SJG 253 Posted October 18, 2019 https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/10/gun-regulation-ar-15-atf-enforcing-rule-that-does-not-exist/ Interesting story potentially impacting AR's Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Maksim 1,504 Posted October 18, 2019 This is nothing new and completely a non-issue. NationalReview has pretty bad articles and is all about the page clicks, much of the info is very high level and often does not reach the actual issues. The serialized part as per the ATF is the Lower receiver on an AR-15. End of story. There are 80% lowers but that is nothing really new either. You can finish one for personal use, you just can't sell it (IIRC). This is done basically to avoid any registration and is legal in most of america. This also avoids FAET tax on firearms and ammo. I.e. Palmetto pays an excise tax on completed lowers they sell but any of the 80% lower companies do not. By buying and building it yourself for personal use, you are not paying the FAET. IF you were to sell them, well... you are avoiding FAET and should be registered as an FFL/manufacturer. IIRC the case, was about a guy who was completing 80% lowers and selling them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bowling Ball 22 Posted October 19, 2019 17 hours ago, Maksim said: IIRC the case, was about a guy who was completing 80% lowers and selling them. Roh would have the 80% lower ready to be milled in a cnc machine, the customer would push the 'start' button, which would finish the lower. Technically the customer buying the 80% lower was the manufacturer. About the article This is still a technicality regarding the serialization of AR15's...But one that is fixed at a congressional level, which we do not want any part of right now. JMO, if congress 'fixes' this, they would most likely serialize the upper and lower, problem solved for them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackDaWack 2,894 Posted October 19, 2019 1 hour ago, Bowling Ball said: Roh would have the 80% lower ready to be milled in a cnc machine, the customer would push the 'start' button, which would finish the lower. Technically the customer buying the 80% lower was the manufacturer. About the article This is still a technicality regarding the serialization of AR15's...But one that is fixed at a congressional level, which we do not want any part of right now. JMO, if congress 'fixes' this, they would most likely serialize the upper and lower, problem solved for them. Not exactly sure that is how it could work. They have to pick a discernible part to be the firearm and carry the serial number. Way too much confusion to make 2 separate parts the "firearm" when they can be bought separately and swapped between other guns. Is each part considered a different firearm? What could happen, like with Sig, is they serialize the trigger group... which would solve any of these issues. It would be very hard for people to make those parts at home safely. After all, the serialized part of some machine guns is the sear. The difficult part here, is retrospect. You would have to treat pre-fireams the old way and post firearms the news way... The law never anticipated any of this, and with the cat out fo the bag, its gonna be really hard to legislatively enforce any changes with 10's of millions of the guns already out there. What they really should do, is amend the law, so that one of the requirements is that personal manufactured firearms cannot be made with the tools and assistance of any organization. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bowling Ball 22 Posted October 19, 2019 6 hours ago, JackDaWack said: What they really should do, is amend the law, so that one of the requirements is that personal manufactured firearms cannot be made with the tools and assistance of any organization. They shouldn't do anything that's an infringement of 2A. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackDaWack 2,894 Posted October 20, 2019 Not that I disagree but, im sure a lot of prohibited people walked through a place like that... and it's a far cry from being "home made". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Fred2 367 Posted October 21, 2019 On 10/19/2019 at 12:52 PM, JackDaWack said: What they really should do, is amend the law, so that one of the requirements is that personal manufactured firearms cannot be made with the tools and assistance of any organization. So that means that you can' buy ANY part of a firearm. This in turn would make all repair parts illegal. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
raz-0 1,256 Posted October 21, 2019 On 10/19/2019 at 12:52 PM, JackDaWack said: Not exactly sure that is how it could work. They have to pick a discernible part to be the firearm and carry the serial number. Way too much confusion to make 2 separate parts the "firearm" when they can be bought separately and swapped between other guns. Is each part considered a different firearm? What could happen, like with Sig, is they serialize the trigger group... which would solve any of these issues. It would be very hard for people to make those parts at home safely. After all, the serialized part of some machine guns is the sear. The difficult part here, is retrospect. You would have to treat pre-fireams the old way and post firearms the news way... The law never anticipated any of this, and with the cat out fo the bag, its gonna be really hard to legislatively enforce any changes with 10's of millions of the guns already out there. What they really should do, is amend the law, so that one of the requirements is that personal manufactured firearms cannot be made with the tools and assistance of any organization. Everything you wrote is bad and wrong. It creates nothing but problems. I will also point out that it's not a problem that needs solving. The defense's argument wasn't "but we didn't manufacture them." BATFE did not drop the case because the definition of manufacture was in danger. The argument was that what they had done would have been illegal if the product actually met the definition of a receiver. It's pretty easy to argue to a judge or jury that manufacturing is not just pressing a button. We don't claim if I get a candy bar from a vending machine that I have manufactured a candy bar. In the case where the labor taking a firearm precursor to the state of being a firearm is performed by an automated manufacturing process, the manufacturer is whoever enabled that process to succeed through interaction with the automated equipment. So not only the button pusher, but the person who set up the machine and gave it the g-code. Once you start clamping things in and setting things up, you aren't just renting a machine shop. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackDaWack 2,894 Posted October 21, 2019 1 hour ago, raz-0 said: Everything you wrote is bad and wrong. It creates nothing but problems. I will also point out that it's not a problem that needs solving. The defense's argument wasn't "but we didn't manufacture them." BATFE did not drop the case because the definition of manufacture was in danger. The argument was that what they had done would have been illegal if the product actually met the definition of a receiver. People were walking out of their store with fully functioning lower receivers classified as firearms, per federal law. This whole business model is a farce to circumvent background checks. Since there is NO definition for manufacturing or a home build in the law, i doubt they were willing to risk it.. What is to stop any company from allowing you to build your own this way? Hey come to my facility... you load in a blank piece of aluminum billet, push a button and leave home with a new receiver.. no background check or nuffin. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
raz-0 1,256 Posted October 21, 2019 3 hours ago, JackDaWack said: People were walking out of their store with fully functioning lower receivers classified as firearms, per federal law. This whole business model is a farce to circumvent background checks. Since there is NO definition for manufacturing or a home build in the law, i doubt they were willing to risk it.. What is to stop any company from allowing you to build your own this way? Hey come to my facility... you load in a blank piece of aluminum billet, push a button and leave home with a new receiver.. no background check or nuffin. Yes there is. BATFE regulates the manufacture. You charge them with manufacturing or selling without a license. Which they did. The defense wasn’t nuhuh did not. It was that only matters if they were firearms. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackDaWack 2,894 Posted October 21, 2019 I think a better explination, after reading more.. is that. A judge ruled the receivers being sold, and even completed.. did not in fact even meet the definition of a receiver per law. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites