Telekinesis
Member
Nothing would change regarding initial marking requirements (none) for privately made firearms. Only if it gets transferred to a FFL (for example, sale/repair/modification) at which point the FFL would be required to mark it/have it marked under the new rule. As Dogtown Tom mentioned, this helps clarify how FFLs are supposed to deal with privately made firearms for purposes of their A&D book and stolen firearm reporting (more examples are in the document).This is an area I have a lot of interest in, and I have not yet had time to read the entirety of the document for myself. Under their proposal, what would I need if I wanted to make a reciever for personal use, or for that matter if I have a reciever that I already made for myself that is currently unmarked?
No you are not required to mark it, and you do not become a gunsmith just because you did mark it.I think the question is, under the new guidelines, are you required to mark it? If you are, you just became a gunsmith.
My understanding is that the clarification about “updating the definition of gunsmith to include those who mark privately made firearms” is more about letting companies who ONLY provide marking services (like laser engravers) to acquire a FFL. That greatly simplifies the process of transferring firearms to get them marked.
For example, say a normal 01 FFL gun store gets 50 privately made firearms in, but they don’t have the machinery to add the necessary serial numbers. They decide to have another company with the necessary equipment to do the markings for them.
If that company does not have a FFL that means a bunch of 4473s/transfers and probably requires both companies are in the same state (or possibly another setup where an employee of the FFL has to be physically present - Dogtown might know the rules on this). If the company doing the marking does have a FFL the process is greatly simplified and the gun store can ship the firearms directly to the company, even if it is across state lines.
This just means a company that has the machinery to do the marking doesn’t have to be engaged in other gun sales, gun smithing, or gun manufacturing services in order to get that FFL.
I know it’s a lot of text, but I really suggest everybody read the document. I was honestly surprised at how it was set up - it doesn’t just give you the new proposed text of the CFR, it actually explains (in sort of normal English) what they are trying to change and why they want to do it.
(it also answers all the questions about what happens to several existing “split receiver” designs like ARs, several types of pistols, and other guns)