Is this the latest ATF BS?

[SheepDog4Life]

Michigan gun store owner accused of illegally making assault rifles, converting Glocks into rifles

Former and current employees of a Michigan gun store owner spoke with federal officials and exposed him for illegally manufacturing assault rifles and converting Glock pistols into rifles, authorities said.

www.clickondetroit.com

Reading through this article and the ATF quotes, it appears that they are alleging "manufacturing a firearm without a license" for doing each the following:

1. Changing the upper on an AR pistol from one caliber (556) to a different caliber upper (450 BM)
2. Putting together a complete upper, complete lower, BCG and charging handle
3. Putting a Glock into a conversion kit

WTAF? In all cases the dealer started with a firearm and added or swapped PARTS.

This looks like just the latest of ATF making **** up to me... am I missing something?

 

[HHollow]

ATF is inconsistent in accusations of manufacturing.

1. An 80% receiver is not a gun
2. An 80% receiver and a jig together are a gun.
5. The gun is manufactured again when the 80% is milled.
4. The gun is manufactured again when the lower parts are added, making it a pistol or rifle.
5. The gun is manufactured again when an upper is added, defining the barrel length.
6. The gun is again manufactured whenever the barrel or stock is changed.

 

[KLB]

Michigan gun store owner accused of illegally making assault rifles, converting Glocks into rifles

Former and current employees of a Michigan gun store owner spoke with federal officials and exposed him for illegally manufacturing assault rifles and converting Glock pistols into rifles, authorities said.

www.clickondetroit.com

Reading through this article and the ATF quotes, it appears that they are alleging "manufacturing a firearm without a license" for doing each the following:

1. Changing the upper on an AR pistol from one caliber (556) to a different caliber upper (450 BM)
2. Putting together a complete upper, complete lower, BCG and charging handle
3. Putting a Glock into a conversion kit

WTAF? In all cases the dealer started with a firearm and added or swapped PARTS.

This looks like just the latest of ATF making **** up to me... am I missing something?

Looks like legal for a person to do with, but not for a business.

Stupid rules

 

[russc2542]

Looks like legal for a person to do with, but not for a business.

Stupid rules

This is my understanding as well. Business has to be very careful what they touch.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Wow! I had no idea... looking at these articles from NSSF doing as little as bluing, cerakoting, drill & taping, or installing a muzzle device constitutes "manufacturing" a firearm if not done specifically on a customer's gun (gunsmithing) by request.

Assembling is in there also... which is what this dealer was doing.

Are You a Gunsmith or a Manufacturer? The Lines Are Not Always Clear

If you have an FFL license Type 01 or 02 and are wondering where you draw the line between performing gunsmithing versus manufacturing, we have answers.

www.nssf.org

Are You A Gunsmith or A Manufacturer? Working in the Gray Areas

Let's take a look at the most common of these gray areas and see where they fall when it comes to the ATF and proper licensing.

www.nssf.org

 

[jwamplerusa]

Vaporize the ATF, it's the only way to be sure.

There are no redeeming qualities worth retaining.

 

[Robert Richardson]

Again, these are rules, not laws. This is why you can't trust any government or it's agencies.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Again, these are rules, not laws. This is why you can't trust any government or it's agencies.

I've gotta say, the only definition of who needs a firearm manufacturer's license in the US Code is:

(10)The term “manufacturer” means any person engaged in the business of manufacturing firearms or ammunition for purposes of sale or distribution; and the term “licensed manufacturer” means any such person licensed under the provisions of this chapter.

Taking an already manufactured firearm and adding a part, parts, drilling/tapping for a scope or adding a coating to it seems like a very LONG stretch of "manufacturing".

Along that same vein, an auto body repair shop would be "manufacturing" an automobile by painting it a different color.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Well, especially with the definition of a DEALER being:

(11) The term “dealer” means (A) any person engaged in the business of selling firearms at wholesale or retail, (B) any person engaged in the business of repairing firearms or of making or fitting special barrels, stocks, or trigger mechanisms to firearms, or (C) any person who is a pawnbroker. The term “licensed dealer” means any dealer who is licensed under the provisions of this chapter.

****ing ATF!

 

[edporch]

Unless it's fully automatic select fire, it can't be a REAL Assault Rifle.
I get so sick of people claiming a semi-automatic ONLY rifle is an "assault rifle".

 

[GrammatonCleric1982]

I genuinely DESPISE the radioactive vermin in the ATF.

 

[manifest destiny]

This almost seems like a building block for something larger. Lay the ground work with suspect definitions then build upon it to further erode freedoms. Rinse, repeat.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Yes, "deference" to the agencies on "interpreting" the laws has gone way too far. Not just the ATF, but the courts also.

You would think that a plain reading of the law would allow dealers to start with a serialized receiver and add/fit stocks, triggers, barrels... as under the law licensed dealers:

B) any person engaged in the business of... making or fitting special barrels, stocks, or trigger mechanisms to firearms

But no... in this case, the courts ruled that if you do that, which is plain text within the law for dealers, you also need a manufacturers license. WTAF?

Broughman v. Carver, 624 F.3d 670 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read Broughman v. Carver, 624 F.3d 670, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database

casetext.com

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Yes, "deference" to the agencies on "interpreting" the laws has gone way too far. Not just the ATF, but the courts also.

You would think that a plain reading of the law would allow dealers to start with a serialized receiver and add/fit stocks, triggers, barrels... as under the law licensed dealers:



But no... in this case, the courts ruled that if you do that, which is plain text within the law for dealers, you also need a manufacturers license. WTAF?

Broughman v. Carver, 624 F.3d 670 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read Broughman v. Carver, 624 F.3d 670, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database

casetext.com

Yep seems stupid. From my very limited understanding they could sell the component parts separately then charge a fee to assemble/fit them and it's totally kosher, but selling them assembled already not so much.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Yep seems stupid. From my very limited understanding they could sell the component parts separately then charge a fee to assemble/fit them and it's totally kosher, but selling them assembled already not so much.

Yes, that's what I'm seeing also... and it's very concerning as they also included "just" swapping out a complete upper on an already "complete" AR.

And, the big concern I have is for individuals... if putting together a complete upper with a complete lower is "manufacturing" a new firearm, let alone building from a stripped lower and parts kits, what kind of regulatory BS are they going to seek to put on individuals if we eventually sell that firearm from our collection?

 

[KLB]

Yes, that's what I'm seeing also... and it's very concerning as they also included "just" swapping out a complete upper on an already "complete" AR.

And, the big concern I have is for individuals... if putting together a complete upper with a complete lower is "manufacturing" a new firearm, let alone building from a stripped lower and parts kits, what kind of regulatory BS are they going to seek to put on individuals if we eventually sell that firearm from our collection?

Today it is legal for an individual to build a firearm without a license, so it would be a big leap.

 

[Cameramonkey]

Yes, that's what I'm seeing also... and it's very concerning as they also included "just" swapping out a complete upper on an already "complete" AR.

And, the big concern I have is for individuals... if putting together a complete upper with a complete lower is "manufacturing" a new firearm, let alone building from a stripped lower and parts kits, what kind of regulatory BS are they going to seek to put on individuals if we eventually sell that firearm from our collection?

Yep. Slippery slope.

If you cant make new laws because you got your pee-pee slapped by the now gun friendly SCOTUS, you start enforcing every law using the finest minutiae you can. Like a cop writing you a ticket for 56 in a 55 because he cant make a real charge stick... at least you were punished for SOMETHING.

Then when the courts dont blink at that level of detail, maybe you start extending it and see if they notice... like trying to buttonhole us as individuals for doing the same thing. It may not work, but they may try. And like the 56, at least they'll make us pay our lawyers, so thats at least SOME punishment for daring to own guns.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Today it is legal for an individual to build a firearm without a license, so it would be a big leap.

IMO, the big leap is that putting a complete upper and an already serialized complete lower together constitutes "manufacturing" a firearm.

Individuals have always been able to manufacture firearms for their own use.

The small step would be on the "sale or distribution" part of the law. Much like on the 80% lowers, gets more complicated if you decide to sell it.

 

[KLB]

IMO, the big leap is that putting a complete upper and an already serialized complete lower together constitutes "manufacturing" a firearm.

Individuals have always been able to manufacture firearms for their own use.

The small step would be on the "sale or distribution" part of the law. Much like on the 80% lowers, gets more complicated if you decide to sell it.

Is this something new or has it been like that for a while? Looks like according to the link you posted it was last clarified in 2015. It looks like that was to get rid of the places helping people finish lowers.

It's stupid, but I am not seeing the slippery slope.

A business buys a gun from a distributer, they have to sell that gun. If they change it, then it is no longer the gun they bought and they are breaking the rules without a manufacturer's license.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Yes, that's what I'm seeing also... and it's very concerning as they also included "just" swapping out a complete upper on an already "complete" AR.

And, the big concern I have is for individuals... if putting together a complete upper with a complete lower is "manufacturing" a new firearm, let alone building from a stripped lower and parts kits, what kind of regulatory BS are they going to seek to put on individuals if we eventually sell that firearm from our collection?

I believe at least part of the reason is taxes, there is an excise tax based on the value of the firearm when it leaves the manufacturer. That tax is 10% on handguns and 11% on all other firearms and ammo. Component parts sold separately are not taxed. It's why you can buy a complete lower and a complete upper from let's say PSA and it will cost less than the two of them assembled. And yes that tax is supposed to be paid when a firearm or ammo is "further manufactured".

https://www.ttb.gov/images/pdfs/faet_importation_information.pdf