making your own guns.

[ulfrik]

who here has ever made a gun from scratch? a so called "basic gun"(not a zip gun).

i saw these books about making guns and making gun receivers.

what do they mean by "it is legal to make a basic gun"?
what are the laws on making your own firearms?

 

[Sam1911]

According to federal law, you may make any Title I firearm (rifle, handgun, shotgun) for your own use without registering anything, telling anyone, asking permission, etc. You don't even have to mark it with a serial number. (State laws may vary.)

(This is NOT true of machine guns, short-barreled rifles or shotguns, or other items that would be NFA Title II regulated. However, if you file a "Form 1" with the ATF to make a regulated firearm, once you receive your approved form and canceled tax stamp, you can make any of those -- except machine guns (since 1986) but they won't approve the form anyway.)

If you eventually tire of your home-made gun you can sell it. You will have to engrave your name, location, and a serial number to the ATF's specs before you sell it, though.

You cannot make any firearm with the intent of selling it without a manufacturer's FFL.

ETA: There is a distinction that deserves to be expressed. If you are making the receiver of the gun, you are making the gun itself as far as the ATF is concerned. If you are building a gun on a receiver that someone else has manufactured, then you are NOT making that gun. Case in point: If you buy a completed AK receiver from Nodakspud and assemble an AK parts kit onto it, you haven't "made" a gun. Nodakspud is the manufacturer. If you bend up a sheet metal flat into a receiver yourself, and then assemble an AK parts kit onto it, you HAVE "made" a gun yourself. Further, if you buy a manufactured receiver and then carve, mill, press, stamp, forge, whittle, gnaw, or otherwise create on your own every single other part to assemble that gun, you still aren't the manufacturer of that gun. Fortunately, from a federal perspective, both are completely legal. (Again, state laws may vary.)

 

[Ian]

If you can legally own it, you can legally make it, basically.

 

[geekWithA.45]

As Sam1911 says, the "receiver" is the part that is legally the gun. Just which chunk of the gun this is varies slightly from one model to the next, and is basically designated as an administrative ruling by the ATF. It is NOT always the part with the handle and/or the trigger and lockworks.

The rest are just unregulated gun parts of no particular legal importance, even scary looking bits that are hard to make, like rifled barrels. Assembling just parts onto a receiver is not making a gun.

Making a receiver is manufacturing a gun. In fact, previous rulings have indicated that you can manufacture a receiver all the way up to 80% complete before the chunk of metal bursts into the legal glow that indicates that a new gun has come into existence.

Beware the ambiguous "zip gun". Definitions are vague, and vary by jurisdiction. The only rule of thumb on that seems to be around rifling in the barrel...if you have rifling, the risks of the item being declared a zip gun drop dramatically.

I'm not a lawyer, blah blah blah.

 

[Sam1911]

if you have rifling, the risks of the item being declared a zip gun drop dramatically.

And if you don't have rifling, and you're making a handgun, you're into Title II territory for having made an "Any Other Weapon" -- in this case a smooth-bore pistol.

 

[dirtymike1]

And if you don't have rifling, and you're making a handgun, you're into Title II territory for having made an "Any Other Weapon" -- in this case a smooth-bore pistol.

But IIRC only if you are making a rim or center fire pistol, as this does not apply to black powder. Again, if I remember that correctly.

 

[Sam1911]

as this does not apply to black powder. Again, if I remember that correctly.

Almost no (federal) firearms rules apply to making a muzzle-loader. They're cool that way.

 

[kingpin008]

If you can legally own it, you can legally make it, basically.

Not exactly. As mentioned, I can legally own a machinegun, but I can't make my own. I think that's worth repeating, as FA guns are technically easier to make than semi-auto versions.

 

[Zoogster]

There is also various legal gray areas as a lone producer.


For example the ATF can declare anything over .50 unsporting automatically making it a destructive device.
While they might not do so to a larger company that can fight back, if you were to upset them for some reason (politically active, selling 80% finished receivers, etc) they could theoretically just declare one of your one of a kind shotguns a destructive device.


As noted a "zip gun" is far less obvious than you may believe and is entirely subjective in many states where the term applies.
There is no real definition, but rather like demonstrated by you, is just something people think they know.
The real defining characteristic is whether it looks enough like a gun, or resembles some items jury rigged together.
Clearly that is far from a comforting thought, considering making a zip gun can have severe legal punishments even while following all federal laws.
Once again this means the authorities have discretion, meaning you are not really free and cannot upset the wrong people.
This also means it is legally safer to follow an existing design, not play around like John Browning with your own.

FA guns are technically easier to make than semi-auto versions.

This brings up another point. According to the ATF firearms that are "readily converted" into machineguns are machineguns. Even though they are made as semi-auto and intended to be used only in semi-auto.
What is readily converted?
Good question.
One thing appears to be a gun firing from an open bolt, the easiest repeating firearm design. A spring powered bolt with a fixed firing pin strips a round from a magazine, pushes it into the chamber and fires it. Recoil pushes the bolt back and the trigger mechanism catches and holds it there.
The most complex part of such a design is the feeding mechanism, not the firearm action, and anyone with some basic tools could build one.
Yet the ATF is not fond of newly manufactured open bolt guns, and can declare you in violation for building and possessing a machinegun just by making a semi-auto one.

Yet many guns on the market would appear to be "readily converted".
A little tab is sold for Glocks for example that converts them into select fire and can be installed in a couple minutes.
http://www.fss-g.com/description.htm
(and something similar is readily made for many firearms, the FSSG manufacturer obviously just chose to focus on a model used by LEO in large numbers available in the same dimensions in many calibers so the single product maximizes customers.)
Does this mean all Glocks are "readily converted" and therefore machineguns?
No. Why? Because they are a widely owned firearm.
But your custom firearm wouldn't be. So it should be obvious that "readily converted" is really just whether the ATF says so or not.

Guns that have taken over an hour by experts working with the ATF to convert from semi-auto to full auto in a well equipped shop have been declared illegal "machineguns" because they were "readily converted" while guns that can be converted by anyone in a couple minutes are not "readily converted" and therefor not "machineguns".



Less tested territory would be electronic firearms under the same "machinegun" test.
I have thought of a few designs that would be easy to make using readily available electronics.
Yet any firing mechanism that is electronic can just as easily be programmed to fire more than one shot as it can be to only fire one.
Would this make all electronically operated repeaters "machineguns" because they can "be readily converted"?
ATF could say so.




There is more examples but the post is getting long.
So while technically you are free to build any gun federally that is not title 2, what is title 2 is discretionary enough to be of concern unless you are copying pre-existing firearm designs.
Being John Browning in your garage could get you arrested and put in prison.
He lived in another time.

Likewise "zip gun" is discretionary at the state level in many states that have the term on the books.
If it is blued and looks like a gun it is probably not a "zip-gun".
If it is built 10x better, has a barrel and chamber that can withstand 5x the pressure, and is wonderfully modular, but resembles anything you can buy at a hardware store it may be an illegal "zip-gun".
Be sure to make it pretty enough to be less likely considered a "zip gun". Blued with Walnut furniture and nice lines tends to do it. As does copying something that you could just go out and buy.

 

[ulfrik]

1-so it would be legal to make a semi auto beretta 92fs or tec-9? however it would not be ok to design and make your own type of gun?

2-it is legal to make a percussion muzzle loader?

3-it is legal to make a ak47 or ar15 receiver and build a rifle with a parts kit?

was that about right?

 

[Zoogster]

1-so it would be legal to make a semi auto beretta 92fs or tec-9? however it would not be ok to design and make your own type of gun?

It can be legal to make your own design, unless someone declares it is illegal.
The criteria for being illegal can be highly discretionary in a few legal areas when it is your own design was my point.
While if copying an existing design legally sold commercially that is not an issue.

2-it is legal to make a percussion muzzle loader?

Most black powder muzzle loaders are not even considered firearms by federal law, some people make unregulated cannons.

State laws can vary.

3-it is legal to make a ak47 or ar15 receiver and build a rifle with a parts kit?

Yes


As long as they are not being made with the intent of selling them which requires a license.
You may sell one at a later date, but not make it with that intent.
Obviously if you make many (especially of the same type) and sell them at a later date a prosecutor can claim your intent was whatever they wish. Even if you really never did intend to sell them.
So selling homemade firearms should be done with caution and infrequently if at all without a license.
If you keep your legal homemade firearms and never sell them you should never have a problem.

 

[BulZi]

Less tested territory would be electronic firearms under the same "machinegun" test.
I have thought of a few designs that would be easy to make using readily available electronics.
Yet any firing mechanism that is electronic can just as easily be programmed to fire more than one shot as it can be to only fire one.
Would this make all electronically operated repeaters "machineguns" because they can "be readily converted"?
ATF could say so.

Electronic semiautomatics are as legal as regular semiautomatics. The Pardini SP1-E and the MatchGuns MG2E are two examples that have been on the market for a while. You can buy one online from Larry's guns.

http://www.larrysguns.com/Products/Pardini--SP1-Electronic-Rapid-Fire-pistol__SP1RF.aspx

Obviously, any gun that could be "programmed" or "switched" to fire more than one shot per function of the trigger would not be legal, but just being electronic/semiauto isn't illegal. As long as you have to pull for each shot, it is legally no different from any other gun.

As for "readily restorable" or readily convertible, it is obviously up for some argument, but any semiautomatic can be converted to automatic if you add or change enough parts. However, these example guns show that electronic guns are not illegal in principle.

 

[smoothmetal]

Making a gun from scratch? Now that's something i've never saw...

 

[HOWARD J]

I was at a gun show one year---a guy was selling the parts to convert an M1 carbine to
M2 fully auto. The ATF came in & carted the guy to jail.
Back in the 60's the so called underground had their own book on how to make a similar weapon to a British Sten gun. The book had full scale drawings to make the weapon.
The book said how easy it was to make--bull !!!!!!!!
Many of the parts needed special machining & heat treating---it was a joke.
It's much easier to buy a weapon but books like that are interesting reading.

 

[545days]

Yes, making your own guns can be legal. See the http://www.homegunsmith.com/ for more details. Most of the guys on that site buy barrels, but a few rifle their own.

 

[mbopp]

Years back I went to Colonial Williamsburg and of course had to stop by & chat with the gunsmiths. They were making custom (IIRR flintlock) rifles, they bought the locks but did everything else there. The barrel started from a flat piece of steel, heated, hammered and formed around a rod, and cut rifled.
I asked about them being a manufacturer, they said if they kept it to 3 guns a year or so the BATF left them alone. At that time it was a 10 year wait for one of their guns.

 

[Sam1911]

I asked about them being a manufacturer, they said if they kept it to 3 guns a year or so the BATF left them alone. At that time it was a 10 year wait for one of their guns.

I would think that the bigger issue would be that what they're making doesn't meet the federal definition of a "firearm" so they can make and sell as many as they want without incurring the wrath.

(Just like how Cabela's, etc. can sell all those reproduction flintlock and caplock muzzle-loaders and cap & ball revolvers by mail order.)

 

[hirundo82]

If you can legally own it, you can legally make it, basically.

Not exactly. As mentioned, I can legally own a machinegun, but I can't make my own. I think that's worth repeating, as FA guns are technically easier to make than semi-auto versions.

I think what he said is completely true. You can make or own a machinegun as long as it was in the NFA registry prior to 1986.

The fact that it is impossible to make a machinegun that was registered prior to 1986 is beside the point, and will remain so until DARPA decides to share its time travel technology.

 

[Jim Watson]

I would think that the bigger issue would be that what they're making doesn't meet the federal definition of a "firearm" so they can make and sell as many as they want without incurring the wrath.

Uh, not exactly.
As one source says, tax law is not the same as firearms law.
John Bivens was a noted builder and restorer of muzzleloaders. He and some others in the field were hit by demands for back federal excise tax as firearms manufacturers even though they were flintlocks. I read that he finished his career building colonial style furniture after that clash with the taxing authorities.
That source says the regulations were later eased to allow selling some number of muzzleloaders or custom guns built on factory breechloader actions without excise tax. But not "as many as they want."

Want to build your own single shot varmint rifle out of a Frank DeHaas book? No problem. Want to sell them to the enthusiasts in your club? Going to take a license(s).

 

[Sam1911]

Uh, not exactly.
As one source says, tax law is not the same as firearms law.

Hmmm... hadn't considered that. So you'd need a type 1, 7, or 10 FFL to build muzzle-loaders as a business? Weird.

 

[Jim Watson]

I don't know. I do not recall the original discussions verbatim and have not tracked it down more than enough to confirm my memory that it happened.
I don't know if you have to have the FFL or just do the tax papers.