ATF Changes Definition of "Manufacturer"

imported post

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

9-12 are especially harsh for gunsmiths, it seems.

imported post

So does this mean if an individual buys say an AR lower and builds it up, then decides to sell it that they would be considered a manufacturer?

If that is the case it might no be long before you will not be able to buy a car change the engine to a non typical engine and sell it that you will be a vehicle manufacturer.

imported post

It seems that the key part is that the 'smith must offer the modified guns for sale to be considered a manufacturer. As long as your 'smith doesn't sell guns, but only modifies them at your request, he still gets to be just a 'smith. :quirky

imported post

Yeah that is how I read it the second time I looked at it.

imported post

So isn't that the way it's always been? FFL01 is for dealers and smiths. FFL07 is for manufacturers.
It comes down to the fact that if you're selling you're smithed firearm, then you become a manufacturer and will require the 07 license.

imported post

Thndr wrote:

So does this mean if an individual buys say an AR lower and builds it up, then decides to sell it that they would be considered a manufacturer?

If that is the case it might no be long before you will not be able to buy a car change the engine to a non typical engine and sell it that you will be a vehicle manufacturer.

Click to expand...

That can't be considered part of your normal course of business, and thus you don't have to register. You must habitually buy, modify, and sell firearms to qualify as a manufacturer under the new rules.

9-12 are especially harsh for gunsmiths, it seems.

Click to expand...

Yeah,I could see how this might require the gunsmith who showcases what he can do and sells those examples for the right priceto register as a manufacturerwhen he might otherwise get away with a straight gunsmith license. However, the gunsmiths I know do very little of that; they make more money working directly for clients than building a showcase, and so they give evidence of what they can do through diagrams, mock-ups and pictures more than working examples.

It seems that the key part is that the 'smith must offer the modified guns for sale to be considered a manufacturer. As long as your 'smith doesn't sell guns, but only modifies them at your request, he still gets to be just a 'smith. :quirky

Click to expand...

That's my read. Course, if he's got any business the BATF takes an interest in, he has to keep a bound book, and if he himself is licensed, and hasn't set his business up as a seperate legal entity like an LLC, his own personal collection is subject to inclusion in that bound book, buy sell or trade. It would be very easy for a 'smith to have one too many guns go through his hands in exchange for money, and if one gun was bought for his collection, modified by him, then sold to someone else the BATF can say he's got the wrong license and drag him over the coals. What I see is more gunsmiths either restructuring their business as an LLC or S-Corp, or biting the bullet and getting the more expensive license, either of which means their overhead goes up and thus their cost of service.

imported post

Does this mean that if I bought old WWII M1 Carbine stocks and cleaned them up/re-finished them to their original appearance, and resold them, I'd have to have a manufacturer's license?

imported post

marshaul wrote:

It seems that the key part is that the 'smith must offer the modified guns for sale to be considered a manufacturer. As long as your 'smith doesn't sell guns, but only modifies them at your request, he still gets to be just a 'smith. :quirky

Click to expand...

yeah, but teh wording can always be "interpeted" to fit the criteria teh ATF wishes to establish depending upon exactly how much they want to throw it on you. just look at what Mr. Olofson went through due to the ATF definition of a "machine gun"

imported post

Look, I'm not trying to defend the BATFE. But, the wording in question cannot be interpreted any other way. It's quite explicit. The Olofson conviction was valid according to the letter of the law, which doesn't specify that the gun must be made to fire automatically, only that it does fire automatically.

The problem with the BATFE isn't their precise and basically reasonable definition of "manufacturer," it's the fact that they exist at all.

imported post

marshaul wrote:

Look, I'm not trying to defend the BATFE. But, the wording in question cannot be interpreted any other way. It's quite explicit. The Olofson conviction was valid according to the letter of the law, which doesn't specify that the gun must be made to fire automatically, only that it does fire automatically.

The problem with the BATFE isn't their precise and basically reasonable definition of "manufacturer," it's the fact that they exist at all.

Click to expand...

I understand what you are trying to say, but you are looking at it from a logical standpoint, therefore you won't see it the way the ATF does.

as far as teh Olofson situation, the law says made, or re made to fire automatically. from my knowledge of teh situation, the AR-15 in question was neither. it malfunctioned. yet the ATF still applied "their" own definiotion, anmd now he pays for a crime that never happened.

let's look at this from the ATF standpoint

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

1. A company produces a quantity of firearm frames or receivers
[align=left]for sale to customers who will assemble firearms.[/align]
[align=left]The company is engaged in the business of manufacturing firearms and should be[/align]
[align=left]licensed as a manufacturer of firearms.[/align]

Click to expand...

exactly how many frames or recievers qualify as "a quantity"?

200? 20? 2? farther down, it specifies that one gun does not make you a manufacturer, but there is no farther specification.

2. A company produces frames or receivers for another company
[align=left]that assembles and sells the firearms.[/align]
[align=left]Both companies are engaged in the business of manufacturing firearms, and each[/align]
[align=left]should be licensed as a manufacturer of firearms.[/align]

Click to expand...

what is the ATF definition of a company? would it be anyone with an FFL/C&R/etc.?

suppose you buy the parts to make 2 firearms. you decide to sell one of them. are you now a "manufacturing company?

4. A company produces barrels for firearms and sells the barrels
[align=left]to another company that assembles and sells complete firearms.[/align]
[align=left]Because barrels are not firearms, the company that manufactures the barrels is not[/align]
[align=left]a manufacturer of firearms. The company that assembles and sells the firearms[/align]
[align=left]should be licensed as a manufacturer of firearms.[/align]

Click to expand...

again, if you buy a new barrel for your gun and subsequently sell that gun, are you now a "manufacturer"?

7. An individual acquires frames or receivers and assembles
[align=left]firearms for his or her personal use, not for sale or distribution.[/align]
[align=left]The individual is not manufacturing firearms for sale or distribution and is not[/align]
[align=left]required to be a licensed manufacturer.[/align]

Click to expand...

so as long as you keep said gunfor all of eternity, or you choose to give it as a gift, you are safe. but what if you decide to sell some of your customized weapons?

8. A gunsmith regularly buys military-type firearms, Mausers, etc., and
[align=left]“sporterizes” them for resale.[/align]
[align=left]The gunsmith is in the business of manufacturing firearms and should be licensed[/align]
[align=left]as a manufacturer.[/align]
[align=left]9. A gunsmith buys semiautomatic pistols and modifies the slides to accept a[/align]
[align=left]new style of sights. The sights are not usually sold with these firearms and[/align]
[align=left]do not attach to the existing mounting openings. The gunsmith offers these[/align]
[align=left]firearms for sale.[/align]
[align=left]This would be considered the manufacturing of firearms, and the gunsmith should[/align]
[align=left]be licensed as a manufacturer.[/align]
[align=left]10. A gunsmith buys government model pistols and installs “drop-in” precision[/align]
[align=left]trigger parts or other “drop-in parts” for the purpose of resale.[/align]
[align=left]This would be considered the manufacturing of firearms, as the gunsmith is[/align]
[align=left]purchasing the firearms, modifying the firearms, and selling them. The gunsmith[/align]
[align=left]should be licensed as a manufacturer.[/align]
[align=left]11. A gunsmith buys surplus military rifles, bends the bolts to accept a[/align]
[align=left]scope, and then drills the receivers for a scope base. The gunsmith[/align]
[align=left]offers these firearms for sale.[/align]
[align=left]This would be considered the manufacturing of firearms, and the gunsmith should[/align]
[align=left]be licensed as a manufacturer.[/align]
[align=left]12. A gunsmith buys surplus military rifles or pistols and removes the stocks,[/align]
[align=left]adds new stocks or pistol grips, cleans the firearms, then sends the firearms[/align]
[align=left]to a separate contractor for bluing. These firearms are then sold to the[/align]
[align=left]public.[/align]
[align=left]This would be considered manufacturing of firearms, and the gunsmith should be[/align]
[align=left]licensed as a manufacturer.[/align]

Click to expand...

yeah, those seem pretty cut and dry. if you modify a firearm to accept a scope you are a manufacturer? give me a break...

13. A company purchases surplus firearms, cleans the firearms, then offers themfor sale to the public.

The company does not need to be licensed as a manufacture

Click to expand...

[align=left]well, at least we are allowed to clean our guns before we sell them....[/align]
[align=left]

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

Click to expand...

[/align]
so ifyou re-blue a gun and then sell it, you are amanufacturer?



whiel I don't mean to sound like a smart-ass, and please don't takle this as such, this isridiculous, and will lead to farther incidents thatmake more law abiding citizens de facto felons.and what can't felons possess?

this is just one more "backdoor"FED trick for the ultimate extinctionof our RTKBA

imported post

So if I send my firearm out to be refinished I am going to end up with a new "manufactuer's mark" on my firearm? What horsesqueeze. Out of control and mentally retarded doesn't even begin to effectively describe the ATF and it's leadership. I am quickly losing all remaining faith in my government which is sad.