80% AR receiver finishing legalities

[MachIVshooter]

We already have a thread started in legal, but I feel that this is important enough to warrant an appearance in GGD.

http://www.atf.gov/sites/default/fi...ling-2015-1-manufacturing-and-gunsmithing.pdf

It would be nice if Frank or one of our other resident attorneys could dissect this, but to my eyes, it looks as if the new ruling no only precludes the CNC "push the button" lower finishing, but also any form of assisting, or loaning/renting even manual equipment.

Really sucks, because some of us had been more than happy to loan professional equipment and expertise to friends and acquaintances for a couple bucks or a 12 pack, if anything at all. It was beneficial to everyone, a fun way to hang out and bond, and was coloring completely inside the lines until yesterday.

Basically, the new ruling is forcing people who want to finish 80% lowers (or any other receiver) to go out and buy their own equipment. Typical ATF bullsnot.

 

[Thermactor]

this will backfire on them IMO because it will create more backyard machinists, and once you buy the equipment to do one...

plus there are kits and jigs out there that make it really simple, as in all you need is a router and a drill. you can get a router anywhere.

 

[230RN]

Geriatric paranoia here. Clamp your palms over your ears.

Somehow, I have this tiny thought that with all the confusions and backtrackings and demonstrated unwieldinesses and arbitrarinesses* of the present law, they're setting the stage for a rework of the GCA, etc. in the legislature.

And that ain't gonna be good for us.

OK, you can uncover your ears now and I'll go make another pot of coffee.

I'm not signing this one so nobody will know who posted it.

* 80%? Why not 74.39%?

 

[MErl]

The meat of the ruling:

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, or to make a frame or receiver suitable for use as part of a “weapon … which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive,” i.e., a “firearm,” must be licensed as a manufacturer under the GCA; identify (mark) any such firearm; and maintain required manufacturer’s records.

Held further, a business (including an association or society) may not avoid the manufacturing license, marking, and recordkeeping requirements of the GCA by allowing persons to perform manufacturing processes on blanks or incomplete firearms (including frames or receivers) using machinery, tools, or equipment under its dominion and control where that business controls access to, and use of, such machinery, tools, or equipment.

Held further, this ruling is limited to an interpretation of the requirements imposed on
persons under the GCA, and does not interpret the requirements of the National Firearms Act, 26
U.S.C. 5801 et. seq.

First part is straightforward, a business that exists (even partially) to make guns must be licensed appropriately.
Second part is blocking the assisting of individuals using what has been push button CNC. That ruling is general enough to include everything except knowledge but does not apply to unlicensed individuals. The vague association or society portion is the issue there.

By my reading:
If Bob goes over to his friend Joe's garage and finishes up an 80% blank/bends an AK flat that is no problem.
If Joe holds an open build party there may be an issue under the "association or society" wording but maybe not.
If Joe posts on a private message board that he'll help anyone that asks and then Bob comes over there is likely a problem as a message board requiring membership could be considered a society. That problem may go away if a public board was used, some clarification on what constitutes a society is needed.

 

[MachIVshooter]

* 80%? Why not 74.39%?

80% is a term our camp came up with. ATF FTB simply evaluates a design and decides that it either is or isn't a firearm. There is no exact criteria, just that the part still requires substantial operations in order to become a firearm capable of expelling projectiles. It's different for each design, as obviously an AK flat requires different operations than an AR lower, which is far different from an FAL upper, etc.

If Bob goes over to his friend Joe's garage and finishes up an 80% blank/bends an AK flat that is no problem.
If Joe holds an open build party there may be an issue under the "association or society" wording but maybe not.
If Joe posts on a private message board that he'll help anyone that asks and then Bob comes over there is likely a problem as a message board requiring membership could be considered a society. That problem may go away if a public board was used, some clarification on what constitutes a society is needed.

I have an attorney friend evaluating this, hopefully he can dissect the language to figure out if this is really a total prohibition on renting/loaning manual equipment or if there are work-arounds/loopholes. Erring on the side of caution, I would say that without clarification, you could be in trouble letting anyone use your equipment unless that person has unfettered access to your equipment at no cost (the "dominion or control" language). So yeah, I'd say my one really good friend who has keys to my home and zero restrictions on when he may use any and all of the equipment that I own would be a safe bet, but allowing anyone else is questionable.

 

[RussB]

I wonder how this affects the folks who work as machinists and use the machinery of their employer?

 

[MachIVshooter]

I wonder how this affects the folks who work as machinists and use the machinery of their employer?

Doesn't seem to be anything in the language regarding the owner of the lower to be finished, but it could prove problematic for the employer if the employer was aware. But if a guy brought his 80 percenter to work and finished it on company machines unbeknownst to the owner of those machines, then technically there is no act that violates this ruling.

 

[dogmush]

You still have to be "in the buisness" of making firearms for this to apply. There are some catches, but if you don't do it regularly, and don't accept any payment (of any kind) it'll be hard to argue that letting my friends use my tools is in any way a buisness.

Advertising, accepting beer or pays in trade, or opening your tools to your whole gun club might be a problem.

 

[mnrivrat]

engaged in the business

Would seem to give a level of protection for many who complete a 80% lower for their use. It's all in the details.

 

[blarby]

In this case, I wonder if the BATFE means "business" as in business for profit as they do in "Ammo" manufacturing, or if this is a new take ?

I ask because if this becomes the new precedent for business, "societies, association".... Things just got sticky for us reloaders.

 

[MachIVshooter]

Would seem to give a level of protection for many who complete a 80% lower for their use. It's all in the details.

The status of home builds hasn't changed; it's still 100% legal to manufacture a firearm for personal use, so long as you are not prohibited and the firearm itself is either a legal title I gun or a registered title II.

This is about other people helping the builder (has always been a bit grey as to exactly how much you can help), or even loaning/renting equipment to the builder (has never been an issue til now).

In this case, I wonder if the BATFE means "business" as in business for profit as they do in "Ammo" manufacturing, or if this is a new take ?

I ask because if this becomes the new precedent for business, "societies, association".... Things just got sticky for us reloaders.

A license has long been required to manufacture ammunition for sale, and reloading for others carries tons of civil liability anyway. But this ruling would be akin to ATF saying that no one can use your reloading equipment but you (which they have not, to my knowledge).

Of course, as it applies to the actual firearms, there is no restriction or prohibition on any making any other part of the firearm.

 

[HankB]

It was always my impression that some substantial number of firearms (>1) had to be involved if a person was "in the business" of selling guns . . . extending that logic, I'm not clear on this ruling for finishing receivers . . . IANAL, but it seems to me that it would be difficult to say a person is "doing business" if he lets a very small number of personal friends use his machine tools at no cost; this seems to me no more "doing business" than loaning out a lawn mower or a nail gun to a buddy.

If he's hosting "build parties" with large groups of folks who AREN'T personal friends, I can see an argument that he's "doing business" and requires a license carrying more weight.

Of course, my opinion isn't necessarily the opinion of any future court, and I'm not interested in buying a bunch of machine tools and becoming a test case.

 

[MErl]

The argument made by the ATF was this:

A business (including an association or society) may not avoid the manufacturing license, marking, and recordkeeping requirements under the GCA simply by allowing individuals to initiate or manipulate a CNC machine, or to use machinery, tools, or equipment under its dominion or control to perform manufacturing processes on blanks, unfinished frames or receivers, or incomplete weapons. In these cases, the business controls access to, and use of, its machinery, tools, and equipment. Following manufacture, the business “distributes” a firearm when it returns or otherwise disposes a finished frame or receiver, or complete weapon to its customer. Such individuals or entities are, therefore, “engaged in the business” of manufacturing firearms even though unlicensed individuals may have assisted them in the manufacturing process.

The core of the ruling seem to be that a firearm is made by whoever owns the machine/tool and not by the operator of the machine. That follows logically from a business that makes firearms, the licensed manufacturer is the business entity and not the individual employee operator.

 

[blarby]

A license has long been required to manufacture ammunition for sale, and reloading for others carries tons of civil liability anyway. But this ruling would be akin to ATF saying that no one can use your reloading equipment but you (which they have not, to my knowledge).

Thats the part that concerns me, as it would also extend to your casting equipment, trading home-made bullets with other shooters, and many more interesting places they use "business", tis why i'm concerned.

Before the line was pretty much drawn at "for profit" as where hobby ended and business began. This seems like its moving that line, and its concerning.

 

[ngnrd]

Maybe this question would be better placed in the Legal forum, but...

If a group (association, co-op, society, ... whatever) 'assists' in the manufacture of firearms that remain in the State in which they are manufactured, under what Constitutional authority is the ATF legally authorized to regulate such manufacture? Certainly such actions don't fall under the rather large umbrella of the Commerce Clause, do they?

 

[dogmush]

Wicked v. Filburn.

 

[barnbwt]

"If a group (association, co-op, society, ... whatever) 'assists' in the manufacture of firearms that remain in the State in which they are manufactured, under what Constitutional authority is the ATF legally authorized to regulate such manufacture?"
If not constitutional authority, then extra-constitutional authority, that's what. Just because you disagree with what the courts have allowed them to get away with, doesn't mean they won't end you (and ruin the lives of everyone you've ever known). Like everything else in this world, they have exactly as much authority as we let them exercise, which is quite a lot at this point.

What I find interesting about this 'ruling' (courts 'rule,' I don't have a polite word for what the ATF does) is that "dominion or control" doesn't apparently equate to using the equipment unassisted as the standard currently is. It's never been okay to hold the hand of an operator as they complete whatever receiver they are working on, and even things like measurements mustn't be spoon fed. You were, however, able to describe the process of completion, and I believe even supply reference material so long as it wasn't instructive itself (blueprints, not step-by-step), and offer advice & of course safety instruction.

But now, standing at a lathe, turning handles yourself as you watch the dials, on a project of your own design no less, doesn't count as being in "control" of the machine, so long as it is under the roof and sucking the electricity of your buddy*. And let's forget for the moment that the ATF has zero grounds for regulating how stuff gets made, since the law only gives them authority to tax/regulate stuff that is made. Small distinction, since one leads to the other, but it is important in defining a boundary (not that it does in practice), since the logic underpinning Wikard v. Filburn** as applied to guns leads all the way back to ore (and star fusion I suppose, if the ATF thinks it can prosecute a long-dead supernova). Can't have interstate gun commerce without iron ore to produce the iron, after all (and imported iron, no less! )

We all knew it was inevitable, that the ATF is going to eventually try to claim that possession of machine tools equates to firearm manufacture. This is just one small step closer. Now, because letting others use machine tools equates to firearm manufacture, you can't allow others to use yours to complete their project, since somehow your machine ownership trumps their firearm manufacture/ownership --even though the firearm did not exist before their actions and would not exist absent their intent, simply because your tools are yours. We aren't yet to where the ATF seeks to regulate access to "gunsmithing paraphernalia***" or treats the tools themselves as intent warranting regulation****, but if this ruling stands we are one step closer.

I wonder when we'll see a run on mills and lathes (the oil bust frees up an awful lot of equipment, btw)

The important takeaway is that the ATF is seeking to shift the act of manufacture (i.e. what they can actually prosecute) beyond the person with the intent to build/acquire a firearm. This geometrically multiplies the number of people and options they can prosecute for a given charge, so it can be nothing other than an expansion of their authority. It seems akin to what happened with the unwritten "straw purchase" rules we now daily see ignorant newbies cower in fear over. People who loan others tools, or even work around others who build guns should take notice and precautions to ensure intentions don't mingle or overlap. Man, I wonder if making or selling parts to people you know intend to produce firearms from them will be the next leap for this doctrine.

Hell, weaponsguild.net's motto is "Builders Helping Builders" for cryin' out loud, and they have as much a focus on legal compliance as I've seen anywhere. The sole purpose of this ruling is to 'chill' builders' activities, to reduce the exercise of a perfectly legal American freedom though fear of persecution.

TCB

*The letter specifies 'businesses' and groups, but recall that if the ATF determines that you were "involved in the business" according to their nebulous/arbitrary criteria...you're a business now . Only individuals can build personal firearms without paperwork, so anyone that doesn't qualify for that 'exemption' in the eyes of the ATF will be subject to this ruling, ergo everyone is subject this ruling. The bet you make is on how prosecutable you think the ATF thinks your actions are; that's why it's such a tricky gambit
**I see what you did there, dogmush
***I think this may be the next step; requiring FFLs to restrict access to their manufacturing tools, under threat of liability should some individual use the equipment for personal or illicity firearms
****This is beyond what I think is likely or even possible. They tried it in Britain, I've heard, but abandoned the idea shortly thereafter.

 

[barnbwt]

The broader theme is that the ATF really doesn't want gun building to become a socially acceptable activity for private citizens. They want it to remain the domain of lone Dale Gribble's hidden away in basements from the world, and more importantly, each other.

With the advent of the internet, word of the multitude of ridiculous rules and assertions one must abide by to construct a legal firearm has spread far and wide, and every utterance of the Bureau is now read and scrutinized by millions. It is also easier than ever to connect with others in this niche hobby, and to pool resources and knowledge, so that everyone involved may benefit. This is the threat the ATF perceives, that gun-making may become a vibrant social activity as mainstream as cabinetry, with every. last. person. involved seething at the ridiculous rules imposed on them. Why, there'd be enough of us Dale Gribble's to actually press for some changes!* Can't be having that.

Basically, they are more worried about us mass-producing gunsmiths than guns, so they make it harder and harder to organize so-called "build parties" where a group of like-minded hobbyists learn, demonstrate, and work on their projects in a social setting. As we saw in the ATF investigation barely-tangentially related to the EP lowers last year, the actual illicit gun factories worth worrying about don't even blink as they break the unlicensed-manufacture turnstile (go figure) and skip right to SBRs and machine guns. The difference between lawful and unlawful intent the ATF seems so bent on blinding itself to.

TCB

*My pa is not a gun guy. He has some old long guns, shot maybe in the last decade. He is a Reagan conservative that typically prefers enforcement discretion rather than tolerance when it concerns unfamiliar or strange activities he disapproves of. Five minutes of explaining the details of 922r to him (he was given an import-neutered long gun whose stock he wanted to change back to original) and he's as indignant as I've seen him since retirement (which preceded O-care )

We hear all sorts of strategies for 'converting' or educating non-committals to our side. I have found nothing works better, faster, at demonstrating gun control's folly than a quick run down of the main gun-building laws/rules we must abide. You'll convert anyone who thinks we should have the right to build guns (i.e. not a hard-core anti) in minutes.

 

[MachIVshooter]

Basically, they are more worried about us mass-producing gunsmiths than guns

That is the crux of it. Home builders really weren't on the radar until recently, with 1) the popularity of the AR-15, 2) the relatively easy "80% receiver" and 3) the internet.

The actual number of people doing home builds, including AR lowers, is still relatively small, but substantially greater and more vocal than what it was a decade ago. It also seems that only recently did the anti gun crowd become more than peripherally aware of the fact that manufacturing is pretty unrestricted, and the pants wetting commenced, followed by the hyperbole and hysteria.

I'll be curious to see where all this goes. Not many people really care, even fewer are directly affected. I do foresee this edict changing, though I do not know if it will be for better or worse. It's simply too ambiguous, vague and cryptic right now.

This is beyond what I think is likely or even possible. They tried it in Britain, I've heard, but abandoned the idea shortly thereafter.

Yeah, there are quite a few Brits on Practicalmachinist.com, Homeenginemodelmachinist.com, etc., and even there, they ruffled too many of the wrong feathers trying to restrict tools. A tiny fraction of first world nation citizens own milling machines and lathes, and a fraction of that fraction have the desire to build firearms. In point of fact, despite the circles I run in, both guns and machinery, I do not know one other person who has scratch built a cartridge firearm. Couple guys who do the black powder thing, but even they use kits or commercial parts for much of their builds.

 

[Ed N.]

I suspect that the REAL impetus behind this isn't the guys with machine shops (though they'll get swept into the same dustpan), but folks who will set up 3-D printing shops. It will soon become very simple to print quality receivers (along with many other items, for that matter).

In the near future, there will be shops everywhere that set up 3-D printers with raw materials on hand. You will transfer a file, pay for printing, and then pick up your hardware. Quick and cheap.

Where does the 80% line occur in such a circumstance? You download a file; maybe you do some tweaks or customization. You upload it to a business's website and make a payment, effectively "renting" the printer while it turns out your receiver. Heck, maybe it turns out all the parts. You pick them up and assemble your gun.

Before long, many many many guns might be built just this way.

This ATF ruling will motivate 3-D printing businesses to ban printing of firearm parts, lest they accidently find themselves deemed to be in the firearms business.

 

[barnbwt]

I've commented elsewhere that the very fact all the discussions about the ruling seem to revolve around tools rather than guns, is itself indicative of how far off the reservation the ATF landed with this one.

I personally believe their original intention (assuming it's not what it obviously is at this point) was to try and restrict or 'clarify' the level of collaboration acceptable during a gun build. It's only even an issue because they steadfastly refuse to define boundaries in the first place. They didn't want strangers showing up at a CNC shop, passing fifty bucks around, pushing a button, and walking out with a firearm. Got it; that seems reasonable, at least under our current gun control scheme.

But instead of defining and limiting collaboration, they go through this weird tangent of tool ownership, presumably because it is easier to prove in a court of law (printed receipts, vs. verbal testimony). The problem in doing so, is that they shoot right past collaboration in to the territory of basic cooperation. Just because unlicensed joint-builds between two or more persons aren't legal (anyone know if that's even the case?) doesn't equate to the authority to prohibit any cooperation.

If mills are tools, then so are jigs, then so are blueprints even more so. Keep that and this ruling in mind next time you share a link to instructions for completing a lower. I doubt the ATF has the stones to try for regulation of pure information today, but give them time, and knowledge itself will be illegal.

"A tiny fraction of first world nation citizens own milling machines and lathes, and a fraction of that fraction have the desire to build firearms."
And a fraction of that fraction of a fraction have no respect for the law, and a fraction of that fraction of a fraction of a fraction will ever do harm to anyone. But they represent that which is beyond control, so they must be destroyed.

TCB

 

[Tirod]

For the purposes of this discussion I'll take up an alternate view.

If you are paying someone else to finish your lower, how is that doing it yourself? It makes no difference under the law if the other guy is using a CNC Bridgeport or a router clamped in a workbench fixture, the same transfer of funds is taking place, whether in cash or beer. They are manufacturing a firearm, not you.

They better have a license is what I see the ATF saying, and how it that an expansion of anything? It's somebody setting themselves up for renumeration to finish a paperweight and make it a firearm.

I don't see it as a tooling issue, but one in which the owner isn't doing the work, and hiring someone else to. Clamping it into a previously programmed machine is having the owner of that machine doing the work, not them.

If you do it all, no issue. But if you have someone else send you a preprogrammed machine, you aren't doing it. Someone else's coded instructions are. Same for 3D - write the code, you are the legal maker. Use someone else's code, you aren't.

I believe the ruling should be read in that light - who's making it into a firearm, not what kind of machine.

It should be the hand of the owner of that lower on the controls and nobody else, otherwise it's manufacture by the other party.

 

[MErl]

Tirod I'm sure that is the initial target but the ruling was made as general as possible. How about this counterexample.

A person is a member of a 'hackerspace' that owns the tools and rents some light industrial space. In exchange for dues members get access to a shop full of equipment that they could not otherwise afford or setup (perhaps they live in an apartment). That person uses those tools to do all of the work themselves but are still caught under this ruling.

 

[MachIVshooter]

It should be the hand of the owner of that lower on the controls and nobody else, otherwise it's manufacture by the other party.

That's how it always was, and we knew a ruling like this would come down regarding CNC equipment that was already loaded with fixtures and CAM software that made it a push button affair. Nobody is surprised or really even opposed to the nixing of the CNC build parties.

They better have a license is what I see the ATF saying, and how it that an expansion of anything?

Again, what we've been discussing here is that now a person like me, who had been allowing people top rent my MANUAL machines to finish 80% lowers can no longer do that. The new edict is that the builder must not only operate the equipment, but they must also OWN it.

 

[HankB]

. . . The new edict is that the builder must not only operate the equipment, but they must also OWN it.

Hmm . . . I wonder if the builder needs to own the equipment any longer than the length of time it takes to complete the machining . . .