PDA

View Full Version : Can You Sell Home built AK


Mike 56
03-26-2009, 11:36 PM
I built two OLL AKs a few years ago i was thinking about selling one them to buy something else is it legal to sell or trade a rifle made from a kit.

Mike

JeffM
03-26-2009, 11:39 PM
If it has a make/model/serial number on it you can sell it.

You could be held liable and would likely be sued if it ever malfunctioned and caused an injury.

How good is your insurance?

If you really need some money, demil it and sell the kit.

tlillard23
03-27-2009, 12:04 AM
:TFH::TFH::TFH::TFH::TFH:

:rolleyes: *
If it has a make/model/serial number on it you can sell it.

You could be held liable and would likely be sued if it ever malfunctioned and caused an injury.

How good is your insurance?

If you really need some money, demil it and sell the kit.

*"You have included 39 images in your message. You are limited to using 6 images so please go back and correct the problem and then continue again. "

kingjoey
03-27-2009, 12:09 AM
If you bought the receivers (i.e. filled out a 4473 for them) then yes, it is treated like any other firearm. If you bent your own flats (which aren't considered a firearm until they are bent/formed) then you cannot sell the gun since there is no official record of it being made (annual manufacturers report) and no FET (Federal Excise Tax) was paid on it which is required for commercial firearms.

tlillard23
03-27-2009, 12:10 AM
FUD!!!!!!
:fud::fud::fud::fud::fud::fud:
If you bought the receivers (i.e. filled out a 4473 for them) then yes, it is treated like any other firearm. If you bent your own flats (which aren't considered a firearm until they are bent/formed) then you cannot sell the gun since there is no official record of it being made (annual manufacturers report) and no FET (Federal Excise Tax) was paid on it which is required for commercial firearms.

lokmeup
03-27-2009, 1:09 AM
FUD!!!!!!
:fud::fud::fud::fud::fud::fud:


SECOND THIS...

But you should look into the Federal marking requirements. Certain depth and size font, including: model, make, caliber, and city/state/country of manufacture.

Seesm
03-27-2009, 1:45 AM
I triple that emotion... :)

CSACANNONEER
03-27-2009, 7:44 AM
If you bought the receivers (i.e. filled out a 4473 for them) then yes, it is treated like any other firearm. If you bent your own flats (which aren't considered a firearm until they are bent/formed) then you cannot sell the gun since there is no official record of it being made (annual manufacturers report) and no FET (Federal Excise Tax) was paid on it which is required for commercial firearms.

FUD! You can sell a homebuilt firearm if you follow all the requirements. This is a prime example of a FFL dealer not knowing everything and spreading FUD. I do not blame kingjoey for not knowing the laws regarding transferring homebuilt firearms since, the subject doesn't come up often. But, I have to point out the fact that, in this instance, he, as a professional, is wrong. Everyone makes mistakes but, some people believe that anyone in LE or anyone with an FFL should know all the little quirks with firearms laws. They don't. No one should ever trust what they hear at a gun shop, are told by a LEO or read on the internet. It is up to each and every one of us, as individuals, to understand and work within the law.

savageevo
03-27-2009, 7:44 AM
Okay I'd fourth and fifth that too:wacko:

Mike 56
03-27-2009, 8:07 AM
They are built on NoDak Spud receivers and were bought though a FFL. Do they meet all the requirements? I just want to sure that i am not breaking any laws.

Mike

hoozaru
03-27-2009, 8:34 AM
They are built on NoDak Spud receivers and were bought though a FFL. Do they meet all the requirements? I just want to sure that i am not breaking any laws.

Mike

NDS receivers are perfectly legal to transfer

kingjoey
03-27-2009, 9:10 AM
Right from Sec. 922

922. Unlawful acts

(a) It shall be unlawful—
(1) for any person—
(A) except a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer, to engage in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in firearms, or in the course of such business to ship, transport, or receive any firearm in interstate or foreign commerce

From the ATF website:

Does the GCA prohibit anyone from making a handgun, shotgun or rifle?

With certain exceptions a firearm may be made by a non-licensee provided it is not for sale and the maker is not prohibited from possessing firearms.


All you people that were so anxious to scream "FUD" need to brush up on their legal knowledge before handing out FUD yourselves. There is no FET (11% tax) charged on AK flats, there is no FET charged on AK parts kits. When a licensed manufacturer builds the gun, it goes on their annual production report and they pay the 11% FET. If you build a gun for your own use it is not required that you pay the FET, but you cannot resell the gun to someone else. Its a tax issue, that's why you can brew as much beer or grow as much tobacco as you want for your own use, but you can't sell it without a license since the ATF/IRS would not collect their excise taxes on that either.

CSACANNONEER
03-27-2009, 9:31 AM
Your own quote from the ATF says, "with certain exceptions". So, according to the ATF, it can be done! No one here ever said it is an easy proccess to do it legally. We have just stated that it can be legally done. Think of all the homebuilt guns that are legally passed on after the death of the builder. There are ways to sell homebuilt firearms. You just have to jump through the right hoops. IIRC, one hoop is that it can not be done with any regularity.

kingjoey
03-27-2009, 9:42 AM
The 'exceptions' are for making guns for "testing by gov't agencies" or other such oddball reasons. The "hoop" you are talking about jumping through is called an "07 FFL" and an "11% FET", any other 'hoop' is going to get you in trouble.

hoozaru
03-27-2009, 9:55 AM
the OP said that it was not built from a flat.
NDS-3 receiver is marked and manufactured by NoDak Spud

CSACANNONEER
03-27-2009, 9:56 AM
If you read this from ATF:

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/building_a_firearm.pdf

you will find: "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."

So, why would ATF end with this sentence if it was illegal? Obviously, you can not be an unlicensed individual who is in the bussiness of manufacturing firearms for sale but, there are ways that you can sell a homebuilt firearm legally.

kingjoey
03-27-2009, 10:05 AM
If it was transfered to a manufacturer or agency probably. The ATF is going to collect their taxes, that is the easiest way of navigating through ATF regs....did the ATF get paid?.....no, then it probably 'illegal'.......yes, then it is probably OK. If it was legal to build guns for the purpose of reselling them without a license, then every gun manufacturer would be building them and transfering them directly to FFL's and saving themselves 11% on each one.

CSACANNONEER
03-27-2009, 10:09 AM
If it was transfered to a manufacturer or agency probably. The ATF is going to collect their taxes, that is the easiest way of navigating through ATF regs....did the ATF get paid?.....no, then it probably 'illegal'.......yes, then it is probably OK. If it was legal to build guns for the purpose of reselling them without a license, then every gun manufacturer would be building them and transfering them directly to FFL's and saving themselves 11% on each one.

I agree with you here. The ATF makes it very clear that this can not be done. However, the ATF also acknowledges that homebuilt guns (not just home assembled like the OPs case) can be legally sold.

hoffmang
03-27-2009, 10:11 AM
You absolutely can sell a home manufactured firearm as long as it is correctly marked. You just can't sell if right after you manufactured it and you can't sell home manufactured firearms often.

FET is not due on a home manufactured firearm. 07 FFLs are in the business and thus are taxed.

You are spreading Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt.

-Gene

kingjoey
03-27-2009, 10:21 AM
You have to correctly mark a home manufactured firearm because the marking and such are required for all firearms. Marking it doesn't mean it is legal for sale, it just means that you were legal in making it. Why am I the only one citing the ATF regulations here and getting accused of FUD? Will some of the naysayers please cite the pertinent regulations ALLOWING the sale of homemade firearms? I'd love to be wrong on this, but everything I've read re: ATF regs says its a no-go.

bohoki
03-27-2009, 10:28 AM
if it was built with a commercial receiver than its not a "home built" its a "home assembled"

if you build it for yourself and then want to sell it that is fine but if you build it wanting to sell it than that is bad

ke6guj
03-27-2009, 10:48 AM
You have to correctly mark a home manufactured firearm because the marking and such are required for all firearms.You don't have to mark a homebuilt firearm if you never sell it. ATF suggests that it be marked, but it isn't required.


Marking it doesn't mean it is legal for sale, it just means that you were legal in making it. Why am I the only one citing the ATF regulations here and getting accused of FUD? Will some of the naysayers please cite the pertinent regulations ALLOWING the sale of homemade firearms? I'd love to be wrong on this, but everything I've read re: ATF regs says its a no-go.

922. Unlawful acts

(a) It shall be unlawful—
(1) for any person—
(A) except a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer, to engage in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in firearms, or in the course of such business to ship, transport, or receive any firearm in interstate or foreign commerce If the person making the homebuilt firearm did not engage in the business of manufacturing, then an occasional sale of a homebuilt firearm is allowable, and that is what the ATF FAQ is talking about above.

And FET doesn't even apply unless you make 50+ firearms a year, so its not that doesn't come into play either.

CHS
03-27-2009, 10:57 AM
The 'exceptions' are for making guns for "testing by gov't agencies" or other such oddball reasons. The "hoop" you are talking about jumping through is called an "07 FFL" and an "11% FET", any other 'hoop' is going to get you in trouble.

You are still wrong.

It is not legal to home-build a firearm with the intent to sell. That is manufacturing. Manufacturing itself is defined as making something for sale. You must be licensed by the BATFE in order to "manufacture".

You can home-build a firearm WITHOUT the intention to sell. This is perfectly legal. This is not "manufacturing".

You can also, at a later date, decide to sell that firearm because you need the money, or you're no longer interested in it, etc. Because there was never any INTENT to sell, it was not manufacturing.

Only licensed manufactures have to pay the FET. A home builder does not.

The *ONLY* requirement is that when it is sold it must be marked with a serial number, etc.

So yes, I can home-build an AK from a flat. I can play with it for a couple years and then decide I just don't want it anymore. At that point, I can go into a FFL and PPT it to someone else. This is 100% lawful.

FEDUPWBS
03-27-2009, 11:01 AM
I got tired of hearing this BS some time ago, BEFORE I had a manufacturing license. I had a flat built gun I had built and decided to sell it openly on the forum just to prove it could be done (first in Ca. that I am aware of). It has been sold and transferred several times since and no problems whatsoever.
I did not build it to sell it, I did not sell it because I needed the $ I sold it just to sell it (traded actually) and shut the FUDsters the F* up. There is a sticky now posted on this subject if you use the search function. I asked the right people to specify after the fact and sticky it.
To some it up, It can be done it has been done and YES it is legal to an extent. The simple question is do you have the balls/$ to do it?
I second JEFFM's advise to de-mill them and sell the kits and avoid any future drama.


FEDUP



If you bought the receivers (i.e. filled out a 4473 for them) then yes, it is treated like any other firearm. If you bent your own flats (which aren't considered a firearm until they are bent/formed) then you cannot sell the gun since there is no official record of it being made (annual manufacturers report) and no FET (Federal Excise Tax) was paid on it which is required for commercial firearms.

CHS
03-27-2009, 11:06 AM
You have to correctly mark a home manufactured firearm because the marking and such are required for all firearms. Marking it doesn't mean it is legal for sale, it just means that you were legal in making it. Why am I the only one citing the ATF regulations here and getting accused of FUD? Will some of the naysayers please cite the pertinent regulations ALLOWING the sale of homemade firearms? I'd love to be wrong on this, but everything I've read re: ATF regs says its a no-go.

The ATF has repeatedly (in many letters) told home-builders that they DO NOT have to mark their firearms with any kind of serial numbers or other markings. That is only required of manufacturers. They do URGE people to mark their firearms so as not to cause confusion with police, since it is illegal to obliterate the already-existing marks of a commercially transferred firearm. But it *IS NOT* illegal for a firearm to not have any kind of markings. Post-68 (GCA) they must be marked before sale if they are built/manufactured after the 68 GCA.

Those markings ARE required if you should ever decide to sell a home-built firearm.

You're confusing home-building/constructing and "Manufacturing".

NorCal MedTac
03-27-2009, 11:58 AM
I got tired of hearing this BS some time ago, BEFORE I had a manufacturing license.

Really FEDUPWBS was..... well.... fed up with BS?

Out of curiosity did you put some sort of serial number on it to identify it or did you sell it as was?

kingjoey
03-27-2009, 12:17 PM
Still no one is providing any source of information on this, but still screaming the same usual "FUD" BS. The ATF and the legal system does not accept anonymous internet statements as law, so getting dragged into court is going to suck when you say "But your honor, 'SOPMODninja905' said that this was perfectly legal. Like I said, I hope I'm wrong on this but all the regulations I'm seeing paint a different picture. Please provide some documentation before screaming FUD, OK?

FEDUPWBS
03-27-2009, 12:29 PM
Yes it was serialized.

Here you go!

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=86627

CHS
03-27-2009, 12:41 PM
Still no one is providing any source of information on this, but still screaming the same usual "FUD" BS. The ATF and the legal system does not accept anonymous internet statements as law, so getting dragged into court is going to suck when you say "But your honor, 'SOPMODninja905' said that this was perfectly legal. Like I said, I hope I'm wrong on this but all the regulations I'm seeing paint a different picture. Please provide some documentation before screaming FUD, OK?

Need proof? OK.

This is from the ATF's own mouth. Not only is it legal to build a firearm at home for personal use without the intent to sell, but you can legally sell or transfer it later on if you no longer want it.

-------------------
"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."

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/building_a_firearm.pdf
-------------------

NOW are you going to stop spreading FUD?

bohoki
03-27-2009, 1:06 PM
what if you use a chinese kit that has a serial number on the trunnion? can that be the serial? or do you have to obliterate that and stamp your own?

JeffM
03-27-2009, 1:09 PM
what if you use a chinese kit that has a serial number on the trunnion? can that be the serial? or do you have to obliterate that and stamp your own?

There is a BATFE letter about that. Don't have it off hand, but it can be found on the net.

Basically you can only remove the trunnion from the receiver for needed repairs, or if you destroy the receiver.

I'd liken it to removing the metal tab w/SN from a Glock frame.

To simply remove it would be a crime.

ETA: reread your post, and I answered the wrong question.

I'm not sure you could use it as the SN simply because it wasn't done by the person or entity that made the firearm.

I don't have SNs on my flat builds, but have noted the SN on the trunnion (which is the same for the rest of the parts - matching numbers). It would be likely that number would be used in the case of a stolen weapon recovery.

CHS
03-27-2009, 2:11 PM
I'm not sure you could use it as the SN simply because it wasn't done by the person or entity that made the firearm.

I don't have SNs on my flat builds, but have noted the SN on the trunnion (which is the same for the rest of the parts - matching numbers). It would be likely that number would be used in the case of a stolen weapon recovery.

Actually, you couldn't use it because the trunion is not the part recognized by law and the BATFE as the title 1 firearm. The u-channel bent peice of sheet metal is the firearm on an AK.

You COULD stamp the same serial number on the receiver if you were ever going to sell the firearm. I don't see anything wrong with re-using the same serial number.

But you couldn't sell that AK with a serial number only on the trunion.

JeffM
03-27-2009, 2:15 PM
Actually, you couldn't use it because the trunion is not the part recognized by law and the BATFE as the title 1 firearm. The u-channel bent peice of sheet metal is the firearm on an AK.

You COULD stamp the same serial number on the receiver if you were ever going to sell the firearm. I don't see anything wrong with re-using the same serial number.

But you couldn't sell that AK with a serial number only on the trunion.

Most chicom imported AKs only had the SN on the trunnion, as do all the currently imported Saiga rifles and shotguns.

Like I said, I'd liken it to the metal piece sunk in a polymer frame. You could remove it and still have a receiver, but it would be a bad idea.

But for a demilled kit, it's an interesting question whether the trunnion # could be used as an SN to transfer a flat build w/o markings on the receiver. It's obviously acceptable for imported guns. Maybe not so for domestic guns.

GuyW
03-27-2009, 6:30 PM
If you bent your own flats (which aren't considered a firearm until they are bent/formed) then you cannot sell the gun since there is no official record of it being made (annual manufacturers report) and no FET (Federal Excise Tax) was paid on it which is required for commercial firearms.

FUD.

Go to the BATFE website
.

GuyW
03-27-2009, 6:31 PM
SECOND THIS...

But you should look into the Federal marking requirements. Certain depth and size font, including: model, make, caliber, and city/state/country of manufacture.

FUD.

Very limited marking requirements for homebuilt.


.

GuyW
03-27-2009, 6:33 PM
All you people that were so anxious to scream "FUD" need to brush up on their legal knowledge before handing out FUD yourselves.

Occasional sale of a homebuilt gun is NOT "engaging in the business' or "manufacturing"



If you build a gun for your own use it is not required that you pay the FET

You got that part right.

.

GuyW
03-27-2009, 6:37 PM
If it was legal to build guns for the purpose of reselling them without a license...

Homebuilts are built for many purposes other than (re)selling. Building TO SELL is not legal.

Building because you want to shoot a gun you built, and then sometime later, selling it, is entirely legal (federally). Its even legal in CA, so long as the gun is a design that's been commercially sold (and meets current laws)...
.

timdps
03-27-2009, 7:02 PM
Actually, you couldn't use it because the trunion is not the part recognized by law and the BATFE as the title 1 firearm. The u-channel bent peice of sheet metal is the firearm on an AK.

You COULD stamp the same serial number on the receiver if you were ever going to sell the firearm. I don't see anything wrong with re-using the same serial number.

But you couldn't sell that AK with a serial number only on the trunion.


When the trunnion is riveted into the bent flat (now the receiver), does it not become a permanent part of the receiver and thus eligible to marked with a serial number? I was planning on using the trunnion serial as the serial on my flat builds.

tim

tlillard23
03-27-2009, 7:17 PM
FYI: :fud:
Trunion is not the receiver - ever

There is a BATFE letter about that. Don't have it off hand, but it can be found on the net.

Basically you can only remove the trunnion from the receiver for needed repairs, or if you destroy the receiver.

I'd liken it to removing the metal tab w/SN from a Glock frame.

To simply remove it would be a crime.

ETA: reread your post, and I answered the wrong question.

I'm not sure you could use it as the SN simply because it wasn't done by the person or entity that made the firearm.

I don't have SNs on my flat builds, but have noted the SN on the trunnion (which is the same for the rest of the parts - matching numbers). It would be likely that number would be used in the case of a stolen weapon recovery.

CHS
03-27-2009, 8:03 PM
Still no one is providing any source of information on this, but still screaming the same usual "FUD" BS. The ATF and the legal system does not accept anonymous internet statements as law, so getting dragged into court is going to suck when you say "But your honor, 'SOPMODninja905' said that this was perfectly legal. Like I said, I hope I'm wrong on this but all the regulations I'm seeing paint a different picture. Please provide some documentation before screaming FUD, OK?

Need proof? OK.

This is from the ATF's own mouth. Not only is it legal to build a firearm at home for personal use without the intent to sell, but you can legally sell or transfer it later on if you no longer want it.

-------------------
"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."

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/building_a_firearm.pdf
-------------------

NOW are you going to stop spreading FUD?

Well? No response?

kingjoey
03-27-2009, 8:28 PM
an unlicensed individual may make a “firearm” as defined in the GCA for his
own personal use, but not for sale or distribution.

Once again, you aren't reading anything, just regurgitating the same FUD that you have not been able to substantiate with evidence. This isn't amateur hour folks, people get in legal trouble following FUD found on forums like this. I want to see documentation or a copy of an ATF letter confirming the legality of selling a homebuilt firearm (not home assembled, I'm talking bending your own flat type build). For a bunch of people who are so anxious to call "FUD" on someone who is in the firearms industry, you can't seem to substantiate your statements. Provide solid documentation of stop the FUD.

ke6guj
03-27-2009, 8:39 PM
Its hard to find the documentation you desire, since it isn't really of an "illegal unless stated legal" but is more of a "its legal unless specifically stated illegal".

BamBam-31
03-27-2009, 8:41 PM
FUDkingjoey

:smilielol5: :thumbsup:

kingjoey
03-27-2009, 8:44 PM
Its hard to find the documentation you desire, since it isn't really of an "illegal unless stated legal" but is more of a "its legal unless specifically stated illegal".

I would think that "own personal use, but not for sale or distribution" seems surprisingly definitive. Seems that there is plenty of documentation saying it is verboten. Talked to a few manufacturers today as well and they were saying the same thing. I'd like to see some definitive answer to the contrary before the keyboard eggspurts get someone in trouble here.

ke6guj
03-27-2009, 8:47 PM
OK, here you go.
http://i649.photobucket.com/albums/uu212/ke6guj/ATFsAMD-65Response-Pg1.jpg
http://i649.photobucket.com/albums/uu212/ke6guj/ATFsAMD-65Response-Pg2.jpg

Originally Posted by LESchwartz

To whom it may concern:

I am writing to request clarification regarding the ATF’s current legal stance regarding Hungarian AMD-63 and AMD-65 rifles. “Parts kits” from these rifles have recently begun appearing in the marketplace in large numbers. I have two specific questions regarding these rifles, and two more general questions regarding the “making” of firearms by a nonlicensee as mentioned in “Questions and Answers” section (A7) of the Federal Firearms Regulations Reference Guide (2000 edition). If any of these questions are inappropriate for your office, please simply refer me to the appropriate organization.

1) With reference to the parts listed in Title 27, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 478 (formerly Part 178), section 478.39(c): You will note that the AMD-63 and AMD-65 both have a forward pistol grip attached to the lower handguard. Is this forward grip counted as part of the handguard, as part of the “pistol grip”, as an additional pistol grip, or is it uncounted?

Note that my question is narrowly focused on correctly “counting” this forward pistol grip.

2) With reference to assembling a working semiautomatic rifle from AMD-63 or AMD-65 parts, which is compliant with Title 18 USC 922(r) and Title 18 USC 922(v): Would such a rifle be considered a “machinegun” if the rifle were assembled using a commercially available semiautomatic trigger group as well as a receiver without mounting holes for an auto?sear?

3) With reference to a nonlicensee who assembles an otherwise legal semiautomatic rifle for their own personal use (non-NFA, and compliant with Title 18 USC 922(r) and Title 18 USC 922(v)), but who fabricates their own receiver: Are there any additional restrictions or prohibitions against the eventual sale or transfer of such a rifle to family members, heirs, or third parties?

Note: One of the many things I have been told is that a nonlicensee who fabricates a receiver may never transfer the resulting firearm, and that it must be destroyed in the event of the maker’s death. Thus, I am specifically interested in any record keeping, marking or labeling requirements, excise taxes, etc. necessary to have the ability to transfer or sell such a firearm.

4) Is a licensed collector who is not a licensed manufacturer considered a “nonlicensee” for the purposes of “making” a firearm?

While it is not my desire to cause your office any unnecessary workload, given the potentially serious consequences of even inadvertent violations of Federal Firearms law, I am left with little alternative. I have been unable to locate clear answers to these questions despite extensive research. And thus, I sincerely appreciate your efforts in responding to this letter.

Sincerely,

LESchwartz
Originally Posted by ATF

Dear Mr. LESchwartz:

This refers to your letter of July 27, 2004, to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), Firearms Technology Branch (FTB), in which you posed several questions. In general, you requested clarification regarding the classification of Hungarian AMD-63 and AMD-65 selective-fire rifle parts sets, as well as information regarding the manufacture of semiautomatic copies of these firearms.

As you know, the National Firearms Act (NFA), 26 U.S.C. 5845(b), defines the term “machinegun” as follows:

…any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. This term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.

Further, with respect to your inquiry regarding the classification of the forward grip of the AMD-63 or AMD-65 based on 27 CFR 478.39 (formerly 178.39), you should be aware that this is an integral part of the forearm, and, consequently would serve as the “forearm” as listed in 478.39(c)(1 7).

Concerning the manufacture of a semiautomatic copy of the AMD-63 or AMD-65 selective-fire rifle, this is possible only if the receiver is redesigned and incapable of accommodating the original fire control components. Further, the firearm must be designed to operate from the closed-bolt position. The redesigned receiver may be manufactured from new material or from the remnants of properly destroyed receivers. Proper destruction entails the diagonal torch cutting of the receiver in three critical locations. Each cut must displace at least inch of material.

We should add that prior to utilizing sections of a destroyed receiver, the features that make it capable of firing automatically—the machinegun sear pin hole and the slotted right receiver rail must be removed.

Also, for your information, a nonlicensee may manufacture a semiautomatic rifle for his or her own personal use. As long as the firearm remains in the custody of the person who manufactured it, the firearm need not be marked with a serial number or name and location of the manufacturer. However, if the firearm is transferred to another party at some point in the future, the firearm must be marked in accordance with the provisions set forth in 27 CFR 478.92 (formerly 178.92).
Finally, a licensed collector may acquire, hold, or dispose of firearms classified as “curios or relics” as that term is defined in 27 CFR 478.11 (formerly 178.11). The collector’s license does not authorize the holder to manufacture a firearm for commercial resale.

For further details on issues related to your inquiry, please refer to the enclosed ATF publication, Federal Firearms Regulations Reference Guide 2000 (ATF P 5300.4). The text of 27 CFR 478.41(d) (formerly 178.41) appears on page 53; that of 27 CFR 478.93 (formerly 178.93), on page 58.

We thank you for your inquiry and trust that the foregoing has been responsive.

Sincerely yours,

Sterling Nixon

kingjoey
03-27-2009, 9:03 PM
OK, the term is "transferred", not "resale" or "sold". This could very well be in reference to bequeathing it to your family or providing it to a gov't/LE agency. Considering that they use the word "resale" on the same page, it should make the use of the term "transferred" a bit intentional. I would wager that the term is used in the referenced ATF regs listed on the letter.

edward
03-27-2009, 9:05 PM
My apologies for steering this discussion in perhaps a different direction, but I have never understood the difference between a legal 'homebuilt' gun, and an illegal 'zip-gun'.

What is the differentiating factor between these two legal classes if they are both constructed non-commercially by non-licensees? Is it not that if you build your own gun, it must be a copy of a design that already exists? If you create your own unique, novel design, isn't that what makes it a zip-gun?

Sorry again for the thread jack.

kingjoey
03-27-2009, 9:09 PM
A "zip-gun" isn't illegal in itself, but this term usually associated with homemade guns in the hands of prohibited possessors who can't legally own a normal handgun. Also, most "zip guns" have a seamless tube barrel of some sort that is a smoothbore. In the eyes of the ATF this would be considered an AOW or SBS.

GuyW
03-27-2009, 9:10 PM
A "zip-gun" isn't illegal in itself, but this term usually associated with homemade guns in the hands of prohibited possessors who can't legally own a normal handgun.

FUD.

Zip gun is defined in the CA Penal Code and is illegal...
.

GuyW
03-27-2009, 9:14 PM
Is it not that if you build your own gun, it must be a copy of a design that already exists?

Yes, here in the Peeples Republik.....not in Free America...




If you create your own unique, novel design, isn't that what makes it a zip-gun?

Yes, here in the Peeples Republik....not in Free America...

Several threads here at CalGuns...here's one:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=102965&highlight=zipgun


.

hoffmang
03-27-2009, 9:15 PM
King Joey,

Now you're telling me that Sterling Nixon of ATF's own words (http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/BATFE-AMD-65-Manufacture-Marking-2004-11-09.pdf) in black and white mean you're right and we're wrong. Here is a hint about what the word "transfer" means in ATF vernacular. Go look at the your 4473 (http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/4473-pt1-aug208-sample.pdf)'s and see what Section A and Section B says. Hint: "Transferee" and "Transferor."

You wouldn't have the incentive, as a licensed manufacturer, to attempt to dissuade people from home manufacturing firearms now, would you?

-Gene

kingjoey
03-27-2009, 9:15 PM
The term "transferred" pops up repeatedly in 27 CFR 478.41 and it seems to be in regards to rather rare 'exemptions' that 99.9999% of people aren't going to be dealing with.

A few examples:

"The manufacture for, transfer to, or possession by the United States or a department or agency of the United States or a State or a department, agency, or political subdivision of a State, or a transfer to or possession by a law enforcement officer employed by such an entity for purposes of law enforcement;"

"The transfer to a licensee under title I of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.) for purposes of establishing and maintaining an on-site physical protection system and security organization required by Federal law, or possession by an employee or contractor of such licensee on-site for such purposes or off-site for purposes of licensee-authorized training or transportation of nuclear materials;"

"The possession, by an individual who is retired from service with a law enforcement agency and is not otherwise prohibited from receiving a firearm, of a semiautomatic assault weapon transferred to the individual by the agency upon such retirement;"

"The manufacture, transfer, or possession of a semiautomatic assault weapon by a licensed manufacturer or licensed importer for the purposes of testing or experimentation as authorized by the Director under the provisions of 478.153; or

(10) The manufacture, transfer, or possession of a semiautomatic assault weapon by a licensed manufacturer, licensed importer, or licensed dealer for the purpose of exportation in compliance with the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778)."


Seems that "transferred" is a term used in reference to the text associated with the letter.

scotthmt
03-27-2009, 9:16 PM
From what i've read and asked on here its possible, but generally not a good idea. I wouldn't do it, I would just demill it and sell it as a kit.

kingjoey
03-27-2009, 9:17 PM
FUD.

Zip gun is defined in the CA Penal Code and is illegal...
.

You're right about that. I am talking about federal law, but considering that the person asking is a CA resident I should have taken that into consideration. That isn't FUD, it is CA DOJ BS, similar yet different :rolleyes:

Mud
03-27-2009, 9:19 PM
PPT
Private Party Transfer:D

CSACANNONEER
03-27-2009, 9:21 PM
A "zip-gun" isn't illegal in itself, but this term usually associated with homemade guns in the hands of prohibited possessors who can't legally own a normal handgun. Also, most "zip guns" have a seamless tube barrel of some sort that is a smoothbore. In the eyes of the ATF this would be considered an AOW or SBS.

Now, I don't believe that you are in the firearms bussiness in California! You obviously don't or can't understand the laws. Zip guns are 100% illegal in CA! There are no if and or buts about it! I don't know what shop you own or work at but, please tell me. I really need to know because, don't want to go into a shop where the people working there don't have a clue.

kingjoey
03-27-2009, 9:22 PM
King Joey,

Now you're telling me that Sterling Nixon of ATF's own words (http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/BATFE-AMD-65-Manufacture-Marking-2004-11-09.pdf) in black and white mean you're right and we're wrong. Here is a hint about what the word "transfer" means in ATF vernacular. Go look at the your 4473 (http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/4473-pt1-aug208-sample.pdf)'s and see what Section A and Section B says. Hint: "Transferee" and "Transferor."

You wouldn't have the incentive, as a licensed manufacturer, to attempt to dissuade people from home manufacturing firearms now, would you?

-Gene

Read the post that I made in reply to your original one, Nixon cites 27 CFR 478 in regards to his statements. The use of "transfer" is going to be in regards to that, not as it is found on the 4473 or in the dictionary. In a lot of the ATF regs they will use the same terms repeatedly and will often define them at the beginning of the text, so it is important to note common terms between regs and cited text. Just another thing that the ATF does to make things more complicated. You have to remember, their a part of the Treasury so the same idiots that write your income tax schedule and paperwork also write the ATF regs :p

kingjoey
03-27-2009, 9:24 PM
Now, I don't believe that you are in the firearms bussiness in California! You obviously don't or can't understand the laws. Zip guns are 100% illegal in CA! There are no if and or buts about it! I don't know what shop you own or work at but, please tell me. I really need to know because, don't want to go into a shop where the people working there don't have a clue.

Since you were in such a hurry to jump on me, take a look two posts up from yours. There was a little error.

GuyW
03-27-2009, 9:28 PM
You're right about that. I am talking about federal law, but considering that the person asking is a CA resident I should have taken that into consideration. That isn't FUD, it is CA DOJ BS, similar yet different :rolleyes:

CA DOJ has lots of BS - but the Penal Code is the Legislature's BS.

kingjoey
03-27-2009, 9:31 PM
CA DOJ has lots of BS - but the Penal Code is the Legislature's BS.

Yeah, I was needing an acronym for humor's sake. I had to make the acronym a little more specific since I couldn't say "CA BS" or everyone would get butt-hurt and start screeching and throwing poo like a bunch of monkeys ;)

edward
03-27-2009, 9:36 PM
Yes, here in the Peeples Republik.....not in Free America...




Yes, here in the Peeples Republik....not in Free America...

Several threads here at CalGuns...here's one:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=102965&highlight=zipgun


.

Thanks Guy, that link helped, though it did raise a further question.

I think I understand the nature of the law here. To comply with the federal law, it can't be a weapon that violates the NFA by being in physically prohibited classes, and it can't be built for the purpose of resale.
Then, to futher comply with CA law, it has to be a clone of a design that already exists.

That last part is where I would like to be able to find some wiggle room. I know the nature of 'Zip-gun' laws are to keep things like pen guns and cane guns in a prohibited class, but what about a conventional small arm of reasonable size that is clearly a gun, but is also unique and isn't necessarily a copy of anything? I guess what I'm asking is, how close to an existing gun does your design have to be; a carbon copy? Can I move a rivet? How about two? ;)
I know I know, this is CA, expect to be arrested. :rolleyes:

CSACANNONEER
03-27-2009, 9:37 PM
Since you were in such a hurry to jump on me, take a look two posts up from yours. There was a little error.

Sorry, I nust have been typing when you posted that.

GuyW
03-27-2009, 9:43 PM
That last part is where I would like to be able to find some wiggle room. I know the nature of 'Zip-gun' laws are to keep things like pen guns and cane guns in a prohibited class, but what about a conventional small arm of reasonable size that is clearly a gun, but is also unique and isn't necessarily a copy of anything? I guess what I'm asking is, how close to an existing gun does your design have to be; a carbon copy?


Can't tell you: you either need to pay an already-gunlaw-knowledgeable attorney, or maybe get a certified copy of an opinion by the CA DOJ.

Referring back to that thread, for the guy with the question - its clear that the CA definition of zipgun includes blackpowder guns...and potato guns, as well as modern cartridge-firing guns...

.

kingjoey
03-27-2009, 9:48 PM
Sorry, I nust have been typing when you posted that.

Yeah, kinda figured our posts passed each other in cyberspace :p

hoffmang
03-27-2009, 10:08 PM
Read the post that I made in reply to your original one, Nixon cites 27 CFR 478 in regards to his statements. The use of "transfer" is going to be in regards to that, not as it is found on the 4473 or in the dictionary. In a lot of the ATF regs they will use the same terms repeatedly and will often define them at the beginning of the text, so it is important to note common terms between regs and cited text. Just another thing that the ATF does to make things more complicated. You have to remember, their a part of the Treasury so the same idiots that write your income tax schedule and paperwork also write the ATF regs :p

It's convenient that you misdirect.

Nixon cites 27 CFR 478.92 (http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2003/aprqtr/27cfr478.92.htm) in the paragraph:


Also, for your information, a nonlicensee may manufacture a semiautomatic rifle for his or her own use. As long as the the firearm remains in the custody of the person who manufactured it, the firearm need not be marked with a serial number or or name and location of the manufacturer. However, if the firearm is transferred to another party at some point in the future, the firearm must be marked in accordance with the provisions set forth in 27 CFR 478.92 (formerly 178.92).

27 CFR 478.92 is the standard regulation upon which all the transfer/sale federal requirements rely upon to enforce the serial number/markings on firearms.

So again, you are absolutely, 100% incorrect. A home made firearm need only have maker, location, and a serial number to be sold at any point in the future.

It's now time for you to find case law or codes that contradict Sterling Nixon's advice letter. Transfer under federal law means sell.

Are you seriously trying to say that the fact that a 4473 is a "transfer" isn't dispositive?

You also failed to respond to my point about your conflict of interest on this issue.

-Gene

ke6guj
03-28-2009, 12:15 AM
OK, riddle me this. Where in the CFR does it say that it is legal for a non-licensee to transfer a firearm to anothe non-licensee of the same state? AFAIK, it doesn't, even though it is legal. The CFR regulates transfers from licensees to non-licensees, but not between private parties. Thats becausethe CFR is a limitation on our rights, not a grantor of rights. So, it is legal because the CFR does not limit it. The same thought applies to sales of homebuilt firearms.

Seesm
03-28-2009, 1:19 AM
I have a home built ar "style" lower I will build at some point... Are the men in black suits coming to get me soon? Nahhh I am gonna keep it FOREVER and enjoy my "Home Brew" just like my beer. :)

hoffmang
03-28-2009, 1:24 AM
I've wasted enough of my time trying to help people who just don't give a flying <removed>

Yep. We don't care. We've done nothing positive to keep gun owners out of jail...

You are doing exactly what you accused us of doing. You said we were making unfounded statements. When we pointed out the foundation, you then tried to quibble with the interpretation of an ATF letter in a way that isn't supported in any place.

Yet, we're the ones posting bad information?

I suggest you do a little more research on the individuals who are trying to explain Federal law to you. Surprisingly, not all info you read on an internet gun forum is incorrect. In this thread it's only been the info you've posted.

-Gene

CHS
03-28-2009, 1:49 AM
I was just trying to get people to show some actual documentation saying the "it is legal to sell a homemade firearm"

We've posted the documentation and the proof that it is legal to sell a homemade firearm over and over again, from the ATF's own mouth.

You are being an ignorant fool who just can't accept the fact that he is wrong.

CSACANNONEER
03-28-2009, 7:53 AM
I was just trying to get people to show some actual documentation saying the "it is legal to sell a homemade firearm" and no one could provide positive proof of that but instead opted to bash me, my company, and anything I said instead of being academic about it.


Uh, could you show me where it's legal for you to wipe your own ...? I didn't think so. So, according to your logic, since there is no law on the books stating that it is legal to wipe your own ..., it must be illegal for you to do so. Right? Maybe, just maybe, I found the reason that your logic stinks!

Bongos
03-28-2009, 8:05 AM
I would saw the receiver in two and sale it as a kit!

CSACANNONEER
03-28-2009, 9:05 AM
I guess that calling people <removed> on your website (http://kingarmory.com/My_Homepage_Files/Page16.html) proves how mature you are! I still haven't seen anyone here attack you on a personal level but, your lack of maturity and inability to debate logically shows just who you are and how immature you are. Instead of getting mad when someone punches holes in your argument, why don't you prove them wrong? Seriously, lets just talk firearms. Can you show me a law that states it is legal for a private individual to sell commercially manufactured ammo without a licence? I don't there is a law that says that but, we both know that it is legal. So, there is one example of how, I believe, your logic is flawed. Can you explain to me why I'm wrong?

savageevo
03-28-2009, 9:25 AM
Wow, just went to that link and just reading the first few lines already tells me what type a person he is. He is just here to cause trouble. It is apparent the we have posted all the information he needed to prove a home built firearm is legal then yet again wants to post FUD. He is just a troll. This should be closed and moderators should consider actions against the troll.

CSACANNONEER
03-28-2009, 10:20 AM
Yeah, trolls post all their personal info as well. <removed> Pardon me for having <removed> opinion on anything, guess I should just subscribe to the groupthink here like all good CA moonbats do :(

No. You can think any way you like. Personally, I like to debate and I find that I can learn a lot from logically arguing with others. The problem is that you can't or won't debate logically. Instead, YOU are the one who has resorted to personal attacks instead of just attacking other's logical arguements. I'm still waiting for you to produce some type of written law that proves your interpetation of the original question is correct or proves that everyone else's is wrong. So far, you have just argued that your opinion of how the law reads is the only opinion that can be correct. I happen to disagree with your flawed logic unless you can plug up the holes in your arguement, I will continue to believe that you are mistaken.

TRAP55
03-28-2009, 11:45 AM
After following 8 pages of this discussion, I've noticed all the variances of opinion. I've also noticed that that the only opinion that counts in the end is the BATF and the CA DOJ, and they WILL "interpret" the law any damned way they feel like.
Kinda like the way they interpret the 2nd Amendment, and that annoying little part about "shall not be infringed".
But that's just my opinion.;)

SKSer
03-28-2009, 11:49 AM
Ok i figured it out guys heres how everyone can be happy, to deal with the Sale issue and the Transfer issue , you can just give the home built rifle to the transferee, and sell them the mag for $650, but they have to buy as a package, that way your not selling your home build, your just transfering to someone. plus lets look at the bright side, YOU CAN GO HOME WITH THE MAG THAT DAY!!

jmlivingston
03-28-2009, 12:25 PM
Wow, just went to that link and just reading the first few lines already tells me what type a person he is. He is just here to cause trouble. It is apparent the we have posted all the information he needed to prove a home built firearm is legal then yet again wants to post FUD. He is just a troll. This should be closed and moderators should consider actions against the troll.

The thread's been cleaned up, and at least one member here is taking a little vacation.

I'm leaving the thread open and not removing it because it seems to contain a lot of very valuable information on homebuilding. But if it returns to the level of indecencty that it previously held, it will be removed.

John

Chachie
03-28-2009, 1:27 PM
<removed>

Are you next?!?!?!?!

BamBam-31
03-28-2009, 2:55 PM
kingjoey,

When you come back from your vacation, you would do well to remember that we Calgunners do not take kindly to condescending out-of-state vendors who 1) blame us for our draconian laws, 2) belittle what progress we have made as "ghey," 3) broadbrush us all as "screeching poo-throwing Koolaid-drinking moonbats," and 4) call our fight against CA gun control "BS" (especially when you as a former Californian chose to leave rather than fight). I, for one, will never give my business to someone who believes as you do.

One of the guys you've been "debating" in this thread is Gene Hoffman, Chairman of the Calguns Foundation. He is the proverbial tip of the spear in our fight, so when you piss on what we do as a whole, you are also doing it to him in particular. And Kes, and artherd, and bweise, et al. They're the ones making it possible for you to sell half the stuff you do to our State. Please keep that in mind. ;)

CHS
03-28-2009, 2:57 PM
After following 8 pages of this discussion, I've noticed all the variances of opinion. I've also noticed that that the only opinion that counts in the end is the BATF and the CA DOJ, and they WILL "interpret" the law any damned way they feel like.
Kinda like the way they interpret the 2nd Amendment, and that annoying little part about "shall not be infringed".
But that's just my opinion.;)

No, not opinion. Fact.

You are right that the only facts/opinion that matters are the DoJ's and the ATF's. Both of them agree that it is:

1.) Legal to home-build a firearm from scratch without the intent to sell.
2.) Sell the firearm at a later date should you decide you no longer want it.

This is not opinion. This is fact, written down in many letters from the ATF and DoJ.

GuyW
03-28-2009, 3:06 PM
File this thread under "We are the only ones here professional enough to interpret gun laws!"

:)

limitdown
03-28-2010, 9:40 AM
I hope kingjoey stays on permanent vacation...

With that said, reading through this thread has been an eye-opener for me. I have an AR that I made from an 80% billet and an AK made from a flat. I always thought that the only way to dispose of these in the future was to destroy them.
The AK is a bit scarred from the bending & riveting so nobody would want to buy it, but the AR is nicely anodized and very sellable.

Thanks Hoffman, ke6, CSAcannon and the rest of the gang!