Legality of modifying a firearm frame?

[greenr18]

Legality of modifying a firearm frame? Say you have, for example an early generation plastic-framed firearm and due to age and the early not-the-best gun plastic used for the frame may be prone from repeat use to eventually cracking or worse... is it legal to modify the frame to have say an aluminum skeleton to enhance strength? What's the legality of 3d scanning a stripped frame such as this, getting an accurate CAD model and 3d printing one then serializing it? Would it have to be registered? Would you have to get a Class 2? I saw a blog once where some guy had taken a broken TEC-9 frame, took the section with the serial number block, removed it and embedded it into a new aluminum frame he made and 'considered' it the same gun but that doesn't seem legal to me...?

 

[yugorpk]

You don't need to do anything to a frame you build ( if your state allows it ) . Just like bending a frame out of sheetmetal. You can't sell it through a dealer unless you have all the pertinent info but for personal use you don't need serial numbers or anything else.

The guy with the tec 9 was just an idiot.

 

[Frank Ettin]

There's a difference between modifying a frame and making a firearm. Frames are modified all the time. Several well known gunsmiths modify Glock frames to reduce the dimensions of the grip. Frames of 1911s are checkered or modified in other ways.

But making a duplicate frame is making a new gun and raises a variety of other legal issues.

 

[Sam1911]

I'm struggling to think of why the legal issues would be. After all, you can make your own handgun, or handgun frame. What the point of salvaging the bit with the serial number would be I don't know but wht issues would this cause, assuming this isn't one of the more restrictive states.

 

[yugorpk]

The guy who salvaged the serial number from the other gun...did'nt need to. Total waste of time. Its not the same gun any more. Its a bit dicey if he is trying to pass it off as the same gun because it isnt. He'd have been better off not trying to use the original guns serial numbers. Just build a receiver and slap the other guns parts on it and call it good. IF it was a registered machinegun he was trying to salvage that is completely illegal. The ATF does not allow that. If it was just a title 1 firearm then moving serial numbers around was just dumb.

You can make your own frame/receiver, whatever you want to call it. You don't need serial numbers. You don't need makers marks, cities etc.

 

[Frank Ettin]

I'm struggling to think of why the legal issues would be. After all, you can make your own handgun, or handgun frame....

Unless there might be some state law issues -- depending on the State.

Also, one wrinkle on the "you can make your own gun" business -- you have to do it all by yourself. If you start "subcontracting" some of the fabrication, in ATF's view you're no longer making it yourself.

 

[bearcreek]

Also, one wrinkle on the "you can make your own gun" business -- you have to do it all by yourself. If you start "subcontracting" some of the fabrication, in ATF's view you're no longer making it yourself.

How does that work with the 80% lowers?

 

[dogmush]

How does that work with the 80% lowers?

You have to finish it yourself.

You can't use someone else's mill and CNC code. There's some question still if you could borrow a friend's manual mill, but if you did, it'd definitely have to be you running the machine.

 

[Neo-Luddite]

Also, in doing what you describe, you may be encroaching on the design patents to that particular firearm, right? Just a passing thought..

 

[MachIVshooter]

You can do just about anything you want with it, so long as the serial # remains, and what you build doesn't end up being an unregistered NFA weapon.

I saw a blog once where some guy had taken a broken TEC-9 frame, took the section with the serial number block, removed it and embedded it into a new aluminum frame he made and 'considered' it the same gun but that doesn't seem legal to me...?

Transferring the S/N was pointless, and would in fact be criminal if he attempted to sell it as the same weapon. If you build your own frame or receiver from scratch, it's a home build, and does not need to be serialized under federal law. You can even sell an unserialized home build, so long as you did not manufacture with the intent to sell. But you'd run afoul of the law to sell a home built frame bearing the S/N of a manufactured firearm. Only the original manufacturer can legally assign the same S/N to a new gun, and it requires destruction of the original.

Also, one wrinkle on the "you can make your own gun" business -- you have to do it all by yourself. If you start "subcontracting" some of the fabrication, in ATF's view you're no longer making it yourself.

That's not true.

The issue, however, is that unless it is a design that ATF has already made a determination on regarding what level of completion constitutes a firearm, there's no way to know without submitting plans to them with that specific question.

I'd venture to say that one is pretty safe with a frame that is externally finished and with magwell completed (many such examples exist as "80%"; AR, FAL, 1911....), but beyond that, you'd want a letter.

Also, the end user is not the one in violation of ATF 2015-1 if the product is determined a firearm; it is the person who manufactured without a license who is in hot water.

Also, in doing what you describe, you may be encroaching on the design patents to that particular firearm, right? Just a passing thought..

Patent infringement is really not applicable to things made by the end user, for the end user. I can get specifics if you'd like from a patent attorney friend of mine, but it's really not something to worry about regarding a thing you build yourself just for your personal use.

http://ipmall.info/hosted_resources/IDEA/p243.Grossman.pdf

 

[Frank Ettin]

Also, one wrinkle on the "you can make your own gun" business -- you have to do it all by yourself. If you start "subcontracting" some of the fabrication, in ATF's view you're no longer making it yourself.

That's not true.

The issue, however, is that unless it is a design that ATF has already made a determination on regarding what level of completion constitutes a firearm, there's no way to know without submitting plans to them with that specific question.

I'd venture to say that one is pretty safe with a frame that is externally finished and with magwell completed (many such examples exist as "80%"; AR, FAL, 1911....), but beyond that, you'd want a letter.....

I stand by my statement. The issue of level of completion arises only with regard to one's starting point. If the one's starting point is something which the ATF would consider to be a firearm, it must be legally acquired as a firearm; and from that point on one is modifying an existing firearm.

One may make a firearm starting with something which is not, itself, a firearm (subject to state laws). But from that point on, whatever one is starting with must be finished into the firearm entirely by himself.

...Also, the end user is not the one in violation of ATF 2015-1 if the product is determined a firearm; it is the person who manufactured without a license who is in hot water....

Unless the circumstances are such that the end user has criminal liability under 18 USC 2:

(a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.

(b) Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the United States, is punishable as a principal.

 

[MachIVshooter]

The issue of level of completion arises only with regard to one's starting point. If the one's starting point is something which the ATF would consider to be a firearm, it must be legally acquired as a firearm; and from that point on one is modifying an existing firearm.

One may make a firearm starting with something which is not, itself, a firearm (subject to state laws). But from that point on, whatever one is starting with must be finished into the firearm entirely by himself.

This is just a more loquacious restating of exactly what I said.

Unless the circumstances are such that the end user has criminal liability under 18 USC 2:

Would that apply with an ATF policy that is not actually codified? Because while unlicensed manufacture is covered in 18 U.S.C. 922, what ATF outlined in 2015-1 is not. No language in that ruling (or anywhere else that I'm aware of) regarding receiving a firearm that was made by an unlicensed manufacturer; the ruling only clarifies what ATF considers "manufacturing".

 

[Frank Ettin]

This is just a more loquacious restating of exactly what I said.

I can see that you're starting with your customary ridiculous bickering again. The point is that it my statement in post 6 is not untrue.

Unless the circumstances are such that the end user has criminal liability under 18 USC 2:

Would that apply with an ATF policy that is not actually codified? Because while unlicensed manufacture is covered in 18 U.S.C. 922, what ATF outlined in 2015-1 is not. No language in that ruling (or anywhere else that I'm aware of) regarding receiving a firearm that was made by an unlicensed manufacturer; the ruling only clarifies what ATF considers "manufacturing".

First, ATF Ruling 2015-1 is obsolete and had been clarified by ATF Ruling 2015-10.

Second, any prosecution would be based on violation of the applicable statutes. The ATF Rulings, just a similar rulings by any regulatory agency, merely serve as guidance regarding how an agency interprets and will enforce various statutes or regulations.

Much turns on the statutory definition of "firearm" at 18 USC 921(a)(3), emphasis added:

(3) The term “firearm” means (A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon; (C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or (D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm.

So we know that the ATF will enforce the applicable statutes as outlined in Ruling 2015-10. Whether ATF's interpretation and application of the applicable statutes as thus outlines will be up to the court.

So yes, 18 USC 2 will apply.

 

[MachIVshooter]

I can see that you're starting with your customary ridiculous bickering again. The point is that it my statement in post 6 is not untrue.

No, I'm not. And your sanctimonious condescension doesn't change the fact that your statement in post 6 is a vague half-truth:

Also, one wrinkle on the "you can make your own gun" business -- you have to do it all by yourself. If you start "subcontracting" some of the fabrication, in ATF's view you're no longer making it yourself.

It needed an addendum stipulating that "have to do it all by yourself" applies only at the point which further machining or fabrication of the part makes it firearm. Anything up to that point can be lawfully sourced/commissioned/contracted from another party, as it is legally just a hunk of metal (or whatever material).

First, ATF Ruling 2015-1 is obsolete and had been clarified by ATF Ruling 2015-10.

That link is 2015-1, which clarifies 2010-10. There is no 2015-10 ruling.

ETA:

All ATF firearms rulings currently held:

https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/firearms-rulings

 

[Frank Ettin]

As to whether my statement in post 6 was too vague in the context of the discussion I this thread, I'll leave that to the readers.

I was mistaken about the Ruling number. I misread my source. Ruling 2015-1 clarified Ruling 2010-10.

 

[pintler]

Frank, I'm curious on your take on this. 2015-1 says:

"Held, any person (including any corporation or other legal entity) engaged in the business
of performing machining, molding, casting, forging, printing (additive manufacturing) or other manufacturing process to create a firearm frame or receiver,"

I'm curious about the 'engaged in the business of' part.

Clearly, I can't open a business called 'Pintler's AR-atorium' that sells people a forging as they walk in the door, then says 'put it in CNC mill #7 and hit 'start''.

But saying 'you have to do it all by yourself' seems to imply that hobbyists, not doing anything as a business, can't help each other, i.e. I can't let you use my shaper to finish your mag well, and you can't let me use your engraver for serial numbers, etc [1]. Is that your reading of 2015-1?

[1]maybe. 2015-1, in the context of AR's, seems only to address the fire control pocket/trigger group holes. So maybe a better example is, can I loan you my .376 reamer for the safety hole, and can you loan me your 7/16 end mill for the fire control pocket?

I made several special cutters for making a 1911 frame. Can I loan those out? Let a friend come over and use my mill?

My sense is that the new regs only apply to businesses, not hobbyists, but IANAL, so opinions welcomed.

 

[MachIVshooter]

pintler;

I know you addressed Frank, but as a person who used to rent people time on my manual machines for the purpose of finishing receivers prior to that ruling, I've spent a great deal of time dissecting and discussing 2015-1.

The jury is still out to a degree on exactly what would be prosecutable as far as buddies lending/allowing use of their equipment, but if we assume the strictest, most authoritarian interpretation, it basically means that you are engaged in the business if you allow the use of ANY tool under your "dominion & control", including end mills and reamers, to be used by other people for the purpose of manufacturing firearms. And that includes "memberships" or "associations". Does not, however, include mutually owned and mutually accessible equipment; if you and a couple buddies go in on a mill, and all of you have access to it at any time, then all of you have dominion and control, so 2015-1 is not applicable.

I have not heard of anyone being prosecuted under the 2015-1 ruling, and believe the spirit of the ruling was really aimed at commercial enterprise enabling people to complete firearm receivers-especially "CNC parties". However, I, for one, will not risk my freedom by letting anyone use my tooling to build guns unless/until ATF further clarifies "engaged in the business of" to exclude such things as allowing friends the use of equipment with no consideration.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Frank, I'm curious on your take on this. 2015-1 says:

"Held, any person (including any corporation or other legal entity) engaged in the business
of performing machining, molding, casting, forging, printing (additive manufacturing) or other manufacturing process to create a firearm frame or receiver,"

I'm curious about the 'engaged in the business of' part....

The bottom line is that no one really knows for sure. The "engaged in the business" language is used in a number of statutes relating to licensing requirements for a dealer in firearms, a manufacturer, an importer, etc. The courts have applied the language to affirm convictions for dealing without a license by folks who vigorously disputed that they were engaged in the business.

So even if under some circumstances ATF might wind up overreaching, when, or to what extent is unknowable unless/until we start to get some court of appeal rulings.

Until we get some court of appeal rulings clarifying things --

...I have not heard of anyone being prosecuted under the 2015-1 ruling, and believe the spirit of the ruling was really aimed at commercial enterprise enabling people to complete firearm receivers-especially "CNC parties". However, I, for one, will not risk my freedom by letting anyone use my tooling to build guns unless/until ATF further clarifies "engaged in the business of" to exclude such things as allowing friends the use of equipment with no consideration.

is probably the most practical approach.

 

[barnbwt]

The ATF follows the NFA definition of 'receiver.' If your receiver reinforcement by itself meets that definition, it needs to be treated as such. If it merely bolsters or complements the function of the original receiver, you're golden, as it at best is a 'chassis.' There are devices to reinforce expensive NFA items, including MG receivers, which are not considered 'firearms' themselves (I think there are devices for M60's as well as DIAS's which function like this, so there may be some precedent to emulate)

"Also, one wrinkle on the "you can make your own gun" business -- you have to do it all by yourself."

And the wrinkle on that wrinkle is that 'make' is a binary when it comes to a firearm's status; it either is one or isn't, and the 'making' only occurs in passing. Which is why you can completely outsource every last detail up until the very last operation that gets you close enough for the ATF the prosecute the vendor/subcontractor for manufacturing without a license*. You'd think the item is then treated as a firearm thereafter by the ATF/regs, right?

Which is where the double standard (as is natural for the ATF) comes in; apparently when you take the next step, and the precursor becomes a 'firearm,' there are still restrictions on what additional work can be done by a third party without them being required to document it as though it were manufactured at that time (though it be an already-manufactured item, derp)

The ATF has held, as part of the 2015-1 ruling, that a so-called 80% AR15 receiver, butchered by a fool bubba into a nonfunctional paperweight that would still be presented as evidence at his trial for illegal manufacture should it be mated to a stock & short upper, or sold for profit, cannot be legally reworked or completed into something functional by a licensed gunsmith in the presence of the customer or by the customer using his tools (i.e. CNC mill/jig). To do so legally requires making a record of the completion of the firearm, which again, was already completed in the ATF's own eyes before Bubba set foot in the door.

Now, I'm sure many will point to the clear abuse of people scratching shallow FCG pockets into lower forgings with a drill press & having the gun finished 'for real' on a CNC mill for money, but this ruling is (as is usual for the ATF) not specific to the actual incident used for its justification. Instead, it hits anyone trying to troubleshoot a difficult build, or who lacks all the tooling to complete the entire job, even after long since breaching the 'manufacture' mark. You can't borrow a buddy's CNC if he's a business, therefore you can't borrow his TIG rig, offsite, and with your own skill, complete a difficult final seam on a reweld. People have to make a choice between going into business full time for themselves, or helping friends/hobbyists on the side on their own time, regardless of frequency or profit motive.

The ATF is trying to disentangle 'manufacture' from 'completion' even though the laws clearly do not differentiate (well, except for the plain wording 'readily convertible' which has been obviously stretched past breaking when describing not only incomplete assemblies, but of unfinished/defective parts) so they can prosecute technical assistance at any point during a production cycle under the NFA/GCA. The reason they need this capricious flexibility is because the market finds workarounds for whatever arbitrary line in the sand they draw at 'manufacture.' Especially when the line has been made as bold as it is for ARs. EP Armory got slapped for plugging raw 80% castings into CNCs in front of customers all day long, but now they can be nailed for customers bringing in 80%'s with undercut FCG pockets to have their precision operations completed --and they'd also get nailed for letting customers borrow die-grinders to get them to that point in the first place! And they could even nail the customers if they'd assembled their own corn-cob-jobs into 'SBRs' beforehand!

The end goal is clear; the ATF is trying to clamp down on non-factory-made firearms, specifically the AR15**. Even more broadly, the whole notion of collaboration/free assembly among private gun owners (hence the focus on build parties, gun shows, and the exchange of technical information through ITAR rule changes).

Have a defective Bushmaster that needs the FCG pocket opened up or a bur removed? Cool; just leave it with the FFL smith as a maintenance trip. Have a tweaked MG42 semi-auto receiver that needs a sturdy welding table to assist with the cut/realignment since you lack the tools? Hope you feel like paying for engraving & a transfer fee, while your FFL gunsmith 'completes' the project you did enough work to be legally-liable for had you violated NFA at any point (assuming he's even willing to, given the professional liability of 'signing off' on such a difficult build). It certainly appears the sole purpose of this rule is to force many builders who lack every last piece of equipment to complete every build operation into having their firearms serialized & documented by FFLs. This is contradictory to the many non-licensed 'gunsmiths' who are legally able to perform work on customers' firearms so long as the customer is present & in control of the item the entire time (why your 5min bore/scope job isn't entered into the books)

"I have not heard of anyone being prosecuted under the 2015-1 ruling"
Why would you? It's not statute, after all. Can one of the legal minds weigh in on whether the ATF is even allowed to officially cite their own regulatory rulings when it comes to prosecute let alone required to, or is it something they'd basically have to admit to using when describing their professional discretion? As in, when they prosecute you for shouldering a SIG brace, the charges will be manufacturing an SBR, and while the letter won't be presented in evidence but the arguments therein will be presented. The defense could try citing the ATF's own letters as evidence of conflicting opinions/guidance, but the Bureau has repeatedly held as have courts that the letters have no binding value.

TCB

*AKA 'constructive intent' that will either hold up in court, or is worth the agents' time pursuing
**It's all about the AR15, and has been since at least the AWB expired (was the AK before that). But like I said, the ATF writes expansively, so builds they probably aren't even paying attention to end up heavily impacted, since the gun building crowd is among the more diligent out there when it comes to complying with rules, which is why I mention the more exotic builds like the MG42.