PDA

View Full Version : More guns store FUD re: SSE? This time it's the ATF, not DOJ...


pc_load_letter
09-05-2012, 2:56 PM
Hello gentlemen,

Was at a local gun store today and asked if they ever considered doing SSEs.

While the defacto reply I get from most shops is "it's illegal, DOJ will come after you...etc etc", today I had a different take on why they will not perform SSE and I wanted to get feedback as to its truth.

The clerk explains to me that the ATF at a local FFL ATF meeting explained to them that the manner in which local gun shops are performing SSEs is in fact not legal.

He maintained that the ATF official explained to him that the SSE shops are essentially fabricating a new firearm. Thus, the shop needs to re-serialize the firearm in question and contact the ATF about manufacturing said new single shot firearm.

I thought it was an interesting take on it but when I asked about changing the barrel on a rifle, he said it was not the same.

Any thoughts folks?

Thanks!

bobomb
09-05-2012, 3:03 PM
when an ffl makes a substantial change to a firearm they need to be taxed and remarked but as to what makes a substantial change is still up for debate

ffl's assembling stripped into working firearms does meet that definition

mounting a scope does not but its such a grey area

ChaneRZ
09-05-2012, 3:04 PM
Leave that store and never come back.

Shapes And Colors
09-05-2012, 3:13 PM
The frame is serialized, the gun is already built when it comes in. Changing a barrel doesn't count as a "new gun" unless every gunsmith in the state who re-barrels firearms is classified as a manufacturer.

SamsDX
09-05-2012, 3:44 PM
It makes somewhat sense that the BATF is advancing that argument. Although they're now under Homeland Security, much of their practices/attitudes/philosophies are derived from their Revenuer (Treasury) days. As we all know, a Revenuer's chief goal is to maximize, well, revenue, so they take a very expansive view of what constitutes taxable activity. Every time there is something even remotely resembling a taxable event, they'll try to latch on to that, and I suppose the conversion to a single shot pistol arguably constitutes "manufacturing" a firearm. But this is only in light of California's local laws that distinguish between a "single shot" pistol and a multi-shot pistol. That distinction is really irrelevant outside of that context, and indeed, outside of California. While it's a novel argument, I don't see how they can reconcile the inherent conflict in declaring the same activity of swapping out a barrel and installing a magazine sled to be improper manufacturing without the payment of taxes in one state, while proper (i.e., not manufacturing) in another state.

This is a state-level issue; ATF needs to butt out.

XDRoX
09-05-2012, 3:51 PM
Some guns stores now have cases dedicated to just SSE firearms. If anything about it was illegal these shops would get in trouble, wouldn't they?

munkeeboi
09-05-2012, 4:08 PM
I heard the same about re-serializing from a major FFL player in the SSE market. At that time, it was just a proposed change in how things were done. Nothing had been finalized yet, but it seems that they are spreading the word of a possible procedure change in how SSE's are dealt with.

In no way am I saying this is going to happen or is even true. just be aware that there are people out there trying to make things harder to get certain guns.

It's not illegal yet, but the interpretation of what "manufacturing" actually is may get changed along with the procedure in which we are currently getting our non-roster handguns.

Shapes And Colors
09-05-2012, 4:10 PM
I heard the same about re-serializing from a major FFL player in the SSE market. At that time, it was just a proposed change in how things were done. Nothing had been finalized yet, but it seems that they are spreading the word of a possible procedure change in how SSE's are dealt with.

It's not illegal yet, but the interpretation of what "manufacturing" actually is may get changed along with the procedure in which we are currently getting our non-roster handguns.

Hopefully putting a kkm barrel in one of my Glocks won't count as manufacturing.

USMC 82-86
09-05-2012, 5:40 PM
We will only truly know when they come through the doors of those dealers stores, warrants in hand. They are waiting in the wings gathering evidence just waiting to shut them down, and snatch their FFl license.:eek::shifty:

I truly believe some are afraid of losing their license, and to honest none of us know what will come of these SSE deals. That is something I am sure they ( DOJ, ATF ) are taking a hard look at and try to halt. I know some dealers are absolutely adamant about not doing them, maybe at the advice of their attorney.

Tjfearl
09-05-2012, 6:20 PM
I'm having a hard time understanding why the ATF which is a Federal organization would care about FFLs in California that are making firearms that are readily available in almost every other state legally available is California. This seems like it would only be a DOJ problem.

Oldnoob
09-05-2012, 6:38 PM
What's this? Fast and Furious 2?

wash
09-05-2012, 6:45 PM
Well, I'm sure that is the line that some anti-gun ATF inspector is spouting but it's not true.

Is fitting an additional barrel manufacturing?

I don't think so. Fitting a magazine lock is an accessory which I know is not illegal for an FFL to do.

If an FFL really wanted to stay safe, they would still be able to sell AR pistols since almost all have barrels longer than 6" it's just a mag lock and magazine sled to make them Caligornia compliant.

The thing is lots of FFLs are chicken.

Some have reasons that are more valid than others.

I try to convince my SSE-shy FFLs by asking them to consider SSE on ultra high end 1911s and show off my AR pistol to show them what they could be selling and the profit they are missing.

If they feed me a line of BS, I don't buy from them. If they are honest about their reasoning, I just try to gently change their mind.

I haven't changed one yet but I think as they see other FFLs making money and not getting trouble from CADOJ or BATFe, they will eventually come around if enough potential customers let them know that they want SSE.

intruder1_92tt
09-05-2012, 7:06 PM
I've seen something on this argument about the requirement to re-serialize the firearm. From what I gathered, the reasoning was not about the barrel swap; it was because the firearm was being converted from a semi-auto to single-shot. The line of reasoning was this was a substantial change in the function of the firearm.

I don't really know enough to put my own opinion on this topic, but I thought I might add a little fuel to the fire.

pc_load_letter
09-05-2012, 7:21 PM
Right...that was this clerks understanding. Apologies if I wasn't clearer in the op.

He indicated that the SSE FFL is basically making a new type of firearm.


I've seen something on this argument about the requirement to re-serialize the firearm. From what I gathered, the reasoning was not about the barrel swap; it was because the firearm was being converted from a semi-auto to single-shot. The line of reasoning was this was a substantial change in the function of the firearm.

I don't really know enough to put my own opinion on this topic, but I thought I might add a little fuel to the fire.

ke6guj
09-05-2012, 7:36 PM
IF ATF cracks down and says that they are manufacturing when they are swapping parts prior to a sale, there should still be no need to re-serialize a firearm, but they would need to add their manufacturing marks, (name of FFL, city, state). but they can reuse the original serial number.

from the ATF FAQ, this is the closest example,

A gunsmith buys government model pistols and installs “drop-in” precision trigger parts or other “drop-in parts” for the purpose of resale.

This would be considered the manufacturing of firearms, as the gunsmith is purchasing the firearms, modifying the firearms and selling them. The gunsmith should be licensed as a manufacturer.

The question is, if you are the "second" manufacturer of a firearm, do you have to add your markings to it? That is the $64,000 question.

I do know that Vector arms took existing 100% Group Industries "UZI" receivers and then assembled them by welding in additional components into the receiver. Those receivers are marked with Vector's info and still have the original GI info on it. So, there are two manufacturer's markings, but only one serial number.



but even with that FAQ, "manufacturing" is a moving target, what might be considered "manufacturing" to need an 07FFL, doesn't neccessarily equal manufacturing as it applies to FAET, and therefore might not be "manufacturing" as it applies to engraving.

Below are examples of operations performed on firearms and guidance as to whether or not such operations would be considered manufacturing under the Gun Control Act (GCA). These examples do not address the question of whether the operations are considered manufacturing for purposes of determining excise tax. Any questions concerning the payment of excise tax should be directed to the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, U.S. Department of the Treasury.

bobomb
09-07-2012, 3:42 PM
Hopefully putting a kkm barrel in one of my Glocks won't count as manufacturing.

well even if it is a private individual is allowed to manufacture for their own use so there is an exemption

but if an ffl does it they don't have the exemption

but then it comes down to if it is manufacturing then why cant you take a rifle and turn it into a pistol if it is manufacturing its like they get to have it both ways



oh you manufactured that gun because you put a stock and trigger in it

oh wait you have a short barrel rifle because it was manufactured as a rifle

Cyc Wid It
09-07-2012, 3:56 PM
Can we please just listen to CGF lawyers instead of random gunshop xyz? Thanks.

Obviously a Plant
09-08-2012, 1:07 AM
Where do you suppose new members come from?

tonelar
09-08-2012, 1:35 AM
OP,
Please understand that if you heard it over a gun store counter, it's most likely FUD.

pc_load_letter
09-08-2012, 9:47 AM
Can we please just listen to CGF lawyers instead of random gunshop xyz? Thanks.

OP,
Please understand that if you heard it over a gun store counter, it's most likely FUD.

FUD, sure, I can understand that. But as some thoughtful responses above indicated, the ATF could make up something regarding their interpretation of "manufacturing" and cause problems for SSE. Maybe not make it illegal, but at least make it more difficult for the shops that do them.

But thanks for the posts to the thread none the less.

CSACANNONEER
09-08-2012, 10:03 AM
I'm having a hard time understanding why the ATF which is a Federal organization would care about FFLs in California that are making firearms that are readily available in almost every other state legally available is California. This seems like it would only be a DOJ problem.

I have a hard time understanding why you can't grasp the fact that ATF does care about what ALL FFLs do no matter what state they are in. The whole SSE thing is a small part of the bigger picture of FFLs significantly changing firearms for resale. There is no question that at some point a n 07FFL is needed and the gun will need additional markings. The question that has yet to be answered is "exactly where is that line?" In the end, CA DOJ has NOTHING to say about this. It is completely a FEDERAL ISSUE.

bcj128
09-08-2012, 10:19 AM
I had also heard this. Some FFL's in San Bernadino getting into trouble with ATF/DOJ based upon SSE...basically going after intent of buyer / FFL to circumvent the list. Just like the Dep's in Sac, the State wants the list to mean something and I assume want to crack down on loopholes. (Just a theory)

Could all be FUD...

Librarian
09-08-2012, 10:33 AM
I had also heard this. Some FFL's in San Bernadino getting into trouble with ATF/DOJ based upon SSE...basically going after intent of buyer / FFL to circumvent the list. Just like the Dep's in Sac, the State wants the list to mean something and I assume want to crack down on loopholes. (Just a theory)

Could all be FUD...

THAT motivation is unlikely to prevail; the SSE conversion is following a legislature-written part of the Penal Code that explicitly allows the action.

VMCJ-3
09-08-2012, 10:34 AM
IMHO, I wouldn't be very surprised if the .gov types decided to slap down, and make examples of some of the higher profile SSE vendors.
Kind of like they did once upon a time to those that dared to sell OLL's. (i.e. Bright Spot Pawn) They occasionally must justify their existence...

safewaysecurity
09-08-2012, 10:40 AM
Don't you already need an 07ffl to do the SSE yourself as a gun store? This is why many 01 FFLs sort do SSE.

The Gleam
09-08-2012, 10:48 AM
THAT motivation is unlikely to prevail; the SSE conversion is following a legislature-written part of the Penal Code that explicitly allows the action.

And they are not changing construction of the frame either. The frame stays the same. The frame is the serialized part, and a frame can be sold by itself (except where it would not meet aspects of CA's "safety-roster").

So how is improving the trigger, modifying the hammer into a bob, changing sights, putting on a beaver-tail grip safety, or changing the action to SSE in any way changing the frame? And if it's in Single-shot mode, and of a certain barrel length, it's exempt from CA's roster. It passes the sniff test on both counts and legal within the CA laws as they are written.

I don't think it will be an issue, and I suspect this is more creative FFL FUD.

Geez, how many creative stories did we hear about what DOJ/BOF, ATF, CIA, etc. supposedly said about Bullet Buttons? And now, 6 years later, nearly every store in the state (including the most FUD laden die-hard resistors) sell a multiple offering of semi-auto rifles with BBs, from ARs, to AKs, to HK clones?

hornswaggled
09-08-2012, 11:00 AM
I can't stand LGSes who not only don't do SSEs but make it a point to tow the store line of, "You'll all get burned for this one day!" Shut up, you just want us to buy from your own non-SSE shop instead of getting the guns we want. If you won't do SSEs, at least quit with the high falootin' attitude of, "We don't do THAT, who do you think we ARE?"

bwiese
09-08-2012, 7:59 PM
If the ATF wants to ban SSE, they're gonna have to re-define 'drop in' parts and repudiate their public memo of a few years ago.

Plus:

they've already said BulletButtons don't change anything;
inserting a zero round mag vs other mag is not manufacturing anything;
long barrels are 'substantially the same': only one dimension out of
many (20? 30? 40?) separate controlled dimensions/measurements changes


Rumor mill has it a couple of local ATF guys made noise but DC says "hush".


Also, under 50 a year ain't mfg.

ptoguy2002
09-08-2012, 9:47 PM
IMHO, ATF will shoot themselves in the foot (figuratively) if they make a mess of SSE. It would open up a can of worms.

m98
09-09-2012, 3:14 AM
I can't stand LGSes who not only don't do SSEs but make it a point to tow the store line of, "You'll all get burned for this one day!" Shut up, you just want us to buy from your own non-SSE shop instead of getting the guns we want. If you won't do SSEs, at least quit with the high falootin' attitude of, "We don't do THAT, who do you think we ARE?"


This^^^^. And dont buy guns from them at all. My lgs is the Same Exact about sse's. I only go there to waste their time by just using their inventory as a go to see first hand then buy else where. And not just that their customer service has gone to the crapper.

Saym14
09-09-2012, 8:04 AM
It's just a matter of time till kslifornia bans SSE too

Capt_Communist
09-09-2012, 12:36 PM
It's just a matter of time till kslifornia bans SSE too

Don't jinx it

SPaikmos
10-27-2012, 11:28 PM
I think I went to the same LGS that OP went to (seems you and I cross paths constantly in SD). I was there this week and asked about SSE, and they fed me the line that ATF told them they needed to engrave each one that they converted.

Funny thing is they'll sell AR pistols, Draco, PTR91, etc but they aren't willing to do conversions on ordinary HGs (Glock, etc). Their policy is to accept SSEs that come configured that way (from the factory? not sure) but not to do any SSE themselves. Claims that a CGN lawyer gave them this advice, but couldn't name the lawyer.

Now that really sparked my interest because everyone on CGN seems to believe it's legal.

Also told me of an incident where someone bought an SSE pistol, and DOJ went knocking on the dude's door 2 weeks later asking to look at said pistol. Again, they couldn't come up with specifics or anything, just told me the story.

To their credit, the store seems willing to listen to arguments as to why SSE is ok and we discussed it for a bit, but the bottom line is the risk isn't worth it for them at this time.

TKM
10-27-2012, 11:44 PM
Names.

We were all told that we were going to be felons in two weeks back in Dec. O5.

Still waiting for written apologies from all of those clowns. The same ones cheerfully selling ARs and AKs after CGN and CGF cleared the way.

pc_load_letter
10-27-2012, 11:58 PM
The shop in question is Faith Armory in Temecula.

The guys have always been very helpful and service has been great when performing PPT's there. I'd probably buy alot of firearms from them if they were closer to San Diego. As it is now, there are a 80 mile drive for me.

Anyways, I think until some type of charges are filed or the DOJ issues some opinion letter of some sort, I think\know SSE's will still be performed by some shops and not by others. To each their own.

There are TONS of guns not on the roster I'd love to purchase but my LGS that does SSEs only does a certain few and I do not want a gen4 glock or XDM. And finding drop in barrels for the odd ball handgun is the hardest part.

Ford8N
10-28-2012, 5:24 AM
Names.

We were all told that we were going to be felons in two weeks back in Dec. O5.

Still waiting for written apologies from all of those clowns. The same ones cheerfully selling ARs and AKs after CGN and CGF cleared the way.

I remember those guys. Cowards and now hypocrites.

mlevans66
10-28-2012, 8:33 AM
It's just a matter of time till kslifornia bans SSE too

Here's the question, why would they? We are still buying fireams that are legal in most states and for LEOs. They only reason the list exist is so Kali can get the the gun makers to pay to play here. It's rather sicking and it's another reason for a political change in this state

littlejake
10-28-2012, 10:24 AM
Here's the question, why would they? We are still buying fireams that are legal in most states and for LEOs. They only reason the list exist is so Kali can get the the gun makers to pay to play here. It's rather sicking and it's another reason for a political change in this state

Personal Opinion:

The Roster exists for a more sinister purpose than revenue generation. Restricting commerce in arms is a part of the anti-gun playbook.

paul0660
10-28-2012, 10:32 AM
This is an argument put forward elsewhere. I actually don't believe that this author knows 10% of the people in the know he claims to, but others find him faultless:

CCWInstructor's Avatar
CCWInstructor CCWInstructor is offline
Senior Founding Member & Social Director

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Huntington Beach
Posts: 9,570
Default Single shot exemptions and the problems related to.
A couple of weeks ago I had to go to the Los Angeles Field Division to pick up some seized rifles so they could be sold. (That is another story in itself.)

While waiting for everybody and their brother to sign off (3 hours) several senior special agent came by and said hello. I've known them since I taught at a ATF/DOJ dealer meeting years ago. I also run across them when I teach at their citizen academy.

Of course the talk center around the latest dealer scam called Single Shot exemption. ( For those that don't know it's a way to get around the CA approved safety list). They all asked if I had done any, I told each of them while I legally could, I haven't done any.

They came back as a group and notified me that a decision had been made on the process. The marching orders came from back east. (Duh) My reply to them was any gun manufacture would know the process and how to do it properly.

The most senior agent who know guns a lot said okay fine walk use through the process. Judging by the smirk on his face he figured I would screw up. I laid out the proper process.

1) Must be a type 07 FFL, NOT a Type 01 dealer. They agreed.

2) When you convert a Semi-Auto to a Single Shot, you just manufactured a new firearm. 10% Federal Excise Tax is now owed and figured on the sale price. They agreed.

3) I need to imprint my own serial number and my manufacture name in accordance with ATF regulations. The smirk faded fast on this one. LOL.

4) I explained Glocks and any plastic frame was going to be hard to do. The metal strip insert at time on manufacture was to small to add a character too. (one had to draw his weapon to look, LOL)

5) I then explained the most important part. On pickup, the customer must sign the 4473 federal form. The dealer then has to immediately log the gun out of his/her acquisition and disposition book. Then and only then can the single shot conversion kit be removed. Failure to log out and you get your kit back, you just handed them a non approved semi-auto in violation of CA State law. Two guys started laughing and held out their hands, money was placed there.

I asked them what they were going to do about the none marked "new" guns that are illegal. They said a decision had not been made yet. I asked if any type 07 had paid FET on a conversion. The answer was no. I asked if any type 01 dealers were manufacturing guns. They said several.

Folks, you need to be very careful if you go down this path. . . ..


http://www.calccw.com/Forums/general-ccw-discussion/20718-single-shot-exemptions-problems-related.html

pc_load_letter
10-28-2012, 1:07 PM
Nice post Paul....

That thread you linked to had some good points on both sides of the coin.

I found this the most helpful...

The SSE requires some very specific rule-following to make it legal. When you look up an LCP, it's clearly NOT a single-shot firearm. California cares what the condition of the gun is at the time of sale. Therefore, that LCP must be legally made into something OTHER than a Ruger LCP. It takes an 07 FFL to legally do that. That FFL takes certain parts off, puts certain parts on, renders it into a single-shot pistol that is dimensionally compliant, and re-brands the Ruger into his/her own make, model, and serial number. When that is done, it's called "manufacturing" because a new gun has been created. An 01 FFL licensee is not authorized to manufacture new guns. An 07 FFL licensee is. Unless your favorite gun shop is also an 07 FFL, they may not convert guns into a new gun and sell it as an SSE gun. That new gun can't be played around with and have lots of parts swapped out until after customer has signed the 4473 and the 07 FFL has logged it out of his/her bound book and therefore no longer has it in inventory.

To me, I see the ATF as doing nothing seeing as they haven't acted on the issue up to this point.

SMR510
10-28-2012, 1:19 PM
This is an argument put forward elsewhere. I actually don't believe that this author knows 10% of the people in the know he claims to, but others find him faultless:




http://www.calccw.com/Forums/general-ccw-discussion/20718-single-shot-exemptions-problems-related.html

Yes I believe this is where all of this has started from...

People passing off 3rd party information saying it was them getting the information directly.




I am not sure why nothing has been done yet if the ATF really has a problem with the SSE process I believe we would have seen something happen by now. At this point the DOJ has given non 07 FFL's the go ahead to do these conversions assuming they are drop in parts, although the DOJ is a state organization I would assume they would also want to follow federal law and took it into consideration before handing out the information.

Without solid definitions of terms used in these laws it would be hard for them to make any charges stick. I think we can all agree that the vague nature of the wording is done on purpose so they can define the definitions when they see something they don't like, utter BS in my opinion.


If they wanted it gone I bet it would already be gone, for now business as usually I guess.

SPaikmos
10-28-2012, 8:54 PM
Regarding the argument of why ATF hasn't acted yet, the govt is slow to act on these types of things. The cynic in me would think that the govt purposely allows this behavior to go on so as to entrap as many innocent people as possible, but that's just my personal conjecture. Anyway, it takes time to build a case properly.

So this brings up an interesting question to me. Here's a totally hypothetical situation.

Let's say someone moved from out of state, and brought their Gen4 Glock with them. They fill out the required form to register the HG in CA. Then, some time later, they decide they want to sell it. I realize they can PPT a Gen4 Glock, but let's say they want to be extra careful for whatever reason. They decide to convert it themselves into a SSE, and transfer it that way. Does this mean that they would have to fill out a No Longer In Possession (I forget what it's called) form since they now transferred an SSE that was not registered to them? How does one deal with the ensuing paperwork?

The reason I ask is it seems that any person can do an SSE-->semi-auto conversion on their own pistol, and presumably then can also do the semi-auto --> SSE as well. But, if they sell after converting, it seems the DOJ wouldn't have records for one type of gun or the other? Could that cause some red flags? I.e. you DROS'd an SSE, and now you're selling a Gen4 Glock?

SPaikmos
10-28-2012, 8:55 PM
The shop in question is Faith Armory in Temecula.

Hmm... the store I went to was much closer than Temecula. Seems they got the same FUD, or at least very similar.