PDA

View Full Version : BATF Gunning For Custom Gunsmithing In America


RRangel
03-31-2006, 12:05 AM
Not to alarm but this isn't looking good.
Time will tell as we learn more. They pay people for this.

http://michaelbane.blogspot.com/2006/03/batf-jihad-against-custom-gunsmths.html

Thursday, March 30, 2006

BATF Jihad Against Custom Gunsmths!?!?!


I didn't post yesterday tryng to make heads or tails of this, but quite frankly, I can't...and the information needs to get out!

It appears that apparently to thumb their noses at the current Congressional inquiry into BATF abuses, BATF have launched and initiative aimed custom gunsmithing in America.

The weapon they're using is a really fine point...what is the definition of "manufacturing a firearm"? That phrase is NOT defined in any legislation and, since it's not a legally defined term, it's open to interpretation. Since the late 1990s, when the then ATF hit gunsmith Jim Clark Senior for "manufacturing a firearm" (which cost Jim more than $100,000 but alledgedly clarified the question) was "making or providing the controlled, or serial-numbered, part."

The new BATF definition of "manufacturing a firearm" is "making any substantive changes to a firearm."

Using the new definition, the BATF hit Competitive Edge Gunworks — who has been featured on SHOOTING GALLERY and COWBOYS — and threatened chief gunsmith Larry Crow with SIX felony counts (including one for "changing the hammer and barrel of a Ruger and installing an octagonal barrel") unless he signed a paper admitting to "manufacturing" and agreeing to pay a fine and the back taxes. He thought he was out for maybe $1000.

blacklisted
03-31-2006, 12:07 AM
Thanks, this is very important.

This is what happens when a tax collection agency gets out of hand.

grammaton76
03-31-2006, 12:36 AM
So what they're saying, is that we have to customize our guns ourselves?

That'd be the ultimate end of things, if they start applying this all over the place.

avidone
03-31-2006, 12:41 AM
The new BATF definition of "manufacturing a firearm" is "making any substantive changes to a firearm."

This really is not good. It could be argued that installing custom grips is a substantive change to a firearm.

adamsreeftank
03-31-2006, 1:06 AM
So what they're saying, is that we have to customize our guns ourselves?

That'd be the ultimate end of things, if they start applying this all over the place.

Don't you need some type of permit or license to manufacture a gun in CA?

grammaton76
03-31-2006, 2:27 AM
Don't you need some type of permit or license to manufacture a gun in CA?

From what I understand, that's only if you're not manufacturing it for your own personal use.

nrandell
03-31-2006, 9:03 AM
Legally the receiver is the firearm, right? So I would think you should be ok as long as your not altering the receiver.

DrjonesUSA
03-31-2006, 9:22 AM
Legally the receiver is the firearm, right? So I would think you should be ok as long as your not altering the receiver.



I've asked this question several times in several different cases, and have yet to get a response at all.

Perhaps its time to start a new thread.

Inoxmark
03-31-2006, 9:34 AM
The link doesn't say what model was that modified Ruger. Upper receiver on Ruger MK pistols is the "controlled, serial numbered part", i.e. the firearm. So maybe changing the hammer and installing octagonal barrel involved making substantial changes to it?

Mesa Tactical
03-31-2006, 9:35 AM
Wow! Good thing we have a pro-gun Administration in the White House, right?

crs1
03-31-2006, 11:52 AM
So what they're saying, is that we have to customize our guns ourselves?

That'd be the ultimate end of things, if they start applying this all over the place.


That sounds really safe:eek: Some people can't even inflate tires. But then again, the government doesn't expect us to maintain any amount of personal responsibility anyways.

This is a really dangerous precedent. Already in certain areas of California, I think gunsmiths are forbidden from test firing on their premises.

DrjonesUSA
03-31-2006, 11:53 AM
That sounds really safe:eek: Some people can't even inflate tires. But then again, the government doesn't expect us to maintain any amount of personal responsibility anyways.

This is a really dangerous precedent. Already in certain areas of California, I think gunsmiths are forbidden from test firing on their premises.



You can't honestly believe even for a millisecond that this has anything to do with safety, do you?

Omega13device
03-31-2006, 2:40 PM
Wow! Good thing we have a pro-gun Administration in the White House, right?

They're not anti-gun, but I wouldn't call them pro-gun either. When was the last time you saw them actively advocating on a pro-gun issue? Yeah they let the assault weapons ban sunset, big deal...all they had to do was do nothing.

blacklisted
03-31-2006, 3:29 PM
They're not anti-gun, but I wouldn't call them pro-gun either. When was the last time you saw them actively advocating on a pro-gun issue? Yeah they let the assault weapons ban sunset, big deal...all they had to do was do nothing.

The Senate let the bill sunset. I recall that Bush said he would sign the bill if it came to his desk.

DrjonesUSA
03-31-2006, 3:34 PM
The Senate let the bill sunset. I recall that Bush said he would sign the bill if it came to his desk.


Right, but he didn't even lift a finger to see that it made it to his desk.

Actions speak louder than words. I've learned that the hard way a few times.

If the leftists in our government are so concerned about our "safety", then why don't they let us all walk around with our M1As strapped to our backs if we so desire?

Answer: Because they hate freedom and our guns, which are the most powerful symbols of freedom.

blacklisted
03-31-2006, 3:41 PM
Answer: Because they hate freedom and our guns, which are the most powerful symbols of freedom.

Actually, they hate freedom for anyone other than themselves.

Lowly citizens must be managed and put under severe restrictions.

Sadly, they have plenty of supporters that think we are better off relying on the government for everything. After all, they know better than us. The constitution is a 200 year old piece of paper, and is not relevant to these times. :confused:

DrjonesUSA
03-31-2006, 3:42 PM
Actually, they hate freedom for anyone other than themselves.

Lowly citizens must be managed and put under severe restrictions.

Sadly, they have plenty of supporters that think we are better off relying on the government for everything. After all, they know better than us. The constitution is a 200 year old piece of paper, and is not relevant to these times. :confused:


Excellent post.

jdberger
03-31-2006, 10:59 PM
What are the different classes of FFL?

01 Dealer
03 C&R

Those are the only two I know. I was actually on the ATF website today - I forgot how much of a PITA that thing is to navigate. I was looking for the requirements to become a Title II dealer (just curious - BTW before I get slammed, there are a lot of Title II dealers in CA)

So - what are the other classes? Is there a Gunsmith FFL? If so, what are the requirements? How do they differ from a manufacturers FFL?

kenc9
04-01-2006, 9:30 AM
Right, but he didn't even lift a finger to see that it made it to his desk.

Actions speak louder than words. I've learned that the hard way a few times.

If the leftists in our government are so concerned about our "safety", then why don't they let us all walk around with our M1As strapped to our backs if we so desire?

Answer: Because they hate freedom and our guns, which are the most powerful symbols of freedom.

I always thought the director of the BATF answered to the Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales that in turn reports directly to the president. So it seems that when the BATF cracks down or tightens up gun laws it actually comes from the White House. For a party declaring it stands for gun rights they do as little as one could and still be able to say that. Maybe I just can’t remember but other than letting the AW ban sunset when is the last time they did anything for our gun rights but talk about it now and again?
So when they do this,

In an open letter dated July 13, 2005, licensed and registered importers were advised that the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 925(d)(3) established the standards for the importation of firearms and ammunition into the United States. In particular, section 925(d)(3) provides that the Attorney General shall authorize a firearm to be imported if it meets several conditions: (1) it is not defined as a firearm under the National Firearms Act (NFA); (2) it is generally recognized to be particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes; and (3) it is not a surplus military firearm. However, the subsection further provides that “in any case where the Attorney General has not authorized the importation of the firearm pursuant to this paragraph, it shall be unlawful to import any frame, receiver, or barrel of such firearm which would be prohibited if assembled.”

I would say it is the administration doing it or letting it happen.

grammaton76
04-01-2006, 2:58 PM
Perhaps you're forgetting the Lawful Commerce in Arms act?

kenc9
04-01-2006, 4:43 PM
All I am trying to say is don't be so sure that either party wants you to have all your 2nd rights left intact.

How many feel a warm fuzzy feeling from the BATF to enjoy your rights to have guns. I have run into some good people that work for them but the agency is more like the IRS.

It is more like warnings that if we find you made a mistake your going to jail.

Any new enforcement policy and new way of controlling guns is ok'd by the A.G. that reports directly to the President OR the relaxing of the BATF's involvement with dealers and the public which doesn't happen.

I don't remember a push from either party to enforce our 2nd amend. rights.
I don't see any difference from BATF's mission between the Liberal Left or the Radical Right from administration to administration.

When we are called vigilantes by watching our own borders from our president I have no faith in our government to be on our side of anything.

End of rant :)

Woodman
04-01-2006, 9:05 PM
Type 01 - DEALER IN FIREARMS
Type 02 - PAWNBROKER
Type 03 - COLLECTOR OF CURIOS AND RELICS

Type 06 - MANUFACTURER OF AMMUNITION FOR FIREARMS
Type 07 - MANUFACTURER OF FIREARMS
Type 08 - IMPORTER OF FIREARMS / AMMUNITION

Type 09 - DEALER IN DESTRUCTIVE DEVICES
Type 10 - MANUFACTURER OF DESTRUCTIVE DEVICES
Type 11 - IMPORTER OF DESTRUCTIVE DEVICES

http://www.atf.treas.gov/firearms/nlc/ffl/ffl_types.htm

jdberger
04-02-2006, 1:54 AM
Thanks.

I think I should get my 09 FFL....

I wonder if the City of San Leandro would let me do business out of my house? ;)

j2ws2000
04-02-2006, 2:54 PM
I don't buy it, it was written on a blog without references.

Mournblade
04-06-2006, 4:59 PM
All I am trying to say is don't be so sure that either party wants you to have all your 2nd rights left intact.

When we are called vigilantes by watching our own borders from our president I have no faith in our government to be on our side of anything.



All I can say is, I agree with Michael Badnarik. No one is taking my guns, and no one is going to tell me I have to register them. That's completely unconstitutional.

And if you don't believe that, you come stand in front of my door when they come to take my guns, and you will find out, the only definition of the 2nd Amendment you need to be worried about is mine.

I bought my kits not so I could "stay legal" and be right by the government in ownership of this fine "pre-ban" lightweight AR-15, with pistol grip, with thumbhole stock, with all the other "evil" features, because I don't need anyone to tell me what I can and cannot have, when the only document that matters is the Constitution!

Period.

And we need to send a clear and concise message to the people in power that we will not be forced into loopholes, nor should we be engaged in looking for loopholes, we should already be legal as it stands.

That's my rant.

Mesa Tactical
04-06-2006, 7:00 PM
I always thought the director of the BATF answered to the Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales that in turn reports directly to the president. So it seems that when the BATF cracks down or tightens up gun laws it actually comes from the White House. For a party declaring it stands for gun rights they do as little as one could and still be able to say that.


Ding ding ding! You're learning!

In fact, the party currently in control of ALL THREE BRANCHES of the Federal government has done very little for gun rights. But they sure do have the rhetoric down pat.

BillCA
05-19-2006, 6:37 AM
Remember that political appointees tend to be like lawyers - parsing words until they can twist the meaning to justify their agenda.

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:

Main Entry: man·u·fac·ture
Pronunciation: "man-y&-'fak-ch&r,
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, from Medieval Latin manufactura, from Latin manu factus, literally, made by hand
1 : something made from raw materials by hand or by machinery
2 a : the process of making wares by hand or by machinery especially when carried on systematically with division of labor b : a productive industry using mechanical power and machinery
3 : the act or process of producing something

How long before BATF charges Bar-Sto, Douglas and Kreiger with "conspiracy" to "manufacture" (whole) firearms because they supply "manufactured parts" to be used in the "manufacture" of custom guns?