ATF registering firearms

atomd So believe that a rogue agency has the right to take a vague law and apply it for some and not for others, change what is legal based on interpretations of the word "easily" and then change their mind anytime it wants?

Click to expand...

It doesn't matter what I think, it matters what a jury believes.

Alllllll of these others have been deemed "legal" by the ATF according to the law.

Click to expand...

No, they haven't. Typically you only see the letters posted by the manufacturer as proof that their unfinished lower is not considered a firearm by ATF. If you had read those determination letters I linked to you would have seen where one of them WAS deemed a firearm as submitted.

Dozens of approval letters are out there. Most of the designs don't differ all that much from one to another. All of a sudden one company has a problem with the government, stands up for iself, and theirs is suddenly illegal? That's ok with you?

Click to expand...

Ok with me? I haven't said anything of the sort. And whether there are "Dozens of approval letters out there" doesn't matter one bit if the unfinished lowers in question don't have one.

You quoted me and then based what you said on your interpretation of what I said and not actually what I said.

Click to expand...

You said "...The law says an 80% lower is not a firearm....." Doesn't take much "interpretation", if any, to say that's wholly, completely and totally false.
If your "interpretation" is different then please explain.

I never stated a certain percentage of completion was legal. I used the term 80% because that's what people call them. I said they are legal according to the law and I stand by that.

Click to expand...

Please provide a citation to this law.

They are legal according to the 1968 GCA. I believe that to be true. I do not consider a "largely unfinished and not easily convertible to a receiver gun part" to be a part easily converter into a receiver. Therefore I am right.

Click to expand...

Again, please provide a citation that says as much.

If they want to be more specific and use this law to prosecute people, they can go ahead and try to change the law to give them that power. They can (and should) come up with a way to say what is legal and what isn't based upon the % of completion. This gray area nonsense is downright crazy. Until then, they are wrong.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but ATF seems to be doing exactly what Federal law authorizes them to do. They do not have to change any current law.

"I said they are legal according to the law and I stand by that. They are legal according to the 1968 GCA. I believe that to be true."

While it may be absolute bunk that the '34 and '68 congresses passed an empty law about something they knew nothing about, then abdicated their entire authority on the matter into the hands of an unaccountable Bureau...

The legal fact of the matter is that this is well in the realm of regulation, not law; that is to say, it is legally within the discretion of the enforcement agency (and again, said discretion is 'wider' than it should be due to legislator incompetence). But the GCA has absolutely no say on what constitutes a receiver; merely what the consequences for manufacturing them for sale without a license are.

The real problem with the whole circumstantial/constructive reasoning on the ATF's part, is that manufacture is inherently incremental, so wherever you draw the line of 'done-ness' for what constitutes a regulated article, the next step removed is always readily accessible --it's just one mill chip or drill peck away. So they denote that as being 'readily convertible' to the next (regulated) phase of construction, neither actually being the article regulated by the law itself, just an arbitrarily defined device to make enforcement/prosecution easier.

Personally, I'd be cool with the ATF's regulation of stuff if they played by the same rules that other tax enforcement agencies abide by; that is, you ain't guilty until you're guilty. Supposedly, they're just tax collectors, and logically they shouldn't care what you might be about to do so long as you get the stamp before being caught in possession with a taxable item. They legally can't argue in court that their purpose is to restrict access/manufacture of firearms, they are only able to ensure they are properly taxed.

Everyone's books are 'readily cookable' and yet the IRS isn't (supposedly) kicking people's doors down based on what they almost did. I don't recall the IRS having anywhere near the freedom to determine what constitutes 'evasion' of taxes like the ATF does (as if guns are more complicated and technical than tax law )

TCB

as mentioned before... copying the yellow-forms to create an ILLEGAL gun registry under federal regulations (and risking your job & potentially face criminal prosecution) is the most inefficient way to create a very inaccurate registry.

Click to expand...

It's a great START to a registry. And what's so inefficient about them scanning the records and then using handwriting recognition software to convert the scans to a database. There is some pretty impressive technology out there for this. Granted, it's certainly not as easy as just downloading all of the E-4473's like they do at the FFL's that use those...

how often have we sold guns to private parties? how often do guns get gifted to other people? guns also get stolen, lost, damaged or are involved in boating accidents

Click to expand...

I STILL can't believe the coincidence of that boat sinking with my entire collection. To this day it makes me sad.

Typically the ATF only copies dealer records when they try to trace a crime gun... find gun X at a crime scene, serial number from Glock states that gun was sold by Glock to Dealer Y, they go to dealer Y and check the records who bought that gun and then swing by customer Z to ask him a few questions.... if customer Z doesn't have the gun, they go from there....

Click to expand...

TYPICALLY, ATF USED TO only copy records that were evidence of crimes or of violations of the FFL - but NOW, they're apparently copying / scanning ALL forms.

I'm not ok with that.

dogtown tom said:

Who do you think is the federal agency responsible for arson investigations?
Not only would you do time for arson, but toss in a dozen years for tampering with evidence.

Postulating about "mysterious fires" is not THR.




Nonsense.
ATF is limited by law to no more than one compliance inspection per YEAR.
Any other "visit" must be directly related to a criminal investigation.
Where do ya'll hear this stuff?




As has been posted numerous times in this thread......NO SUCH LAW.:banghead:

Click to expand...

Thanks for clearing up any confusion about the BATF and you have proven that the BATF is totally on the side of gun rights. Makes me feel real warm inside. When historians sift through the wreakage of was once the USA they will be stymied as to the mass suicide of such a once great country. Maybe they will think it was something in the air and water but it seems like we are in a massive Jonestown

We all joke about the tragic boating accident that we lost all our guns in ...

P5 Guy said:

We all joke about the tragic boating accident that we lost all our guns in ...

Click to expand...

I don't have a boat but I'll go along with that. My guns was in your boat when it turned over and we both lost them all.

Ryanxia, do we have any further updates on this situation?

The legal fact of the matter is that this is well in the realm of regulation, not law; that is to say, it is legally within the discretion of the enforcement agency (and again, said discretion is 'wider' than it should be due to legislator incompetence). But the GCA has absolutely no say on what constitutes a receiver; merely what the consequences for manufacturing them for sale without a license are.

Click to expand...

Exactly. The law uses the word "readily". To most people, having to machine 20% of anything themselves isn't exactly "readily". Technology increases and things might become easier...but it still isn't a plug and play operation here.

Another thing is the term 80% lower. If you asked someone who was into building ARs to describe an 80% lower they would likely say "A lower that requires the trigger group pocket milled out and then a combination of drilling out certain selector hole, detent holes, takedown pin holes, trigger and hammer pin holes, or a combination of some of these". Which holes that need to be drilled may depend on who makes it. But either way you're going to be doing something like that.

It's going to be pretty hard to say that one 80% lower that requires the trigger group pocket milled out and 3 holes drilled for pins is fine but another that requires those same exact modifications isn't fine. These describe what would be in common use for the most part. It doesn't matter that it's 80% finished or 10% finished...it just matters if it meets the ATF's criteria of being not readily convertible into a firearm. Again...that is not law...that is meeting the unclear requirements of what the ATF interprets the law as.

I'm sure other designs have been turned down because they change the operation....but most will certainly fall into this category. By me saying 80% lowers are legal, I'm referring to what is in common use. I'm sure many people have come up with all sorts of designs that would make things much easier to convert and may not even require any machining at all and called them 80% lowers. That's not what I'm talking about.....in fact...people don't even know about those because they never hit the market.

I say the law says it's legal because having to machine at least 20% if not more of a product does not make it readily transform into a receiver (at least to me and many other people). If you have the time and/or equipment to do that you could actually make a working receiver from scratch if you wanted to.

The ATF can override this by saying they have the power to regulate how this law is enforced. That is not the same as the law itself. The ATF doesn't create law on it's own. It can interpret law and enforce law though....and that's where we all get screwed. It's essentially a matter of personal opinion on whether something is readily convertible or not.

Anyways...we've beaten this dead horse long enough. Let's just say we are at the mercy of the ATF's interpretation of law, how they want to enforce it, and who they select to enforce it on. Pretty sad.

Thanks Ryanxia

Ryanxia, if you start a new thread, can you post a link on this one so we can follow it too? I'm also watching for info on Ares Armor as well. I'd like to know what they do with that customer info to.

Thanks.

For those following the Ares deal here is a very well written explanation as to what is going on.

http://www.shootingwire.com/features/228614?utm_content=buffer0fcd9&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Edster, there's a mistake in that article, if you're interested:

After the completion of that process, however, sale of those same lowers without a manufacturer's serial number would constitute an illegal arms sale.

Click to expand...

Not so. If sold by someone in the business of making and selling firearms, or made by someone for the purpose of being sold, that would be true.

If made by a private individual for his/her own use that lower could be sold and would not require a serial number.


Hmmm, and this is a bit misleading:

The privacy concern isn't without its merit. Should the ATF prevail in its argument and the judge lift her restraining order without condition would thousands of individuals who have purchased the polymer lowers, whatever their reason, suddenly find themselves subject of ATF scrutiny, and facing possible felony charges for possession of an unregistered firearm.

Click to expand...

Unless they are in a state requiring registration of AR-15 type firearms, that's not the case.

Sam1911 you are correct in stating that it is legal for one's own use!!!! I believe that if you decide to sell it, after the part has been milled and finished, now you have crossed the line and have become a manufacturer, and must be licensed and the receiver must have a serial number.

But I am not a lawyer and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night either. That is just the way it has been explained to me.

Ed, you MAY sell a firearm you built yourself without any licensing or serializing the gun.

Hold on, I'll find the thread on that...

Sorry, right now the best I can do is a CALGuns thread: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=501174

Well before you sold it you might want to seek legal counsel ---

Found this on the FAQ page for the ATF

For your information, per provisions of the Gun Control Act (GCA) of 1968, 18 U.S.C. Chapter 44, an unlicensed individual may make a “firearm” as defined in the GCA for his own personal use, but not for sale or distribution.

Right, not made for sale or distribution. They're pretty clear in various letters that you CAN later sell a gun you made yourself.

Where they get "fuzzy" is that they say you need to put all the usual info onto the gun (manufacturer's name and location, serial number) before you sell it, but then point to a section of the law that doesn't apply to unlicensed home builders (you), making a "Title I" firearm, to support that opinion.

There is no "fuzzy", if an individual makes a firearm for personal use absolutely nothing has to be engraved on it. The sterile gun can later be sold, gifted, traded, passed down as inheritance, etc.

Only an entity in the business of manufacturing firearms has to engrave the manufacturer, location, and serial # on the guns produced.

I said "fuzzy" because the ATF has sent letters (often reposted on building forums) that specifically claims that a non-licensee must mark the gun in accordance with 27 CFR § 478.92 if they want to sell it.

I think they're full of crap, but they are the ones with the badges so we must give their opinions at least a certain amount of attention. Even when they're dead wrong.

§ 478.92 How must licensed manufacturers and licensed importers identify firearms, armor piercing ammunition, and large capacity ammunition feeding devices?

Are you a licensed manufacturer or licensed importer? No.

Does the ATF strongly encourage non-licensees to mark firearms in some manner, for a variety of non-tin-foil-hat reasons having absolutely nothing to do with national registration? Yes.

Big deal. So put a serial number on it. Doesn't matter one wit because that serial number isn't on any paper, documented in any system. It would be a stupid requirement.

In fact, you could have fun with the serial number and make it anything you want it to be. Shoot, if you passed on any such firearms, there probably isn't even a requirement that says it has to be a unique serial number. Make them all the same.

"S/N: UNREGISTERED 1"

RetiredUSNChief said:

Big deal. So put a serial number on it. Doesn't matter one wit because that serial number isn't on any paper, documented in any system. It would be a stupid requirement.

In fact, you could have fun with the serial number and make it anything you want it to be. Shoot, if you passed on any such firearms, there probably isn't even a requirement that says it has to be a unique serial number. Make them all the same.

"S/N: UNREGISTERED 1"

Click to expand...

I like your way of thinking. ROFL

I prefer S/N: "SCREW-BATFE-1"