PDA

View Full Version : The ATF told me receivers with buttstocks are not long guns, must be over 21.


tenpercentfirearms
09-17-2009, 7:48 PM
Today I get a call from my ATF auditor's supervisor (Ron Borg) and he says he called one of the technical analyst to get clarification on my selling receivers with a buttstock as long guns instead of receivers for the purpose of selling to people under the age of 21. According to Mr. Borg, the analyst claims that the definition of a rifle includes barrel in it, so a receiver with a buttstock is still considered a receiver and cannot be sold to someone under 21.

I asked for that in writing and he said he just got it over the phone and it comes from the federal definition of a rifle.

Anyone have this definition of a rifle?

So what does this mean?

For me, I am done selling anything but complete long guns with buttstocks to anyone under 21. Sorry, but it simply isn't worth it to be told by my auditor not to do it and go against them. Plus I honestly don't have a lot of people under 21 buy complete lowers and they can spend the few extra bucks and just buy a complete rifle.

This could be a classic case of it depends on who you talk to, but for the purposes of keeping my FFL open and in business to continue on selling guns to everyone, the youth are going to have to wait for their stripped builds.

pdq_wizzard
09-17-2009, 7:51 PM
Today I get a call from my ATF auditor's supervisor (Ron Borg) and he says he called one of the technical analyst to get clarification on my selling receivers with a buttstock as long guns instead of receivers for the purpose of selling to people under the age of 21. According to Mr. Borg, the analyst claims that the definition of a rifle includes barrel in it, so a receiver with a buttstock is still considered a receiver and cannot be sold to someone under 21.

I asked for that in writing and he said he just got it over the phone and it comes from the federal definition of a rifle.

Anyone have this definition of a rifle?

So what does this mean?

For me, I am done selling anything but complete long guns with buttstocks to anyone under 21. Sorry, but it simply isn't worth it to be told by my auditor not to do it and go against them. Plus I honestly don't have a lot of people under 21 buy complete lowers and they can spend the few extra bucks and just buy a complete rifle.

This could be a classic case of it depends on who you talk to, but for the purposes of keeping my FFL open and in business to continue on selling guns to everyone, the youth are going to have to wait for their stripped builds.

I undersand how you feel, I would be doing the samething.

tenpercentfirearms
09-17-2009, 7:56 PM
Here is the rifle definition.

Title 18 USC Chapter 44 Sec. 921 Definitions

(7) The term "rifle" means a weapon
designed or redesigned, made or remade,
and intended to be fired from the
shoulder and designed or redesigned
and made or remade to use the energy
of an explosive to fire only a single projectile
through a rifled bore for each
single pull of the trigger.

Desert_Rat
09-17-2009, 8:10 PM
Is "rifled bore" what they are considering a "barrel"

Fjold
09-17-2009, 8:13 PM
Wes, see if you can get placed there in Taft, the drive to Tehachapi is to long.

Mssr. Eleganté
09-17-2009, 8:17 PM
Wes, see if you can get placed there in Taft, the drive to Tehachapi is to long.

When a continuation high school teacher is sent to prison, do all of his former students in prison make his life a living hell? Is it like when a cop goes to prison? :p

tenpercentfirearms
09-17-2009, 8:30 PM
When a continuation high school teacher is sent to prison, do all of his former students in prison make his life a living hell? Is it like when a cop goes to prison? :p

It probably depends. Since I am generally a "cool teacher", I think I would actually have some protection in the clink.

PolishMike
09-17-2009, 8:32 PM
Wasn't this debated last year?

tenpercentfirearms
09-17-2009, 9:11 PM
Wasn't this debated last year?

I only remember asking my ATF agent what to do and her telling me that she did research and found that if it has a buttstock, we could consider it a long gun. From what I can tell since, most people also thought that was the case.

Now I am hearing otherwise. Was this already discussed and I missed it?

tonelar
09-17-2009, 10:37 PM
If the buyer has to be 21- sounds like buying receivers from you would be a great start to a Pistol AR build.

icormba
09-18-2009, 2:08 AM
Today I get a call from my ATF auditor's supervisor (Ron Borg) and he says he called one of the technical analyst to get clarification on my selling receivers with a buttstock as long guns instead of receivers for the purpose of selling to people under the age of 21. According to Mr. Borg, the analyst claims that the definition of a rifle includes barrel in it, so a receiver with a buttstock is still considered a receiver and cannot be sold to someone under 21.



hmmm, interesting! So if someone, under the age of 21, owns an OLL AR build and then takes his/her upper off for cleaning... would they then be guilty of committing a crime?

Futurecollector
09-18-2009, 5:05 AM
hmmm, interesting! So if someone, under the age of 21, owns an OLL AR build and then takes his/her upper off for cleaning... would they then be guilty of committing a crime?

I'm pretty sure my OLL's are perfectly legal since they are just sitting on a shelf and I haven't touched them since I bought them lol,

The Federal law being discussed here is just the selling of stripped receivers to a person under 21...


Wes- couldn't you just slap a stock and a barrel on it for the purpose of DROS and then once the dros is up they could disassemble the lower and return the upper to you?

tenpercentfirearms
09-18-2009, 5:40 AM
hmmm, interesting! So if someone, under the age of 21, owns an OLL AR build and then takes his/her upper off for cleaning... would they then be guilty of committing a crime?

No. It is not illegal for people under 21 to own or possess receivers, just like it is not illegal for them to own or possess handguns. They simply can't buy them from a FFL.
Wes- couldn't you just slap a stock and a barrel on it for the purpose of DROS and then once the dros is up they could disassemble the lower and return the upper to you?
I would be manufacturing a complete rifle which is subject to excise tax and I am supposed to technically have an 07 FFL for. So no, I can't do that.

Basically the amount of money in selling stripped lowers or even built up AR15s to people between 18 and 21 is so small that trying to skirt a law to cater to them is not business smart. Don't get me wrong I have never asked for anyone's ID to handle a firearm when they come into my shop. I hand handguns over to 12 year olds if they want to look at them. Everyone could be a future, potential customer.

However, you wouldn't ask an FFL to find a way to sell a handgun to a 21 year old somehow. There is legit and there is not legit. No amount of money I make is worth me going to jail over or losing this business for. Maybe our civil rights are worth it, but this simply isn't an actionable civil rights cause. Wait a couple years and buy away. Have your parents come in and buy it and then gift it to you. Again, this issue isn't worth the potential hassle.

freakshow10mm
09-18-2009, 5:40 AM
It would have to be built as much as possible for the weapon to be fired. That means FCG, upper receiver, barrel, delta assembly.

Problem with that is you are adding parts to a firearm prior to a 4473 transfer; only licensed manufacturers are allowed to do this and must comply with the GCA 1968 marking requirements for manufacturers.

TripleT
09-19-2009, 7:21 AM
This also goes back to the ATF's clarification that a receiver is an "other" for purposes of 4473 and cannot be transfered as a "rifle" ie no sales to under 21.

Not to threadjack but consider the scenario of an FFL that has built a rifle for his own use ie OLL out of his A & D to personal inventory, then returned to inventory after build and use. So now he has a "used" complete rifle in his for sale inventory. Legal ???

freakshow10mm
09-19-2009, 8:10 AM
Legal? Yes.

Possibly seen as circumventing the law in order to manufacture firearms and evade ITAR registration and all applicable FET? Depends.

TripleT
09-19-2009, 11:46 AM
Legal? Yes.

Possibly seen as circumventing the law in order to manufacture firearms and evade ITAR registration and all applicable FET? Depends.

These are the kind of questions that seem to be open to interpretation. Problem is I don't want to be the guy footing the bill to have some court figure it out while my FFL has been suspended. :D