Will 80% lowers need to be sold at the gun store?

[dogtown tom]

So nobody will sell "80%" lowers as "kits" any more. They will just sell them by themselves. What, of substance, has really changed?

The difficulty in making your own firearm.
There is no magical "80%" line in federal law or ATF regs. Companies would submit a block of plastic or aluminum and ask ATF "is this a firearm?" ATF Technical Branch would pass it around and eventually get back with "yes" or "we don't think so". That was seldom a problem. A chunk of plastic or aluminum, requiring some mechanical skill, apptitude or precision to make an actual firearm.

Then the makers thought, "how can we make a few extra bucks, make it easier on our buyer, reduce returns because Joey can't drill a straight hole? Viola! We'll sell them a jig!"
and later, those makers thought "our home builder customers dont have the time to search the interwebs for barrels, slides, used Glocks being parted out.......lets sell them all the rest of the stuff that makes a gun!".

So now, instead of a 80% completed Glock frame, the customer in one fell swoop can buy everything needed to complete a pistol minus a hand drill. My guess is that took the complete package or "kit" from the 80% to 81% (if not more) in the eyes of Technical Branch. This ease of making is most certainly the impetus for this new rule.

 

[12Bravo20]

Again, the new ruling does NOT effect private individuals. You can be in possession of an unfinished "80%" frame/receiver AND all of the tooling, jigs and instructions to finish AS long as you are not prohibited from possessing firearms.

The new ruling does NOT prohibit the building or mere possession of a "kit" by private individuals. Again there is no serial number requirement fro private individuals. This ruling really only effects manufacturers, vendors and FFL holders.

Yes this ruling does effect how unfinished frames/receivers and kits are sold.

And this will not effect Polymer 80 as a company anyway since they already have the proper FFL's and already make and sell complete frames and complete firearms.

In the end we can knick pick the ruling for eternity and it won't change anything. And the only true way to clear up any and all confusion is for lawyers to fight this rule in the courts and have judges clarify everything.

 

[N555]

There's one company I have been watching they claim to have a 50%er, they sent it off to the ATF 3 years ago and still haven't heard back.

 

[wmgeorge]

So bottom line you can make a firearm for your Own use as long as you can legally own a firearm (and as far back as I can remember always have been able) and not have to serial number it... Unless your going to sell it. Thats what the Feds want to shut down and who here would sell a non licensed non serial numbered gun? The gang bangers have all the guns they need stealing and buying off the street.

 

[12Bravo20]

and not have to serial number it... Unless your going to sell it.

Not true if it a private sale of a PMF, as long as all other laws are followed. If you sell to or through a FFL , then the FFL must apply a serial number.

Here is how it works.

When ever a FFL takes in a firearm, they must log it into their A&D book. And IF it is entered into the FFL A&D book, then it must have a serial number applied. The only exception is if a gunsmith works on a PMF and returns it to the lawful owner on the same day it was received.

The whole serial number issue only effects manufacturers and FFL holders. Someone building their own does not need to apply a serial number to their PMF per existing law or the new frame/receiver ruling.

 

[F-111 John]

You possess a jig, instructions, or a "kit" that allows you to make your own firearm from 80% lowers.
You go to Bob's 80Percenters.com and purchase an 80% lower......by itself, its NOT A FIREARM as defined by federal law, now or in the future. Bob's 80Percenters.com is not selling firearms and is not required to hold an FFL because he isn't selling those 80% lowers with a kit.

Does Bob's 80Percenters.com possess jigs, tools, or instructions anywhere within their inventory? If Bob's has even one jig on a shelf somewhere in their warehouse, then every 80 percent lower they possess is by default also a firearm, even before it is sold to anyone, because they possess both the 80 percent lower and the means to complete it.

If Bob's 80Percenters.com then sells one of those lowers to Joe Sixpack, are they not transferring a firearm? It was a firearm when they possessed it. Or can the 80 percent lower magically not become a firearm when ownership passes from one entity to the next?

I think an 80 percent lower will be treated by the ATF as "once a firearm, always a firearm," in the same way that you can convert a virgin receiver into a pistol, and then the pistol into a rifle, then back to a pistol again, but you can never create a pistol from a frame that was originally part of a rifle. "once a rifle, always a rifle."

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/can-i-lawfully-make-pistol-rifle-without-registering-firearm

 

[wmgeorge]

So I can legally print a AR lower on my 3D printer and own it legally as I am ok to purchase and have a firearm. Of course there is much more to do before its ready to fire and that takes some skill to complete the lower with all the needed parts. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[dogtown tom]

Does Bob's 80Percenters.com possess jigs, tools, or instructions anywhere within their inventory?

No.

If Bob's has even one jig on a shelf somewhere in their warehouse, then every 80 percent lower they possess is by default also a firearm, even before it is sold to anyone, because they possess both the 80 percent lower and the means to complete it.

Not necessarily.
As an FFL, I can possess a pistol in my inventory as well as a shoulder stock for that exact pistol.....and it not be registered as an NFA Short Barreled Rifle. While I possess both at the same time, its clear that both are separate items in my inventory. Similarly, a dealer may possess an AR rifle and a barreled upper with less than a 16"bbl and not be considered as constructive possession of an NFA firearm. It would likely be much different if the person possessing was a nonlicensee.

If Bob's 80Percenters.com then sells one of those lowers to Joe Sixpack, are they not transferring a firearm?

You make the assumption that Bob's 80Percenters.com is also stocking jigs. That may be a faulty assumption.

It was a firearm when they possessed it. Or can the 80 percent lower magically not become a firearm when ownership passes from one entity to the next?

Again, as has been repeatedly stated by many in this thread, as well as by ATF, an "80%" lower or frame IS NOT a firearm unless sold or possessed with a jig, tools, etc AKA as a "kit". If Bob's 80Percenters.com sells an unserialized 80% lower/frame.......theres a big hint whether its a firearm or not.

I think an 80 percent lower will be treated by the ATF as "once a firearm, always a firearm,"

Yet ATF clearly disagrees. I'm not sure where the disconnect is, but c'mon man......read the freaking rule, specifically pages 10-15. AGAIN, for the illionth time, an " 80%" lower or frame BY ITSELF is not a firearm. From pg 11:
Example 1— Frame or receiver: A frame or receiver parts kit containing a partially complete or disassembled billet or blank of a frame or receiver that is sold, distributed, or possessed with a compatible jig or template is a frame or receiver, as a person with online instructions and common hand tools may readily complete or assemble the frame or receiver parts to function as a frame or receiver.

in the same way that you can convert a virgin receiver into a pistol, and then the pistol into a rifle, then back to a pistol again, but you can never create a pistol from a frame that was originally part of a rifle. "once a rifle, always a rifle."

Well no. And here's why there is a difference:
1. 80% lowers or frames ARE NOT FIREARMS unless "sold, distributed, or possessed with a compatible jig or template is a frame or receiver, as a person with online instructions and common hand tools may readily complete or assemble the frame or receiver parts to function as a frame or receiver." AGAIN, NOT A firearm.
2. Your example of a "virgin receiver" means its ALREADY A FIREARM.
3. Your "once a rifle, always a rifle" is incorrect. Its been incorrect for over a decade. It's perfectly legal to reconfigure a pistol into a rifle by adding a 16" barrel and shoulder stock AND subsequently reconfiguring that rifle as a pistol by reassembling as a pistol as defined in federal law. ATF issued Ruling 2011-4 in 2011 and its been discussed to death on this and every other gun forum since then. https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/r...red-rifles-rifles-configured-pistols/download

 

[dogtown tom]

So I can legally print a AR lower on my 3D printer and own it legally as I am ok to purchase and have a firearm. Of course there is much more to do before its ready to fire and that takes some skill to complete the lower with all the needed parts. Thanks for clearing that up.

As long as your state law does not prohibit such.

 

[F-111 John]

3. Your "once a rifle, always a rifle" is incorrect. Its been incorrect for over a decade. It's perfectly legal to reconfigure a pistol into a rifle by adding a 16" barrel and shoulder stock AND subsequently reconfiguring that rifle as a pistol by reassembling as a pistol as defined in federal law.

That is NOT what I said. I specifically stated that a pistol could be converted to a rifle, then back to a pistol, and I even put a link to the ATF ruling. But a rifle cannot ever be converted to a pistol, it can only be an SBR. Hence the "once a rifle, always a rifle." Maybe I should have phrased it differently as "starts a rifle, always a rifle."

 

[dogtown tom]

That is NOT what I said.

Yet I quoted EXACTLY what you wrote.

I specifically stated that a pistol could be converted to a rifle, then back to a pistol,

You specifically wrote two polar opposite statements in the same paragraph.

"in the same way that you can convert a virgin receiver into a pistol, and then the pistol into a rifle, then back to a pistol again, but you can never create a pistol from a frame that was originally part of a rifle. "once a rifle, always a rifle."

and I even put a link to the ATF ruling.

No you didn't. You linked to an ATF FAQ. I provided the direct link to Ruling 2011-4.

But a rifle cannot ever be converted to a pistol, it can only be an SBR.

Yes it can!
If the rifle was first configured as a pistol, subsequently reconfigured as a rifle, at any point in the future it can lawfully be reconfigured as a pistol.

Hence the "once a rifle, always a rifle." Maybe I should have phrased it differently as "starts a rifle, always a rifle."

Hence, why you are wrong.
"Once a rifle, always a rifle" was a common and accurate saying right up until Ruling 2011-4 invalidated it.
Since Ruling 2011-4 was issued, it is accurate to state that "FIRST a rifle, always a rifle".

Words have meaning.

 

[F-111 John]

Yet I quoted EXACTLY what you wrote.

You quoted part of what I said out of context. The part you didn't include was: "but you can never create a pistol from a frame that was originally part of a rifle."

You specifically wrote two polar opposite statements in the same paragraph.

That is your opinion based on partial quotes of what I wrote, not my statement in its entirety.

No you didn't. You linked to an ATF FAQ. I provided the direct link to Ruling 2011-4.

Yet in that FAQ there is a link provided to the 2011-4 ruling, so by extension yes I did in fact link to the ruling.

Yes it can!
If the rifle was first configured as a pistol, subsequently reconfigured as a rifle, at any point in the future it can lawfully be reconfigured as a pistol.

Which I stated when I said "you can convert a virgin receiver into a pistol, and then the pistol into a rifle, then back to a pistol again" which is a completely true and accurate statement. What I did not do was to state all of the tedious permutations of virgin receiver to a pistol-to rifle-to pistol again, or an originally manufactured pistol-to rifle-to pistol again, mainly because the whole point was an analogy to 80% frames always being a firearm once is it considered a firearm. Everything I wrote was true and accurate. It was not, nor was it meant to be, a complete treatise on 2011-4.

Hence, why you are wrong.
"Once a rifle, always a rifle" was a common and accurate saying right up until Ruling 2011-4 invalidated it.
Since Ruling 2011-4 was issued, it is accurate to state that "FIRST a rifle, always a rifle".

Words have meaning.

Semantics again. All of my comments were true. But I will concede that my original phrasing could be (and was) subject to being misconstrued by certain others, hence my correction in a later post.

 

[F-111 John]

Not necessarily.
As an FFL, I can possess a pistol in my inventory as well as a shoulder stock for that exact pistol.....and it not be registered as an NFA Short Barreled Rifle. While I possess both at the same time, its clear that both are separate items in my inventory. Similarly, a dealer may possess an AR rifle and a barreled upper with less than a 16"bbl and not be considered as constructive possession of an NFA firearm. It would likely be much different if the person possessing was a nonlicensee.

Is Bob's 80Percenters.com an FFL? If not, then how does the assumption by the ATF of 'constructive possession' differ between a retailer who is not an FFL and an individual? What if Bob's 80Percenters.com is a small business working out of Bob's garage, or all of his inventory is in his home's basement and he only sells online? How would that affect the ATF's 'constructive possession' assumptions?

You make the assumption that Bob's 80Percenters.com is also stocking jigs. That may be a faulty assumption.

No, I asked a question of whether he did or not, and then made a speculation based on if the question were answered in the affirmative. If Bob's 80Percenters.com does not possess any jigs, tools, or instructions, then I think we are in agreement that any 80% lowers in Bob's inventory are not firearms. The ambiguity arises if Bob does have jigs, tools, or instructions in his inventory.

Again, as has been repeatedly stated by many in this thread, as well as by ATF, an "80%" lower or frame IS NOT a firearm unless sold or possessed with a jig, tools, etc AKA as a "kit". If Bob's 80Percenters.com sells an unserialized 80% lower/frame.......theres a big hint whether its a firearm or not.

Understood and repeatedly agreed to. The question is how far does "possession" extend to retailers, casual sellers, or individuals involved in private sales.

 

[dogtown tom]

But I will concede that my original phrasing could be (and was) subject to being misconstrued by certain others, hence my correction in a later post.

 

[dogtown tom]

Is Bob's 80Percenters.com an FFL? If not, then how does the assumption by the ATF of 'constructive possession' differ between a retailer who is not an FFL and an individual?

Who knows. Try asking ATF how they know.

What if Bob's 80Percenters.com is a small business working out of Bob's garage, or all of his inventory is in his home's basement and he only sells online? How would that affect the ATF's 'constructive possession' assumptions?

Again, ATF is the one to determine if constructive possession has occurred. You should note they have no history of prosecuting FFL's who possess such parts.

......The question is how far does "possession" extend to retailers, casual sellers, or individuals involved in private sales.

Ask Brownells or any other online retailer.
ATF fully understands that retailers stock many types of firearms and accessories, some of which if configured together may result in an NFA firearm. But its apparent that the retailer isn't selling that shoulder stock and pistol together.

Thats far different than the buyer having constructive possession of those same items. ATF would have difficulty prosecuting Brownells for stocking those items, because its apparent they are not selling them together.