Compliance modification

So you disagree with @CrackPot's explanation?
I'd need to read his opinions more closely to know what I do or do not agree with.

I do not see the logical argument that would lead to the conclusion that a lower, which was manufactured and serialized in accordance with the law, could be manufactured a second time. Everything not a firearm, that is attached to a firearm is inherently either a part or an accessory. putting on an additional part to what is already recognized as a firearm does not result in another newly manufactured firearm.

If assembling parts onto a completed lower was manufacturing, then when a licensed manufacturer did this they would have to record it, and mark it, with a second manufacturer's name, model, an serial. I know there are FFL holders doing this, yet I've never seen or heard of a double marked AR lower.

The simplest explanation is that the article or the agent was mistaken (Occam's razor)
 
I'd need to read his opinions more closely to know what I do or do not agree with.

I do not see the logical argument that would lead to the conclusion that a lower, which was manufactured and serialized in accordance with the law, could be manufactured a second time. Everything not a firearm, that is attached to a firearm is inherently either a part or an accessory. putting on an additional part to what is already recognized as a firearm does not result in another newly manufactured firearm.

If assembling parts onto a completed lower was manufacturing, then when a licensed manufacturer did this they would have to record it, and mark it, with a second manufacturer's name, model, an serial. I know there are FFL holders doing this, yet I've never seen or heard of a double marked AR lower.

The simplest explanation is that the article or the agent was mistaken (Occam's razor)

Yet you need to have an FFL07 if you’re assembling stripped lowers into rifles and selling them. Doing so makes you a manufacturer. If I understand correctly, you can’t legally do that on a FFL01
 
Yet you need to have an FFL07 if you’re assembling stripped lowers into rifles and selling them. Doing so makes you a manufacturer. If I understand correctly, you can’t legally do that on a FFL01
I accept that this is a common view, but I don't see how it gets there. Other than opinions, is there any law or cases on this? Anything actually binding in court?
 
How about this: rent storage space in NH. Move "Assault Weapons" there. Buy time to decide how to react above.

This may be a dumb question, but is this a legitimate option? I have wondered about doing something like this if things go bananas here (moving isn't an option for me yet), but I've figured it could be a security risk as I don't know how secure a rented storage unit would be, given how far away I would be most of the time.
 
I accept that this is a common view, but I don't see how it gets there. Other than opinions, is there any law or cases on this? Anything actually binding in court?

The ATF will come knocking on at your door if you assemble ARs from stripped lowers without an FFL07, right? This is my understanding, is it wrong?

Assuming that's true, it's not really a stretch to argue that it counts as manufacturing, since you need a manufacturing license to do it.
 
I do not see the logical argument that would lead to the conclusion that a lower, which was manufactured and serialized in accordance with the law, could be manufactured a second time. Everything not a firearm, that is attached to a firearm is inherently either a part or an accessory. putting on an additional part to what is already recognized as a firearm does not result in another newly manufactured firearm.

If assembling parts onto a completed lower was manufacturing, then when a licensed manufacturer did this they would have to record it, and mark it, with a second manufacturer's name, model, an serial. I know there are FFL holders doing this, yet I've never seen or heard of a double marked AR lower.

The simplest explanation is that the article or the agent was mistaken (Occam's razor)
Not necessarily.

The final manufacturer can apply for a variance that allows them to have a subcontractor manufacturer the lower with their name (the final manufacturer) as the only one on the final assembed gun. I know of cases where this is done, and also where the manufacturer used lowers with their own name engraved during prototyping and development.

You can also get a variance to move the serial number - for example, if a scope mount requires drilling through the original serial number and obliterating part of it.
 
Blow guns? Snowflame is interested.
View attachment 737535
Season 8 Showtime GIF by Shameless
 
Not necessarily.

The final manufacturer can apply for a variance that allows them to have a subcontractor manufacturer the lower with their name (the final manufacturer) as the only one on the final assembed gun. I know of cases where this is done, and also where the manufacturer used lowers with their own name engraved during prototyping and development.

You can also get a variance to move the serial number - for example, if a scope mount requires drilling through the original serial number and obliterating part of it.
technically correct but you are going off on a tangent that is not relevant to the point, nor representative of the scenario.
 
technically correct but you are going off on a tangent that is not relevant to the point, nor representative of the scenario.
True, but the discussion still contained a factually incorrect statement. Even though the inaccuracy was irrelevant in the context used, it could lead to misunderstanding of the nuances of the manufacturer labelling requirement.
 
When I had my recent FFL 07 inspection, we went over many state regulations/laws/interpretations. All of this new training relates to new inspection guidance when your local PD categorizes your inventory and looks over your books. Basically, just as it is now, you can't sell copies/duplicates/clones. As an end user for individual consumption/use, the training guidance for LEO isn't correlated with an uptick in prosecution. Most prosecutions occur as a secondary effect. That is, someone gets pulled over for a suspected DUI, police search vehicle, find AWB, potential charge.

Also: If you're an 07 w/ an MA dealers license, this is all murky water because manufacturing consists of many activities. The enforcement doesn't spell out who made the modifications to make the AW compliant. If it comes from the factory w/ a muzzle brake is that an AW? Or is it when it's entered in the dealer books? What if the 07 remanufactures and resells? What if you obtained an upper and made it compliant? It's not being sold as a firearm and isn't regulated to begin with. And how does the state interpret modifying vs manufacturing? One is a much more ATF compliant process.

You could also argue that this targets 07s because they can remanufacture and are largely exempt from AWB regulations in terms of owned inventory.

Even the local ATF can't provide answers to this because everything contradicts everything and largely infringes on what you can do with the FFL. Of course "selling," (transferring) is what all of this relates to. But if you never "sell" a rifle...

The enforcement notice is designed to sew confusion and make dealers nervous/ opt not to sell. This enforcement notice also makes it that fixed magazine rifles aren't compliant either, discounting the long held idea that the AWB only applies to rifles that can take a detachable magazine. The bulk of FFLs are 01 and sell compliant rifles. but some may be doing "smithing" work which, without an 07, could be considered manufacturing. If the idea was to prosecute individuals, every EFA-10 w/ a 16" barrel would be under the microscope.
 
I think a recent example of not needing the perfect plaintiff to win can actually be found in the case of US v. Rahimi out of CA5. The dude in that case appears to be a total scumbag but he still managed to win in the end on the merits, and if SCOTUS takes the appeal from the DOJ and affirms the inferior court’s ruling then he’ll be responsible for another major 2A victory on the level of Heller, McDonald, Caetano & Bruen.
Just coming here to update, SCOTUS granted cert to Rahimi this morning. When SCOTUS rules in our favor, I don’t want to hear anyone say anything about bad plaintiffs making bad case law again.
 
Just coming here to update, SCOTUS granted cert to Rahimi this morning. When SCOTUS rules in our favor, I don’t want to hear anyone say anything about bad plaintiffs making bad case law again.
Let's not count our chickens before they hatch Bad plaintiffs can also make terrible precedent.
 
Back
Top Bottom