How about starting 81% build parties?

[jaymz]

Yes, once you drill a single hole you might no longer have a non firearm blank but you still do not have a functional firearm (that is why you are looking for someone else to do the work for you). That person who completes the reciever to a functional firearm will be the manufacturer. It could be you if you do the work yourself or the 07 manufacturer with them completing it on their own premises and on their books. It will never be a combination of the two without any paperwork. Look home building is about to get screwed over in California due to people trying to make it simple for the masses to get paperless guns without effort, how does trying to take that to a national level sound like a smart idea?

Where does it say that a firearm must be functional to take it to a gunsmith for repair? A stripped receiver is not a functional firearm, but it is still a firearm, and all laws regarding purchase and/or possession must be followed. In the eyes of the law, an "81%" is no different than a complete rifle.

[SJ-Chris]

The ATF has ruled that non-firearm blanks require substantial work by a skilled person to become a functional firearm. That definition works both ways, the blank must be not completed enough to require the substantial work and the person must perform the substantial work themselves. If you think you can drill one hole and then get someone else to do all the difficult work for you are seriously mistaken. The whole issue with the CNC operations was because pushing the green button was not doing the "substantial" work yourself.

The ATF has also defined a "line" that if you cross YOU have manufactured!

I find this "window of activity" between 80-100% completion to be an interesting topic. I don't know what the definitive answer is yet, but that's the whole point of this thread and what I'm working to find out.

One of the things I find fascinating is that if I take my 80% lower receiver paperweight and *I* do any work on it, EVERYONE is in agreement (...me, you, and the ATF) that *I* have manufactured a firearm. Right? Everyone would agree that *I* am the manufacturer.

So...if *I* manufactured the firearm as mentioned above, how is it that someone else can be later tagged as also the manufacturer of my firearm?

Let me explain my logic in another way... Let's say Smith & Wesson manufactures AR-15 lower receivers and they make 1000s of them (legally, with serial numbers, markings, etc). However, one day they decide that they no longer want to drill Selector holes because they realize that FFL licensed CompanyB can do it for cheaper and they can do a better job. So S&W manufactures the lower receiver FIREARMS with everything done except the Selector hole is not drilled out. Everyone would agree that S&W is the manufacturer....they made the firearm. Then, they legally send the not 100% finished firearm to CompanyB to have CompanyB drill the Selector hole and return them to S&W. Question: Is this allowed? Would everyone still agree that S&W manufactured the firearm? If so, then that is exactly my point. CompanyB did not manufacture it in this scenario. It would seem like backing that out to the point where S&W has just crossed the line of manufacturing (as defined by the ATF) that CompanyB can do more than just one step.

No 07 FFL is going to sign up for doing joint manufacturing with an individual without paperwork and a transfer it would be suicide. You listed all the work above in your post that is required by an individual to complete an AR15 receiver themselves. Trying to mince words and definitions of 80% firearms in an effort to skirt doing the work and getting someone else to build the firearm receiver is a waste of your time as it is not going to happen in a million years. You would be far better off to spend your time and efforts learning to complete the required machining yourself.

I never suggested that a Type 07 FFL would do this (although if we get the right answers from the ATF they certainly could). I suggested that a Type 01 FFL (licensed gunsmith) is allowed to do these repairs to your FIREARM. I also alluded to the fact that it looks relatively cheap and easy to get a Type 01 license (gunsmith).

"Not going to happen in a million years" ? We had CNC shops that were unlicensed willing to help people convert PAPERWEIGHTS into FIREARMS every day of the week until they were ordered to stop! I am looking for a LEGAL way for them to continue helping people with home builds. *IF* we can get a LEGAL answer indicating that once a home builder has crossed the line and manufactured a firearm a licensed gunsmith can legally work on it, I think it won't take "a million years" before people do so....more like "shop is now open!" Wouldn't you agree that *IF* we can get this clarification that it is 1000 times more legal than what CNC shops were willing to do before?

[SJ-Chris]

Where does it say that a firearm must be functional to take it to a gunsmith for repair? A stripped receiver is not a functional firearm, but it is still a firearm, and all laws regarding purchase and/or possession must be followed. In the eyes of the law, an "81%" is no different than a complete rifle.

Exactly.

And please people, let's not get hung up on the "...but the ATF doesn't recognize 80%, 81%, etc..." We know this. We simply need these names so that we can have this discussion and everyone knows what we are talking about.

In the context of this thread/discussion:
80% = ATF does not consider it a firearm (aka: paperweight)
81% = ATF does consider it a firearm

[SJ-Chris]

In the eyes of the law, 81% is a industry term and completely meaningless. A striped lower is a fully functional receiver (complete) no one has to do any more work on it for it to function. You might not the current situation but it has been that way for a long time and it is not going to change.

As mentioned before, let's not get hung up on the "...but the ATF doesn't recognize 80%, 81%, etc..." We know this. We simply need these names so that we can have this discussion and everyone knows what we are talking about.

In the context of this thread/discussion:
80% = ATF does not consider it a firearm (aka: paperweight)
81% = ATF does consider it a firearm

[jaymz]

Can you cite the law that says ALL of the machining must be done by the individual? As I understand it, the "CNC parties" were shut down because pushing the start button was not considered "doing the work yourself" because the guy pushing the button didn't do the programming. CNC build parties would likely be fine if everybody started with a firearm vs. a paperweight. As demonstrated earlier, an 80% with a single hole drilled is considered a firearm.

[strongpoint]

How about starting 81% build parties?

You seem to think that there is some magic threshold that once crossed the law no longer applies and anyone can finish the manufacturing job and it is still considered a home build. Can you show me that regulation, law, or interpretation from someone who's opinion matters?

BATFE did that by making itself the arbiter of how the various states of a block of metal are defined, including "firearm" and "non-firearm."

let's turn the table. can you cite a specific "regulation, law or interpretation" stating that a law-abiding citizen who owns a "firearm" (one that has been blessed as such by BATFE's own definition) cannot take said firearm to a gunsmith or machinist to have further work done to it? how about just documenting that the definition of "firearm" includes "fully functioning"?

[SJ-Chris]

I appreciate your feedback.

Just because the illegal manufacture with the CNC shops was not known and stopped immediately does not mean it was legal. The ATF has been very nice to those people as they could have all gone to jail, lower owners included for a long time.

I agree with this. I am not suggesting that what the CNC shops were doing was legal. If I were a CNC shop (which I am not), I would have never been in that business because it wasn't 100% clear if it was legal or not. I never completed a lower receiver with any of them. And yes, the ATF could have done a lot more than simply tell them all to stop.

In your post above you state your purpose (I underlined it), but that purpose is contrary to the exemption for personal manufacturer where the individual has to do the work themselves (not just a small portion but all of it). It really is not that hard to understand. It would be one thing if you were going to guide the individual on how to do the work themselves like a mentor. That I could get behind but just another "I can't do it legally so how can I get another person to do the work hi-jink" is only going to bring more grief to the people doing it the legal way.

I never stated I didn't have the tools or skill to complete the lower myself. I have built homes/etc and am very competent. I have not mentioned whether or not I have built any homemade firearms myself, and that's not the point of this thread either. I have also been very clear that I have no intention of doing anything that is not legal (nor do I advise others to do so). I simply find this question of the law interesting and I don't see a definitive answer.

Perhaps yet another way of thinking about this...What if there was a Type 07 licensed firearm manufacturing CompanyA out there in the business of manufacturing 81% lower receivers...firearms as recognized by the ATF...with serial numbers, etc, that still require several machining steps to make it fully functional. And they sold these to people through the legal methods, DROS, background checks, etc. And now you, as the purchaser are holding an unfinished, REGISTERED lower receiver (firearm). All 100% legit. Let's assume there is a market for these (just for this discussion) because people want to be able to customize their finish and do some of the work themselves. Could I then take this 81% lower receiver that is registered to me, purchased through DROS/etc to a Type 01 licensed gunsmith to have them help me finish it?

Wouldn't everyone agree that it has ALREADY been "manufactured" by CompanyA?

Does the fact that it is DROS'ed and "in the system" change the licensed gunsmith's ability to work on the firearm legally without being charged with manufacturing?

... but that purpose is contrary to the exemption for personal manufacturer where the individual has to do the work themselves (not just a small portion but all of it)...

If I have a home-built 100% lower receiver that I did all the work on to complete the lower receiver myself, you would agree that I am gtg. But, wouldn't you also agree that it is not a "fully functional firearm" since it is just a lower? Can someone else assemble my upper and connect it to my lower receiver for me? [I believe everyone should be nodding their head's "yes" here...] Would some people call me lazy and trying to skirt the law if I buy an already assembled upper receiver (rather than buy all the parts and put it all together myself)? If I do buy an upper and do have someone help me install it, haven't they helped me to complete my project into a 100% fully functional fire ready firearm? Should they be charged with "manufacturing"?? Why not? Why is putting an upper onto what is already a legal firearm (that I happen to have made) different than someone drilling a hole into an already LEGAL FIREARM (that I happened to have also made)?

Even though the ATF considers the lower receiver to be the "firearm", I think we can all agree that *just* the lower is only a small portion of the complete ready to fire weapon. You still need the LPK, stock, upper, etc. Are others allowed to help you with those steps? If you answer "yes", then how is it any different that someone helps you with the 82%-100% steps on your lower receiver FIREARM?

In the eyes of the ATF, something is either a firearm or it is not a firearm. Once you have crossed the line and manufactured the firearm it seems like everything after should fall into the "assembly" bucket (and not the "manufacturing" bucket).

[SJ-Chris]

You seem to think that there is some magic threshold that once crossed the law no longer applies and anyone can finish the manufacturing job and it is still considered a home build. Can you show me that regulation, law, or interpretation from someone who's opinion matters?

How about directly from the ATF? Would that work?

There absolutely is a threshold! See my previous post (Post #62) where I give you an actual ATF Determination letter stating that drilling the Selector hole makes what we typically consider an "80%" paperweight into what the ATF has deemed a FIREARM. Straight from the ATF's mouth (...so to speak).

[sharxbyte]

Not everyone has the skills, knowledge, time or space. Consider someone living in a studio apartment, for example.

I did mine on a computer desk with a benchtop press and a $40 x/y vice.

[jaymz]

You seem to think that there is some magic threshold that once crossed the law no longer applies and anyone can finish the manufacturing job and it is still considered a home build. Can you show me that regulation, law, or interpretation from someone who's opinion matters?

Why yes, as a matter of fact I can. See the PDF in post #62. Pay particular attention to the last paragraph while referencing the photo. FCG area with no machining whatsoever = non-firearm. Drill a single hole anywhere in the FCG area = firearm. You can legally take your firearm to a gunsmith and have it worked on. If you are present and it is returned to you the same business day, it does not need to be logged. Any 80% that has a determination letter, most certainly has a magic threshold. The others do as well, but it may be a bit riskier due to not having a letter from ATF stating that that particular 80% is not a firearm. But due to it being machined identical to those with a letter, would likely be defensible in court should the need arise.

[SJ-Chris]

... I think you will find it impossible to get a gunsmith to risk his license and business to help you complete a home build.

It has never been my thought that someone that currently makes their livelihood/business as a gunsmith would want to work on these home builds. Home builds would seemingly be just an incremental increase in their business and perhaps they don't want to mess with it. Also, most don't have CNC machines.

Previously, there were unlicensed CNC shops that were more than willing to assist with home builds. *IF* there is a legal path for them to continue doing so (which is the purpose of this thread) then I suspect that some of those previously unlicensed CNC shops could fill out the simple paperwork, pay the small $200 fee, and get an FFL Type 01 gunsmith license and once again help home builders (...but this time it would be MUCH more legal).

I understand what you are saying with drilling one hole and it being a firearm but one hole does not complete the manufacturing

Drilling one hole according to the ATF does create a firearm. This we all agree. And if I am the one that does that, at home, with my drill, then I have manufactured the firearm (which is allowed). But maybe you are right and the ATF might tell me that manufacturing is "the entire process" of completing the firearm to a point where it can in fact fire a projectile. Maybe they will tell me that not only can someone not help with the 81-100% lower receiver steps, but they also cannot help with any of the additional assembly. This is what I'm working on figuring out. Hopefully I'll get an answer from the ATF agent I've been communicating with. When I do I will post the info here.

I am not trying to skate the law...I am trying to understand it so that I (and anyone else interested) can be sure to be following the law. A dumb approach would be, "This approach sounds good...I'll just do it and if I get caught this is the argument I will use to try to keep me out of trouble." A smarter approach is, "Let me see if I can get clarification from the ATF on this before even considering it so that we know going into it that it is legal."

I am not trying to be lazy...I am trying to find efficient ways within the law. There is nothing wrong with that.

Logic tells me that if I am the one manufacturing a gun by taking it across the line into a firearm, then others should be able to help me assemble/finish it. But I also understand the practical reality we live in where the powers that be may very well decide that they have other rules they want us to follow (and I suggest we do). All I'm looking for is something close to definitive one way or another. Everyone's feedback and input is appreciated.

[SJ-Chris]

Chris, I am glad that you did not take my responses in a negative way as they were not meant to be negative and sometime my tone via typing can come across that way. I love building firearms myself, it gives me a lot of satisfaction to be able to take a bunch of old parts and make them work again.

It is easy to see that you are trying to provide information and leverage your experience in your comments. I respect that.

[UnknownShooter]

It is easy to see that you are trying to provide information and leverage your experience in your comments. I respect that.

Interested to hear what your ATF agent told you about this idea?

[Eagle Eyes]

The OP has failed to see the important fact he has missed in his "81%" theory that makes his whole post moot.


The BATF&E does not classify anything as a percentage of what a firearm is or is not. That is why they classify "80%" as Receiver BLANKS so that there is no confusion.

All the BATF&E is saying that in order for a part that has been machined or cast to qualify as a BLANK that nothing related to the fire control can be machined or cast into the receiver BLANK.

Drilling a hole for the fire control group DOES NOT make it a firearm it just does not qualify it to be a BLANK. When the BLANK is completed to the point it is a functional to be able to control the discharge of ammunition then it is considered a firearm. SO drilling one hole puts it into a "limbo" not completed state that makes it neither one or the other.

SO no one except the actual owner can do the work as it would be considered manufacturing and would have to be serialized and DROS back to the owner by the Gunsmith.

As far as the whole Skills, means, space etc. argument:

By law you can legally make your own motorized vehicle and do not have to register it if you never drive on public roads or sell it. If you have someone else do the job they can't just drop it off at your house but have to list themselves as the manufacturer, register it, charge you sales tax then let you have it.

So while it would be nice that everyone get something made there is ALOT of "personal manufacturing" exemptions for lots of regulated items that are not firearms .... but they all require that you personally do the job to qualify for the "personal" exemption.


Hopefully that makes sense because this topic is beaten to death already here on the forums and getting to the point of posting "USE THE SEARCH BUTTON".

[bigcalidave]

The ATF absolutely only uses the terms firearm and non firearm. If you submit something to them that has too much work done to it, they will call it a firearm. This is what happens when determination letters for 80% manufacturers fail. I've seen them. They say "what you submitted has enough stuff done to it to be considered a firearm". If a person can take something which was previously determined to NOT be a firearm, then take it to the level that IS a firearm, I agree with the concept of this thread. However, ATF will not issue blanket statements yet, until they are reformed by some proper controls. Until that point, you would have to take an 80%, do some work to it, submit it to the ATF 'EVERYTIME' and once you receive it back with a letter of determination that it is a firearm someone else could work on it.