Are we able to legally build our own firearm?

[Officers'Wife]

Meh, sure - legal. Aside from the fun and personal satisfaction factor, why? To stay below radar? Sure, in the days of the NSA, facebook, smartphones... yup. Stay below radar.

Because by definition an OMB is going to build machines.

 

[Officers'Wife]

Just one for the lawyers in the crowd...

Should a prohibited person build the tools and machines necessary to build a functioning weapon from all local materials and produce the parts, again from all local materials (i.e. not involved in interstate trade) at what point does that person become a felon in possession?

For example, if he were to build a rifling lathe and produce rifled barrel blanks for a third person would he be in violation of the 68 GCA?

Would he be within the limits of his "prohibition" to produce say hammer springs or firing pins for this hypothetical third person? Or even more interesting, he were to build the die press to produce cartridges then had a non-prohibited person actually operate the machine?

 

[barnbwt]

at what point does that person become a felon in possession?

At exactly the same moment the ATF thinks they can convince a judge/jury that the PP showed "constructive intent" with his actions. It really comes down to prosecutorial discretion, at what point the ATF brings charges. Nothing is written down, because it actually can't be; the ATF does not write laws (they can't). There merely enforce their interpretation of the laws. Technically, unless there's a gun capable of firing fixed ammunition there, he's not guilty of actual possession, but his intent to claim possession is just as damning the way the law is written and the way the ATF's discretion works. Same way cops can bust you for purchasing drugs even if actual real narcotics aren't used in the sting (at least I think so).

It would sure be a lot easier and safer to build guns if the ATF actually did publish a clear set of guidelines, or even bad ones like the IRS, but instead we have this 'tribal knowledge' system where people report back whether their designs were approved, or rejected & for what reason so it can be avoided.

"For example, if he were to build a rifling lathe and produce rifled barrel blanks for a third person would he be in violation of the 68 GCA?"
The receiver is the 'firearm' so if he studiously avoids anything having to do with receivers, there's no way they could ever pin charges on him. If he starts poking around that area, then things get more complicated and case-by-case-ey.

"You mean NFA?"
Too fast, Sam . I noticed that auto-correct had 'fixed' it for me on the first one . Until the NRA starts actively sacrificing the Class 3 weapons crowd (again) and they have shown little desire to at this date, they are definitely not self defeating

"(Especially as even the worst defense attorney would be able to walk into court with two AR receivers, plop them down in front of the jury and DARE them to figure out what the difference is between them. )"
You mean like a copyright infringement trial? "Same song; judgment for the plaintiff"

----------------------------
Now, behold the horror that is 'legalese' ...

However, if the firearm is transferred to another party at some point in the future, the firearm must be marked in accordance with the provisions set forth in 27 CFR § 478.92 (formerly 178.92).

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

ref: http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/27/478.92
Link to an ATF explanation of marking requirements

No, you do not need to place any identifying marks on a home built receiver unless you wish to transfer that weapon to another person at a later date or register the weapon as an NFA firearm.

Now, legal beagles might balk at me taking some random (if renowned) component maker's word over an Official ATF-brand ATF letterhead, but let me explain:
-The ATF is not responsible for making sure its determinations do not conflict
-Again, they are not legally binding in most cases
-The ATF is not responsible for mistakes in its interpretation of the law (they have to frequently reverse themselves, you see)
-That random guy making hundreds of 80% receivers is under a lot more scrutiny and review than the random ATF agent publishing a non-peer-reviewed determination letter that pertains to only the firearm under consideration

In short, the ATF agent either made a mistake (doubtful on something this easy), lied (even more doubtful since they are usually good folks in the TB), or misled you. The last one is the case. You, as a home builder, are most certainly responsible to mark your guns per the statute requirements, which you as a home builder, do not qualify for. You see how they told the truth there? Sure made it sound like you needed to mark the gun, but as a non-manufacturer you are not subject to the manufacturer/importer marking requirements.

At least, that's how I see it. This is a very, very basic tenant of home building, which is why it'll take a heck of a lot more than one determination letter to make me think the hundreds if not thousands of people with multiple times that number of builds under their belts are wrong. Many of these builds change hands, very often through FFLs. It would come up if the ATF thought they had something on us, but they don't unless we give them reason to think we're making the guns in order to sell (which again, we aren't). I could spend some more time and find 'definitive' non-binding legal proof of this point on the ATF website, but this should hopefully constitute a 'more likely than not' level of scrutiny suitable for interwebz informal discussion.

TCB

 

[zedsdead]

OP-this has been pretty well covered in the previous posts. I'll just add a detail that is little known and often overlooked by people making firearms. If the barrel is going to be under 18", make sure it is rifled. Doesn't matter if it accepts shotshells or not, a smooth bore handgun is an AOW, which is NFA regulated. Mostof us who know the law and aren't just seeing what we can cobble together at the hardware store buy finished barrels or rifled barrel blanks, even if the rest of the gun will be a scratch build. Rifling a barrel is not easily done-especially if you have any expectation of accuracy.

Having said that, none of the NFA rules apply to muzzle loading weapons, as they are not defined as firearms under federal law. You can build a rifle with a 4" barrel, a 10 gauge pistol or a 16 pounder cannon with no tax stamp, so long as it's a front stuffer.



You can build a vehicle however you want. Getting it titled and tagged for operation on public roads is another matter entirely, though. In many places, all that is required are functioning head, tail & brake lights (and seat belts if it qualifies as a car or truck), and they will assign a VIN & title. Other locales have requirements of minimum/maximum bumper or overall height, maximum noise levels, windscreen requirements, etc.

It's actually a lot easier to title a home built vehicle than deal with a lost title situation. Go figure.

Not that this has anything to do with firearms.

If the overall length is over 26", it's just a firearm, doesn't become an AOW with a shorter than 18" barrel

 

[Hurryin' Hoosier]

There are various "legal" 1911, AR and other firearm platform "blanks" available and this person even used a shovel to build an AK-47 - http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/threads/179192-DIY-Shovel-AK-photo-tsunami-warning!

So, are we able to legally build our own firearm?

I understand that it's both legal and fairly simple to convert a caulking gun into a Glock.

 

[barnbwt]

I'm not sure about that, but people have made airsoft Glocks into real frames in order to save a few bucks & waste some time (hint: it's not easy, I'd rather start with a staple gun )

TCB

 

[Kevin H. Evans]

Hey, Grin, I built this one from flat stock and rough cut wood planks. Bought the barrel though, $145.00 vs. 3K worth of rifling machine....




Regards,
Kevin

 

[Tirod]

As well documented, there are quirks and perks. One of the bigger new trends in assembling the parts for an AR pistol is to use the SB15 SIG wrist brace. It's already been declared just that - not a stock - by the BATF, and they even clarified it further by saying they aren't about to tell you that you can't hold it up to your shoulder.

Some might opine you shouldn't, but they seem to be SBR stamp holders. What that declaration has done is open the door for a lot of sub 16" barrel AR builds that formerly would have required an SBR stamp because they were a rifle with less than 16" barrel. Now you see AR "pistols" popping up in quantity with the wrist brace on a "pistol" buffer tube - one that can't readily accept a rifle stock. That way it's not easily convertible. Even rifle buffer tubes are being used (which kinda defeats the whole point of it being a compact short barreled firearm.)

You can build a vehicle however you want.

Nope, it's even worse, depending on state laws - if you intend to drive it on the public roads. Off road about all that has to be conformed to is common sense, and seeing some of the 4WD chop jobs locally, that doesn't seem to be often. But build a kit car to run on the road, you may have to comply with the "year make model" rule that the engine block date has to match, which immediately eliminates most modern engines and forces you into a retro build. Other states require the year of manufacture of that specific block to retain that specific year's emissions controls, so the fuel injection, cat converters, and O2 sensors have to be plumbed in, which makes a hash of running a set of outside 4 into one headers. And if undercar, none of the piping can extend below the chassis in other states, regardless of how your daily driver family car is actually done. That alone can be a huge imposition.

There is also the issue of how to incorporate a parking brake, which is mandatory in most states - but never tested on a slope as outlined in law. Or working wipers, headlights and turn signals, which may, or may not be required depending on the declared year of construction. Call it a '34 and nobody cares, title it a 2014 and you may be required to have daytime running lights and reflective rear lenses of a certain size. Basically, the same states with AWB laws have kit car laws that are just as bad. They really do think you can't be trusted.

The NFA is a walk in the garden in comparisoin. We basically live with the certain provisions and then tailor that to whatever local state laws might intrude. This is another area where the SB15 brace comes in, some states don't allow any SBR's as outlined in the NFA, where a pistol with brace (basically an SBR with rubber stock, shhh, ) is perfectly legal. All other parts could be identical other than the brace and buffer tube. The result is that the entire state is now wrist brace conscious, those that couldn't before now can find an outlet to accomplish nearly the same thing.

We aren't likely to see these in the glass case at Cabela's or Academy for a long time, so, you have to build it, and if you want, an 80% lower adds to the allure. And if I should put an SN# on it is entirely my choice. Like, "PISTOL w/WRIST BRACE 0000001".

Any range nazi who wants to question it can just read it and weep.

 

[MachIVshooter]

Nope, it's even worse, depending on state laws - if you intend to drive it on the public roads. Off road about all that has to be conformed to is common sense, and seeing some of the 4WD chop jobs locally, that doesn't seem to be often. But build a kit car to run on the road, you may have to comply with the "year make model" rule that the engine block date has to match, which immediately eliminates most modern engines and forces you into a retro build. Other states require the year of manufacture of that specific block to retain that specific year's emissions controls, so the fuel injection, cat converters, and O2 sensors have to be plumbed in, which makes a hash of running a set of outside 4 into one headers. And if undercar, none of the piping can extend below the chassis in other states, regardless of how your daily driver family car is actually done. That alone can be a huge imposition.

There is also the issue of how to incorporate a parking brake, which is mandatory in most states - but never tested on a slope as outlined in law. Or working wipers, headlights and turn signals, which may, or may not be required depending on the declared year of construction. Call it a '34 and nobody cares, title it a 2014 and you may be required to have daytime running lights and reflective rear lenses of a certain size. Basically, the same states with AWB laws have kit car laws that are just as bad. They really do think you can't be trusted.

The NFA is a walk in the garden in comparisoin. We basically live with the certain provisions and then tailor that to whatever local state laws might intrude. This is another area where the SB15 brace comes in, some states don't allow any SBR's as outlined in the NFA, where a pistol with brace (basically an SBR with rubber stock, shhh, ) is perfectly legal. All other parts could be identical other than the brace and buffer tube. The result is that the entire state is now wrist brace conscious, those that couldn't before now can find an outlet to accomplish nearly the same thing.

Could have saved yourself three paragraphs of writing if you'd bothered to read beyond the first sentence of mine:

You can build a vehicle however you want. Getting it titled and tagged for operation on public roads is another matter entirely, though.

I'm not even going to get into how many of the nuances in your statement may or may not apply to people in the other 49 states.

 

[Frank Ettin]

And we're not discussing personally built vehicles, so let's stay on track, please.

 

[tyeo098]

Mr. Ettin, you usually close these asked and answered questions pretty quick

Yes. Its legal to build a firearm with the intent you are building it for yourself.
If you sell it, thats another matter.

 

[Sam1911]

If you sell it, thats another matter.

Fortunately, though, a perfectly legal other matter.

 

[tyeo098]

Fortunately, though, a perfectly legal other matter.

I didn't mean to imply it was not legal, just a whole 'nuther can of worms with respect to marking, if you should, if you cant, etc.
I tore down a perfectly good AMD65 to a parts kit because I read that determination letter.

 

[Sam1911]

Oh yikes!

 

[Ryanxia]

oh yikes!

lmao.

 

[barnbwt]

Ah, I can see now why you are so set in your opinion. My condolences for your AMD 65

TCB

 

[Gunnie7]

Fortunately the AMD and any other AKM style gun are very easy to build/rebuild/work on.

What's up barnbwt

Long time no see buddy, still working on that tilting breach carbine? Wasn't it in x25?

 

[rdhood]

Meh, sure - legal. Aside from the fun and personal satisfaction factor, why? To stay below radar? Sure, in the days of the NSA, facebook, smartphones... yup. Stay below radar

Why? I built THREE AKs from $100 kits... end cost was under $200 each, and that includes getting them professionally cerakoted. Is that "why?" enough for you?

Do you cook your own food from scratch all the time? why?
Do you change your own oil? why?
Do you cut your own grass? why?

There are plenty of people who DON'T do these things because they see it as a waste of their own time. But to ask why other folks do these things reeks.