Non-FFL gunsmithing conundrum

[JaredKaragen]

Ok; I am unsure if anyone has discussed this grey area that someone brought up to me:

Person A is any private firearm owner.
Person B is a private (non FFL licensed) gunsmith.


#1: Any firearm person “B” is working on, must have the owner present while working on said firearm; so no FFL required and no laws breached. Correct me if I am wrong.

#2: Person “A” has an 80% lower (let’s say an ar15 for simplicity sake).
If this person drills any size of hole in the main FCG pocket or any of the FCG holes; the 80% now is considered a firearm. Yes? I believe so, and the ATF has made that clear…. It’s been manufactured into a firearm.

#3: Person A brings his firearm to person B to do gunsmithing work of any nature on that same very firearm mentioned in #2.

Have any laws been broken?


This felt VERY grey to me and I didn’t really have an answer for him.

Any legal whizzes in here have a substantial answer I can give him?
I personally do not remember seeing any caveats against this happening…

Any rule/code violation references that are applicable are greatly appreciated…. Cause he thinks he may have opened a can of worms with this mundane question.

*edit #1* or should I delete this thread altogether?
*edit #2* if no responses in the next 24 hours (on 9/24/22) ill be deleting this post for the obvious reason that we calgunners tend to not talk about these type of things publicly. I know federally; all is clear as per my original posting above... but i'm unaware if there are any california laws that could apply to this type of scenario that are obscure or unknown to most. I just want to be sure more than just I and a few people locally know about this, because it has been staring us all in the face for YEARS.

[SkyHawk]

#2: Person “A” has an 80% lower (let’s say an ar15 for simplicity sake).
If this person drills any size of hole in the main FCG pocket or any of the FCG holes; the 80% now is considered a firearm. Yes? I believe so, and the ATF has made that clear…. It’s been manufactured into a firearm.

#3: Person A brings his firearm to person B to do gunsmithing work of any nature on that same very firearm mentioned in #2.

Have any laws been broken?

First of all you are mistaken. An 80% lower with any work started is a firearm in the process of being manufactured. One hole does not make it "manufactured". That is the way ATF describes it. There is a distinction between "manufactured" and "in the process of being manufactured".


So, if person B does any additional work in furtherance of the manufacturing process on behalf of another, then yes that is illegal (unlicensed manufacturing).

If person B does any work on such a lower that has nothing to do with completing it (perhaps they do some engraving) without the owner present then that is a legal gray area and could very well be construed as gunsmithing without a license (unlicensed dealer).

More here

https://www.atf.gov/file/11711/download

https://www.ryancleckner.com/files/ATF-Ruling-2010-10.pdf

You will note in the ATF opinion letters above that secondary processors who are doing engraving, heat treating or finishing work before the manufacturing of the blank has been completed, are still presumed to be licensed dealers - they just don't have to be licensed manufacturers so long as none of the work contributes to completing the blank into a firearm.

You should also note that ATF considers work on "firearms in the process of being manufactured" to be "gunsmithing activities"

The activities discussed in ATF Ruling 2010-10 are not the manufacturing processes to create the firearm frame or receiver, or any of the steps that allow the frame or receiver to function when assembled into a complete weapon on behalf of non-licensed individuals. To the contrary, those gunsmithing activities are explicitly required to be done on behalf of a licensed manufacturer or importer who are required by 27 CFR 478.92(a)(2) to mark and serialize the frame or receiver prior to shipment to the gunsmith. As explained by the ruling, “[t]his will ensure that the frames or receivers can be traced by ATF in the event they are lost or stolen during the manufacturing process.” This distinction is also legally significant because manufacturing processes that create essential features, depending on the type of firearm, are necessary for the frame or receiver to function as part of a complete “weapon.” At this stage of production, the frame or receiver is different from one that a licensed gunsmith may receive and perform gunsmithing services because these manufacturing processes make the frame or receiver suitable for use in assembling a “weapon” under the GCA.

So my personal, non-lawyer advice would be that it is not legal once manufacturing has started for an unlicensed 3rd party to the manufacturing to receive the blank and do anything to it without the person who is in the process of manufacturing it being present.

[JaredKaragen]

Thanks for the heads up. I’ll relay that to him….

I knew there had to be at least something…. Seemed too big of a hole not to be something on it.

But it’s funny how they pick and chose what definition they want to use; as it suits them….. typical aft.

The referenced links are about licensed individuals and manufacturers specifically; I did not see rules for unlicensed gunsmiths…. I’ll re-read again. Also, there seems to be a grey area period between 2010 and 2015.

Also it’s an opinion letter; not signed law.

That makes me ask:
Is “in the process of being manufactured” defined anywhere in the laws?

[SkyHawk]

The referenced links are about licensed individuals and manufacturers specifically; I did not see rules for unlicensed gunsmiths…. I’ll re-read again. Also, there seems to be a grey area period between 2010 and 2015.

That makes me ask:
Is “in the process of being manufactured” defined anywhere in the laws?

There are no rules for "unlicensed gunsmiths" because it has been deemed illegal in numerous ATF opinions (and perhaps prosecutions) per 18 USC 21 (11) if it is done as a business or for income

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/921

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/license-needed-engage-business-engraving-customizing-refinishing-or-repairing-firearms

So the default rule is, "don't do it".

The idea that someone unlicensed might be able to legally work on a gun with the owner present is somewhat supported by this ATF opinion

https://www.atf.gov/file/55261/download

except that a firearm need not be entered in the bound acquisition and disposition record if the firearm is brought in for adjustment or repair and the owner waits while it is being adjusted or repaired or if the gunsmith returns the firearm to the owner during the same business day it is brought in. If the firearm is retained from one business day to another or longer, it must be recorded in the bound acquisition and disposition record.

However note that opinion is directed at licensed gunsmiths and the requirement to log in/out firearms.

As for the definition of "in the process of being manufactured" I believe it is perhaps deemed as self evident by courts or ATF that someone who is in the process of manufacturing a firearm that has not been completed, has in their hands a "firearm in the process of being manufactured".

More reading here

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2022-04-26/pdf/2022-08026.pdf

k. Definition of ‘‘Complete Weapon’’ Comments Received
Some commenters argued that ATF’s definition of a ‘‘complete weapon’’ is illogical because it includes ‘‘a firearm that contains all component parts necessary to function as designed whether or not it is assembled or operable.’’ They objected to the inclusion of operability, stating that, if it is inoperable, it is not a weapon. They also objected to inclusion of an unassembled weapon, as they believed this inclusion would create tremendous enforcement uncertainty. Commenters asserted that law-abiding gun owners who legally own both AR rifles and pistols could be charged with a felony
if they store their firearms unassembled. Other commenters stated that the definition of ‘‘complete weapon’’ only generates confusion because, in their view, a ‘‘firearm’’ would legally be a ‘‘firearm’’ whether or not it is a ‘‘complete weapon’’ under the NPRM.

Department Response
For the reasons previously discussed, the Department disagrees that inoperable or nonfunctional firearms are not ‘‘weapons,’’ and that the application of the definition of ‘‘firearm’’ to unassembled weapons creates enforcement uncertainty. Firearms manufacturing is a continuum from raw material to a functional item, and the term ‘‘complete weapon’’ is needed to explain when the frame or receiver of a weapon in the process of being manufactured must be identified and recorded as required by the regulations.

Specifically, under this rule, frames or receivers of non-NFA weapons that are in the process of being manufactured as part of complete weapons may be marked and recorded by a licensed manufacturer up to seven days after the entire manufacturing process for the complete weapon has ended. Complete NFA weapons, consistent with the recordkeeping requirement in 27 CFR 478.123(a) and Form 2 submission requirement in 27 CFR 479.103, must be marked by close of the next business day after manufacture. Such complete weapons may be sold in an unassembled configuration or may be inoperable due to poor workmanship or design. But the fact that a complete weapon is sold or distributed unassembled, or happens to be currently inoperable, does not remove the requirement for identifying markings to be placed on the frame or receiver.

[JaredKaragen]

There are no rules for "unlicensed gunsmiths" because it has been deemed illegal in numerous ATF opinions (and perhaps prosecutions) per 18 USC 21 (11) if it is done as a business or for income

Excellent points.

Keep it coming fellas.

Its nice we have a place to work out stuff like this; amicably.

Trying to hash this out with the ATF just makes them invent new rules that aren't "lawful orders/requirements".

He never mentioned for any $$$, and implied the smithing work would just be done for a friend/relative/etc as a courtesy. No cash, or anything of value in compensation for the work [to be] done was considered; specifically because that puts an individual into the "in the business of...." which IS layed out in several laws (ignoring opinions which aren't law).