• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

ATF Proposed Rule Change for Frames and Receivers

allen-1 said:
Lots of articles out there, and I've been reading them. It appears to still be legal at the federal level to finish an 80%, it's a "PMF", privately manufactured firearm. I think that serializing only becomes necessary if the firearm goes into an FFL's inventory. Which could happen if you were having it ceracoated for example. Because the process requires the FFL to have posession of the firearm for more than a day, and thus it has to go into his bound book.

Companies such as P80 have been forced to separate the bundling of 80% frames and the jigs to complete them - as the ATF has managed to declare that a "firearm". <spit>

But I don't think the same applies to my garage. I think I can have 80% frames and jigs in the same location without constructive posession applying.

If anyone's got links to articles stating otherwise - I'd like to see them please.
Click to expand...
Concur - you can construct and possess a personally made firearm lacking a serialization but no business can offer one for sale.
That's the ATFs position - the dealer is constructively possessing and offering for sale an unserialized frame when selling an 80% concurrent with a jig or kit.
What the ATF has publicized is the change makes 80% illegal without a serial, which is pandering and relying on the fact that very few people read past the headline and essentially none actually research any and all citations.
 
allen-1 said:
Lots of articles out there, and I've been reading them. It appears to still be legal at the federal level to finish an 80%, it's a "PMF", privately manufactured firearm. I think that serializing only becomes necessary if the firearm goes into an FFL's inventory. Which could happen if you were having it ceracoated for example. Because the process requires the FFL to have posession of the firearm for more than a day, and thus it has to go into his bound book.

Companies such as P80 have been forced to separate the bundling of 80% frames and the jigs to complete them - as the ATF has managed to declare that a "firearm". <spit>

But I don't think the same applies to my garage. I think I can have 80% frames and jigs in the same location without constructive posession applying.

If anyone's got links to articles stating otherwise - I'd like to see them please.
Click to expand...
Only change is that the M in PMF stands for Made. Manufacturing refers to commercial activity. The phrasing includes something about the effort being for your livelihood.

If you do it as a hobby you're a maker, not a manufacturer. But this is picking nits.
 
pastera said:
They wanted to but could only twist the wording to consider the 80% a firearm is if it is readily modified.
Without the jig the average person of nominal intelligence and ability would not be able to readily modify the 80% to make it able to fire.
So it is the constructive possession of both the 80% and the jig that creates a readily converted device.
Click to expand...

allen-1 said:
Lots of articles out there, and I've been reading them. It appears to still be legal at the federal level to finish an 80%, it's a "PMF", privately manufactured firearm. I think that serializing only becomes necessary if the firearm goes into an FFL's inventory. Which could happen if you were having it ceracoated for example. Because the process requires the FFL to have posession of the firearm for more than a day, and thus it has to go into his bound book.

Companies such as P80 have been forced to separate the bundling of 80% frames and the jigs to complete them - as the ATF has managed to declare that a "firearm". <spit>

But I don't think the same applies to my garage. I think I can have 80% frames and jigs in the same location without constructive posession applying.

If anyone's got links to articles stating otherwise - I'd like to see them please.
Click to expand...

There was never a question about the legality of finishing, owning blanks or tools, only a question of whether they could sell the blanks as something that isn’t considered a firearm.

I'm kinda blown away that all that's gone on resulted in basically nothing - it doesn't pass the straight face test, but hey it's great!..

Still not sure we aren't going to see ATF going shithouse on 80% manufacturers as it sure would appear their goal was to stop the sale of them - maybe they realized its just impossible to do so. I guess we will see in a few months. Personally I'd be scared to order an 80% at this point, not as far as being charged with a crime, rather the potential for ATF to come by trying to collect what they think shouldn't have been sold as evidence of the retailer committing a "crime".
 
I went to a BBQ at Markforge last night in Watertown. I never asked about their stance on usage of their printers for gun stuff. Was talking to one of the lead sales guys.

As far as I’m concerned, my printer my problem…
 
teamRR said:
There was never a question about the legality of finishing, owning blanks or tools, only a question of whether they could sell the blanks as something that isn’t considered a firearm.
Click to expand...
Correct, those who are familiar with the law know that a personally manufactured gun has always been legal with no requirement for serialization.
However licensed dealers of firearms cannot transfer a firearm, frame or receiver unless it has a serial number or was produced before the requirement for serialization.

The ATF tried to muddy the waters and tried to make people believe that homemade firearms require serialization by saying that was true while writing a rule that only effects dealers by creating a concept of constructive possession creating an actual frame/receiver when a dealer packages an 80% device with the required jig that allows that device to be readily converted to an actual frame/receiver.

This would also mean that a felon could possess either an 80% or a jig but not both even if there was no effort to finish the 80% into a frame/receiver
 
chris_1001 said:
I went to a BBQ at Markforge last night in Watertown. I never asked about their stance on usage of their printers for gun stuff. Was talking to one of the lead sales guys.

As far as I’m concerned, my printer my problem…
Click to expand...
Sadly, this is a place where Cody's Liberator really kicked things in the wrong direction. When a 20-something starts trolling the 3D print industry, manufacturers start feeling like they need to make a stand. At one point, IIRC, he had a $10K+ bounty if someone would get him a MF printer.

They make a good product. But their requirement to use Eiger, and its inclusion of various protections remains disappointing. Which is precisely why I used one to print a fixture for my GG ;)
 
pastera said:
Correct, those who are familiar with the law know that a personally manufactured gun has always been legal with no requirement for serialization.
However licensed dealers of firearms cannot transfer a firearm, frame or receiver unless it has a serial number or was produced before the requirement for serialization.

The ATF tried to muddy the waters and tried to make people believe that homemade firearms require serialization by saying that was true while writing a rule that only effects dealers by creating a concept of constructive possession creating an actual frame/receiver when a dealer packages an 80% device with the required jig that allows that device to be readily converted to an actual frame/receiver.

This would also mean that a felon could possess either an 80% or a jig but not both even if there was no effort to finish the 80% into a frame/receiver
Click to expand...

That's the one aspect of it where maybe they could now accomplish something they wanted, ie a PP (and probably a particularly interesting one) orders a blank or tools that are delivered, ATF skunkworks monitoring results in a raid. Even just via USPS they could probably perform an investigation as they know who sells 80% stuff and could cross reference that with PPs of a certain profile.

I have a hard time believing that was the limit of their goal though. I feel like we've seen with say triggers, they could easily change their mind on interpretation of their own rule.
 
teamRR said:
I have a hard time believing that was the limit of their goal though. I feel like we've seen with say triggers, they could easily change their mind on interpretation of their own rule.
Click to expand...
Their goal was to write the most detrimental rule possible while vocalizing the rule to be much more expansive so as to stiffle the free exercise of our freedoms.

Ask a dozen FUDs and I bet you will get 13 answers that ALL homemade firearms are now illegal and must be either destroyed or taken to an FFL for serialization.
 
Mesatchornug said:
Sadly, this is a place where Cody's Liberator really kicked things in the wrong direction. When a 20-something starts trolling the 3D print industry, manufacturers start feeling like they need to make a stand. At one point, IIRC, he had a $10K+ bounty if someone would get him a MF printer.

They make a good product. But their requirement to use Eiger, and its inclusion of various protections remains disappointing. Which is precisely why I used one to print a fixture for my GG ;)
Click to expand...
Oh!! It was them. I vaguely remember that.

Well. Guess I will not buy one if they will dictate what a can or cannot print.
 
CatSnoutSoup said:
I appreciate your attention to detail in these cases, it's informative.
Click to expand...

Sure thing, interesting times re: Bruen.

Alas, credit on the going-ons and analysis is to each of those 2A Youtubers. And, by extension FPC, GOA, et al. They've been particularly active as of late (I wouldn't have any clue otherwise):


I'm sure others are out there as well.
 
vicorjh said:
Alas, credit on the going-ons and analysis is to each of those 2A Youtubers. And, by extension FPC, GOA, et al. They've been particularly active as of late (I wouldn't have any clue otherwise):


I'm sure others are out there as well.
Click to expand...

Screen shot taken from the Gun's & Gadgets guy's latest video.

This is appears to be a synopsis quoting the judge in Galveston TX giving his the reason for granting the injunction against implementation (in part) of the the rule change.

WAavW5Q.jpg


www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8AMKi1Mo28

🐯
 
CatSnoutSoup said:
Screen shot taken from the Gun's & Gadgets guy's latest video.

This is appears to be a synopsis quoting the judge in Galveston TX giving his the reason for granting the injunction against implementation (in part) of the the rule change.

WAavW5Q.jpg


www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8AMKi1Mo28

🐯
Click to expand...

Lines up perfectly with the thinking on the recent EPA case.
 
pastera said:
I think there are a few but need to look
How do you plan on finishing?
Dill press or router?
Click to expand...
Drill press most likely. But I can put an end mill in it if that helps.

Im guessing you’d print the jig, then use drill bushings to locate the cutter accurately.
 
garandman said:
Drill press most likely. But I can put an end mill in it if that helps.

Im guessing you’d print the jig, then use drill bushings to locate the cutter accurately.
Click to expand...
Never put an endmill in a drill chuck.
The chuck is friction fit on a taper - doesn't take a lot of side load to release the taper and send the whole thing spinning across the shop at 5k rpn
 
pastera said:
Never put an endmill in a drill chuck.
The chuck is friction fit on a taper - doesn't take a lot of side load to release the taper and send the whole thing spinning across the shop at 5k rpn
Click to expand...

That’s an imprecise generalization.

This is better: Never put an end mill with a taper in a drill chuck.

None of my end mills have a taper, they all have a cylindrical shank, including the ones that came with the jig.
 
milktree said:
That’s an imprecise generalization.

This is better: Never put an end mill with a taper in a drill chuck.

None of my end mills have a taper, they all have a cylindrical shank, including the ones that came with the jig.
Click to expand...

I would say, never put an end mill in a drill of any sort, including a drill press :)

You can tell it's completely the wrong tool the way they run - the chatter. And as stated, they can & will eject the chuck. But regardless they don't do a very good job anyway, extremely inaccurate. Even a heavy duty sorta home shop drill press, that might cost $1000 like a cheap mill, isn't rigid that way.

The only time I've seen this end-mill-in-drill-press practice condoned is with 80% lowers - basically a way to market the products to folks who lack the patience to use the tools they can afford (ie a file if it's a polymer pistol, possibly by first drilling out the blocker for the spring by stepping bits up to get a headstart)..

A router jig is sane though - a router is meant to work like that. A mill that happens to use a drill chuck, sure that's even better.
 
milktree said:
That’s an imprecise generalization.

This is better: Never put an end mill with a taper in a drill chuck.

None of my end mills have a taper, they all have a cylindrical shank, including the ones that came with the jig.
Click to expand...

Your mills might not have a taper, but that drill press likely has the chuck attached to a morse taper adapter. Side loading a morse taper without a drawbar can lead to the taper unlocking and the chuck falling out.
 

Similar threads

ATF Receiver Rule - FPC Granted Cert
Replies
9
Views
482
pastera
pastera
ATF Rule Requires Smugglers to Get NICS Checks on Gun Sales
Replies
14
Views
325
powerman
powerman
Federal Judge Rules Millions Of NRA Members Exempt From ATF Pistol Brace Rule
Replies
12
Views
549
1919FAN
1919FAN
ATF E-Forms Intentionally Shut Down (LOL for Maintenance)
Replies
16
Views
1K
Dressed to Kill
Dressed to Kill
ATF new report shows FFLs are not the problem
2
Replies
47
Views
1K
SkilledSovereignty
S
Back
Top Bottom