Legality of Garage Guns

imported parts makes homemade gun illegal?

I want to get y'alls thoughts on the use of “imported parts” as making a homemade gun against the law. This is quoted from the 2014 version of ATF Publication 5300.4. The first quote from page 196 dealing directly with home made firearm.

(A6) Does an individual need a license to make a firearm for personal use?
No, a license is not required to make a firearm solely for personal use. However, a license is required to manufacture firearms for sale or distribution. The law prohibits a person from assembling a non–sporting semiautomatic rifle or shotgun “from 10 or more imported parts”, as well as firearms that cannot be detected by metal detectors or x–ray machines. In addition, the making of an NFA firearm requires a tax payment and advance approval by ATF.

This 2nd quote comes from pages 186 and 187 from the same publication. This list what the ATF considers as the imported parts.



Assembly of Nonsporting SemiAutomatic Rifles and Shotguns from Imported PartSection 922(r),

Title 18, U.S.C., makes it unlawful for any person to assemble from imported parts any semiautomatic rifle or any shotgun which is identical to any rifle or shotgun prohibited from importation under section 925(d)(3) of the GCA. Regulations implementing the law in 27 C.F.R. 478.39 provide that a violation of section 922(r) will result if a semiautomatic rifle or shotgun is assembled with more than 10 of the following imported parts:
(1) Frames, receivers, receiver castings, forgings, or stampings (2) Barrels (3) Barrel extensions (4) Mounting blocks (trunnions) (5) Muzzle attachments (6) Bolts (7) Bolt carriers (8) Operating rods (9) Gas pistons (10) Trigger housings (11) Triggers (12) Hammers (13) Sears (14) Disconnectors (15) Buttstocks (16) Pistol grips (17) Forearms, handguards (18) Magazine bodies (19) Followers (20) Floorplates

When I read both these sections, it appears to me that if your going to assemble, ie put together(, a homemade gun, you can not use more than 10 parts that are not made in the USA or else it makes the gun against the law. If this is the case, then even using a stripped lower to build an AR is against the law. Please explain to me how I am reading this wrong.
 
Just a note about the construction of semi-automatic firearms, for instance a semi-auto Sten built from a parts kit. The weapon will need to be manufactured or modified to fire from a closed bolt. A semi-auto only that fires from an open bolt is a Federal no-no, as far as I recall.
 
So You Want to Build a Gun?

First things first:
1934 National Firearms Act - Defines what configurations of gun you can make
1968 Gun Control Act - Defines who/how can make firearms, and how to transfer them
1986 Firearm Owner's Protection Act; Hughes Amendment - Cannot make machineguns
922r Statute - If using imported parts, gives configuration rules
"Constructive Intent" - Build procedures and practices to ensure the ATF cannot trump up charges against you (this one requires research)
"ATF Letters" - Published ATF opinions on what they have deemed acceptable in the past (non-binding & can change at any moment; some legal risk involved in relying upon them)
"Personal Use vs. Manufacture" - Very different rules govern your intent in building a firearm. Only licensees may build guns for others or for sale (profit be damned)
"Closed Bolt vs. Open Bolt" - Very sweeping restriction on the types of trigger and ignition mechanisms that may be used in a build, stemming from an extremely expansive ATF determination but not mentioned in the law

Them's the rules; separates us from the baddies. These are only the most basic restrictions on your freedom, so it behooves you to do your homework if you wish to do advanced builds like semi-auto conversions from demilled machinegun parts kits. weaponsguild.com is the best resource there is, but you'd better be serious about building, giving the hobby a good reputation, and heeding to the experience of others.

IIRC there are some grey areas in the law that can potentially jump up and bite the builder if a non-serialized homemade firearm is subsequently transferred to someone else, although I don't recall the details
Click to expand...
Not really, at least in non-registration states. That said, CSI/etc have so ingrained in folks the notion that all firearms must have a serial number, that if you present a blank homebuild for sale at some point you're likely to get shrieks of "NO TATTOO! NO TATTOO!"

4473's can have "NVS" or "No Visible Serial" put down in place of the serial. Otherwise there'd be no way to transfer guns from before '68 when the stupid law was enacted.

TCB
 
The 'garage 3D printed' guns are getting better and more sophisticated.
It wouldn't surprise me that a major gun mfg won't allow someone to 3D print one of their guns at home in the future, licensed under a different name and company.
They provide the software, you provide the printer/materials.
We will see.
 
When I read both these sections, it appears to me that if your going to assemble, ie put together(, a homemade gun, you can not use more than 10 parts that are not made in the USA or else it makes the gun against the law. If this is the case, then even using a stripped lower to build an AR is against the law. Please explain to me how I am reading this wrong.
Click to expand...

Well first off, I've never even heard of 922r charges being prosecuted without NFA or drug charges being the primary factor. Second off, that it's just about as impossible to prove your guilt as to prove your compliance (kinda hard to prove where a part came from, when you are relying on easily forged stamp markings). Not that we ever tempt fate here. But there are other things you should be more worried about, like wearing sunscreen, and making sure of your target, and keeping your Blackout and 223 mags straight.

The purpose of the law was to prevent the profitable production of domestic weapons from demilled surplus components (unintended consequences of trade protectionism & gun control finding common cause). Think Century Arms HK clones. So they cooked up a law almost specifically tailored to HK roller guns and FALs, that limited the number of these surplus components that could be used in guns, hoping that forcing the makers into reproducing triggers & barrels would make these scary guns far too expensive for average Americans --especially poor ones in cities-- to afford. The only reason these clones were being built was because proper imports had already been restricted heavily, so it was an attempt at manipulating the gun market as a whole away from "assault weapons."

Well, like all laws that seek to constrain economic behavior, it had a number of reverse effects; mainly that domestic production of "922r compliance parts" became a booming industry, with now dozens of American companies making triggers, pistons, furniture, barrels, flash hiders, receivers, and trunnions for all sorts of foreign gun models. In the end it basically amounts to a tax whose proceeds go to propping up an industry that shouldn't exist.

There's a couple key points to 922r;
-It applies only to semi-automatic rifles with >9 round detachable magazines (even SBRs, courtesy of a recent ATF ruling). Pistols and certain other weapons (think pintle-mounted belt fed semi-autos) do not need to play this game. Saigas and VZ58's with neutered magwells can avoid the law, then be 'converted' after replacing enough other components that the magwell can be brought into spec.
-There is some contention on this point, but it only applies to 'importable configurations.' If you build a bastard of a CETME and an FAL that exists nowhere else on Earth to be imported, a law describing an import ban does not apply. The most common example is the "MG47" which is an RPD topcover combined with AK parts to form a sort of belt fed AK.
-It is based on total number of foreign parts, not how many parts have been replaced (minor point, but a source of confusion since most folks care about how many parts need to be swapped; it varies by gun)
-Simple blowback guns rarely require compliance parts, between the barrel ban we now suffer under, and the considerable rework to make most of them into closed-bolt machines, and the small number of parts that comprise them in the first place.
-Dual-use parts count as one part, generally. A long-stroke piston that also functions as an op-rod is one part, not two. Likewise, a receiver with integral FCG housing and pistol grip counts as one part.
-Certain guns, especially the FAL and G3 the law was aimed at, have had subsequent ATF rulings that increased the number of parts that must comply (the G3's cocking handle tube is treated as an op-rod, even though it does not operate anything except when manually cocking, even though the 922r law specifically exempts all manually-operated firearms :rolleyes:)

Smart move is to start simple, either something very well-trod and defined that requires few tools (AK build) or little skill (AR build) or something very cheap & simple but more ambitious in terms of craftsmanship with plenty of available conversion/compliance parts (the Suomi M31 is popular, as are Uzi's). Figure out what type of gun you'd like to build, then start doing lots of research on similar builds to figure out what all is necessary to stay on the level (checking out multiple different builders is essential to make sure nothing's being missed), and be sure to do your best to read & understand the actual law to the best of your ability, since that's ultimately all that matters.

TCB
 
Last edited:
The 'garage 3D printed' guns are getting better and more sophisticated.
It wouldn't surprise me that a major gun mfg won't allow someone to 3D print one of their guns at home in the future, licensed under a different name and company.
They provide the software, you provide the printer/materials.
We will see.
Click to expand...
ATF Ruling 2015-1 from early last year specifically prohibits one avenue of doing this (manufacturers may not lend or allow their tools or machines to be used to make firearms that are not entered into their books & given the full treatment). So you can't even take it upon yourself to rent a mill to carve out an AR FCG for your personal use, technically (depends on whether the rental place knows about your project, most likely)

And the Obama administration's pursuit of Distributed Defense under ITAR regulations seeks to restrict the technical information (CAD files, CNC G Code toolpath files, even general documentation related to function, use, & service were brought under the purview of ITAR recently, which makes it possible for the feds to claim this data cannot be transmitted over the web) that a person could use to create the item with their own tooling, in their own home, for their own use.

3D printers are boring, though; assuming they ever actually make gun parts that work well, they'd be even more boring. Making stuff with your hands is infinitely more fulfilling, if you desire to go down the wildly-impractical and generally more expensive route of making a copy of a commercially-available gun.

TCB
 
Well cr-- barnbwt, you're bursting my bubble.
But there is a way to avoid the ITAR issues by only allowing "US Persons" access.
That pretty well keeps the Obama from pulling that faux argument again.
 
And controlling that access means you can't put that information on the internet, thereby ensuring almost no one will ever see it, period. Also, you technically can't create ITAR defense articles on your own without approval (the USB stick in the case of the Ghost Gunner, since emailing the file violates ITAR), and there are actually restrictions even on what types of American citizens can receive it (i.e. they need to be informed/briefed/read in on the ITAR implications so they don't turn around and export the article)

Basically a massive prior restraint on free trade and ideas, that would make forums like this impossible were the new regs interpreted broadly (but still within their clear language and intended scope) and probably to newly printed media on the subject as well (think Hatcher's Notebook or Chinn's Machinegun). I think they're still sorting through a couple thousand letters before implementing the rule change, similar to 41P/F or the M855 ban proposal.

TCB
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top