"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.