new law build your own firearm illegal?

jim march said:
I own and carry a handgun that is probably legally a home-built firearm. It started life as a Ruger New Vaquero but it has a custom cylinder in 9mmPara and a barrel replacement to a true .355" spec 9mm barrel. If a gunsmith did this level of modification they would need a handgun manufacturer's license.
Click to expand...

As long as you don't build custom frames (part with the serial number on it) and sell them as a business you don't need a manufacturer's license. Swapping cylinders and barrels has no effect on the frame. No different than re-barreling a rifle to a different caliber, or modifying a single shot bolt action to accept a magazine.

The existing frame can also be modified to your heart's content so long as you don't violate NFA regulations. The only time you need a manufacturer's license is if you're building and selling the frames as a business.

You can legally modify your Vaquero into a hand-cranked, 45-70 caliber, 10-barreled, belt fed Gatling gun if it makes you happy, so long as it only fires one round per trigger operation. If, however, you use an electric motor to spin it instead of the hand crank it will be illegal.
 
Last edited:
There has been some question over what does or doesn't constitute an 80% receiver. That's what the ATF statement attempted to clarify (albeit quite badly).
Click to expand...
yep company I work for makes 80% lowers and we had 2 small holes in them for fixture them In the machine, well you guessed it the ATF considered them 83% lowers because of the 2 holes . We had to change the way they were secured for machining
 
Koda 94, yes, that is the one. Yes, by what I saw there, build parties are no longer legal.
Atf does not define a receiver by percentage, ie, 80%, 83%, etc. It either is a receiver, or it is not. If atf required something to be changed on an incomplete receiver, it is because they defined it as a receiver, and the change took it back away from being a receiver.
Fed ex refusing to ship a cnc machine would on fed ex, and nothing else. You would have to ask them about that.
 
Since it is a ruling, and not a law, while carrying the weight of a law, it can go into effect immediately, and probably does.
 
Gunfixr, thanks for replying and providing clarity to the new ruling. Chalk this up to one more infringement on our rights, Im not even certain what loophole this closes since its still possible for an individual to personally buy all the items to finish their own 80% reciever without a build party.
 
Some of the questions asked here should be considered in light of definitions provided in the CGA. What if a friend has a machine shop as a hobby or what if he it is a business but instead of paying him for the use of his machinery I let him use some of my tools.

I believe the key is if the machinery owner "regularly" engages in the manufacture of firearms for compensation, albeit cash or barter. Barter would include you get to use his mill and he can borrow your hand tools. I would be leary of relying on the fact that they only own the mill as part of a hobby, if this isn't the only time he permits the use of his machinery to complete a lower. The more it is done, the greater the likelihood he is found to regularly be in the business. Note that nothing says that firearms need be his primary business. My take is that his primary objective need only be his livelihood on those occasions that he regularly allowed his machinery to be used to complete the blanks.
 
Last edited:
Since it is a ruling, and not a law, while carrying the weight of a law, it can go into effect immediately, and probably does.
Click to expand...

The general rule is that a law which does not change but merely clarifies existing law was and is in effect. Since the clarifications were part of the existing law, nothing is new else, if affected vested rights, it would be Ex post Facto.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top