ATF Changes Definition of “Manufacturer�

[Marswolf]

Basically, this says that any time a gunsmith modifies a gun that is not expressly at the request of a gun owner and intends to sell the resulting gun, then he is a manufacturer. At least that is how I read it. So, if you buy AR parts and assemble it into a rifle for the purpose of resale, you need to have a license as a firearm manufacturer.

Thanks to http://johnjacobh.wordpress.com/2008/08/17/atf-changes-definition-of-manufacturer/

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/firearmstech/081508manufacturing-of-firearms.pdf

U.S. Department of Justice

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,

Firearms and Explosives

Firearms Technology Branch

August 15, 2008

Martinsburg, West Virginia 25405

www.atf.gov

Manufacturing of Firearms

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.

Generally, a person should obtain a license as a manufacturer of firearms if

the person:

1) is performing operations that create firearms or alter firearms (in the

case of alterations, the work is not being performed at the request of

customers, rather the person who is altering the firearms is purchasing them

making the changes, and then reselling them);

2) is performing the operations as a regular course of business or trade;

and

3) is performing the operations for the purpose of sale or distribution of

the firearms.

1. A company produces a quantity of firearm frames or receivers for sale

to customers who will assemble firearms. The company is engaged in the

business of manufacturing firearms and should be licensed as a manufacturer

of firearms.

2. A company produces frames or receivers for another company that

assembles and sells the firearms. Both companies are engaged in the

business of manufacturing firearms,

and each should be licensed as a manufacturer of firearms.

3. A company provides frames to a subcontractor company that performs

machining operations on the frames and returns the frames to the original

company that assembles and sells the completed firearms. Both companies are

engaged in the business of manufacturing firearms and should be licensed as

manufacturers of firearms.

4. A company produces barrels for firearms and sells the barrels to

another company that assembles and sells complete firearms. Because barrels

are not firearms, the company that manufactures the barrels is not a

manufacturer of firearms. The company that assembles and sells the firearms

should be licensed as a manufacturer of firearms.

5. A company receives firearm frames from individual customers, attaches

stocks and barrels, and returns the firearms to the customers for the

customers’ personal use. The operations performed on the firearms were not

for the purpose of sale or distribution. The company should be licensed as a

dealer or gunsmith, not as a manufacturer of firearms.

6. A company acquires one receiver, assembles one firearm, and sells the

firearm. The company is not manufacturing firearms as a regular course of

trade or business and is not engaged in the business of manufacturing

firearms. This company does not need to be licensed as a manufacturer.

7. An individual acquires frames or receivers and assembles firearms for

his or her personal use, not for sale or distribution. The individual is

not manufacturing firearms for sale or distribution and is not required to

be a licensed manufacturer.

8. A gunsmith regularly buys military-type firearms, Mausers, etc., and

sporterizes†them for resale. The gunsmith is in the business of

manufacturing firearms and should be licensed as a manufacturer.

9. A gunsmith buys semiautomatic pistols and modifies the slides to

accept a new style of sights. The sights are not usually sold with these

firearms and do not attach to the existing mounting openings. The gunsmith

offers these firearms for sale. This would be considered the manufacturing

of firearms, and the gunsmith should be licensed as a manufacturer.

10. A gunsmith buys government model pistols and installs “drop-inâ€

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.

11. A gunsmith buys surplus military rifles, bends the bolts to accept a

scope, and then drills the receivers for a scope base. The gunsmith offers

these firearms for sale. This would be considered the manufacturing of

firearms, and the gunsmith should be licensed as a manufacturer.

12. A gunsmith buys surplus military rifles or pistols and removes the

stocks, adds new stocks or pistol grips, cleans the firearms, then sends the

firearms to a separate contractor for bluing. These firearms are then sold

to the public. This would be considered manufacturing of firearms, and the

gunsmith should be licensed as a manufacturer.

13. A company purchases surplus firearms, cleans the firearms, then

offers them for sale to the public. The company does not need to be

licensed as a manufacturer.

14. A company produces firearms or firearm receivers and sends the firearm/receivers out for colorizing (bluing, camouflaging, phosphating, or plating) and/or heat treating. Do the companies performing the colorization and/or heat treating need to be licensed as manufacturers, and are the companies required to place their markings on the firearm? ATF has determined that both colorization and heat treating of firearms are manufacturing processes. The companies performing the processes are required to be licensed as manufacturers. If the companies providing colorization and/or heat treating have not received variances to adopt the original manufacturer’s markings, they would be required to place their own markings on any firearm on which they perform the manufacturing process of colorization and/or heat treating.

ATF Changes Definition of “Manufacturerâ€

[Smith]

There goes the ATF again. I guess the crackdown has truly begun.

[Angus]

Shhhh..they may just be bored.....we'll sneak by em this way...:D:D

[sigmtnman]

Thanks for pointing this out.

[Guest Coal Creek Armory]

Good information. Thanks.

[DavidD]

It may be a strech, but:

Let's say, for the sake of argument, I find a used S&W model 60 that the Rabi is selling. I buy it, clean it up, (altering the gun by removing the finish) and replace the grips, then resell it for a profit. I would technicly need a manufacturer's license!

[141FE]

You know the goverment - depends on what the definition of "is" is !

[Marswolf]

It may be a strech, but:

Let's say, for the sake of argument, I find a used S&W model 60 that the Rabi is selling. I buy it, clean it up, (altering the gun by removing the finish) and replace the grips, then resell it for a profit. I would technicly need a manufacturer's license!

The ruling, if it can be called that, basically affects those who do modifications or repair for commercial purposes under license. But I would say that if you modified your own gun with the intention of reselling it, the answer, in the least, would be yes. I suspect they would go after you as an unlicensed dealer instead.

[my82cam]

is this the kind of stuff that leads up to a ban? i was a hung pup when (was it clinton?) that banned black rifles, do ya'll think its going to happen again?

[Marswolf]

I think the ATF sees a bunch of people making EBGs (Evil Black Guns) from parts and wants to stop that.

[TGO David]

I think the ATF sees a bunch of people making EBGs (Evil Black Guns) from parts and wants to stop that.

I guess I didn't read it that way. Why do you interpret it as such?

[Marswolf]

I guess I didn't read it that way. Why do you interpret it as such?

Just a guess. I see lots of guys putting together AKs from parts to sell. I looks to me that it's fine to buy your own parts and make an AK but not to buy parts and assemble them for resale. Actually, the former is so easy that you don't need someone to do it for you.

[Guest jwp]

I read it to be a clarification for those engaged in the act of commerce and not a hobby, or those building for personal use.

[Smith]

I read it to be a clarification for those engaged in the act of commerce and not a hobby, or those building for personal use.

I doubt they will. The way ATF uses these decisions, they seem simple, but it gives them an incredible range of power. They can use this to get anyone who resales a gun. If you change handguards - manufacturer and unliscensed dealer, change stocks/grips - manuf/ UL dealer, change sights ........... This is a very restricting ruling.

[Guest jwp]

I doubt they will. The way ATF uses these decisions, they seem simple, but it gives them an incredible range of power. They can use this to get anyone who resales a gun. If you change handguards - manufacturer and unliscensed dealer, change stocks/grips - manuf/ UL dealer, change sights ........... This is a very restricting ruling.

I did not see any wording that targeted anyone not engaged in the business of making firearms. So.......... I don't know how you could draw that conclusion.

[TGO David]

It's been common knowledge for a while that you did not need to assemble an AR for a friend from a parts kit because that put you squarely into the category of being a manufacturer. This just seems to be the BATFE stating it plainly in black and white, which is something that the community has actually needed for some time now. When things are black and white, it leaves less to the discretion of the individual Agent and lets us all know what the rules are.

I just don't see this as being a bad thing.

PS: It's still, and always has been, OK for you to help a buddy work on his own firearm. But not for money and not doing it all for him. Either of those two things make you a manufacturer, by definition.

[Smith]

I did not see any wording that targeted anyone not engaged in the business of making firearms. So.......... I don't know how you could draw that conclusion.

7. An individual acquires frames or receivers and assembles firearms for

his or her personal use, not for sale or distribution. The individual is

not manufacturing firearms for sale or distribution and is not required to

be a licensed manufacturer.

I missed this. However, it is still unclear about the sale. If i build an AR and sale it say a week later...... or the same thing but sale it a year later?

The key seems to be if/when I sale it. I believe they already used this in the Olofson case (granted he had other issues, but this was one as well)

[Guest jwp]

7. An individual acquires frames or receivers and assembles firearms for

his or her personal use, not for sale or distribution. The individual is

not manufacturing firearms for sale or distribution and is not required to

be a licensed manufacturer.

I missed this. However, it is still unclear about the sale. If i build an AR and sale it say a week later...... or the same thing but sale it a year later?

The key seems to be if/when I sale it. I believe they already used this in the Olofson case (granted he had other issues, but this was one as well)

There is a "magic" number that the ATF will let you build per year before they want you to pony up the fees and get an FFL.

[Marswolf]

I just don't see this as being a bad thing.

Actually, I've been thinking this too. You just have more testosterone than I to speak it.

[towerclimber37]

I did not see any wording that targeted anyone not engaged in the business of making firearms. So.......... I don't know how you could draw that conclusion.

I'd have to side with nate on this one. why? because the ATF tends to make up their own conclusions about who is who and what it what when it comes to prosecuting people who own firearms or care to sell them.

they have had more failed IG inspections than any other government agency that I know of and have a tendency to apply their own interpretations to any laws dealing with firearms.

that's how *I* would draw that conclusion..but other folks may see it differently.

DISBAND THE ATF!!!

[Guest jwp]

I'd have to side with nate on this one. why? because the ATF tends to make up their own conclusions about who is who and what it what when it comes to prosecuting people who own firearms or care to sell them.

they have had more failed IG inspections than any other government agency that I know of and have a tendency to apply their own interpretations to any laws dealing with firearms.

that's how *I* would draw that conclusion..but other folks may see it differently.

DISBAND THE ATF!!!

7. An individual acquires frames or receivers and assembles firearms for

his or her personal use, not for sale or distribution. The individual is

not manufacturing firearms for sale or distribution and is not required to

be a licensed manufacturer.

I missed this. However, it is still unclear about the sale. If i build an AR and sale it say a week later...... or the same thing but sale it a year later?

The key seems to be if/when I sale it. I believe they already used this in the Olofson case (granted he had other issues, but this was one as well)

You missed the post below my response. It was all sorted out.

[Smith]

What is the magic number? and I don't think it would matter anyway, the way they can interpret their rulings as liberal or strict as they want.

[Marswolf]

I don't think there is a magic number. Years ago, the unofficial number of personal sales you could do in a year was 7. But it was never official and now there is no accepted number.

This seems to deal with intent. If you build or modify a firearm with the intent to sell it, your action is now considered illegal unless you have a manufacturers license. If you build it for yourself but then decide that you don't want it, it's legal without being a licensed manufacturer.

[Smith]

While you all know I'm no conspiracy nut ......... the ATF is using mind policing policies. This is what I don't like. It is so open to interpretation the ATF can really enforce anything they want. How can they determine intent. Some cases are easy, but every case "could be" intent. How do disprove your own personal thoughts? How do you prove your thoughts?

While I don't necessarily think there is some underground cult running the ATF, all it will take is a liberal with intent to effectivley crush 2a using seemingly harmless laws already on the books.

This is about my only tin foil moment, so sorry for the rant.

[towerclimber37]

I don't think there is a magic number. Years ago, the unofficial number of personal sales you could do in a year was 7. But it was never official and now there is no accepted number.

This seems to deal with intent. If you build or modify a firearm with the intent to sell it, your action is now considered illegal unless you have a manufacturers license. If you build it for yourself but then decide that you don't want it, it's legal without being a licensed manufacturer.

at the risk of needing a tin foil hat, you say that now there is no magic number but its a whim of the atf to decide if you are a manufacturer...

and in order to prove that you're not, you have to go through the legal system. the atf can afford to drain your money so that your defense is mitigated by drawing out the trial....so effectively they will win.

ok! I now think they're the best thing since sliced bread! NOT!!!