Advice: if you are ordering receiver flats, "80%" stuff etc

[bwiese]

I'd be very careful about ordering receiver flats or '80%' since there is Federal attention to this area, in California, right now. It's no longer just KT.

If you decide to order something (why, I dunno), make sure the f***king idiot on the other end ships EXACTLY what you want - he should NOT try to be over-helpful and do more work for you. Some vendor(s) remarketing Ewbanks flats may be a bit overcourteous if you know what I mean... or worse.

And don't try to have too much work done ahead. I think some people are gonna get in trouble because their vision of 80% may be what ATF considers 90%. There's no real standard codified that something that's just 80% is not a receiver, it appears just to be a rule of thumb. ATF does not want "almost receivers" to be moving around, and things are vague enough that your hunk of metal better take a helluva lotta work to get it into usable shape.

If you can't do the work and/or are too lazy to do so, you should just go get a regular receiver via an FFL and not cut it too close to the line.

There is a reason for this post, and you can perhaps guess why I am posting.

[wilit]

I was thinking of getting an 80% RSP for a 1919A4 build, but given the recent developments, I think I'll pay the extra $100 to say out of prision. Thanks for the info Bill!

[NeoWeird]

I once HEARD that the ATF sees a receiver as 80% when NO 'functioning' parts can be attached without SOME work done. This is why AR trigger wells are just slightly too narrow, or why all pin holes must be drilled, etc. It's also why pre-bent receiver flats are never drilled and 'flats' are drilled. The receiver is completed to the 'final' stage before a part can be installed. Not sure if this is accurate or not, but EVERY 80% receiver I have seen follows this rule of thumb.

Also, I've sort of been out of it due to alot of recent changes in my life. What exactly is happening in regards to 80%ers right now?

[NeoWeird]

Nope, that's why I asked.

What's going on?

[sned45]

that is why I bought 100% RSP because you just never know.

[jumbopanda]

A certain manufacturer of bent AK blanks that I won't name is really walking a fine line I think...

I don't think flats are going to have problems. I know that the Tapco Yugo flat was submitted to the ATF and got their approval. That flat is closer to completion than any other flat out there.

[NeoWeird]

Ok, so it sounds like KTO has been operating without approval all this time and finally got nicked? Touch luck for him, sorry for any innocent person that got nicked as well. I ALWAYS had questions about this 1911 frames because most of them looked like just about everything but the slide could be installed right off the bat (trigger group, hammer, springs, etc). I had also heard that the AR trigger group would fit in no problems, of course the holes weren't drilled. Still, I always found their stuff 'funny'.

Now this sounds like an issue with the manufacturer not getting permission and going overboard. 80% receivers, when they are in fact true 80%ers approved by the ATF, are still 100% legal, right?

[JHC]

Anybody that has ever built from a no-hole flat can tell you that it's more work to build the receiver than the rest of the rifle.

[Blackwater OPS]

Ok, so it sounds like KTO has been operating without approval all this time and finally got nicked? Touch luck for him, sorry for any innocent person that got nicked as well. I ALWAYS had questions about this 1911 frames because most of them looked like just about everything but the slide could be installed right off the bat (trigger group, hammer, springs, etc). I had also heard that the AR trigger group would fit in no problems, of course the holes weren't drilled. Still, I always found their stuff 'funny'.

Now this sounds like an issue with the manufacturer not getting permission and going overboard. 80% receivers, when they are in fact true 80%ers approved by the ATF, are still 100% legal, right?

Well yeah, except that there is no law or regulation stating KT HAD to get approval from ATF and the fact is they did nothing illegal. The "starting holes" KT drilled certainly did not allow for anyone to attatch any other parts.

[bwiese]

A certain manufacturer of bent AK blanks that I won't name is really walking a fine line I think...

I don't think flats are going to have problems. I know that the Tapco Yugo flat was submitted to the ATF and got their approval. That flat is closer to completion than any other flat out there.

If you're speaking of vendors that remarket/resell Ewbanks flats, they should send AK flats to people that order them instead of bent-up near-receivers. These vendor(s) appear to have sent a letter to at least one customer saying, "Hey, I did a bit more to save you a bit of work..."

That apparent over-helpfulness is *very* worrisome to me on a variety of levels.

At this point, I would ONLY order anywhere-near-full receivers from THRU AN FFL dealer, PERIOD. Got it?

[CALI-gula]

Here it is.

http://www.ktordnance.com/kto/USAv1911.pdf

Great post! A very good read, and notice the most recent date on the document of 12/2006 - so very current.

.

[hoffmang]

So this is a brief review of what I see when I read the government's complaint. The rest of the stuff is not very useful.

ATF decided to go after the weapons. That tells me that they think their case against Celata isn't provable beyond a reasonable doubt. By going after his personally built guns, they stand a higher chance of getting some win that they can use to dissuade this activity in the future.

The problem they will have in the case is proving that the few guns he did complete are proof that he was manufacturing enough to violate the GCA's ban on manufacturing and selling firearms without a license in type and number beyond the infrequent building for personal use. The core issue they'll have to prove is that the "80%" builds are actually built enough to meet the definition of a firearm. Otherwise, he's been selling lots of hunks of metal.

Bottom line - they don't have a strong case, but they are pinning their hopes on the value of the seized guns in question being low enough that its not worth Celata paying the cost of fighting it.

Facts that are bad for Celata is that he doesn't appear to have an ATF ruling to point to at all. Facts that are good are that the guns he does stipulate to manufacturing look to be within the types and legal amount ATF has recognized in the past. The question in front of the court will be whether the 80% receivers ATF purchased were built enough to qualify as firearms.

-Gene

[tgriffin]

Read the KTO suit. Hoffmang. I agree with you the case is week, and i dont pretend to be a lawyer, but if precedent is set that in this situation one should (read: must) have ATF approval and letter, I would think this will end up a loss rather than win on any level.

[bwiese]

Read the KTO suit. Hoffmang. I agree with you the case is week, and i dont pretend to be a lawyer, but if precedent is set that in this situation one should (read: must) have ATF approval and letter, I would think this will end up a loss rather than win on any level.

He's also a small-time lower-volume, lower-proft biz that can't afford a good lawyer who can play in the Federal ring.... prob not a lotta ones near him, either, so travel expenses rack up readily.

Kinda maybe why Cal DOJ tried to pick on gunshops out in the sticks....

[sierratangofoxtrotunion]

http://www.atf.treas.gov/firearms/faq/faq2.htm#a7
That link needs to point to "a6"

[hoffmang]

Sam,

I read the suit because the a6 part of the FAQ points to re-enabling firearms rights. If you want me to talk about that, that's gone to the SCOTUS.

-Gene

[MaxQ]

Sam, I'm not Bill or Gene, but...

That link should be to answer a6, not a7: http://www.atf.treas.gov/firearms/faq/faq2.htm#a6

A6) 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. However, a person is prohibited from assembling a non-sporting semi-automatic rifle or non-sporting shotgun from imported parts. In addition, the making of an NFA firearm requires a tax payment and approval by ATF. An application to make a machine gun will not be approved unless documentation is submitted showing that the firearm is being made for a Federal or State agency.

[18 U.S.C. 922(o) and (r), 26 U.S.C. 5822, 27 CFR 478.39, 479.62 and 479.105]

I've seen that ATF FAQ answer linked to before, but it doesn't address the 80% issue at all. It only states that an unlicensed person, not prohibited from possessing firearms, can make firearms as long as they aren't made for sale.

I've never seen a BATFE ruling or letter explicitly addressing whether or not any percentage of completion constitutes a firearm. It's my understanding that the BATFE viewpoint is whether or not any partially completed chunk of material (i.e., 80% receiver) is readily convertible into a firearm. That's where the problem lies. A drilled AK flat that has to be bent, or a bent blank with no holes drilled, or an AR lower with no holes drilled and the buffer tube threads untapped, would be very difficult to imagine as being considered readily convertible into a firearm. Tapco and a few others have submitted samples, and received determinations from the BATFE that their particular partially completed receiver is not considered a firearm. I'm sure those letters are similar to the 1919 and other semi build letters, with a caveat that any changes in the design, material, configuration, etc., from the sample, may nullify the BATFE's determination.

Ideally, as a buyer, if you want to be in the safest possible position, verify that the BATFE has examined the partially completed firearm, and has determined that it is not a firearm. Get a copy of the letter if you can, and check that the manufacturer (seller) has not modified the chunk of metal from the approved version.

CADOJ, has repeatedly stated that they only view a fully functional, serialized receiver as a firearm (the DOJ .50BMG FAQ page has one such statement), and that they don't recognize any partial percentage of completion. Of course, they haven't defined "fully functional" as far as I know. So, I wouldn't split hairs and think that with the trigger left out it's not fully functional...

The BATFE has also stated (I recently saw a scan of a letter), that a homebuild can be transferred (if appropriately marked), but an unlicensed person can't make one expressly for the purpose of sale.

[sierratangofoxtrotunion]

Edited. MaxQ beat me to it.

[jumbopanda]

If you're speaking of vendors that remarket/resell Ewbanks flats, they should send AK flats to people that order them instead of bent-up near-receivers. These vendor(s) appear to have sent a letter to at least one customer saying, "Hey, I did a bit more to save you a bit of work..."

That apparent over-helpfulness is *very* worrisome to me on a variety of levels.

At this point, I would ONLY order anywhere-near-full receivers from THRU AN FFL dealer, PERIOD. Got it?

No I'm speaking of a certain seller of pre-bent AK blanks that cuts the magwell and underfolder rear trunnion holes. I'm not worried about flats at all.