ATF letter clarifying manufacturing and gunsmithing (AR 80% builds mostly)

[Southpaw]

Seems this is just a bureaucratic technicality. What's to stop someone from selling the jig, then buying it back at some future point in time?

A) "Hey, I need a jig, drill press, etc. again, any chance I could buy it back from you for the exact same price I sold it to you?"
B) "Sure, I'm not using it anymore. Got out of manufacturing for myself."

Repeat as desired.

You could buy your friends lathe for $1, and then sell it back to him for $1.50

Seems like it has more to do with where the equipment is located. If it is on property you own or lease, having the equipment delivered there and renting it would be fine, you just can't go into a shop you don't own or lease and rent it where it stands.

 

[benenglish]

Seems like it has more to do with where the equipment is located. If it is on property you own or lease, having the equipment delivered there and renting it would be fine, you just can't go into a shop you don't own or lease and rent it where it stands.

If that's the correct interpretation, Defense Distributed is going to sell thousands of these...

...and friends are going to be repeatedly selling them back and forth to each other at warp speed.

 

[Acera]

If that's the correct interpretation, Defense Distributed is going to sell thousands of these...

...and friends are going to be repeatedly selling them back and forth to each other at warp speed.

Oh, oh, I do want one of those

https://ghostgunner.net/index.html

 

[Southpaw]

If that's the correct interpretation, Defense Distributed is going to sell thousands of these...

...and friends are going to be repeatedly selling them back and forth to each other at warp speed.

From how I read it, I would agree. For $999 they should fly off the shelf.

The letter blocks owners of milling equipment from milling other peoples 80% receivers, not their own. According to how I read it, Joe of Joe's Machine Shop would be fine milling his own receivers all day long, but as soon as someone hands him one to do himself or he allows someone else to operate the machinery that is under his control, to complete their own, then he would be in violation without first having a license to manufacture and a license to transfer.

Do you think that interpretation is wrong?

 

[benenglish]

Do you think that interpretation is wrong?

I threw in my qualifier only because I haven't read the letter. I didn't want a headache this afternoon.

 

[benenglish]

OK, I've done some reading. IANAL and all qualifiers apply.

This new document isn't a letter ruling issued pursuant to a question posed by a particular individual and addressed to and applicable only to that individual. Rather, it is a collective response to multiple inquiries and takes the form of a clarification of ATF Ruling 2010-10. 2010-10 doesn't say anything weird. It basically says that manufacturers and gunsmiths can move firearms between themselves in the process of manufacturing. Importantly, 2010-10

is limited to an interpretation of the requirements imposed upon importers, manufacturers, and dealer-gunsmiths

only. That does not include the hobbyist who makes their own firearms or anyone who lends or rents them tools or provides assistance with using those tools. That sort of entity is not addressed in 2010-10.

This new document is a clarification of 2010-10. It provides that:

• Any ENTITY (that includes individuals) that is in the business of manufacturing guns is a gun manufacturer and must be licensed (well, duh) and (this is where it gets weird),
• Any BUSINESS that performs

  manufacturing processes on blanks or incomplete firearms (including frames or receivers) using machinery, tools, or equipment under its dominion and control where that business controls access to, and use of, such machinery, tools, or equipment

  including by simply lending or renting their equipment to others to use, is also a manufacturer and subject to licensing requirements.

Fair warning, I'm gonna get completely sidetracked for one paragraph:
Yep, those Ghost Gunner CNC machines are going to start flying off the shelves, sold to people who want to be abundantly cautious in their interpretation of this clarification. I'm just going to put on my regulatory interpretation hat and say that there will soon be a followup ruling that holds that selling such a machine to someone else for less than MSRP (or some reasonable fraction thereof applicable to used machine tools) with the understanding (written or not) that the buyer will allow the seller to buy the machine back in the future will fail a functional test of intent. The seller will be considered to be continuously in control of the machinery, despite any exchange of funds, paperwork signed, or even the location of the machinery. This is just a guess on my part but I think I'll start saving my pennies for one of those things right now.

Now, let's get back to the two bullet points above.The thing that bugs the crap out of me about this ruling is that the findings are not consistently worded. "Any entity" can be a manufacturer but the expansion of the definition of manufacturer implicit in the second holding corrals only "any business", e.g. a machine shop that hosts build parties, whether they charge a cover or not to attend.

That leave an open question: Can an individual (not a business, association, or society) who lends their tools to other people continue to legally host build parties?

I could interpret the answer to go either direction. Why the author of this clarification chose to change the wording of the second holding to seemingly exclude private individuals, I don't know. It may have simply been an oversight. However, until someone smarter than me teases this one apart (or someone dumber than me goes to jail for hosting a build party), I'll be happy for this small bit of good news.

It appears to me that this clarification is an attempt to target non-FFL businesses who sell some swag and 80% receivers then also offer to show you how to mount that paperweight in the handy CNC machine in the back room and finish it off for an additional $20. Those businesses (and there were some popping up in CA, iirc) are definitely now considered manufacturers under the GCA, according to this clarification.

That still leaves individuals, not in business, in a bit of limbo as to what kind of parties they can host for their friends. A charitable reading would hold that the targeted non-FFL businesses that existed solely to facilitate the successful building of firearms by individuals are the only entities impacted by this clarification.

Charity from the ATF, though, is not something for which I would risk my freedom.

 

[benenglish]

BTW - Could we now get a lawyer in here to tell me how badly I just screwed up that analysis?

 

[Acera]

From how I read it, I would agree. For $999 they should fly off the shelf.

They already have, 1st run of the introductory price $999 price is already gone. 2nd run at $1,199 sold out also. Third run with the price of $1,299 is sold out as well. You can put $250 non refundable down on the next run and get on the list. It seems they have not found the 'correct' market price for these right now.

My only fear is that some code junkie will provide that little extra bit of machining code that would put feds on even higher alert and start a even greater media storm, leading to further if not final regulation on this whole thing. You got to know that someone already has done it, it is just an extra hole and a few more bits of material out of the cavity.

 

[robertc1024]

You got to know that someone already has done it, it is just an extra hole and a few more bits of material out of the cavity.

You know it. Our CNC programmers at work do machine work that makes that look like child's play. One of them has a big "Come and Take It" sticker on the back of his car. I'm using the "don't ask don't tell" policy in a different way.

 

[HandgunHTR]

From how I read it, I would agree. For $999 they should fly off the shelf.

The letter blocks owners of milling equipment from milling other peoples 80% receivers, not their own. According to how I read it, Joe of Joe's Machine Shop would be fine milling his own receivers all day long, but as soon as someone hands him one to do himself or he allows someone else to operate the machinery that is under his control, to complete their own, then he would be in violation without first having a license to manufacture and a license to transfer.

Do you think that interpretation is wrong?

That is how I interpreted it as well.

They already have, 1st run of the introductory price $999 price is already gone. 2nd run at $1,199 sold out also. Third run with the price of $1,299 is sold out as well. You can put $250 non refundable down on the next run and get on the list. It seems they have not found the 'correct' market price for these right now.

Yeah, but how many of those were bought by individuals or groups who figured they could use it for their own 5 lowers and then rent it out at $20 a pop to other people to do theirs on (which would now be illegal under this current ruling as I interpret it)?

 

[TheDan]

So if you are a licensed 07 that does custom builds, but rents time in a machine shop, then that machine shop would have to be an 07 as well?

 

[rushthezeppelin]

So if you are a licensed 07 that does custom builds, but rents time in a machine shop, then that machine shop would have to be an 07 as well?

That is correct. I first saw a thread on this ruling over on silencertalk and there are some pissed off 07s over there, as well as hobby form 1 builders that rented time at the local machine shop.

 

[TheDan]

That is correct.

FFffffffffuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuk !

 

[matefrio]

How many crimes, non Federal Firearm, are committed with these guns?

 

[rushthezeppelin]

How many crimes, non Federal Firearm, are committed with these guns?

Probably none. The closest I can think of was that guy who went on a spree not too long in CA with a AR Pistol, but I'm pretty sure that was a registered lower not an 80%.

 

[satx78247]

Friends,

This is NOT about "crime control", enforcement of current laws/regulations, countering possible terrorism and/or any other legitimate government concern; instead, it's about CONTROL of private citizens, infringement of our RIGHTS as free citizens AND evermore government POWER over our lives.
PERIOD. END OF STORY.

When we citizens start DEMANDING (rather than politely asking or begging!!!) that the Congress start by freezing federal spending & then cutting spending in every federal office/agency/department by 10-25% across the board, this NONSENSE will come to a screeching halt. = The only thing that STOPS bureaucrats infringing on our rights is fear of LOSING funds from their agency/department budget.
Also, the SOLE thing that "gets politicians attention" is FEAR of losing their job.

yours, satx

 

[TheDan]

It's things like this that stifle manufacturing, innovation, and job growths in this country. I know this rule only applies to the firearms industry, but the same bureaucratic degrees and licensing quagmire exists for other industries as well. It's bad enough that we have to jump through these hoops to try to make a living, but they are always modifying the rules as well. It takes a lot of time and planning to start a business and changing the rules of the "game" make it nearly impossible.

 

[breakingcontact]

CATI Texas at the capitol rally on the 13th: CATI has purchased a Ghost Gunner machine and will be manufacturing rifles at the capitol. http://comeandtakeitamerica.com/ghost-gunner/

 

[Acera]

Well that will be interesting to see if it works out for them in light of the recent letter we have been discussing.

Anybody going?

 

[breakingcontact]

Well that will be interesting to see if it works out for them in light of the recent letter we have been discussing.

Anybody going?

Im planning on it for a bit. Will post pix.