Target Sports

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

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Southpaw

    Forum BSer
    Rating - 100%
    14   0   0
    Mar 30, 2009
    17,904
    96
    Guadalupe Co.
    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?

    I'm going to check it out too... Not to sure what point they are trying to make by milling out peoples receivers but oh well, should be interesting .
    Target Sports
     

    DarkwingDuck

    Active Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Feb 13, 2014
    360
    11
    Dimitrios Karras (Ares Armor) has responded to the BATFE letter. Selected quotes below.

    I have read ATF Rul. 2015-1 which was intended to clarify your position on several issues. I would like to thank you for your indirect admission that a firearm receiver is not a “receiver”, as defined by the GCA of 1968, until it can house all of the necessary parts that it is intended to house. I know this was not your intent. However, your words are very clear.

    A) A “frame or receiver” and a “weapon”, are separately and uniquely defined in the GCA of 1968.​
    B) The “may readily be converted” phrase only applies to “weapon” and not to “receiver”.
    C) The meaning of the word “manufacture” is “to make into a product suitable for use.”
    D) An object that is NOT suitable for use as a “receiver” is NOT classified as a “receiver”.
    E) Indexing marks DO NOT make a random object into a “receiver”.

    Riddle me this one Batman… If a “receiver” is a “weapon” then it must have an individual part of itself that is a “receiver”, which would be classified separately from it as a “firearm”… So where exactly is it that I can buy this mysterious “receiver, of a receiver, of a receiver, of a receiver” that you refer to?

    To make things easier for you and your agents to understand, I have commissioned these concepts to be drawn in crayon. I have attached this drawing to this letter. You are welcome.

    2r53fc7.jpg


    Full letter: http://aresarmor.com/store/media/cms/xmodnewsrss/B.Todd Letter re Ruling.pdf
    Crayon attachments: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B99vEBRSpVxralZkNnlHOUFpeVk/view?pli=1

    LOL crayon attachments for the BATFE ... (it's a parody response from AA/DK)

    DWD
     

    rp-

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    14   0   0
    Apr 11, 2010
    3,274
    96
    converse
    I can't help wonder if this stems from California where you cannot 'buy' ad AR or an AK, but you can 'make' one.

    When I was there a few of my friends and several forum friends would attend build parties where they would gather at a garage or shop that had a press and drill press. Then they would pay the owner $50 and bring their flat receivers and parts kits.

    They were trying to find ways to ban these get togethers several years ago before I even moved
     

    Blind Sniper

    Well-Known
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Apr 12, 2013
    1,825
    21
    Bay City, MI
    I seriously hope machine shops in my area either never see or don't give a **** about this letter. I'll be enrolling in an online gunsmithing course soon, and part of the actual work is going to be milling out an 80% AR lower, which the college states up front requires a mill - my only option is gonna be renting time on one. Don't have the space or money to buy even a basic, cheap-o used mill or CNC machine.

    Unless anyone knows of a normal drill/bit combo that can handle billet aluminum >.>
     

    DougC

    Well-Known
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Feb 22, 2021
    1,633
    96
    Texas
    Does this news from Ammoland.com change the conversation on this topic?

    Defense Distributed Once Again Proves Gun Control Obsolete With A 0% Pistol​

    Defense Distributed would take these states head-on by releasing a 0% AR-15 lower receiver for the company’s Ghost Gunner, a desktop CNC machine. The 0% lower was a hit with the gun-building community. All the user had to do was mill out the middle section of the lower and attach it to a top piece and a lower portion. Even if a state were to ban 80% AR-15 lowers, it would be impossible to ban a block of aluminum, although states like California have tried to ban the Ghost Gunner itself.

    Just asking as I don't understand (makes my teeth itch and head hurt) the ATF rules like on pistol braces. Once legal for over a decade and now not legal :bomb: :banghead: :fire: Oh I forgot some unknown person in White House told ATF Director on the 'qt' to change the rules so pudding brain Biden can claim something on gun control.
     
    Top Bottom