GOA, Defense Distributed, & JSD Supply Issues Open Letter To Biden on “Ghost Guns”

Unfinished Firearms Receiver Aluminum Billets Istock-Leonid Eremeychuk 864735754.Jpg
Unfinished Firearms Receiver Aluminum Billets Istock-Leonid Eremeychuk 864735754.Jpg

WASHINGTON, D.C.-(Ammoland.com)-Gun Owners of America, along with 3D printing pioneers Defense Distributed and unfinished frame distributor JSD Supply, issued an open letter to President Biden. (embedded below)

According to Politico, the Biden administration is weighing several anti-gun moves it is planning on making to appease Bloomberg-backed anti-gun groups. One measure the Biden administration is planning on making is to make buyers of unfinished frames and unfinished receivers undergo a background check. Experts question whether or not the President of the power to enact such a rule.

The letter questions Biden’s Domestic Policy Advisor, Susan Rice, and Senior Advisor Cedric Richmond’s decision to hold an anti-gun summit with rabid anti-firearms leaders from groups like Moms Demand Action, Gifford’s, Everytown for Gun Safety, and Brady.

According to the letter, the organizers refused to invite pro-gun groups like GOA.

The letter points out that by excluding pro-gun groups from the discussions, the administration blocked input from millions of American gun owners. The letter states that these Americans are law-abiding citizens that would be the target of any change.

The three organizations remind Biden that there is “no federal prohibition on the manufacturing of a firearm for personal use.” The letter cites the GCA [Gun Control Act of 1968] as further proof that Biden can not require background checks for items that are not considered firearms.

The letter cites Biden’s own Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) long-held opinion that these items do not meet the definition of a “firearm.” The ATF confirmed its interpretation of an unfinished receiver in January, where it insists Congress is the only one that can change of meaning of a gun.

It further cites a motion to dismiss filed by the ATF on November 30, 2020, in the case involving California. California has sued the ATF over its definition of a firearm. Anti-gun groups have teamed up with the extremist state to attack American’s right to build their own guns. The parties are still battling it out in the courts.

The groups go onto point out that no number of unregulated parts thrown together in a box can “magically transform a non-firearm into a ‘firearm’ or a ‘handgun.’” The letter once again cites the definition of a gun as defined under the GCA. The coalition asks the Biden administration to respect the “respect the Bill of Rights amended to our Constitution and refrain from infringing on the rights of gun owners—whether enumerated or ancillary.”

GOA, Def. Dist., JSD Supply Request on Behalf of Law-Abiding Owners of Non-Firearm Receiver Blanks


The letter goes even further, stating that “gun owners and manufacturers reasonably fear the consequences of arbitrary criminalization through potential Executive Action.” It points out that someone who purchases an unfinished frame might unknowingly be breaking the law if the definition is changed.

The letter reads: “ATF investigations and raids are conducted by armed federal agents. When this occurs at private homes, the person who answers the door may be the person who bought or manufactured the arbitrarily criminalized material, or maybe the wife or husband or child or parent or grandparent of the purchaser, who has no idea why armed federal agents are demanding.”

The letter further discusses the dangers to the ATF agents trying to serve warrants to Americans that own so-called “ghost guns.” A lot of things can go wrong when a law enforcement agency serves a warrant. The dangers are both for the targets of the warrant and the officers serving the warrant.

The group statement ends with: “The ATF should not engage in the partisan and reckless business of making lawful items unlawful, making lawful companies guilty of felonious behavior, and making lawful purchasers at risk of being visited by armed government agents, all over property that the ATF itself said was lawful to manufacture, sell, and possess.”

Biden hasn’t acted on his promise to attack the Second Amendment, but signs are pointing to the war on our rights are about to begin.



About John Crump

John is an NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people of all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons and can be followed on Twitter at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.

John Crump

14 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
SGT_Wombat
SGT_Wombat
7 months ago

How are they going to ban this?
Build your own AK-47 from a shovel!
https://imgur.com/gallery/TspVw

Boz
Boz
7 months ago

We are WAYYYY past open Ietters. It’s aII just motions now.

Montana454Casull
7 months ago

They can register 80 % s when they register all the guns Obama , Biden and Holder gave to the Mexican cartels under the cloak of gun walking . Joe and the Democrsts want all guns registered , start there clown !

swmft
swmft
7 months ago

the atf should be disbanded as un constitutional would be great if scotus had the balls

CourageousLion
CourageousLion
7 months ago

How did the founding fathers deal with ENFORCERS of gun control “laws”? Just curious…If the politicians don’t have ENFORCERS doing their bidding they are impotent. thickredline.org for starters. There should be a major effort to form local citizen protection groups for the express purpose of meeting on Concord Green to send a message to King George when the ENFORCER tells them to lie down their arms. And then there was King Leonidas…MOLON LABE.

Ryben Flynn
Ryben Flynn
7 months ago

Needs proofreading before publishing.
“The ATF confirmed its interpretation of an unfinished receiver in January, where it insists Congress is the only one that can change of the meaning of a gun.”
And that worked so well for defining a “machine gun”, didn’t it ATF?

Last edited 7 months ago by Ryben Flynn
Matt in Oklahoma
Matt in Oklahoma
7 months ago

I’m guessing it made it all the way to the shredder

Finnky
Finnky
7 months ago

I like the letter. Appreciate that it respectfully conveys risks of making armed raids on otherwise law abiding people. It is after all reasonable and responsible for a homeowner to repel any invasion. I for one would happily serve on jury dealing with aftermath of such an event. Not happy events occurred, but willing to uphold the law as juries are supposed to do. Always remembering that unjust law is no law at all. We must be vigilant. They will primarily attack unsympathetic people, adding full media blitz denigrating the victims. We need to stand firm at that point, otherwise… Read more »

CourageousLion
CourageousLion
7 months ago
Reply to  Finnky

http://www.fija.org for those of you who are wondering about the Jury angle.

Autsin Miller III
Autsin Miller III
7 months ago

Thank you Mr. Crump for the information, Cogent and well written reminder that we cannot afford to step out of the fight for our God given rights even for a minute because those who want to take them never let up.

DiePiggyDie
DiePiggyDie
7 months ago

God says you should have guns? Can I get a citation?

Autsin Miller III
Autsin Miller III
7 months ago
Reply to  DiePiggyDie

You could, I I cared what you thought.

Autsin Miller III
Autsin Miller III
7 months ago

Pardon my typing, that should read, You could IF I cared what you thought but considering your nom de guerre, I don’t.

Terry
Terry
7 months ago
Reply to  DiePiggyDie

Sure – just drive 10 mph over the speed limit! Seriously – Luke 22:36 “Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.” Now I’m sure you’ll argue that swords are not guns. Then you’ll argue that guns are not muskets that were state of the art as of when the 2nd amendment was written. You’ll argue that the founding fathers did not mean “weapons of war”. That they never intended civilians to have modern… Read more »

Last edited 7 months ago by Terry