Armslist ad: setup or just dumb?

[Member 5605]

All you have to do is put your name on it.

and location (your mothers basement doesn't count).. city/state if I remember correctly.

 

[wired]

Name,city,state abbreviation , SN#. It's all in the ATF FAQ and federal code.

 

[Who The F R U]

Did you read that in a ATF reg? or did you ask an examiner during a inspection?
There is no reg for home made guns and I did have the conversation during my last inspection in 13.

 

[deadeye]

I want to see where on the ATFE website that it says you can complete an 80% and sell it after marking it and adding a serial number. All I found was reference to finishing/changing it into a firearm per 68gca for personal use. If you mark it and sell it, it's considered manufacturing which needs a license.

<broken link removed>

 

[wired]

Did you read that in a ATF reg? or did you ask an examiner during a inspection?
There is no reg for home made guns and I did have the conversation during my last inspection in 13.

The only restrictions are for selling it. If it's just personal use there is no requirement to mark.

 

[Talin]

I think it's a little bit of both.
The guys is dumb for posting TMI
But then again, it could be a setup. Why risk it?
Just buy an upper from an FFL and call it a day. Yes, it'll be on the books but uncle sam knows pretty much everything about everyone so why stress over it.

Uppers don't require an FFL.... YOU ARE FLAGGED YOURSELF GOOD SIR!!! j/k...................... maybe

 

[wired]

Looks like the ATF recently changed their marking regs a bit. Once I get my computer back from being plugged into the TV to watch bootleg Portlandia I'll upload the new atf regs. It's a bad read.

 

[wired]

https://www.dropbox.com/s/4x2r58qmeazifdl/atf-ruling-2015-1-manufacturing-and-gunsmithing.pdf?dl=0

Here you go. Good reading. Bad news.

 

[Velzey]

Whoa way to many words in that doc...

I'm headed back down to the basement... Maybe mom will make me a sammich...

 

[wired]

Just read through the thing and all it really says is that if a business allows an individual to use their eqpt to build an 80% receiver into a firearm that business is required to get their 07 license and pay excise tax, mark the receiver etc. Further more it requires 01 gunsmiths/dealers to register as 07's if they engage in turning 80% receivers into firearms. It still doesnt specify when a hobby becomes a "business". It is interesting to note that in the years I was an 02/07 licensee and in the years since I don't believe I ever saw any reference to 80% receivers in the ATF publications .
In any case it doesnt look like it actually applies to individuals. They still require marking upon sale for traceability even if the builder is not engaged in the "business" of building firearms.

Mmm ...your moms sammiches...

 

[ConcreteJungle]

Uppers don't require an FFL.... YOU ARE FLAGGED YOURSELF GOOD SIR!!! j/k...................... maybe

LOL...oops!
meant to say lower. Good catch.

 

[wired]

From the ATF...

Individuals manufacturing sporting-type firearms for their own use need not hold Federal Firearms Licenses (FFLs). However, we suggest that the manufacturer at least identify the firearm with a serial number as a safeguard in the event that the firearm is lost or stolen. Also, the firearm should be identified as required in 27 CFR 478.92 if it is sold or otherwise lawfully transferred in the future.

 

[etrain16]

From the ATF...

Individuals manufacturing sporting-type firearms for their own use need not hold Federal Firearms Licenses (FFLs). However, we suggest that the manufacturer at least identify the firearm with a serial number as a safeguard in the event that the firearm is lost or stolen. Also, the firearm should be identified as required in 27 CFR 478.92 if it is sold or otherwise lawfully transferred in the future.

As I've learned from years of working with electrical codes, state codes, etc., it looks to me like they are saying that the marking is optional. That's based on their response using the word "should" and not using terminology such as: "shall be", "must be" or "is required to be". Looks like you have the choice to mark it or not, as per the ATF's own interpretation.

The wording of laws and codes are very carefully crafted. If I were reading codes for building standards, any mandatory requirement would use the word "shall", that notified us that it wasn't up for discussion.

 

[wired]

I wouldnt come up with that interpretation at all. From years of working with the ATF as a dealer and manufacturer I'd say that "Should be" is the same as "shall be" . The ATF is not the same as the NEC.

 

[etrain16]

I wouldnt come up with that interpretation at all. From years of working with the ATF as a dealer and manufacturer I'd say that "Should be" is the same as "shall be" . The ATF is not the same as the NEC.

I can't speak as a manufacturer, etc., but if I were an attorney, I'd go after that 'should' in a heartbeat.

I realize the BATF and the NEC are different. The NEC, in their definitions, includes the word "shall" and clearly states what it means in their codes, they leave no room for misunderstanding.

The BATF, I would assume, would also have similar definitions, but I've been unable to find them for simple words like this. An astute attorney would run with that lack of clarity. Heck, look what our former President Clinton did with the word "is".

Either way, this appears to be an interpretation of the code by the ATF, not an actual code itself. So, I would say there is room to challenge it, unless they can point to another code that clearly states you must do it. Mind you, I have no interest in challenging them myself - they can pretty much do what they want.

For me it doesn't really matter because I won't be doing this. Just trying to better understand how they word their rules and interpretations. In simple English, should does not equal shall.

 

[wired]

Not the sort of agency that you or anyone wants to challenge like that. They consider their rules to be law whether it's in the US code or not. Your attorney might feel otherwise but your attorney isn't getting his kitty stomped.

 

[etrain16]

Not the sort of agency that you or anyone wants to challenge like that. They consider their rules to be law whether it's in the US code or not. Your attorney might feel otherwise but your attorney isn't getting his kitty stomped.

I have no interest in challenging them, or any other state or federal agency myself. Just pointing out that there is a potential loophole if someone did wish to work around it. Again, the ATF should supply their own definition of what "should" means in their rulings or interpretations, but I just can't find it.

That said, just for the sake of pure interest, I submit this - perhaps the ATF will see it and revise their ruling accordingly

On the other hand, should "denotes a guideline or recommendation whenever noncompliance with the specification is permissible." When used as an auxiliary verb, it expresses "a conditional or contingent act or state … or moral obligation" (5).

The statement "Incoming materials shall be inspected before they are accepted in warehouse" is mandatory. All incoming materials must be inspected before they are accepted in warehouse. A deviation causes a noncompliance with the document.

In contrast, "Incoming materials should be inspected before they are accepted in warehouse" is a recommendation by the document writer. It allows the document users to make their own judgment calls.

In reality, the incoming materials will most likely be inspected before they are accepted. However, the document users at any time can make a deviation based on the specific situation, as long as the decision making is reasonable and logical. (Recall also that the word should does imply moral obligation.) Such deviation does not violate the document's requirement.

Because of the built-in flexibility of the word, if the document writer intends to mandate a requirement, should is not an appropriate choice.

(Source: http://asq.org/standards-shall-should - a quality control website - there are others with similar info, but I liked how they presented the answers on this one)

 

[Who The F R U]

"should be"

Doesnt mean MUST be.

 

[wired]

Sure. Go with that.

 

[IronMonster]

I honestly feel that if the ATF wants to screw with a guy they will keep digging till they come up with a charge, The question is how easy do you want to make it for them.

I have said this before, I have a good friend that did two years in the federal pen for possession of a unregistered machine gun. A gun that he had sold, was not capable of firing more than one round per trigger pull when he sold it and had not been in his possession for years. The thing is it's not what they went after him for. It's what they where able to come up with when they realized he was innocent of his original triumphed up charges.

I have no dog in the fight, personally though I go well out of my way to make sure there is nothing gray or questionable about anything I do firearm related. I'll admit I am scared of the bastards.

I have built over a dozen 80% AR's. They are all engraved with my initials and a serial number. Personally I want a way to identify them as mine and have no reason to have a "ghosts gun"

(I know that's a stupid term but for lack of a better description....)