ATF: PlumCrazy Polymer Lowers are illegal
Seems the removable serial number plate makes them so. Glocks also have a serial number plate. Apparently, if removal would do damage to the gun, it’s OK.
7 Responses to “ATF: PlumCrazy Polymer Lowers are illegal”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
March 31st, 2014 at 8:31 pm
Looks like someone at the Firearms blog is trying to create a panic. If you read the article and the letter is says nothing about Plum Crazy Receivers being banned.
The title of the article does the story does not add up and nothing has happened.
March 31st, 2014 at 8:32 pm
Well, it’s complicated by plumcrazy being out of business.
March 31st, 2014 at 9:54 pm
As I just posted over there, the ATF has determined that it would be illegal to make lowers with that method of serial plate attachment, right now.
(One imagines that they might have approved them at the time they were on the market and perhaps changed their mind… ATF has been known to do that.)
I can’t find anything in the relevant parts of the CFR or USC that would ban possession of one with the serial plate intact and present.
April 1st, 2014 at 6:34 am
Looks like the Firearms blog is having to address the fire they started by blaming it on someone else, and disabling the comments like any Anti-Gun Blog would, when it dislikes civil but accusatory dialog.
April 1st, 2014 at 10:58 am
meanwhile, the only thing stopping me from removing the serial number from my metal weapons is that I have no reason to do so.
April 1st, 2014 at 11:53 am
I have a PlumCrazy lower, about 700 numbers higher than the one that was tested, and it does appear to be similar to the one depicted. I am not, however, going to try and pry it off to see how easy or hard it would be. Whether it is just a thin plate, or part of a larger piece (like Glock uses and the new version of this lower supposedly does) would be difficult to tell without making a big mess of the lower. If I did manage to pry it off, would I not now be in possession of a “defaced receiver”?
I can understand why the ATF might declare the manufacture of such a receiver illegal – but not the possession. Based on the ongoing legal situation, I’m guessing that TFB got snookered into publishing that stuff to create pressure on some party to that litigation battle. The cheesy closing comments to the last update on TFB’s article certainly not very classy.
April 1st, 2014 at 3:59 pm
Wanted to comment over there, but only on the parenthetical (Apparently I am both Piers Morgan and also not a man).
I see a potential lack of contradiction in that sentence.