Too often we still hear that guns are the problem. For example, esteemed Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot’s Tweet (“light footing” it around her responsibility for Chicago’s safe streets): “We have a common enemy: it’s guns & the violence they bring.”

Yet there has been a gradual shift in messaging by our distinguished gun control competition. In recent years, they’ve backed off somewhat from their longtime gun ban and confiscation demands and moved more toward restrictions around the edges. That doesn’t mean they’ve given up their yearning to ban guns (or “buy-back” certain types, leading toward more). But they’re learning (like Beto O’Rourke and Mehmet Oz running in state elections this year) that you don’t win popularity contests demanding to seize law-abiding voters’ lawful personal property.

That’s to the good, despite their unredeemable craving to take your guns. They can get nothing done if they aren’t broadly popular, culturally and politically, and the winds have been blowing against them. So even though we can’t trust their ultimate goals, they are actually getting farther away from enacting them and they know it.

Here and there are even some glimmers of rational thinking by people from whom we might have expected worse. In the NRA’s America’s 1^st Freedom article covering much of DRGO’s mission, “No Doctor Should Prescribe Gun Control”, Tennessee emergency physician Matt Tipton said “Gun ownership should not be treated as a public-health issue. Instead, gun safety should be taught.” [Ed: Matt, have you joined DRGO yet?]

Another emergency physician wrote in Emergency Medicine News last month that we should be “Standing AFFIRM—Putting the ‘Public’ in Public Health”. Dr. Christopher Barsotti correctly asserts “that our society’s current approach to firearm injury prevention—political advocacy for legal control of a consumer device—has not yielded results.” He realizes that “firearm injuries happen as a result of gun misuse, and . . . [that f]irearm safety training teaches us how to use the device safely.” The problem comes when “[h]urt people hurt themselves and others. True firearm safety requires device education with health education,” i.e., training. Amen!

Going on, “[h]undreds of millions of guns are privately owned by tens of millions of gun owners, including more than a third of emergency physicians and more than 40 percent of trauma surgeons.” Solving the “public health” (still has to say that) “requires the engagement of . . . the U.S. population that chooses to exercise its Second Amendment constitutional right.” That’s right, Dr. Barsotti, and nothing’s going to work without us. “Preventing firearm injuries and death is a priority concern for all Americans.” We’ll be watching to see where this goes.

Also encouraging is that some typically anti-rights “researchers” are writing that the only practical intervention is to address the actors in violence, not the weapons. Two studies regarding suicide demonstrate this.

On March 14, JAMA Network published “Mental Health Treatment Seeking and History of Suicidal Thoughts Among Suicide Decedents by Mechanism, 2003-2018”, in which Allison Bond, MA et al document the differences between those who suicide by shooting themselves compared to those who suicide by other methods. They found that “that suicide decedents who die by firearm are less likely to seek treatment, more likely to die on their first attempt, and more likely to tell someone about their suicidal thoughts or plans.”

It’s not startling that someone who chooses especially lethal means is less likely to seek help and more likely to die. What’s interesting is that the same person may nonetheless be more likely to mention to someone they might do that. Most people who think about suicide drop hints and clues, and it’s not clear that there is any reason that those contemplating suicide by firearm should more likely do that. This incongruity will take more work to resolve, and could be productive.

Credit them with worrying about suicide rather than the means. At the same time, there are plenty of anti-s who will take this to justify Red Flag Laws to take away guns and accomplish nothing further.

December 2021 brought “Alcohol and drug offenses and suicide risk among men who purchased a handgun in California” in Preventive Medicine by Garen Wintemute MD et al. Yes, the usual suspects. First of all, this was a “cohort study”, not randomized or blinded. Their highlighted finding is that men with alcohol charges buying handguns were more at risk of firearm suicide than men with drug charges buying handguns. The rest is window dressing.

Such a finding could easily be misused: “We must stop all men arrested for alcohol intoxication from buying handguns!” Yet the real point is very different. The study may have identified a very precise cohort of men (alcohol charges + handgun purchase) whose elevated risk of dying by suicide may be worth very specific intervention. However, their own results show that their risk of dying by firearm suicide is no different from their risk of dying from any cause of suicide. So the intervention must be attuned to mental status and life stressors, not to gun ownership per se.

Investigations like seek to conclude that dealing with the guns is the preferred intervention, even when they demonstrate otherwise! That these get published underlines how such authors have to mispresent their work in order to pad their CVs and support the agenda of their funders. But once public, even their facts speak for themselves.

Since we’re talking about suicide, let’s close on a useful note. One of the very few things that Bloomberg mouthpiece The Trace has come up with is “Where to Find Help If You’re Experiencing Suicidal Thoughts or Depression”. Once you’re past the first self-congratulatory paragraph, there are some really useful pointers to resources that can help prevent tragedies in which almost 46,000 Americans died in 2020, the latest year with a full count. For this, we can all help each other regardless of politics and other agendas.

.

.

— DRGO Editor Robert B. Young, MD is a psychiatrist practicing in Pittsford, NY, an associate clinical professor at the University of Rochester School of Medicine, and a Distinguished Life Fellow of the American Psychiatric Association.

All DRGO articles by Robert B. Young, MD

The ruling on ATF Definition of ‘Frame or Receiver’ and Identification of Firearms still has not hit the registry yet. That means the 120 time frame is still not in effect.

However the rules, definitions, and amendments themselves are on ATF.Gov/firearms/docs.

It is 364 pages.

They spent 364 pages of new regulation to try and make understanding what a frame or receiver is clearer and easier. Granted, there is bloat in the pages due to citation requirements and formatting, but still 364 pages.

There is a new novel’s worth text to try and explain that things that weren’t firearms might be firearms now, from a certain point of view.

They go on at great length about the threat posed by unserialized guns, and that is true. Unserialized weapons are a threat to citizens, law enforcement, and national security as a method of force useable by terrorists, criminals, and the unhinged. Unserialized firearms are dangerous, they are a risk.

What they fail to account for, as far as I can see, is how much greater a risk they are then the rest of guns. I see paragraph after paragraph espousing the risks of unserialized firearms in a vacuum, but none placing it in the context of unserialized firearms within a market saturated with serialized firearms.

This line on page 24 stands out, however.

At least one court has also concluded that ATF has a statutory duty pursuant to the GCA
to trace firearms to keep them out of the hands of criminals and other prohibited persons.
Blaustein & Reich, Inc. v. Buckles, 220 F. Supp. 2d 535, 537 (E.D. Va. 2002).

How seriously do the ATF pursue this statutory duty?

Individuals who submit falsified information on a form needed to purchase a firearm (e.g., do not disclose a felony conviction) may be subject to investigation and prosecution.

In fiscal 2017, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives referred about 12,700 denied purchases to its field divisions for investigation. As of June 2018, U.S. Attorney’s Offices prosecuted 12 of these cases. [emphasis added]

ATF field divisions may send warning notices to denied persons in lieu of prosecution, but this practice varies across divisions. -GOA report on Firearm denial cases, 2017 (most recent in their records)

They dive heavily into the eTrace system and how the eTrace doesn’t work on unserialized firearms, funny that a system largely dependent on serial number doesn’t work on things without them.

But back to the background checks they are trying to associate with serial numbers.

Twelve cases… twelve went to federal prosecution. Now this doesn’t account for local prosecutions, but the ratio here is still staggering. Clearly a NICS denial isn’t ‘wrong hands’ enough to warrant the attempt at putting these people in prison in the vast majority of cases. We’re talking .01% of denials ended in a federal prosecution for violating these super serious, crime stopping, definitely effective gun control laws. [/sarc]

Yet this is the fix they are proposing. They want to add serial numbers to everything. They want to pass Universal Background Checks. They want to add all of this to stopping “gun violence” and yet they have a federal prosecution rate of .01% of under the current rules?

Why is that?

So firstly, the most common reason is they are simply not a resident who can own a firearm. Not a convicted felon, not a danger based upon past other convictions, not a mentally adjudicated individual, they might just don’t know that they can’t buy a gun. I don’t know if illegal or unlawful alien is their actual residency status or if it is their residency status plus not being a resident qualified for firearm ownership is what ‘Illegal or unlawful alien’ covers, perhaps both.

“Illegal aliens are just undocumented!“

“Oh then they should have their full residency rights, including firearms?”

“No! Illegal aliens with firearm rights? Are you crazy!?”

No more borders!

Except for guns!

Then definitely borders.

All the borders.

Anyway, it’s fun to read them dive into just how much they are hyping the eTrace reports without finishing the cycle at actual convictions. They don’t give us a number or a projected number of additional stopped events based on these changes, they just repeatedly assure us it is important.

Because PMFs lack serial numbers and other markings from a licensed
manufacturer, ATF has found it extremely difficult to successfully complete traces of
PMFs. – Pg. 26

Notice it is complete traces, not achieve convictions. There was a problem in the data cycle, not in putting criminals who had committed violence in prison.

In the NPRM, the Department noted that, with the rapid emergence of PMFs in
recent years, licensees have sought clarity from ATF on how PMFs may be accepted and
recorded. – Pg. 26

Now this is something that ATF have needed to actually provide guidance and clarification on. Of all the things they are doing in this rule change, this one actually mattered to FFLs. Who is responsible and what are the requirements of serializing a PMF (Privately Made Firearm) if it enters the commercial stream. The final ruling is that FFLs are going to be shouldering this burden if they choose to accept PMFs into their inventories.

Personally, and just speaking personally, I would avoid non-serialized PMF transfers as part of my private business. From both a safe function standpoint, I don’t know if they built it correctly and I don’t want to transfer it to another person on faith alone, and an additional labor I am required to do standpoint. An FFL could charge to serialize and could make that part of the transfer, but it is still a great deal of compliance work. It will not be a net profit generator for most FFLs without 07/02 (manufacturing) tooling.

Further down we get into the analysis of the comments.

Over 3,000 were simply “Stop Ghost Guns” and the commentators in support are basically just drones of the ‘gun = bad’ mentality without a cohesive thought through logic chain as to why. Pro-gun commentators suffer from this too, it isn’t a surprise. We will get to those. What is interesting is their use of the commentary to bolster the rule change.

Commenters in support remarked that the proposed definitions are justified given
the ease with which prohibited persons can intentionally circumvent Federal regulations
to acquire unfinished frames or receivers that can be easily converted to functional
firearms without a background check. -Pg. 57

Again, the adherence to background checks as the all powerful safety regulation gets thrown down against really hard when you look at the prosecution rate of failed background checks under the current system. By the numbers, we waste a ton of time and resources on background checks for very little gain. Roughly 99.99% wasted effort according to the 2017 federal prosecutions.

We’d be better served by keeping sentenced individuals for the length of their sentence, in instances involving violence, than we are by background checks. How many of the recently reported shootings were by early released individuals?

I also see no mention of prosecutions or enforcing the provisions that if a PMF is made by a prohibited person resources will be focused on that instead of nebulously attacking the PMF market for everyone, lawful or otherwise. I have a feeling we could deliver far more effect if we simply upped the penalties upon a conviction if the crime is committed with a PMF (assuming we enforced sentencing to completion in the first place).

Some commenters emphasized that women who are victims of domestic abuse are severely affected by the
rapid proliferation of unserialized firearms that can be easily acquired without a
background check by convicted domestic violence offenders or those subject to a
domestic violence restraining order. -Pg. 60

These are based on technically accurate capabilities rather than actual data trends, sometimes called strawman arguments.

We have not identified any increase in abuse, assaults, or homicides that are outside the parameters of the general criminality in each of those categories in the broader spectrum of the United States as a whole. In short, we can say PMFs are a problem because they are easier for the felonious possessors to acquire without a background check, but we have no trend in general criminality outside the scope of the increase and decrease of violence in the US as a whole when factoring in the other influences. Factors like the loss of public trust in officials, elected officials ‘supporting violence’ from their supporters, and the stresses generating increased crime from the lockdowns and pandemic all have influence in that general criminality. We can say, in theory, that PMFs are a problem but we have no trend to point to showing they are actually a problem. We are finding them at crimes or associated with crimes but we aren’t seeing more crime directly linked to PMFs that are trending outside the overall, all factors included increase in violence we have seen since 2020. That is just the inference they are trying to have you make because they are finding more of a popular firearm format at crimes.

They cannot say that there are more crimes because of PMFs, if they could they would.

In opposition to the rule, there were 7,000 opposed in contrast to the 3,000 in support without further reason provided in either direction. These opposition notes start on page 82. So this measure is more than twice as unpopular as it is popular by submitted comments without further explanation.

“serial number tracing serves a governmental interest in enabling law enforcement to gather vital information from recovered
firearms,” and “[b]ecause it assists law enforcement in this manner, we find its
preservation is not only a substantial but a compelling interest”). -Pg. 90-91

This part is interesting. “Vital Information” is the term I catch on here, we keep hearing that serial numbers are vital and yet I don’t see evidence being presented that their absence is significantly hindering law enforcement from prosecuting criminals. Only evidence that it is making completing traces in eTrace problematic.

The strongest argument provided against the rule, in my opinion, was the vagueness and confusing nature of “readily convertible” in their rule, and to argument that the ATF basically says, “nuh uh!”

Department Response
In light of the many cases rejecting such challenges, the Department does not
believe the term “readily” is vague. Nonetheless, to avoid any doubt, the final rule
provides additional clarity on the application of “readily.” The rule now expressly
excludes from the definitions of “frame or receiver,” a “forging, casting, printing,
extrusion, unmachined body, or similar article that has not yet reached a stage of
manufacture where it is clearly identifiable as an unfinished component part of a weapon
(e.g., unformed block of metal, liquid polymer, or other raw material).” Thus, the
definition of “readily” is not applied to items in a primordial state that are not clearly
identifiable as unfinished weapon (i.e., pistol, revolver, rifle, or shotgun) frames or
receivers. Moreover, the final rule explains that, when issuing a classification, the
Director may consider any associated templates, jigs, molds, equipment, tools,
instructions, guides, or marketing materials that are sold, distributed, or possessed with
the item or kit, or otherwise made available by the seller or distributor of the item or kit,
to the purchaser or recipient of the item or kit. The final rule further provides detailed
examples of when an unfinished frame or receiver billet, blank, or parts kit may be
considered a “frame or receiver.” For example, a partially complete billet or blank of a
frame or receiver is a “frame or receiver” when it is sold, distributed, or possessed with a
compatible jig or template, allowing a person using online instructions and common hand
tools to complete the frame or receiver efficiently, quickly, and easily “to function as a
frame or receiver,” a term which is also explained in the final rule. These revisions make
it clear that manufacturers will be able to continue to obtain unfinished billets or blanks
from their suppliers for further manufacture without requiring that the producer be

licensed, mark such items, or maintain records of production and disposition. This is
because their suppliers are not selling, distributing, or otherwise making available to their
customers any jigs, templates, or other items that allow them to be readily converted to
function as a frame or receiver. – Pg. 97-98.

The government’s response experts all over the industry stating the rule is vague is, “No, it isn’t.”

Instead of providing any firm timeframe, number of steps to completion, type or complexity of tools required for completion, or anything that could be roughly established as a measuring stick for what is and isn’t “readily” completable as a firearm, it basically states that if the parts come with directions for their safe completion, it is a firearm. Unless it isn’t. Oh and if there are tools to help complete it it is a firearm, unless it isn’t.

Example, since this is confusing as all get out. A block of aluminum with the directions for a CNC machine to complete the lower receiver would be fine. This is listed as the ‘primordial state’ of the material. But if a jig set were added to help in the various stages it might now be a firearm. If the aluminum then looks like the shape of a lower, because it was cast or machined enough, with the same completion directions attached it also is now a firearm.

It’s still vague, it’s just new vague instead of old vague.

Page 102 gets very interesting.

With these clarifications in the final rule, licensees, and the public,
can make their own determinations to identify the frame or receiver of a weapon without
an ATF classification.

We are smart enough to do it on our own! Until the ATF disagrees. That page also adds,

A “statute is not impermissibly vague simply because it does not spell out every possible factual scenario
with celestial precision.”

The statute doesn’t give us any factual scenario. It removes the only vague scenario we had, “80%” completed and now just goes with, ‘Well, if there are directions it is a gun, and if there aren’t it isn’t. Also if it kinda looks like a gun or a gun part it is, and if it doesn’t it isn’t… unless there are tools and directions, then it probably is again.

That isn’t vague though. The ATF said it isn’t.

I’m also a “huge fan” [/sarc] of the ATF policy of ‘send a sternly worded note’ to the vast majority of people who fail their background checks. It is almost as if our background check criteria is vague, and not a great indicator of actual prosecutable threat potential. But that is not under the scope of the rule change.

So this is the rule in TL;DR format. I think…

It’s a gun if you provide directions and/or tools to help make it into a functional gun with the parts. Unless its “primordial” or from Home Depot.

[Updated – 3:19p]
President Biden announced rules and procedures for the ATF concerning 80% receivers and receiver definitions. The exact nature of these rules will come out in published format, but the crux of the policy changes and initiatives have been summarised on WhiteHouse.gov

The White House released his 2nd ATF Director Nominee’s name though, in their announcement of this afternoon’s address.

Today, President Biden and Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco will deliver remarks in the Rose Garden to announce additional steps the Administration is taking to combat gun crime.

Ensuring that ATF has the leadership it needs to enforce our commonsense gun laws and fight gun crime.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is our top federal law enforcement agency responsible for enforcing our commonsense gun laws. Today, the President is nominating Steve Dettelbach to serve as Director of ATF. 

Dettelbach is a highly respected former U.S. Attorney and career prosecutor who spent over two decades as a prosecutor at the U.S. Department of Justice. He has received bipartisan praise and support from law enforcement for his work. In 2009, he was unanimously confirmed for his position as U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Ohio. He has a proven track record of working with federal, state, and local law enforcement to fight violent crime and combat domestic violent extremism and religious violence – including through partnerships with the ATF to prosecute complex cases and take down violent criminal gangs. Dettelbach also worked closely with local law enforcement and community leaders to develop and implement data-driven and neighborhood-based efforts to prevent and fight violent crime. His leadership and his record of innovation in fighting crime and violence make him ready from day one to aggressively and creatively address these pressing issues at the Director of ATF.

I don’t know anything about Dettelback, but he is a long term attorney both public and private sector. He served as the US Attorney for Northern District of Ohio most recently in his public service under the Obama Administration, and privately he is with BakerHostetler.

“Steven Dettelbach is a seasoned litigator and counselor who serves as co-leader of BakerHostetler’s White Collar, Investigations and Securities Enforcement and Litigation team.” -Bakerlaw.com, bio for S. Dettelbach.

In short, so far there isn’t the smoking trail of bodies and bad decisions that David Chipman had. But he did previously work with the Obama Administration where Biden was VP and can likely be expected to follow the policy choices of the administration in lock step.

Gun Ban Time – “Ghost Guns” and Serial Numbers and “Split Receivers”, oh my…

Cracking down on ghost guns – the weapon of choice for many violent criminals

Today, the President and Deputy Attorney General will also announce that the U.S. Department of Justice has issued a final rule to rein in the proliferation of “ghost guns” – unserialized, privately-made firearms that law enforcement are increasingly recovering at crime scenes in cities across the country. Last year alone, there were approximately 20,000 suspected ghost guns reported to ATF as having been recovered by law enforcement in criminal investigations – a ten-fold increase from 2016.^[1] Because ghost guns lack the serial numbers marked on other firearms, law enforcement has an exceedingly difficult time tracing a ghost gun found at a crime scene back to an individual purchaser.

This final rule bans the business of manufacturing the most accessible ghost guns, such as unserialized “buy build shoot” kits that individuals can buy online or at a store without a background check and can readily assemble into a working firearm in as little as 30 minutes with equipment they have at home. This rule clarifies that these kits qualify as “firearms” under the Gun Control Act, and that commercial manufacturers of such kits must therefore become licensed and include serial numbers on the kits’ frame or receiver, and commercial sellers of these kits must become federally licensed and run background checks prior to a sale – just like they have to do with other commercially-made firearms.

The final rule will also help turn some ghost guns already in circulation into serialized firearms. Through this rule, the Justice Department is requiring federally licensed dealers and gunsmiths taking any unserialized firearm into inventory to serialize that weapon. For example, if an individual builds a firearm at home and then sells it to a pawn broker or another federally licensed dealer, that dealer must put a serial number on the weapon before selling it to a customer. This requirement will apply regardless of how the firearm was made, meaning it includes ghost guns made from individual parts, kits, or by 3D-printers. 

Additional executive action to reduce gun violence

Today’s final rule includes two additional actions to make our communities safer.

First, the final rule ensures that firearms with split receivers are subject to regulations requiring serial numbers and background checks when purchased from a licensed dealer, manufacturer or importer. Decades ago, ATF issued a regulation defining the “frame or receiver” of a firearm as the part that is regulated by the Gun Control Act – meaning that is the part that triggers federal serialization, background check, and other requirements. At that time, many firearms in the United States were single-framed firearms, like revolvers, that house key components in a single structure. However, we have seen the increasing popularity of firearms using split or multi-part receivers that house key components in multiple structures. Some courts have recently interpreted decades-old regulatory text in a way that, if broadly applied, could mean that as many as 90 percent of firearms in the United States today would not have a frame or receiver subject to federal regulation. The final rule updates the regulatory definitions of “frame” and “receiver” to ensure that firearms using split or multi-part receivers continue to be covered by our common-sense gun laws.

Second, the final rule requires federally licensed firearms dealers to retain key records until they shut down their business or licensed activity. At that time, these dealers must transfer the records to ATF, just as they are currently required to do at the end of licensed activity. Previously, these dealers were permitted to destroy most records after 20 years, making it harder for law enforcement to trace firearms found at crime scenes. According to ATF’s National Tracing Center, on average more than 1,300 firearms a year are untraceable because the federally licensed firearms dealer destroyed the relevant records that were more than 20 years old.

So, DIY “Ghost Guns” are being banned. Except they aren’t, because they can’t outright ban them. All this really accomplishes is consumer inconvenience, which is there number one tool for gun control.

Don’t believe me? What do you think a CCW processing fee is for, or making it so you have to complete another background with a fingerprinting fee? It isn’t to combat gun crime or fund the police to combat gun violence, it is to provide a substantial disincentive for consumers who cannot be bothered to complete the “legal” way to own or carry a gun as the state may require.

And that brilliant move is supposed reduce gun crime, through the annoyance of the law abiding.

Pay attention to the wording here, not the numbers. “20,000 suspected ghost guns” reported by law enforcement having been recovered during investigations. What they want you to focus on is the number, 20,000, and not the wording. Reported found during a criminal investigation. They aren’t even claiming the still nebulous, ‘associated with crime’ line but merely “found” during an investigation.

This is not crimes with ‘Ghost Guns’ nor is it crimes that were made more difficult to solve or prosecute because the firearm was a ‘Ghost Gun’ and couldn’t be ‘traced.’ It was the most broad term they could still associate with criminal misuse, ‘found during investigation’.

They are also about to force serialization onto FFL’s in order to make 80% firearms into serialized ones and extend the records requirement of FFLs for their 4473 to indefinitely, all because a purported 1,300 firearms couldn’t be traced because the records were over 20 years old. Not a word on how many criminal prosecutions were actually inhibited because of the destroyed records, just that the trace ended at a destroyed record.

Again and still, I have yet to see someone drag a single example forward of a criminal prosecution failing because there was no serial number on a firearm. I have no evidence that this number, this little alphanumeric cluster on the side of a gun, being there or not is preventing convictions. It might hinder tracing data, but I haven’t seen a single instance where, because that number couldn’t be tied to a murderer or assailant or they couldn’t go to an FFL and see where that person completed a 4473, the prosecution failed their case on that technicality.

“Sorry your honor, we found this gun in the hand of the killer and it ballistically matches, but because we don’t know if it is number 1013 or 1101 so we’re going to have to let him/her go.”

How on earth do we prosecute knife attacks without serial numbers!?

All kidding aside, the new rule is asinine. It’s going to choke lawful commerce (so get your orders in now before they get more annoying) and make FFLs do more crap that isn’t going to matter.

I am sick of Gun Controllers acting like an S/N is some sort of all powerful crime fighting GPS tool instead of, you know, just a number that might or might not be written down on some paper or in a computer somewhere. That’s all it is! I just have to write it down, and if I get a formal trace request I have to say whether I have it or not. Really cutting edge stuff right here.

No word from them on whether they’re going to be upping their follow up rate on felons trying to buy firearms from FFLs. Nope, gotta just get those Casper Blasters ‘under control’ and all crime is solved forever.