Actually the home gunsmithing thing wasn't my big concern, although it does add to the confusion. Its more that this rule creates far more confusion than it clears. For example, if changing stocks or re-bluing a gun is an act of manufacture (and for now, we'll assume basically a dealer who buys, re-blues or changes stocks, and then resells) does the gun have to be engraved with the new manufacturer's mark? According to the letter it would seem so. If a gun is bought and sold repeatedly by dealers/manufacturers and at each step has some sort of minor "manufacturing" operation performed on it (re-bluing, changing stocks, adding drop-in parts, etc), its eventually going to be covered/engraved with the various "manufacturer's" names, addresses, and even different serial numbers.
Moreover, it seems to directly contradict the law. 18 USC 921(a):
If one is a manufacturer by virtue of re-finishing a gun, have they created a new gun when they do so? To square with 18 USC 922(a)(10) it would seem they do. OTOH, although 18 USC 922 (a)(11) doesn't address ownership of the firearm being worked on, it does seem to address the exact type of modifications BATFE now wants to classify as "manufacturing", but rather as a "dealer".
Finally, as applied to NFA weapons, this rule seems to contradict, or at the very least significantly lower the bar for the long standing rule at the NFA Branch that for an 07/SOT you had to actually make something (NFA) and sell it to keep the license. This new rule seems to say that for an 07/SOT you just need to deal in NFA weapons (for which one would only have gotten an 01/SOT ) and occasionally change stocks or offer a fresh paint job on an NFA weapon. Kharn may be right, however, in that its a move designed to get more people concurrently regulated by the State Dept. under ITAR.
