ATF registering firearms

[RetiredUSNChief]

Sooooo...

If a guy decides to close up shop, but maintain his FFL and continue business on a much smaller scale...then it might be possible that 20 years later he'll have nothing to turn over to the ATF?

Hmmmm....

 

[Maggie]

That is interesting that an FFL has to keep specific records of "semiautomatic assault weapons" hummmmm wonder why?? Did that happen during Bubba's time in office?

 

[hartcreek]

I think a mysterious fire might happen in my storage unit.

 

[JSH1]

That is interesting that an FFL has to keep specific records of "semiautomatic assault weapons" hummmmm wonder why?? Did that happen during Bubba's time in office?

That requirement was added as part of the 1994 Federal AWB. FFL's no longer have to document new sales but they must retain the records for sales that took place during the ban and are less than 20 years old.

If a guy decides to close up shop, but maintain his FFL and continue business on a much smaller scale...then it might be possible that 20 years later he'll have nothing to turn over to the ATF?

Do you really think a FFL is going to pay to keep a FFL for 20 years after he closes shop just do he doesn't have to turn over records to the ATF?

 

[atomd]

It sure would be nice if other gun shops (and I know there are a few that are probably lurking on here, cough, Howell's) actually had the <integrity> to stand up to this tyranny. If these places won't protect our privacy, and say NO to these <creatures> than I'll just give all my business to Phil. At least I know he keeps his word.

Don't hold your breath for Howell's.....I wouldn't.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Do you really think a FFL is going to pay to keep a FFL for 20 years after he closes shop just do he doesn't have to turn over records to the ATF?

Why not? All he has to do is some nominal business here and there and it's paid for. It's not all that expensive. What...couple hundred for the first three years and a hundred or so for renewal? That's what...$700 for a couple decades, assuming no significant increases in fees, right?

You telling me a guy couldn't easily maintain his FFL at that cost?

Some people would probably do just that simply out of spite to the government.

 

[JSH1]

You telling me a guy couldn't easily maintain his FFL at that cost?

Some people would probably do just that simply out of spite to the government.

Some might but most won't and those that are the type that want to stick it to the man may not like the idea of the ATF legally being able to visit their place of business (home) at any time.

You are also only focused on the cost for the FFL. Many places have state and local requirements along with insurance and the hassle of keeping records and doing more complicated taxes.

I had an auto dealer license for 2 years. The actual license cost $61 per year but everything else required added up to $1500 per year. I also had to file state, county, and local sales tax every month regardless of whether I had any sales or not. My income tax prep jumped from 2 hours to 10. All in all it wasn't worth the hassle as a side business.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Well, bugger! Always with the hidden costs...

 

[SilentStalker]

So, I went out to eat tonight with one of my old ATF friends, somewhat related to the family. Anyways among the topics for dinner was the gun store owner who is not giving up his records to the ATF!!!!! She said she didn't see what the big deal was as from her experience they ask for this stuff all of the time and have every right to do so. This is where the afternoon got kind of tense.

I told her that I thought the big problem was that people didn't appreciate the ATF coming in and making copies of stuff. She asked why and I told her that it was because that can be construed as forming a registration of who has what and I am pretty sure that federal law prohibits the forming of any such database. She argued about this for about an hour and said that was not true at all and that if hey wanted the records they could seize them with no problem. I stated that them viewing the records wasn't a problem but the copying and seizing was as this is a defacto registration forming database.

Once things calmed down a bit she gave me reasing as to why they do this. Here is what she said. Often times the reason they seized the 4473s and stuff is because more or less people would like on them using two different types of lens to change the numbers of guns sold. For example, say Al goes in to buy a MSR, fills the paperwork out and goes home. Apparently, some store owners or employees were going back to the paperwork after the fact and changing the total number of MSRs sold from 1 to 3, make some bogus serial numbers up and sell the other two off of the books. So, if they see anything the even appears like the forms were altered they investigate it. That kind of makes sense but I am still not sure I like it either way.

 

[hartcreek]

But Silent Stalker you did not ask her about the ATF violating court orders which is what has happened with Ares Armory and it the other instance where a scanner was used.

In this case it was an ileagal raid specifically violating a federal court order. The action was filmed and there are links online bur Utube in their typical cowardly fashion is deleting the video. Ares Armory still has web site up and I am surprised that the video is not posted there.

Found a link that has not been disabled

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gsmlJSpWvk

 

[dalek1967]

I found a link to a article about this.

http://gunssavelives.net/gun-indust...-violation-of-court-issued-restraining-order/

Also, I'm downloading the video linked to above by hartcreek. If someone wants to view it and it is gone, I'll have a copy for anyone interested.

 

[JSH1]

So the "restraining order" wasn't really a restraining order. Selling firearms without recording the sales is a criminal act. The ATF has every right to raid the business and seize their records to prevent them from being destroyed.

80% lowers are playing with fire and anyone is the business should expect extra scrutiny from the ATF. 80% lowers are specifically manufactured to allow people without machining skills and tools to "manufacture" a non traceable firearm.

 

[dalek1967]

That depends. If under the law it is not a firearm then it is not one. If it is not one, then no law was broken and they had no right to raid the place. If the ATF doesn't like the way the law is written, they should get it changed not try to squeak around the edges.

I think someone else posted this already but if I owned that business, I'd be talking to the Judge that issued that retraining order. If that Judge says the order was violated, that Judge should come down on the person that ordered that raid in the harshest way possible. Judges have a fair amount of leeway on contempt charges. If it is very clear that the order was violated, criminal contempt charges should follow.

Right now, I'm just waiting for more info. I really want to know what the restraining order Judge thinks on this.

 

[Maggie]

O:K i am still confused on the "semi automatic assault rifle" records being kept during the ban. How, could you keep records of something that was illegal to sell?

 

[jerkface11]

80% lowers are playing with fire and anyone is the business should expect extra scrutiny from the ATF. 80% lowers are specifically manufactured to allow people without machining skills and tools to "manufacture" a non traceable firearm.

80% lowers are not firearms you have to finish them. That's according to the ATF. ARES was selling 80% lowers that the ATF decided to call firearms.

 

[texasgun]

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.

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

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....

 

[atomd]

So the "restraining order" wasn't really a restraining order. Selling firearms without recording the sales is a criminal act. The ATF has every right to raid the business and seize their records to prevent them from being destroyed.

80% lowers are playing with fire and anyone is the business should expect extra scrutiny from the ATF. 80% lowers are specifically manufactured to allow people without machining skills and tools to "manufacture" a non traceable firearm.

The law is the law. You are either breaking it or you aren't. You shouldn't be harassed if you are not breaking the law. The law says an 80% lower is not a firearm. It is also legal to manufacture a non-traceable firearm. Since we don't know all the details in this case, it's tough to say if anything illegal was done.

What I do know is that it's not acceptable for a government agency to scrutinize, harass, shut down, etc anyone who they want to for any reason. That might not be the case here (looks like it is but we will see) but it seems like it's certainly been the case many times recently. A lot of people think something like an 80% lower is "thumbing your nose" at the authorities when really it's following their guidelines to the letter. They are the ones that made the rules. We are allowed to make guns. If they don't like the law, they can try to change it. Simple as that.

I find it very suspicious that there was a big to-do about their sign and it made the headlines....they were under attack for it and they refused to give up. Now all of a sudden they get raided. Coincidence? Probably not. This whole thing reeks.

 

[Midwest]

This talk about the ATF, raids and 80% 'non firearm' lowers reminds me of an event involving the ATF that happened not too long ago regarding toy guns. Anyone remember this one?


ATF Seizes 30 Dangerous BB Guns

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/atf_seizes_30_dangerous_bb_guns/

"A local business owner is flabbergasted after a shipment of 30 toy guns for his store was confiscated by ATF agents in Tacoma."

The ATF felt these toy BB guns that they siezed could be converted into a machine gun capable of shooting conventional ammo. (Really I am not kidding).


"On the face of it, this looks like a nonsense seizure and if that’s true I hope that the Martins get their property back."

.

 

[Mike1234567]

*deleted*

 

[dogtown tom]

hartcreek I think a mysterious fire might happen in my storage unit.

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.

JSH1 ....Some might but most won't and those that are the type that want to stick it to the man may not like the idea of the ATF legally being able to visit their place of business (home) at any time.

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?

atomd ....... The law says an 80% lower is not a firearm.....

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

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

I'll post a copy of what I posted on another forum on what I think about what Ares is going through:


Lot's of jumping the gun here with little information to go on and I suspect that we're going to find that the ATF did not violate a restraining order.

The reason is quite simple: if it was, in fact, an illegal search and seizure based on violation of a restraining order, then nothing they obtained is usable evidence. This means that nobody can be prosecuted based on that evidence, or even additional evidence gained as a result of illegally obtaining this evidence. Which is NOT what the ATF wants at all.

Likely they made the move when they did in order to AVOID the complications of an upcoming restraining order.

That said, there'll be those who will say "doesn't matter, they have what they came for: lists of the people who bought firearms and receivers from these people". Perhaps so, but it would only be a drop in the bucket for the total number of businesses involving people who buy firearms and receivers and would come at a huge legal cost for them if it were obtained illegally. Not a good cost-benefit ration.


As for these polymer receivers...we may be jumping the gun with assumptions on these, as well. It all depends on how these receivers are made and how they are to be finished by the consumer after purchase. It may be quite a bit more involved than some people are assuming.

I've been reviewing some youtube videos on this...and I'm beginning to think that Ares has skated right across the line in 80% lowers. Whether the receiver was made first and the inserts added afterwards or the other way around is functionally indifferent...the end result is the same. It's a 100% receiver with polymer inserts that need to be removed.

And, watching these videos, it's quite obvious that these polymer inserts that must be "milled" out are still just that...they're "inserts". They're not bonded parts of the polymer with respect to the polymer being one solid piece. If the receiver were actually one solid piece, then there would be more than surface bonding between the different colored polymer pieces...the polymer pieces would actually be "melted" together, resulting in an interface that would NOT be conducive to accurate milling away by hand simply based on instructions which say "remove the white colored polymer and you're done!"

If these polymer receivers had actually been cast as one 80% receiver in one molding without the shenanigans involving these "inserts", then it would be another story entirely. But I'm not seeing this.

If this is true, then I'm of the opinion that the ATF is NOT going to lose this battle.


Perhaps there will be a lot of Disney characters who will be very well armed...and maybe we'll see them in the next Star Wars movie, since Disney owns Star Wars now. But I don't think that's going to help those who have so helpfully posted videos of themselves owning these lower receivers. I rather suspect the ATF is also gathering information this way, as well.

 

[atomd]

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

There clearly is a "law" that defines what a firearm is. 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(3): DEFINITIONS (FIREARM)

The problem is that it's pretty darn vague. Now here is where the interpretation starts. The ATF has approved many different 80% lowers and there are plenty of copies of letters from the ATF that states that they are not firearms. If the ATF says it's not a firearm according to the legal definition of a firearm....then it isn't. It's a pretty big stretch to say that a chunk of plastic or metal that requires machining, drilling holes in, etc is actually a firearm according to the definition in the 1968 GCA.

I don't know any law that specifically says 80% is ok and 81% is a no-no. There probably isn't one. What I do know is that this is clearly a case of them cherry picking someone they don't like and teaching them a lesson. I'm sure a lot of politics and phone calls behind closed doors occurred to make this happen.

Go ahead and read the definition of the word firearm....then go read a dozen ATF letters online that say 80% lowers are GTG...and then explain to my why Ares is getting raided. Doesn't make a whole lotta sense based on the information that we know. We'll have to wait and see I guess.

 

[JSH1]

O:K i am still confused on the "semi automatic assault rifle" records being kept during the ban. How, could you keep records of something that was illegal to sell?

The Federal ban did not ban the transfer of existing weapons only the manufacture or importation of new weapons. Paul Barrett's book: Glock: The Rise of America's Gun pointed out that Glock took full advantage of the legal sale of pre-ban semi-auto pistols. Glock would swap new Glock's at cost for the police departments existing pistols with pre-ban high-capacity magazines. Then they would turn around and sell the pre-ban pistols to distributors for a profit. It was a win - win: More Glocks in the hands of law enforcement and they made money on the sale of pre-ban pistols.

80% lowers are not firearms you have to finish them. That's according to the ATF. ARES was selling 80% lowers that the ATF decided to call firearms.

The ATF defines what is and is not a firearm. The ATF has declared that some 80% receivers are not firearms, but it is done on a case by case basis. There is not blanket rule that says a 80% receiver is not a firearm.

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?

That is a visit. Someone that is keeping a FFL for 20 years with the plan to legally keep their records from the ATF is most likely operating out of their home. Someone that dislikes the ATF enough to go through 20 years of hassle to legally destroy their records most likely does not want the ATF to visit their home.

 

[dogtown tom]

atomd

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

There clearly is a "law" that defines what a firearm is. 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(3): DEFINITIONS (FIREARM)

Uhhhh.........don't apply my comment to something else. That comment was in response to this post by you:

"atomd ....... The law says an 80% lower is not a firearm..... "

Again, no such law exists. I would welcome you to provide a citation to the law YOU claim exists.




But since you mention 921(a)(3):

(3) The term “firearm” means
(A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive;
(B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon;

ATF has the authority to determine if an unfinished AR lower may be readily converted.

The problem is that it's pretty darn vague. Now here is where the interpretation starts. The ATF has approved many different 80% lowers and there are plenty of copies of letters from the ATF that states that they are not firearms. If the ATF says it's not a firearm according to the legal definition of a firearm....then it isn't.

ATF Determination Letters apply solely to the sample provided and to the person or company that it was issued to. While it is often assumed that identical products would also fall under that determination, it would be foolish to accept it as fact without your own DL. (in effect, because your neighbor got an okay on his unfinished lower doesn't mean you would)

Further, ATF Technical Branch has been known to issue conflicting determinations over the years as well as reversing or revoking previous determinations (ala Akins Accelerator)

......It's a pretty big stretch to say that a chunk of plastic or metal that requires machining, drilling holes in, etc is actually a firearm according to the definition in the 1968 GCA.

Seriously, it's not. And the standards ATF Technical Branch may use to determine "readily convertible" are certainly different today than what it might have been in 1934 or even 1968. Plastic AR lowers and CNC machines didn't exist when these laws were written.

I don't know any law that specifically says 80% is ok and 81% is a no-no.

Odd, considering you made that claim and repeated it.
Again, there IS NO SUCH LAW. It is within ATF's regulatory authority (via the Technical Branch) to determine if an unfinished AR lower "may readily be converted" into a firearm. Although some unfinished AR lowers are commonly called an "80% lower" it is NOT codified in law or regulation as to what is or is not "readily converted". Unfortunately you and other keep referring to imaginary laws that say 80% lowers are legal..........when no such law exists.

Go ahead and read the definition of the word firearm....then go read a dozen ATF letters online that say 80% lowers are GTG...and then explain to my why Ares is getting raided.

I have..........have you?
I have yet to read an ATF Determination Letter that mentions the term "80% lower".......please post a link to such a letter.
Go to http://www.openatf.com/rulings and read the three DL's posted about 80% lowers...............note that ATF does not use the term 80% lower and details why the submitted item is or is not considered a firearm. In one DL, ATF tells the requestor what to do to make the firearm "not a firearm".




.

 

[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?

Look at how many 80% lowers are out there. In fact, let's not call them 80%....let's call them "largely unfinished and not easily convertible to receivers". Does that make it better? Alllllll of these others have been deemed "legal" by the ATF according to the law. 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?

You have no idea where I based my opinion. You quoted me and then based what you said on your interpretation of what I said and not actually what I said. 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. 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. 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.

You can consider it easily convertible and you are right too. I also think that FFLs dislike these items in general (less money for them) and quite a few of them are ATF lapdogs when it comes to things that benefit them.....or at least pretend to be so they aren't next.

The ATF can do whatever it wants.....obviously.