PDA

View Full Version : Assembling is Manufacturing


JasonDavis
09-02-2009, 5:31 PM
For those of you interested, on August 14, 2009, a court in the Western District of Virginia, in the matter of Broughman v. Carver, held that assembling a firearm is manufacturing, despite the fact that the ATF repealed such a definition back in 1991. Thus, the court opines, those persons putting firearms together for sale must have a manufacturer's license. I have attached the opinion to this post. See footnote 7 of the opinion for a discussion on that point.

Dr Rockso
09-02-2009, 5:36 PM
Thus, the court opines, those persons putting firearms together for sale must have a manufacturer's license.
I was under the impression that this was already the case.

grammaton76
09-02-2009, 5:37 PM
Crap. I sure hope this gets straightened out soon. Is this federally binding, or only on Virginians at present?

hoffmang
09-02-2009, 5:42 PM
This is a major issue for non 07 FFLs. For us private folks, we can assemble if if its considered manufacture as long as we aren't reselling.

-Gene

grammaton76
09-02-2009, 5:43 PM
This is a major issue for non 07 FFLs. For us private folks, we can assemble if if its considered manufacture as long as we aren't reselling.

Ah, cool. However, this DOES mean that the private folks selling a rifle they built off of a stripped lower need to watch out, yes?

BTW, I would find it very amusing if this gave non-FFL's a fast track to 07 FFL status on the basis that they need to get compliant...

thedrickel
09-02-2009, 5:43 PM
I read thru the decision quickly and I don't see the big deal. The guy is an 01, builds bolt action rifles out of receivers that he buys . . . pretty clearly manufacturing as previously defined by the ATF. It's the same as a dealer buying AK or AR receivers and building them into complete rifles . . . definitely manufacturing. It's not like the guy was doing these activities w/o a license, he just didn't believe that he needed a manufacturing license to build up 100% receivers into rifles.

Ah, cool. However, this DOES mean that the private folks selling a rifle they built off of a stripped lower need to watch out, yes?

Only if done w/ the sole intent of commercial gain, IMO.

grammaton76
09-02-2009, 5:47 PM
Only if done w/ the sole intent of commercial gain, IMO.

*grin* Sounds like only half the guys in the Marketplace, then... the other half can breathe a sigh of relief! :)

snobord99
09-02-2009, 5:52 PM
Crap. I sure hope this gets straightened out soon. Is this federally binding, or only on Virginians at present?

District Court holdings aren't binding on anyone. At most, it's persuasive.

JasonDavis
09-02-2009, 7:03 PM
The issue is the ATF repealed that definition after losing a case in the 90s. Yet they still held to their position despite the ruling. It's a case of "if you ignore the court long enough one Court will side with you and make it all ok." That's why I emphasized footnote seven.

artherd
09-02-2009, 9:17 PM
The idea that starting with a Firearm and ending up with a Firearm constitutes Manufacturing of a new firearm - strains credulity.

Do I need a DOT license to lower my Toyota now?

This is why unlawful regs need to be fought and defeated aggressively, and their illegal enforcement challenged.

Josh3239
09-03-2009, 2:43 AM
Why does it matter to us what the court of Virginia decides?

Merc1138
09-03-2009, 2:47 AM
Because we don't want people to get funny ideas using the court of Virginia as an example.

CalNRA
09-03-2009, 2:50 AM
Because we don't want people to get funny ideas using the court of Virginia as an example.

in grand scheme of things, considering Virginia's CCW policy and allowing items like suppressors, that might not be a bad road to go down...

Merc1138
09-03-2009, 2:52 AM
I'm pretty sure anti's aren't going to allow us to have suppressors if they decide to try and get laws changed regarding manufacturing. I said "funny ideas" not "sound ideas".

bridgeport
09-03-2009, 6:25 AM
The idea that starting with a Firearm and ending up with a Firearm constitutes Manufacturing of a new firearm - strains credulity.

Do I need a DOT license to lower my Toyota now?

This is why unlawful regs need to be fought and defeated aggressively, and their illegal enforcement challenged.
__________________


Unfortunately, the law appears to mean whatever some judge says it means. The receiver is a firearm, and it is not. Ever get the feeling we are
living like alice in wonderland.

Dirtbiker
09-03-2009, 9:42 AM
Funny, a bare receiver is considered a firearm by itself but by adding NON-licensed parts the dealer is now manufacturing.

The court can't see the forest through the trees.

greasemonkey
09-03-2009, 11:54 AM
The court can't see the forest through the trees.

Forget the swine flu, THIS is a pandemic!

eltee
09-03-2009, 3:37 PM
How about swapping of parts by an 01 FFL? Take a complete, standard Rem 700 off the shelf and swap barrel, replace trigger group and stock, add a scope rail, mounts and scope, add a box mag and sling. Put it back on the shelf for sale as a marksman type rifle. Did the dealer just "manufacture" gun since he started with a complete rifle vs. a bare receiver?

Merle
09-03-2009, 3:40 PM
Isn't the firearm the receiver? Everything else is just an "accessory"?

bohoki
09-03-2009, 4:18 PM
Funny, a bare receiver is considered a firearm by itself but by adding NON-licensed parts the dealer is now manufacturing.

The court can't see the forest through the trees.

the bare serial containing part is an "other" when assembled as a rifle,pistol,shotgun that is manufacturing because you took a part that was not a rifle,pistol,shotgun and turned it into one

of course then there is the other "other" which includes buttstockless rifles such as crew served autoloading belt fed type guns

i have a feeling that this ruling can be exploited in our favor somehow someday

sierratangofoxtrotunion
09-03-2009, 5:27 PM
The idea that starting with a Firearm and ending up with a Firearm constitutes Manufacturing of a new firearm - strains credulity

THIS.

swhatb
09-03-2009, 5:31 PM
For those of you interested, on August 14, 2009, a court in the Western District of Virginia, in the matter of Broughman v. Carver, held that assembling a firearm is manufacturing, despite the fact that the ATF repealed such a definition back in 1991. Thus, the court opines, those persons putting firearms together for sale must have a manufacturer's license. I have attached the opinion to this post. See footnote 7 of the opinion for a discussion on that point.

great, another ruling no correct.

1859sharps
09-03-2009, 5:50 PM
The judge quotes the dealer as saying "build(s) custom rifles....."

I might be a little off, but that sounds like manufacturing from a legal stand point.

I am thinking the dealer and his lawyer may have screwed this one up.

artherd
09-03-2009, 7:01 PM
Unfortunately, the law appears to mean whatever some judge says it means. The receiver is a firearm, and it is not. Ever get the feeling we are
living like alice in wonderland.

I get the feeling I have the need, the need for certiorari!