How about starting 81% build parties?

[UnknownShooter]

Not sure how this will turn out, but my hope is that it will be clear one way or another. While the ATF agent followed and appreciated my thought process (namely, if *I* crossed the paperweight over the line into a firearm then I was the one who manufactured it), he thought it didn't sound right to him that a gunsmith could actually do any/many of the other steps without it somehow also being considered manufacturing. But he said he really didn't know and he wanted to do the research (for his own knowledge as well) to see what the actual/legal answer is. It is probably going to take several days for him to get back to me. We'll see...

the problem here is, you're trying to make sense of rules and guidelines that dont make sense. the justification for stopping the last batch of cnc machine shops was first that the shops werent licensed manufacturers, then that the customer didnt *own* the cnc.
even if you get a letter in writing, that really doesnt protect the shop. atf *will* find another excuse to shut down any shop that does it as soon as some enterprising "journalist" discovers the awful, subversive plot that allows citizens to obtain firearms without government supervision and tracking.

[Tripper]

We need case law on it, something that clarifies things for DOJ


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[sigstroker]

OP, it's great that you took the initiative to talk to an ATF agent, but honestly, it doesn't matter what any agent says. What you want is a letter from the Tech branch, and even that is no guarantee that you won't be prosecuted. I very much doubt they would send a letter on this issue anyway.

Probably the only course of action (besides consulting a gun law lawyer) is to just find a gunsmith and do it. I can't see ATF expending energy on this sort of thing even if they somehow did find out about it. Unless you're stupid about it and go bragging all over the internet, or make dozens of them, etc. The real trick is finding a gunsmith willing to do it, especially one that won't insist on entering it into his bound book.

[Adeodatus]

And then there is the 95% lower receiver.

So same thing with 96%...?

Interesting...

[krwada]

You are trying to be clever. The BATFE, on the other hand, as a gov't agency, appears to have every right to be COY about such things.

Not too long ago, I inquired with the BATFE as to the proper format for markings on a home-build. I specifically used the industry-marketing standard term of 80% receiver. Here is the reply I got:

Thank you for your inquiry to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). This is in response to your recent e-mail, in which you asked about regulations concerning an 80% build and manufacturing firearms for personal use.

In your inquiry, it is unclear what you mean when you use the term 80% build. For your information, neither ATF nor any of its offices recognizes the term “80% build” or “80% receiver”. The term 80% receiver has become an industry term to indicate a partially machined receiver-blank and is misleading. The point at which a receiver-blank has reached a stage of manufacture at which it would be recognized as a “firearm” is necessarily a case-by-case determination. This is because there are an infinite number and type of receiver variations and levels of completion for different portions of any particular receiver. Additionally, the term “80% receivers” is commonly used for castings and flats that have not reached the stage of manufac*turing in which it would be properly classified as a firearm under the Gun Control Act (GCA).

I know that this does not do much to help. But, I thought it would be good to throw this bit of information into this discussion.

Currently, I am hoarding-stockpiling 80% just about anything. I really like the idea of doing a home-build. I fully understand that going this route is more expensive than starting with a DROS'ed / registered anything ...

We shall see what the future holds for us in the Kalifornia shooting sports community.

I will also keep contributing to CGN and other local advocacy groups ... as ALL of you should too!

[SJ-Chris]

And then there is the 95% lower receiver.

So same thing with 96%...?

Interesting...

I am pretty sure that that company simply chose to call their product "95%" when in reality it appears to be the same as what most would call "80%". Bad move on their part in my opinion (just confuses people).

Yes, there is no "legal definition" of what an "80% lower receiver" is. It's just nomenclature....what we as a community consider something. In general, an "80% lower receiver" for an AR-15 style rifle that is considered a paperweight is one that still needs:
- fire control group
- trigger pin
- hammer pin
- trigger slot
- safety selector hole

[spetsnaz]

Seems like a gray area most people don't want to venture into

[The Geologist]

He has to have mfg license and register it to you after serialization thru dros process. Just like you would buy a stripped lower. Pay a lot of money for a no name lower. Makes zero sense.

Yep, but that's how most of the CA legislature seems to operate. Just like the guy in Santa Cruz who wants to outlaw throwing cig butts on the ground cause it's bad for the environment. I'm quite sure littering is already illegal, but let's make a new law for the law that we already have cause no one is following that law so we need to make a new law for the old law that we already have, right

[SJ-Chris]

You are trying to be clever. The BATFE, on the other hand, as a gov't agency, appears to have every right to be COY about such things.

Not too long ago, I inquired with the BATFE as to the proper format for markings on a home-build. I specifically used the industry-marketing standard term of 80% receiver. Here is the reply I got:



I know that this does not do much to help. But, I thought it would be good to throw this bit of information into this discussion.

Currently, I am hoarding-stockpiling 80% just about anything. I really like the idea of doing a home-build. I fully understand that going this route is more expensive than starting with a DROS'ed / registered anything ...

We shall see what the future holds for us in the Kalifornia shooting sports community.

I will also keep contributing to CGN and other local advocacy groups ... as ALL of you should too!

While the ATF doesn't recognize the term "80% lower receiver", it is still very useful for us to understand what is commonly called an 80%er. It serves a good purpose.

[SJ-Chris]

Seems like a gray area most people don't want to venture into

6 months ago (and before), paperweight buyers and machinists from CNC shops didn't think twice about what they were venturing into (using CNCs to complete their lowers with the push of a button). [Okay...that's probably not entirely accurate as I'm sure the CNC shops were always keeping an eye on where things stood legally and were probably looking over their shoulders constantly...] While we might not agree with the stance the ATF has taken with regards to shutting down those shops, it is quite easy to see how that scenario could fall into the gray area. 100s(?) or 1000s(?) of people went forward with this approach simply because "everybody else said it was ok". I don't think I ever saw anyone try to prove (legally) that it is perfectly fine/okay with the law to go to a CNC shop, push a button, and leave with a firearm. I'm not saying that there was something that pointed to this being illegal.....I'm simply saying that I never saw anything anywhere demonstrating that it was legal either. [side note: I was happy to see the CNC shops doing what they were doing to help support the 2nd amendment...]

What I am proposing and trying to find is a legal (and easy) path for completing an 80% lower into a home built firearm...ONE THAT IS NOT GRAY. Yes, I know there still ARE perfectly legal ways to turn a paperweight into a functional firearm (do all the work your self, with your own tools, at your own home/etc...). That is a reasonable approach for many and I'm not here to debate that. I'm approaching this with the mindset of, "let's find out exactly what IS legal and what IS NOT legal". If we can find that out (....that remains to be seen) then hopefully it will tell us how to keep ourselves out of any trouble and move forward legally.

I'm still waiting to hear back from the ATF and will update you when I have information. I look forward to seeing what they have to say and I'm hoping that they provide specifics when giving their answers (point to some laws). I can see this coming back either way really. It seems hard to argue that a gunsmith cannot work on something the ATF already considers a firearm. But given the climate we are in regarding regulations/etc it is also easy to see them coming back with something supporting the direction our legislators seem to be pushing towards...

[umd]

I am pretty sure that that company simply chose to call their product "95%" when in reality it appears to be the same as what most would call "80%". Bad move on their part in my opinion (just confuses people).

The so-called 95% receivers have the takedown area milled out, which now seems to be becoming more common. The percentage is not relevant; they could call it 99% and it would make no difference.

[dchang0]

Yeah, it's all marketingspeak. 80%, 81%, 95%, 65%, 99%, whatever. ATF is correct: it is on a case-by-case basis by "determination."

So, one could take a partially-completed non-firearm that has an ATF determination letter with it, then do something to that exact non-firearm, anything, including scribing the hole locations, and technically, it COULD HAVE advanced from non-firearm to firearm in the ATF's own eyes.

Let's take two hypotheticals:

1) A non-firearm right at the edge of what the ATF determines is a non-firearm. We don't know what that edge is, but we can surmise it in most cases.

For instance, we surmise that with a 1911 partially-completed non-firearm, the manufacturer can do everything EXCEPT FOR the barrel seat, the slide rails, the hammer and sear pin holes. We can be pretty confident in this because KTO's long fight with the ATF in 2006 ended up in his making his 1911 frames up to this point. (KTO calls them "65%" now.)

So, we could safely assume that if we, for instance, drilled one hole: the hammer pin hole, we would have crossed the ATF's invisible line from non-firearm into non-firearm. The only way to find out for sure is to submit the frame AFTER the one hole had been drilled for determination.

2) The other hypothetical is what if the manufacturer of the non-firearm didn't walk right up to the edge of what the ATF determines is a firearm? For instance, KTO's non-firearm 1911s also have bumps in the magwell that effectively make it impossible to insert a magazine (single-shot mode). Let's say that I file off these bumps first, believing that I had just crossed the line from non-firearm into firearm. But the ATF's invisible line has nothing to do with the magwell bumps, so I am still holding a non-firearm in my hands without knowing it. And then, if I were to take this to a gunsmith to complete all the way to 100%, I would have broken the ATF's ruling without knowing it.

---

This makes it dangerous to proceed without absolutely ascertaining the transition from non-firearm to firearm and exactly what that means. And the only safe way to figure out that line is for the manufacturer to get a determination letter for the non-firearm, make a mod that is then submitted for determination and is determined by the ATF to be a firearm, which would prove that that mod is in and of itself sufficient to manufacture a firearm.

[Funtimes]

I would think you need to ask them about specific firearms.

I.e., submit drawings / references and be like is an AR-15 with this part, this part, and this part a firearm.

Then say, is this metal block with this and this part a firearm? I'm sure there is a "line" You can cross and then have it worked on by another person.

[Bluesman]

SJ-Chris,
I like the way your thinking on this and personally, I believe this is within the bounds of the current law. However, the vagueness of interpretation from BATF on this should give you pause. I'll be doing my paper weight at home, on a drill press. It will not be as smooth and pretty as a mill cut, but I can't risk walking the fine line with a group that can change the rules at will.

[CortoPasta]

I know that this is going to seem contrarian to some, but I like that 80% builds are hard to complete, and hope they stay that way. If something like this "81% build" idea works, then I have little doubt that a bunch of draconian laws will be applied to 80%'s the very next year