- Messages
- 113
- Reactions
- 151
I'm not a lawyer.
But my reading of this article I found a few days ago suggests that a slightly different arraignment may have been legal. From the article:
"However, the reloader is not a manufacturer of shells or cartridges if, in return for a fee and expenses, he reloads casings of shells or cartridges submitted by a customer and returns the reloaded shells or cartridges with the identical casings provided by the customer to that customer. Under such circumstances, the customer would be the manufacturer of the shells or cartridges and may be liable for the tax on the sale of the articles. See section 4218 of the Code and § 53.112."
But my reading of this article I found a few days ago suggests that a slightly different arraignment may have been legal. From the article:
"However, the reloader is not a manufacturer of shells or cartridges if, in return for a fee and expenses, he reloads casings of shells or cartridges submitted by a customer and returns the reloaded shells or cartridges with the identical casings provided by the customer to that customer. Under such circumstances, the customer would be the manufacturer of the shells or cartridges and may be liable for the tax on the sale of the articles. See section 4218 of the Code and § 53.112."