Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's not legal to create a functional receiver without a proper firearm manufacturer license.
Of course it is legal.
It's not legal to create a functional receiver for commercial sale or interstate transfer without a manufacturing license.
Thousands of people build receivers for personal use every year, they're not doing anything illegal. You can even buy 80% lowers for personal manufacture, and BATFE know about it. If it were illegal then these could only be sold to type 7 licensee's, but they're freely available to the public.
Sorry, if you want more, you'll need to do your own research.
1. SERIAL NUMBER
Must be conspicuously engraved, cast or stamped (impressed) on the firearm frame or
receiver
•
The serial number cannot duplicate the serial number appearing on any other firearm the
importer previously imported
•
For firearms imported after January 30, 2002, the engraving, casting or stamping
(impressing) of the serial number must be to a minimum depth of .003 inch and in a print
size no smaller than 1/16 inch
•
2. NAME of MANUFACTURER
Must be conspicuously engraved, cast or stamped (impressed) on the firearm frame,
receiver, barrel or slide
•
For firearms imported after January 30, 2002, the engraving, casting or stamping
(impressing) of the serial number must be to a minimum depth of .003 inch
•
3. COUNTRY of ORIGIN
Must be conspicuously engraved, cast or stamped (impressed) on the firearm frame,
receiver, barrel or slide
•
For firearms imported after January 30, 2002, the engraving, casting or stamping
(impressing) of the country of origin must be to a minimum depth of .003 inch
That's BATFE importation and verification handbook.
Doesn't apply to personal weapons manufactured by hobbiests for personal use. It most it would only apply if the hobbiests manufactured guns were being sold, probably not just sold, but sold interstate.
Thanks for the link! It's definitely a gray area in my mind... the ATF site even has a FAQ about 80% lowers...
To play devil's advocate*, what's illegal about owning an 80% lower that you finished and carved in "sailmotion arms, USA, serial no. 1234"? Is that the end of our obligations, putting a number on the lowers we complete?
----------------------
* I only have one AR, a Colt 6920. No interest or means to finish an 80% lower.
No gray area whatsoever.
BATFE regulates firearms through the interstate commerce clause.
Thus commercial manufacture, distribution and sales to non-licensees are regulated through BATFE and local laws. BATFE has no legal grounds to prosecute manufacture of items that it regulates (unless federally or locally banned) for personal use, since it does not impede or affect interstate commerce (which is the entire legal grounds for federal firearms regulation). NOTE: Even giving someone a personally manufactured firearm could be considered impeding or affecting interstate commerce, as the person receiving that firearm received commercial benefit from the manufacture (i.e. if they wanted a gun, they could have bought one commercially, but chose not to thus impeding interstate commerce).
Licensees to maintain their license and not violate the terms of the license (which are felonies) must abide by the regulations laid out by BATFE.
Non-licensees have no terms to abide by, thus are not bound by those regulations except in regards to where it may impede or affect interstate commerce, i.e. Selling or Transferring.
The gray area is when is someone in "the business of", that's the whole fulcrum that can allow BATFE to come down on you, or not. However no one has been prosecuted under federal regulations for the manufacture of firearms for personal use and retained by the manufacturer.
You'll note that the entire PDF linked, discusses licensees, not people. Thus does not apply to non-licensees.
It's not legal to create a functional receiver for commercial sale or interstate transfer without a manufacturing license.
Thousands of people build receivers for personal use every year, they're not doing anything illegal. You can even buy 80% lowers for personal manufacture, and BATFE know about it. If it were illegal then these could only be sold to type 7 licensee's, but they're freely available to the public.
Commonly misunderstood area of firearms. Assumption is that because you can only buy from a licensed source (or from someone who obtained from a licensed source), that manufacture is prohibited. However only unlicensed commercial manufacture is prohibited, so as we have the principle of Nulla poena sine lege (no penalty without law) and only unlicensed commercial manufacture is prohibited, non-commercial unlicensed manufacture is not prohibited, thus permitted.
That's BATFE importation and verification handbook.
Doesn't apply to personal weapons manufactured by hobbiests for personal use. It most it would only apply if the hobbiests manufactured guns were being sold, probably not just sold, but sold interstate.
A BC won't deter even the most simple minded felon from legally buying a weapon. They know the trick is to buy everything as parts. I can walk into ANY gun store that sells everything I need and be at the range shooting it in an hour without ever even discussing a back ground check with the salesman. No waiting period, nothing.
This is now worth repeating after the excellent interpretation by Gungnir.
I have no problem with background checks. I have undergone many of them, from the ridiculous Form 4473 to the full-on FBI investigation for a Secret Clearance.
However, I am not so foolish as to believe for an instant that any background check will do what the gun control advocates seem to think (and hope) it will! Please, keep in mind that nearly EVERY mass shooting was done with a legally purchased weapon, and the shooter passed the background check when the weapon was purchased.
So, if the background check gives you a warm, fuzzy feeling, good for you. You go right ahead living in your la-la land, knowing that the Government is protecting you from those horrible gun owners.
Does it really make you feel more secure knowing that one has to present an ID (Driver's license, because that is the only thing the computer is programmed for) to purchase a Daisy BB gun? I know it is true, because I just bought 2 of them for my grandkids. The cashier could not accept my Federal Retired Military ID Card! The computer would not allow it!
To quote a famous old curmudgeon, "BAH! Humbug!"
I have no problem with background checks. I have undergone many of them, from the ridiculous Form 4473 to the full-on FBI investigation for a Secret Clearance.
However, I am not so foolish as to believe for an instant that any background check will do what the gun control advocates seem to think (and hope) it will! Please, keep in mind that nearly EVERY mass shooting was done with a legally purchased weapon, and the shooter passed the background check when the weapon was purchased.
So, if the background check gives you a warm, fuzzy feeling, good for you. You go right ahead living in your la-la land, knowing that the Government is protecting you from those horrible gun owners.
Does it really make you feel more secure knowing that one has to present an ID (Driver's license, because that is the only thing the computer is programmed for) to purchase a Daisy BB gun? I know it is true, because I just bought 2 of them for my grandkids. The cashier could not accept my Federal Retired Military ID Card! The computer would not allow it!
To quote a famous old curmudgeon, "BAH! Humbug!"
Agreed on all counts, except...
Even though what you say is true about the mass shootings we know about, we can never know what mass shootings may not have occurred due to making things just a little more difficult for those who want to use guns with violent intent.
Also, we are faced with this same problem when it comes to the purchase of many products even though we humans are pretty crafty about getting around the law. For example, should we not require prescriptions from doctors in order to get drugs, even though it is possible to get drugs without prescriptions? Should we not require contractors to be licensed even though many a contractor can get around that requirement? Should we not require proof of auto insurance to drive even though there are many driving around without auto insurance?
Gun control advocates are all too often characterized as "foolish" to think these preventative measures will stop mass shootings or even significantly reduce gun violence, BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT THEY THINK!
I would counter the only "foolish" ones are those who don't look at this problem objectively and/or those who wish to characterize the opposite opinion as born from stupidity. Find me a gun-control advocate who thinks back-ground checks solve the problem of gun violence, and..., well good luck with that!
Nevertheless, we should not have these checks and screens as a general matter of practice?
I find that position hard to justify all considered...
Even though what you say is true about the mass shootings we know about, we can never know what mass shootings may not have occurred due to making things just a little more difficult for those who want to use guns with violent intent.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
