Link to comment on Firearms Definitions and 80% Firearms RE: ATF 2021R-05:


Absolutely no cursing, it will not count if you do.

Do not use a form letter. Form letter submissions only count as one submission. Don’t copy and paste, each comment needs to be unique.

Do not comment anonymously, it won’t count if you do. 

No threats or derogatory comments. 

Don’t talk about Waco, Ruby Ridge, and the many botched ATF operations.

Don’t mix up Brace and Firearms Definitions comments


Include a reference to the docket number (RE: ATF 2021R-05) in your comment. 

Include your name and contact info. Won’t count without it. 

Keep it polite.

Use spell check.

Things To Talk About:

Explain how the new definitions of firearm frame or receiver make it possible for a firearm to have more than one receiver and determining if they are is based on arbitrary and unclear rules. 

Talk about how manufacturers would need to get pre-approval for new designs and that the ATF as they have done many times in the past would issue conflicting guidance because their rules are so unclear they don’t even understand them.

Talk about how the new definitions are inconsistent with federal statutes and would disrupt the industry with massive new expenses and red tape in order to comply.

Talk about how it negatively impacts you. How it will financially affect you and others when you go to sell a gun and when the industry creates new guns. For example, when you want to build an AR piece by piece, you would now have to fill out multiple 4473s in order to get the parts at additional expense. 

Talk about how the increased marking requirements are a massive increase in records keeping, manufacturing costs, and are impossible to know you’re complying with since they can change what they think needs to be marked at any time and the rules are unclear.

Talk about the jobs that will be lost because of this red tape.

Talk about the added headaches for people who now find themselves defined as a “gunsmith” with the new definitions and are forced to incur those additional expenses.

Talk about how this only targets lawful gun owners and will do nothing to reduce crime. In January of this year the ATF admitted this, “While any specific crime is a tragedy, eight such crimes out of the 1.1 million violent crimes committed in the relevant six-year-period is a far cry from an overwhelming wave that would cause a State injury sufficient to confer standing. […] Nor can California plausibly plead that those crimes would not have occurred with traditional, serialized firearms.”