Ghost guns and gun tracing?
- Thread starter Prof Young
- Start date
Aguila Blanca
Staff
Yes, there is a lot of confusion. No, it is not illegal to transfer a firearm that doesn't have a serial number.
101combatvet
New member
Maybe, it looks like the links you provided don't address ghost guns specifically except the article.
stagpanther
New member
The serialization requirements are within the context of what constitutes a manufacturer of firearms. Generally speaking this involves anyone--individual, group business or otherwise who derives a "meaningful financial benefit" from manufacturing a firearm, which is generally defined making the receiver capable of causing an "explosion" that drives a projectile from it.
Bubba Joe is not required--as of now--to serialize a gun they have assembled for the intent of their own personal use. If later on they decide they want to give it to a friend or sell it, that also does not--at present--require serialization or ffl transfer.
There is no time limit between transfer/sales--the determining factor--a rather vaguely defined one--is whether you derive meaningful income/benefit on those transfers/sales. This can include moneyless quid pro quo; building weapons and giving them away for nothing to people who have done favors for you. If you do this only occasionally and derive little to no income/benefit, then you probably will have little to worry about. I routinely use FFL for transfers whether I have to or not.If the ultimate use of the weapon ends up in a crime, things can go south for you if the gun ultimately is connected to you as the original transfer receiver or manufacturer of the weapon.
Bubba Joe is not required--as of now--to serialize a gun they have assembled for the intent of their own personal use. If later on they decide they want to give it to a friend or sell it, that also does not--at present--require serialization or ffl transfer.
There is no time limit between transfer/sales--the determining factor--a rather vaguely defined one--is whether you derive meaningful income/benefit on those transfers/sales. This can include moneyless quid pro quo; building weapons and giving them away for nothing to people who have done favors for you. If you do this only occasionally and derive little to no income/benefit, then you probably will have little to worry about. I routinely use FFL for transfers whether I have to or not.If the ultimate use of the weapon ends up in a crime, things can go south for you if the gun ultimately is connected to you as the original transfer receiver or manufacturer of the weapon.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
That's because laws aren't generally written to tell us what IS legal, they are written to tell us what isn't legal. If it's not illegal ... it's legal.101combatvet said:
The CFR on serialization of firearms specifically refers to "licensed" manufacturers and importers. John Doe making a Polymer 80 in his basement on Friday night isn't a licensed manufacturer, so the law doesn't apply to him.
stagpanther
New member
Unless he derives "meaningful" income or benefit, which would make him a manufacturer and subject to all the requirements a manufacturer has.
- Ghost guns are most certainly firearms. (Using the definition that a "ghost gun" is a gun made by a non-licensee.)
- At this time, there is nothing in federal law about "ghost guns". Searching for federal legislation on "ghost guns" is not going to turn anything up. What people are calling "ghost guns" are nothing more than firearms made by non-licensees.
- Guns made by non-licensees do not need serial numbers.
- Guns made by non-licensees and then later sold do not need serial numbers. BATF recommends that they be serial numbered but there is no legal requirement to do so. (Note, a non-licensee who is making guns for anything other than personal use is breaking federal laws. It is legal to later decide you don't want a gun you originally made for personal use and sell it then, but if it was originally made for sale, a crime was committed.)
- Kits are not firearms. They are not guns. They are not "ghost guns". They are a collection of parts, a partially manufactured receiver that does not yet meet the definition of firearm per the BATF and perhaps some tools/materials/instructions to assist in completing the receiver and assembling the firearm.
If he is making the gun for anything other than personal use then he is an unlicensed manufacturer and is violating federal law. If he is making it for himself then you are correct.
It does not matter if the person is making meaningful income from the sale or not, the key is the original intent. If a person is making a gun for anything other than personal use and does not have the proper federal licensing, they are in violation of federal law.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
Ah, rats.JohnKSa said:
Yes, you are correct. Once it has been completed, a "ghost gun" is a firearm. But this law isn't aimed at the completed firearms, the law is aimed at the uncompleted ("80%") receivers -- which are NOT firearms under current law, and won't be firearms under the proposed law.
Bill DeShivs
New member
If you make a firearm (not an NFA firearm) and decide to sell it, the ATF SUGGESTS you put a serial number on it. There is no requirement to register the gun with the federal government. 44AMP is wrong about this.
I haven't seen the proposed law. I thought this was about an executive action by Biden.
He can't make new law, but he might be able to tell BATF to re-evaluate how they classify 80% receivers and/or kits. As far as I know, that's not codified anywhere, it's just BATF opinion. So they could come back and say that really receivers need to be only 50% complete to not be firearms, or that including certain materials/tools/aids in a kit cross over the line into providing a firearm. Something along those lines.
As far as new laws--actual legislation, I think it might be hard to come up with federal law to regulate the manufacture of firearms for personal use that would pass constitutional muster. But then, we never really know how that will come out until after SCOTUS rules...
Aguila Blanca
Staff
Yep. I thought I had raised that point previously, but I guess it was either in a different thread or on another site. Agreed, the 80% is a BATFE interpretation, and it can be changed at any time (I guess). And that raises the slippery slope question: if the BATFE drops it from 80% to 60% and that doesn't solve the problem, then what? Do we go to 40%, and then 20%, and then ... 0%? Does a raw ingot of steel or aluminum alloy get classified as a "ghost gun" because someone could potentially turn it into a firearm?JohnKSa said:
I think the BATFE is already going after complete 80% kits (those with parts in addition to the uncompleted receiver) as subject to regulation under the constructive possession theory.
The irony behind ghost guns is I don't think there would even be a market for them if there wasn't a prohibition based model for gun control.
And whats interesting about them is even if they completely outlaw making guns that will only increase the technology which will only make it easier for the bad guys to make them from.
As ghost guns start turning up in crime scenes the argument is "well anyone can make them" but when they are prohibited from being made that argument wont change.
Not that gun rights hasn't been telling them this for years about outlawing guns... but with the future of firearm technology in 3D printing that anyone can do maybe ghost guns will be the king pin in the gun control debate? They cant be traced, so there wont be a point in the background check system anymore. Data wants to be free, and its already out there. Is there a way the law can prohibit the data from being delivered?
And whats interesting about them is even if they completely outlaw making guns that will only increase the technology which will only make it easier for the bad guys to make them from.
As ghost guns start turning up in crime scenes the argument is "well anyone can make them" but when they are prohibited from being made that argument wont change.
Not that gun rights hasn't been telling them this for years about outlawing guns... but with the future of firearm technology in 3D printing that anyone can do maybe ghost guns will be the king pin in the gun control debate? They cant be traced, so there wont be a point in the background check system anymore. Data wants to be free, and its already out there. Is there a way the law can prohibit the data from being delivered?
stagpanther
New member
This very subject came up during my recent interview for a manufacturer's license and I requested that it be run up the flagpole to the agency's lawyers at the field office. What I was told was the relevant question is whether or not you are actually a firearm manufacturer or not, and the test for that is if you make substantive income or benefit from the manufacture of the firearm. If you build a firearm with the "intent" of using it for personal use but later decide you want to give it away or sell it for whatever reason, at some point you either become a manufacturer or someone who is potentially exploiting "personal use" to be an unlicensed manufacturer if you do it often enough.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
This is true, but how often "often enough" is has never been firmly established. Many years ago I heard that the BATFE office around these parts has a guideline, but I'm reluctant to dredge it up because the memory is fuzzy. It involved "three," but I don't remember if it was three guns in the span of one year, or one gun in the span of three years. Either way, it's an arbitrary criterion that's nothing more than a guideline, so it could change on a whim.stagpanther said:
stagpanther
New member
Not as arbitrary as you might think. Real world example: Local Bubba decides he enjoys building rifles and AR's and then finding the best loads to make them as accurate as possible--ahem, cough cough. Word will get out pretty quick in your local community of firearms owners and hunters if you're reasonably good at it, and you also start selling or trading your pet projects at a later date when you're ready to move on to your next "love interest." Eventually that word will reach the ears of licensed folks and local gun stores and they are likely not going to be happy if they view you as unfair competition to what they spend money to be able to do. Good luck with the personal intent thing once you actually get on the radar.
I think what we're seeing is the difference between how something would be proved in court and what is actually legal.
The law says nothing about how much money is made if a non-licensee decides to sell firearms they made for personal use.
But proving intent can be difficult, while the government has a lot of experience tracking money.
I think it's pretty simple to take a couple extreme cases and see that intent really is the dividing line, not the amount of income derived.
Case 1. Let's say George Hoenig makes a rifle for himself and then decides to sell it. He might net 6 figures from the sale given the uniqueness and amazing qualities of the rifle. Certainly significant income by anyone's standards but no one would argue that what he did was not fully in the spirit of the law.
Case 2. Let's say that Jim Bob figures out how to build AR-15s from 80% kits, thinks it's the most fun he's ever had and goes to work turning out as many as he can. He's not a shooter so he doesn't bother to test fire them. He's doing it for fun, so he's not even trying to recover the cost of the kits. He just sells each finished gun for $50 and two six packs of his favorite beer. Clearly no significant income--in fact he's losing a ton of money--but there's not going to be a problem with anyone understanding that he's not making the guns for his own use and is, in fact, acting as an unlicensed manufacturer.
stagpanther
New member
OK, I fold.
I find it somewhat ironic that the sale of complete parts kits without a (partial finished) receiver and the partial finished receivers without any other parts included has been going on for decades with no one at all concerned.
#1) because it was and still is completely legal
and #2(probably) because all the parts needed were not sold in one package.
There was a recent ATF raid on a company, I have not heard where it is currently in the legal system, but apparently the cause was that the company was selling uncompleted AR lowers AND all the other parts needed in one "kit" package, which apparently the ATF decided was violating the law.
We'll see how this works out, eventually...
Constructive possession is as slippery a slope as Conspiracy, possibly more so...
#1) because it was and still is completely legal
and #2(probably) because all the parts needed were not sold in one package.
There was a recent ATF raid on a company, I have not heard where it is currently in the legal system, but apparently the cause was that the company was selling uncompleted AR lowers AND all the other parts needed in one "kit" package, which apparently the ATF decided was violating the law.
We'll see how this works out, eventually...
Constructive possession is as slippery a slope as Conspiracy, possibly more so...
not really though, the technology has improved. Nobody cared about the guy who could afford a milling machine in his garage plus hundreds of dollars of fitting tools to build a 1911.
Now all you need is a hand drill and its done in one evening. Huge difference.
Huge difference in the amount of effort needed by the person doing it.
NO DIFFERENCE IF existing law is followed.
and if you don't follow existing law, that makes you a criminal, and no additional laws make you "more criminal-er".
Again, I submit that, if they can trace illegal drugs without serial numbers, they can trace illegal guns without serial numbers. There is no difference, other than its much tougher to flush a gun down the toilet.
No, its not simple or easy or necessarily fast, but they have done it, which means they CAN do it, given sufficient resources, and, most importantly, the will to do it.