your e-mail address
6. Fill out the “Tell us about yourself” section
7. Hit submit

Thank you for your participation!
​
mail
​
Click to expand...
Got the same letter KF. I’m going to craft my own response much like I did for the ATF pistol brace proposal. According to the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), this “Ghost gun” reg proposal, has far less responses than the pistol brace reg proposal, and is equally or more important to comment one. since it changes the definition of what a firearm is. So count me down as responding, and I’ll be sure to get my comment in before the 8/19 deadline. Thanks for posting this KF 👍
 
Ok, done. As mentioned, I modified a bit of their (Sig's) recommended comment, by adding a paragraph at the beginning, stating it's Congress's responsibility to change the law and not the ATF's, as an Executive Branch agency, to modify existing law, (while also making it more convoluted at that). Additionally, I removed their (Sig's) recommendation at the end of their comments that stated the ATF should come up with a more simple firearm receiver definition. I did so, since I already stated that would be Congress's job, if the ATF wished it to rewritten with a new firearm receiver definition. Other than that, I left Sig's comments along with my changes and submitted them under my name.
 
BET7 said:
Ok, done. As mentioned, I modified a bit of their (Sig's) recommended comment, by adding a paragraph at the beginning, stating it's Congress's responsibility to change the law and not the ATF's, as an Executive Branch agency, to modify existing law, (while also making it more convoluted at that). Additionally, I removed their (Sig's) recommendation at the end of their comments that stated the ATF should come up with a more simple firearm receiver definition. I did so, since I already stated that would be Congress's job, if the ATF wished it to rewritten with a new firearm receiver definition. Other than that, I left Sig's comments along with my changes and submitted them under my name.
Click to expand...
I submitted my comments under your name too. :ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:
 
Funwithfuel said:
It seems more mfrs should jump on board by reaching out to their customers. 👍to Sig for directly involving theirs.
Click to expand...
I agree. But I wonder if Sig is concerned with it's serialization of the Fire Control Unit (FCU), being the serialized part of some of their firearms (i.e. P320 and I believe also the P365X?). Who knows what other works are on their boards with this concept (swaping the FCU between different pistols or even into PCCs, rifles etc.), that they potentially see this ruling impacting them severely and more than others.
But, this would impact the whole industry to some extent, and they should also be jumping on board as Sig has done..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top