ATF gone wild! (Custom gunsmiths beware!)

http://michaelbane.blogspot.com/2006/03/batf-jihad-against-custom-gunsmths.html#comments

Fact as relayed by Micheal Bane:

BATFE agents paid a couple of visits to gunsmith Larry Crow.
They informed Mr. Crow that the definition of manufacturing had changed from making or supplying the receiver to “making any substantive changes to a firearm”.
They threatened Mr. Crow with several felonies unless he admitted to the “manufacturing” and agreed to pay back taxes.
Agents now claim that Mr. Crows owes back taxes and penalties on every gun he has EVER worked on.


If this is allowed to continue they can shut down every gunsmith in the country.

I’ve received a few e-mails on the subject. I just want to clarify a few things:

I am not personally involved (any more than any of you, we all have a stake in this).

I know Mr. Crow and Mr. Bane by reputation only.

I am only attempting to inform people about what could be a nasty escalation by the AFT.



David

 

Gunsmith, hell, ANYONE who changes a stock, an upper receiver, a trigger group, a bolt...would be "manufacturing" a weapon and could be fined or jailed.

I seem to recall they tried this before in the guise of requiring any change to a weapon's mechanism to be done by a FFLed gunsmith.

Anyone recall for certain?

This has to be stopped NOW. Start calling Congress today.

 

Just saw this at Sigforum, posters there cannot find any confirmation. Probably know more tomorrow.

That said, I would not put it past the ATF to do such a thing.

 

The BATFE (please, don't give them the satisfaction of being referred to as a 3-lettered agency) are thugs. Plain and simple. Sorry, I don't have anything contructive to add to this discussion other than that the BATFE feels as though it is them vs. us.

Hitler is laughing in hell.

 

Frankly, I don't know what to make of this story. It seems like it is from a credible source, but....

Nothing is posted on the NRA, GOA, or SAF web sites about it and I just spent about 20 minutes looking over the BATF's website, and found nothing in their "rules", "proposed rules" or March 2006 newsletter that would indicate that the definition of "manufacturing a firearm" has been changed in any way.

Anyone been able to verify this report?

 

Hard to confirm. The report didn't come out until yesterday. I'd like to see a copy of the paper the 'smith in question signed, but even that wouldn't be proof. Unfortunately, confirmation can only be the next few gunsmiths to be harassed

David

 

I just E-mailed the NRA about this story.

I'll post their reply when I get it.

 

Wrong info - disregard.

This is wrong, edited to a quote. I didn't want to delete it as the thread reads strange.

 

Disregard this as well

 

This differs from the Jim Clark Sr. tax situation in some important ways. If the .gov is going to claim that screwing on a barrel or changing a hammer is manufacturing a gun, it effects us all. This is a major shift.

David

 

mrmeval,

You misunderstand, this is last week and Larry Crow rather than Jim Clark Sr. 15 years ago.

David

 

Anyone have Mr. Crows phone number? Why not just call him?

But I see this as madmike does; they could stretch this to just about any modification whatsoever.

More nonsense from a tax collection agency off it's leash, with whom Congress are equally guilty for allowing them to be decalared a pseudo-police agency, and write and ad lib regulations and definitions.

-----------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

 

Mr. Crow's contact information:

http://www.competitiveedgegunworks.com/Contact_Us/contact_us.html

It's 4:30 am there, I'll e-mail instead of call.

He seems to be in pretty tight with Micheal Bane, so I don't think his version will differ to much from Bane's blog.

David

 

The current CFR shows this definition at 27 C.F.R. § 478.11

There are several critical elements to this definition. First of all they must be "IN THE BUSINESS", which means more than merely a hobby. Secondly, they must be "MANUFACTURING," which in the absence of any further definition means the dictionary defintion of manufacturing. Mere alteration is not "manufacturing," and the ATF is not free to redefine terms to that extent without promulgating new rules.

I suspect the entire report may exaggerated. It's certainly third party internet hearsay, which is always questionable.

 

And I thought my double tap was bad!

Cosmoline, I think you broke your disconnector on that last post!

It is certainly second hand information, but I don't have any indication that it has been embellished or exaggerated. I have met some really stupid ATF agents, and I'm thinking that may be the ultimate cause. Of course, it's also possible that Mr. Crow supplied the base guns for his custom guns without paying the excise tax. I don't know. If ATF agents said what they are reported to have said, then there is a major problem.


David

 

so is this true or not? there is talk about it on all the gunboards i belong to.

 

You are right. I misread the blog post.

 

mrmeval,

It happens. You aren't going to be the only one.

David

 

I really hate when F troop pulls another of their stunts. I hate having to switch the shotgun from buckshot to slugs.


F troop when will the good for nothings go to far?

 

BATFE Delenda Est

 

It's all about the money... They feel their getting cheated out of all those excise tax dollars....

 

Dude, They cannot make ex post facto laws... All Mr. Bane needs to do is a get a lawyer to file and advise that SUPPOSING the law really has changed, what is the date??? Then we see the date being something like October of '04.... Then why are you extorting money from my client in the form of back taxes that he does not owe, because in this country it is not lawfull to pass an ex post facto law.

Maybe they could make him pay for guns that he has worked on since '04, but not "every gun he has ever worked on".

Contact the NRA as well.

 

Some of the details have changed, as the blog site has been updated.

Unfortunately, this new info only muddies the water even further.

BTW, no word yet from the NRA.

 

Hah. You're quoting that Constitution thing, right?

Ask any of us who had detachable mag Norinco SKSs, the kind that took AK mags. Imported legally in the 80s.

Early 90s, ATF decided if we didn't take the bayonets off we were breaking federal law. Would that be "Ex post facto"? Why, I think it would.

Eventually that got corrected. I think it was about five years.

They CAN, LITERALLY do anything they want. Until Congress or the Courts stop them, they have the force of law and guns to back it up. See my post in the blog, if it's there.

 

Sometimes I think that Washington D.C.'s power is made by the forefathers spinning in their graves.

How do they get away with this?