PDA

View Full Version : Building up an OLL = Manufacturing?


emc002
04-11-2008, 9:46 AM
Well, I had an interesting discussion with an FFL yesterday who refused to sell OLLs.
He was willing to sell OLL RIFLES that he bought from Lanworld with the BB already installed on this logic:

"If I buy it legally configured from Lanworld, it comes into my shop and goes out of my shop in a CA Legal configuration, I'm protected."

He then went on to say, (and this is where the FUD started) that
"If you buy and OLL and build your rifle, you're manufacturing a rifle according to the ATF."
I asked if that's what the ATF told him, he said yes. I asked if they gave him anything in writing with law to back up that position, he said, "Whatever they tell me is the law."
I tried to explain the difference between manufacturing a part that had to be serialized and that OLLs already had a serial number, but he wasn't buying it.

He finally went on to say that to build an OLL rifle you needed a CA DOJ AW License to build them and I gave up.

Since it was a new take on FUD, I thought I'd seek additional input, especially from Gene and Bill if they'd be so kind! :D

eta34
04-11-2008, 9:48 AM
FUD. Pure, unadulterated FUD.

WokMaster1
04-11-2008, 9:58 AM
wow! this FUD is SO Thick, I can't even cut it with my Martin Yen cleaver.

emc002
04-11-2008, 10:06 AM
Well duh, I know it's FUD! Did you read my post? I called FUD at least twice :rolleyes: !
What I'd like to do is go back and and least give him something to read in the slim hopes he might become more educated.

Helpful contributions would be nice, not repeating what I already said.
Of course, the Martin Yen reference was pretty funny!

FortCourageArmory
04-11-2008, 10:07 AM
Putting parts in an already serialized receiver is NOT manufacturing a firearm. FUD city!!

dustoff31
04-11-2008, 10:31 AM
He may be confused as to the differences between licensees and non-licensees. BATFE has put out some pretty weird definitions of "manufacturing" as it pertains to gunsmiths (FFL01), and telling them that they should be licensed as a manufacturer.

Trying to educate the guy is laudable, but clearly he doesn't care enough to educate himself as to the laws that apply to his business. I for one, refuse to take other people's lives more seriously than they do.

bwiese
04-11-2008, 10:48 AM
Well, I had an interesting discussion with an FFL yesterday who refused to sell OLLs. He was willing to sell OLL RIFLES that he bought from Lanworld with the BB already installed on this logic:

"If I buy it legally configured from Lanworld, it comes into my shop
and goes out of my shop in a CA Legal configuration, I'm protected."

He then went on to say, (and this is where the FUD started) that,
"If you buy and OLL and build your rifle, you're manufacturing a rifle according to the ATF."

He's kinda right. You are building a rifle from a receiver.

You just aren't building an AW per CA law when you configure with the one of the proper features suites not described by 12276.1PC.

So his worries are irrelevant.

And ANY semiauto centerfire rifle - including a Mini14 or M1A - can be rendered into an illegal AW configuration that's as 'equally evil' as an OLL with a full evil features suite.

The dude is somehow articulating nonexistent differences between types of AWs, and types of non-AWs.

I asked if that's what the ATF told him, he said yes. I asked if they gave him anything in
writing with law to back up that position, he said, "Whatever they tell me is the law."

The ATF statement is actually right. It just has no relevance to the CA situation.

And you as an individual ARE allowed to manufacture a rifle - just not a CA AW, nor an NFA gun.


He finally went on to say that to build an OLL rifle you
needed a CA DOJ AW License to build them and I gave up.That's where he's full of horsehockey. You can build an OLL up into a CA compliant rifle as long as at no point during the assembly sequence you've created an AW.

The only time a CA AW permit is needed is if
he were importing AWs directly from mfgr and then rendering into non-AW status;
he were building up full AWs from OLL receivers;
dealing with 'named' receivers (though that is defendable case if he does not have a permit);
A rifle either IS or IS NOT an AW per CA law. There simply is ZERO distinction between a complete CA-legal rifle imported from LanWorld, and building up a CA-legal off-list rifle from OLL receiver and other parts. ALL legal semiauto rifles can also readily be configured illegally. That's one other reason why 'constructive possession' can't apply: every damned Mini14, M1A, SKS or Ljungmann could be an AW with a 10 second mod.

Selling a bare OLL and letting the customer 'manufacture' a (CA-legal) rifle is entirely legal for all parties. The FFL is not responsible (as long as he's made efforts to ensure customer is aware of CA AW laws) if the customer builds the OLL up into an illegal AW any more than if a customer built up a Mini14 from a ranch rifle into one with a Butler Creek folder and flash hider.

The ONLY issue about manufacturing that should be a concern is if he, the FFL, takes bare OLL receivers and builds full (CA-legal) rifles without paying the 11% (?) Pitman-Robertson excise tax. This is a Federal matter, and would equally apply to building up a bolt rifle from a bare Remington 700 receiver.

Poor dude is just mixed up btwn Fed/State. He's taken one correct fact from ATF and mixed it up with a lotta other irrelevant stuff.

Ironchef
04-11-2008, 10:51 AM
You know, even if you took him some nicely arranged, bulleted, numbered PC or case law, nothing will trump the fear he has for the ATF and their version of the law. I fear that most FFLs do this as well. I have a friend who is a FFL dealing out of his home who has these tendancies, and I don't blame them. They're afraid of the hassle and the outright loss of their license. Sure it's bad if they don't seek out correct law and interpretaion thereof, and case law, but you can't blame them if the hand that feeds them (their FFL) is the one threatening them.

12voltguy
04-11-2008, 11:02 AM
you can't fix stupid, don't even try...........it will make you stupid:D
don't ever go back

emc002
04-11-2008, 11:07 AM
Thanks Bill, that was the information I was looking for!

And yes, most of you are probably right, I can't convince him as fear is a greater motivator and stupidity is not fixable. FWIW, I think he's in the fear camp.

And no, I won't go back, I was only there to to a PPT at the buyer's convenience.

Ironchef
04-11-2008, 11:11 AM
Maybe go visit him early in the morning before he has breakfast, and try to convince him before he's had his stupid for breakfast!!
http://www.buzzflash.com/store/images/485_200.jpg

hoffmang
04-11-2008, 11:49 AM
There is one mild gray area that your FFL is getting confused on. ATF may take the position that if he assembles a rifle from a serialized bare receiver that he - as an FFL - owes excise taxes on that rifle. Individuals are exempt on the first 50 firearms manufactured or assembled each year.

So he was wrong, but I think that may be the source of his confusion.

-Gene

4D5auto
04-11-2008, 12:58 PM
Manufacture
2 entries found.

manufacture[1,noun]manufacture[2,verb]



Main Entry: 1man·u·fac·ture
Pronunciation: \ˌman-yə-ˈfak-chər, ˌma-nə-\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, from Medieval Latin manufactura, from Latin manu factus, literally, made by hand
Date: 1567
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



assemble
2 entries found.

assembleself-assembly



Main Entry: as·sem·ble
Pronunciation: \ə-ˈsem-bəl\
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): as·sem·bled; as·sem·bling \-b(ə-)liŋ\
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French assembler, from Vulgar Latin *assimulare, from Latin ad- + simul together — more at same
Date: 13th century
transitive verb
1 : to bring together (as in a particular place or for a particular purpose)
2 : to fit together the parts of
intransitive verb
: to meet together : convene
synonyms see gather

gunrun45
04-11-2008, 2:17 PM
A certain DOJ BOF employee at one time (about 2 years ago) was going aroudn saying that they were going to use this to fight people buying or building OLL rifles in CA.

He spread that same info to several dealers around northern CA and they been repeating it ever since.

I point the finger at the guy who started it all.

I'll give you a hint, his first name started with an I

It was as stupid to me then as it is to me today.

Fate
04-11-2008, 3:40 PM
I found a reference to a court case where the ATF was trying to define the word "manufacture". They were shut down as their definition was "inconsistent with the statute."

The reference pointed to the National Rifle Association v. Brady, 914 F.2d 475, note 2 (4th Cir.1990)

Anyone with better googlefu able to actually produce that text?

tntgood
04-11-2008, 4:48 PM
When Was ATF granted the power to enact law?




"I asked if that's what the ATF told him, he said yes. I asked if they gave him anything in
writing with law to back up that position, he said, "Whatever they tell me is the law."




The ATF statement is actually right. It just has no relevance to the CA situation.

tenpercentfirearms
04-11-2008, 7:27 PM
I was just talking to an Acusport rep and he was saying something similar. He was saying that you can't take a rifle from out of state and install a Bullet Button and ship it in as the ATF considers it to still be an assault weapon. I asked him to give me the section of law this was in and when he said he didn't know I replied "Because it is bull manure."

FUD is a horrible thing.

bohoki
04-11-2008, 8:26 PM
I was just talking to an Acusport rep and he was saying something similar. He was saying that you can't take a rifle from out of state and install a Bullet Button and ship it in as the ATF considers it to still be an assault weapon. I asked him to give me the section of law this was in and when he said he didn't know I replied "Because it is bull manure."

FUD is a horrible thing.


now that one is lame what a ca ffl needs to do is set up a deal with an out of state dealer to accept ar type rifles and install the bullet buttons then transfer them to him

it is not manufacturing it is modification would them adding a houge grip be manufacturing?

but building up from a stripped reciever is in a way manufacturing a rifle because the item is sold as a stripped receiver cheap

by adding all the parts you are saving the VAT tax so an ffl cannot do it
but maybe the private individual that has the ffl could do 50

the ffl would have to transfer 50 of them to himself they would become personal property and that person could then build them up and then transfer them back to his ffl

its tricky having a ffl makes a person scizo

gosparx
04-11-2008, 8:48 PM
I can see how he could argue that if he only sells complete OLL rifles that he is somehow 'protected'; but the rest of his reasoning is some of the most asinine BS/FUD I've heard in a while.

You're no more 'manufacturing' a rifle from a stripped OLL then you are 'manufacturing' a rifle/handgun when you swap out a barrel, change the caliber, change out the trigger, add sights, change the muzzle break etc. etc. etc. Once you 'own' (DROS'd) a gun of any kind, you can do anything you want to that gun, as long as what you make follows the appropriate laws so that it does not become something that is illegal (SBR, SBS, AW etc)

Then of course there is the whole 80% receiver thing... but I won't even go into the difference between 'making' and 'manufacturing'.

But like was said before... there is no fighting stupid.

bohoki
04-11-2008, 11:49 PM
I can see how he could argue that if he only sells complete OLL rifles that he is somehow 'protected'; but the rest of his reasoning is some of the most asinine BS/FUD I've heard in a while.

You're no more 'manufacturing' a rifle from a stripped OLL then you are 'manufacturing' a rifle/handgun when you swap out a barrel, change the caliber, change out the trigger, add sights, change the muzzle break etc. etc. etc. Once you 'own' (DROS'd) a gun of any kind, you can do anything you want to that gun, as long as what you make follows the appropriate laws so that it does not become something that is illegal (SBR, SBS, AW etc)

Then of course there is the whole 80% receiver thing... but I won't even go into the difference between 'making' and 'manufacturing'.

But like was said before... there is no fighting stupid.

no it is true that buiding up a stripped lower is a type of manufacturing as the lower maker sold the stripped lower as a replacement part without paying the tax

and it should only be used to replace a defective part although the batf i suppose because they are the treasury allow individuals to "make a few" without breaking the law

the wacky rules the atf has enacted over the years is a convoluted net of exceptions and traps that have evolved changed minimized expanded over the years

hopefully heller vs dc might help hopefully the powers that be will streamline it before it all gets thrown out


research the term "make"

dfletcher
04-12-2008, 11:32 AM
I'd have to reread the decision, but I believe ATF asserted in 1992's US v Thompson/Center that manufacturing (among other things) occured when a consumer assembled a firearm from their carbine kit. SCOTUS ruled otherwise.

4D5auto
04-14-2008, 8:39 AM
So, if you tear your weapon down for what ever purpose, parts replacement, cleaning etc, are you then re manufacturing???:popcorn:

bwiese
04-14-2008, 9:01 AM
So, if you tear your weapon down for what ever purpose, parts replacement, cleaning etc, are you then re manufacturing???

Nope. We're only talking about the transition from virgin receiver into operable firearm.

4D5auto
04-14-2008, 9:05 AM
When you purchase the receiver and DROS it, it states is a .223 cal. rifle, I don't recall if the FFL states it's just a receiver and will have to ask the transferring FFL if they state it's receiver only. If not, no one knows...

Casual Observer
04-14-2008, 9:35 AM
and it should only be used to replace a defective part although the batf i suppose because they are the treasury allow individuals to "make a few" without breaking the law


Slightly off topic but a point of correction. ATF is now a DOJ agency, not Treasury. They were shifted during the great government cluster f*ck that was the creation of DHS.

And I've heard the same thing....from an ATF agent. According to him, assembling a parts kit + OLL = manufacturing.

sh4d0ww4rri0r
04-30-2008, 10:31 AM
Hi, I am new to this forum. I tried searching but There is just so much information and I have to get back to work. Is bending a receiver flat or cutting a 80% receiver considered manufacturing? I am planning on putting a Rmy parts kit on it. Is this legal in California? Is there a tax that I need to pay if I only have 10 cap mags and a mag release lock? I am getting rid of the forward pistol grip. Do I need to register this rifle or inform anyone that I am building a rifle? Thanks!

Hopi
04-30-2008, 10:44 AM
Hi, I am new to this forum. I tried searching but There is just so much information and I have to get back to work. Is bending a receiver flat or cutting a 80% receiver considered manufacturing? I am planning on putting a Rmy parts kit on it. Is this legal in California? Is there a tax that I need to pay if I only have 10 cap mags and a mag release lock? I am getting rid of the forward pistol grip. Do I need to register this rifle or inform anyone that I am building a rifle? Thanks!

Welcome to the Forum!

If you are 18+years of age and legally able to posses firearms, you can 'home-build' a firearm legally in CA as long as it does not violate any CA AW laws or FED NFA laws. This would be manufacturing, but there isn't a tax for unlicensed individuals until you build 50+ firearms.
Individuals are exempt on the first 50 firearms manufactured or assembled each year.

Fate
04-30-2008, 12:22 PM
Found this interesting tidbit...

"In assessing statutory language, unless words have acquired a peculiar meaning, by virtue of statutory definition or judicial construction, they are to be construed in accordance with their common usage." Muller v. BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc., 923 P.2d 783, 787-88 (Alaska 1996)

Most common usage of the word "manufacture" has nothing to do with "assembly". Within the following link that references many different dictionaries, only dictionary.com has "assembly" as a synonym to manufacture. All other references equate manufacturing to producing something (generally on a large scale) with machines using raw materials.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/manufacture