Do I need to go through a Dealer (form 1)

[homedefender]

so to go another direction couldn't he have built it as a pistol and then form 1 it himself?

[JoshIronshaft]

so to go another direction couldn't he have built it as a pistol and then form 1 it himself?

From what I read, it was an original parts kit, so it would of had a rear trunnion requiring an open rear receiver, not a pistol receiver that is blanked off. Really no way to practically build it as a pistol that couldn't be a rifle without making your life a lot harder.

[homedefender]

From what I read, it was an original parts kit, so it would of had a rear trunnion requiring an open rear receiver, not a pistol receiver that is blanked off. Really no way to practically build it as a pistol that couldn't be a rifle without making your life a lot harder.

gotcha not real familiar with ak receivers

[marinville]

Oh great, this thread again. I'll tell you what sport, I will write the letter. We will have clarification. Perhaps the hundreds of people with approved form 1's having known builders assemble their kit or cut down their barrel are breaking the law... Let's find out.

[GunLawyer001]

Oh great, this thread again. I'll tell you what sport, I will write the letter. We will have clarification. Perhaps the hundreds of people with approved form 1's having known builders assemble their kit or cut down their barrel are breaking the law... Let's find out.

There's no need to write another letter, the statutes and regs and existing letters cover it nicely.

You mention "the hundreds of people with approved form 1's having known builders assemble their kit or cut down their barrel" as evidence that it must be legal, because people have done it without being arrested. That's not the way the law works, that "plenty" of people have done something without being caught. Remember when you could get your damaged MG receiver replaced with a new one with the same serial number from the original manufacturer? Yeah, that was "legal because everybody does it"...until ATF took notice and stopped it.

It hardly matters that hundreds of people have approved Form 1's that they had some builder make for them, because where on the Form 1 do you mention that you aren't going to do the work of "making" the NFA firearm out of a Title I firearm? Nowhere. Because you wrote in that you are the "maker". And "making" is a defined term, and includes turning a Title I firearm into a Title II firearm. So your gunsmith is the "maker", and your Form I is inaccurate.

Can an SOT make an NFA firearm out of your personal gun? Sure, as long as he complies with the regs. Here's an example of existing guidance from ATF:
https://www.atf.gov/files/publicatio...-chapter-7.pdf
From 7.2.3:
(1) John Doe has a personal firearm and takes it to a gunsmith, a licensed dealer, for modification. The work performed in this instance is the legitimate work of a gunsmith and may be performed pursuant to the gunsmith’s dealer’s license. The gunsmith need not be licensed as a manufacturer, or hold a special tax stamp in the case of an NFA firearm, to perform the work.
(2) Company A is a licensed manufacturer, but contracts with other licensees to perform finishing work on NFA firearms it manufactures. One such contractor is a gunsmith, a licensed dealer. After receiving the finished firearms, Company A offers the firearms for sale. In this instance, the gunsmith, as well as Company A, is engaged in business as an NFA firearms manufacturer and needs a manufacturer’s license and special tax stamp to do so.


Section 7.3 Registering the manufacture of NFA firearms. A manufacturer qualified to engage in business under the GCA and NFA may make NFA firearms without payment of the making tax.112 However, the manufacturer must report and register each firearm made by filing with the NFA Branch an accurate notice of the manufacture on ATF Form 2, Notice of Firearms Manufactured or Imported, executed under the penalties of perjury.113 Appendix C contains a copy of Form 2. The NFA Branch’s receipt of the form effectuates the registration of the firearms listed on the form.114 See Section 7.4.6 on the manufacture of silencer parts.

Is your helpful "builder" filing a Form 2 for that NFA firearm he just made for you? Is he marking the receiver with his name, city and state? I doubt it. Nor is he requiring you to file a Form 4 to transfer that gun from him to you.

7.4.4.2 Variances for manufacturers’ contractors. As pointed out in Section 7.2.2, some manufacturers contract with other entities to perform certain work on their firearms prior to their ultimate sale. In those instances the contractors are also “manufacturers” who must be licensed as a Type 07 Manufacturer or as a Type 10 Manufacturer of Destructive Devices in order to perform any manufacturing function on the firearm. Additionally, the regulations require that the secondary manufacturer mark the firearm with their identifying information to include name, city and State. A qualified, secondary manufacturer may request a variance to adopt the markings of the initial manufacturer. If a manufacturer is working with a secondary manufacturer, either the manufacturer or the secondary manufacturer can submit a letter of request to FTB for a marking variance.

The point isn't to nit-pick, the point is that thousands of people scour the Web for accurate legal guidance in what is a complicated and bizarre legal area. Telling them that it's perfectly legal to falsify a Form I and contract out the actual "making", is what I call a "bad thing". Even if hundreds of people have gotten away with it, because ATF wasn't told it was happening.

There are likely stories from SOT's who were caught with an NFA firearm during a compliance inspection, who received a warning, the first time. It's an easy thing to get away with. That doesn't mean that you should be telling people that it's legal under existing law, regs and guidance.

Does ATF really care who bobs the barrel and makes an SBR, as long as the tax is paid? Yup. For example:

Section 7.8 Locations. Your licensed premises is where your manufacturing must be done. ATF is often asked by a manufacturer whether he or she can conduct a manufacturing operation elsewhere, such as a nearby machine shop. While, in general, component parts can be made at a site other than the licensed premises, if the part being made is a receiver, silencer part, or a procedure is being performed (such as shortening of the barrel of a rifle or shotgun) where the complete firearm is there, the operation must be done on the licensed manufacturing premises. If components are modified or fabricated at a location where all other parts for a complete firearm are present, the location must be licensed as a manufacturer.

Recall that ATF has also weighed in on those Title I "build parties", where someone programs a CNC and allows others to use it to complete their 80% receivers. ATF has declared that the real "maker" in this case is not the owner of the receiver blank who's using the machine, the real "maker" is the programmer and owner of the machine. Based on that, how do you think ATF would view you handing a Title I firearm over to a builder, driving home, and coming back later to pick up the completed Title II firearm? Who is the legal "maker", and who did you say it would be on the Form I?

What's the legal speed limit on I-95 between Pennsylvania and Florida? Well, people seem to cruise at 80-100 MPH, and I don't see many of them get pulled over. But what answer should you ethically give someone who actually wants to stay within the law? You'd probably tell them "what the posted limit says". You can add that lots of people seem to exceed that without consequences, but some small percentage get caught and pay a fine. That's the honest answer.

That's the goal here on PAFOA, to provide the solid legal answers to questions like yours, and ALSO mention what the practical limits may be. My advice is safe, yours can cost an SOT his license and the customer his gun, or worse. Falsifying any government form and providing false info to the Feds is a serious crime, just ask Martha Stewart or Scooter Libby.

[marinville]

There's no need to write another letter, the statutes and regs and existing letters cover it nicely.

You mention "the hundreds of people with approved form 1's having known builders assemble their kit or cut down their barrel" as evidence that it must be legal, because people have done it without being arrested. That's not the way the law works, that "plenty" of people have done something without being caught. Remember when you could get your damaged MG receiver replaced with a new one with the same serial number from the original manufacturer? Yeah, that was "legal because everybody does it"...until ATF took notice and stopped it.

It hardly matters that hundreds of people have approved Form 1's that they had some builder make for them, because where on the Form 1 do you mention that you aren't going to do the work of "making" the NFA firearm out of a Title I firearm? Nowhere. Because you wrote in that you are the "maker". And "making" is a defined term, and includes turning a Title I firearm into a Title II firearm. So your gunsmith is the "maker", and your Form I is inaccurate.

Can an SOT make an NFA firearm out of your personal gun? Sure, as long as he complies with the regs. Here's an example of existing guidance from ATF:
https://www.atf.gov/files/publicatio...-chapter-7.pdf
From 7.2.3:
(1) John Doe has a personal firearm and takes it to a gunsmith, a licensed dealer, for modification. The work performed in this instance is the legitimate work of a gunsmith and may be performed pursuant to the gunsmith’s dealer’s license. The gunsmith need not be licensed as a manufacturer, or hold a special tax stamp in the case of an NFA firearm, to perform the work.
(2) Company A is a licensed manufacturer, but contracts with other licensees to perform finishing work on NFA firearms it manufactures. One such contractor is a gunsmith, a licensed dealer. After receiving the finished firearms, Company A offers the firearms for sale. In this instance, the gunsmith, as well as Company A, is engaged in business as an NFA firearms manufacturer and needs a manufacturer’s license and special tax stamp to do so.


Section 7.3 Registering the manufacture of NFA firearms. A manufacturer qualified to engage in business under the GCA and NFA may make NFA firearms without payment of the making tax.112 However, the manufacturer must report and register each firearm made by filing with the NFA Branch an accurate notice of the manufacture on ATF Form 2, Notice of Firearms Manufactured or Imported, executed under the penalties of perjury.113 Appendix C contains a copy of Form 2. The NFA Branch’s receipt of the form effectuates the registration of the firearms listed on the form.114 See Section 7.4.6 on the manufacture of silencer parts.

Is your helpful "builder" filing a Form 2 for that NFA firearm he just made for you? Is he marking the receiver with his name, city and state? I doubt it. Nor is he requiring you to file a Form 4 to transfer that gun from him to you.

7.4.4.2 Variances for manufacturers’ contractors. As pointed out in Section 7.2.2, some manufacturers contract with other entities to perform certain work on their firearms prior to their ultimate sale. In those instances the contractors are also “manufacturers” who must be licensed as a Type 07 Manufacturer or as a Type 10 Manufacturer of Destructive Devices in order to perform any manufacturing function on the firearm. Additionally, the regulations require that the secondary manufacturer mark the firearm with their identifying information to include name, city and State. A qualified, secondary manufacturer may request a variance to adopt the markings of the initial manufacturer. If a manufacturer is working with a secondary manufacturer, either the manufacturer or the secondary manufacturer can submit a letter of request to FTB for a marking variance.

The point isn't to nit-pick, the point is that thousands of people scour the Web for accurate legal guidance in what is a complicated and bizarre legal area. Telling them that it's perfectly legal to falsify a Form I and contract out the actual "making", is what I call a "bad thing". Even if hundreds of people have gotten away with it, because ATF wasn't told it was happening.

There are likely stories from SOT's who were caught with an NFA firearm during a compliance inspection, who received a warning, the first time. It's an easy thing to get away with. That doesn't mean that you should be telling people that it's legal under existing law, regs and guidance.

Does ATF really care who bobs the barrel and makes an SBR, as long as the tax is paid? Yup. For example:

Section 7.8 Locations. Your licensed premises is where your manufacturing must be done. ATF is often asked by a manufacturer whether he or she can conduct a manufacturing operation elsewhere, such as a nearby machine shop. While, in general, component parts can be made at a site other than the licensed premises, if the part being made is a receiver, silencer part, or a procedure is being performed (such as shortening of the barrel of a rifle or shotgun) where the complete firearm is there, the operation must be done on the licensed manufacturing premises. If components are modified or fabricated at a location where all other parts for a complete firearm are present, the location must be licensed as a manufacturer.

Recall that ATF has also weighed in on those Title I "build parties", where someone programs a CNC and allows others to use it to complete their 80% receivers. ATF has declared that the real "maker" in this case is not the owner of the receiver blank who's using the machine, the real "maker" is the programmer and owner of the machine. Based on that, how do you think ATF would view you handing a Title I firearm over to a builder, driving home, and coming back later to pick up the completed Title II firearm? Who is the legal "maker", and who did you say it would be on the Form I?

What's the legal speed limit on I-95 between Pennsylvania and Florida? Well, people seem to cruise at 80-100 MPH, and I don't see many of them get pulled over. But what answer should you ethically give someone who actually wants to stay within the law? You'd probably tell them "what the posted limit says". You can add that lots of people seem to exceed that without consequences, but some small percentage get caught and pay a fine. That's the honest answer.

That's the goal here on PAFOA, to provide the solid legal answers to questions like yours, and ALSO mention what the practical limits may be. My advice is safe, yours can cost an SOT his license and the customer his gun, or worse. Falsifying any government form and providing false info to the Feds is a serious crime, just ask Martha Stewart or Scooter Libby.

Can you cite any of the 'many existing letters' that you claim cover this nicely? Can you cite the specific statute or ATF reg that says a third party FFL can not assemble an SBR for the individual to whom the approval to make and register said firearm is granted? Can you show me where it says in clear reference to a form 1 that the approved maker must physically assemble the firearm himself? Can you point out for me even one person who has been charged with violating this 'statute, reg or letter' you claim exists? Can you even muster one short sweet clear and concise post that isn't a deliberate wall of legalese that doesn't actually say what you claim it does? I'll be holding my breath lawyer.

In the meantime, all the examples you have cited thus far don't actually have anything to do with what you claim. First, you claim to be citing regs that govern how an SOT can make an NFA firearm from an individuals personal gun, but what you actually cite is regulations about how a licensed dealer may perform modifications to an individuals NFA weapon without an SOT, but must have an SOT to perform work on NFA firearms which will later be offered for sale by a licensed manufacturer. Nowhere is there any actual reference to the 'making' of an NFA weapon. Furthermore, if you choose to interpret the 'modification' and/or "work performed" to be in reference to the 'making' of the NFA firearm, and not some mod or repair done to an existing NFA firearm (which is not clarified in your citation) then the citation is actually contrary to the claims you have be making about the individual being required to perform the work himself.

Then, you go into some other nonsense about how a LICENSED MANUFACTURER must complete a form 2. Simply reading the actual text of your first 'citation' renders all the following legalese regarding LICENSED MANUFACTURERS to be pointless fluff, since by your own example, a gunsmith working on an individual's NFA firearm is not engaged in business as an NFA arms manufacturer and need not be a licensed manufacturer.

Then you throw in some more regs concerning necessary licensing of entities contracted to do work for licensed manufacturers and when those entities are or are not required to engrave their mark. But... how is this relevant? It looks official though, right lawyer?

And then there's the anecdote about all the SOT's that have "probably" been caught breaking these 'statutes, regs, and letters', you still haven't actually cited. So maybe you would like to cite one of these 'probable' instances? I'll wait... *cue jeopardy music* No? nothing? well, At least these make believe SOTs only received a slap on the wrist. I do appreciate a happy ending.

Oh but wait, this could be helpful, now you've cited a regulation about who can 'bob the barrel', except... you didn't. Nowhere in this citation is the 'who' mentioned. Instead, it is more regs regarding licensed NFA manufacturers and which of their work must be performed on their licensed premises.

I will not bother to comment on 80% build parties, nor speed limits in Florida, since neither is in any way relevant to the discussion.

I will be mailing the letter though lawyer, because it is you who are spreading misinformation, and more and more it's seeming deliberate.

[marinville]

What does "make" mean? Look to the statute:

26 U.S. Code § 5845 - Definitions
(i) Make
The term “make”, and the various derivatives of such word, shall include manufacturing (other than by one qualified to engage in such business under this chapter), putting together, altering, any combination of these, or otherwise producing a firearm.

And herein lies the crux of your argument, and the only real piece of evidence you have for your relentless insistence; the code's definition of make. If you had any measurable amount of honesty in you, instead of walls of misrepresented legalese and anecdotes about speeding and hypothetical scenarios, this is all you would need to say, because the rest is just fluff (at best.)

I am particularly interested in the baby blue portion of the above definition. (Nice color scheme by the way. It has a funny way of adding and detracting emphasis.) The text to which I refer reads: "or otherwise producing". Now I'm no lawyer, perhaps lawyers have a different definition of 'or'. My humble interpretation has always been the presentation of a choice between the options before the word 'or' and those that come after. Example: "either this or that"

In the case of the cited definition of 'make', the making of the firearm can either be the physical assembly of the firearm, OR "otherwise producing" can be the making.

So, with that in mind, my simple question to you, given what should have been your simple argument, is: By completing the necessary paperwork, paying the tax, having the fingerprint cards completed, getting the passport photos taken, acquiring all the necessary parts, having the receiver engraved (which by your logic we should all be doing ourselves) and hiring a qualified individual to assemble those parts, am I not producing a firearm? It exists because of the choices I alone have made to create it, and the actions I have taken.

But you know what, I am comfortable with that. I no longer find it wise to give ATF the platform to issue a fiat, interpreting the 'making' of a SBR, to be physical assembly alone. I do not trust their legal opinion in the matter, or the sincerity if their interpretations, any more than I trust yours.

To any of future "google searchers" I would offer the idea that lawyers are not always correct, or even trustworthy.

[GunLawyer001]

Can you cite any of the 'many existing letters' that you claim cover this nicely? Can you cite the specific statute or ATF reg that says a third party FFL can not assemble an SBR for the individual to whom the approval to make and register said firearm is granted? Can you show me where it says in clear reference to a form 1 that the approved maker must physically assemble the firearm himself? Can you point out for me even one person who has been charged with violating this 'statute, reg or letter' you claim exists? Can you even muster one short sweet clear and concise post that isn't a deliberate wall of legalese that doesn't actually say what you claim it does? I'll be holding my breath lawyer.

. . . .

I'm sorry that you have such disdain for lawyers, complicated reading, and things that frustrate you in general. The law is complex, many legal decisions are based on reviewing the many related pieces and making a "wall of text" that takes some effort to digest.

For example, here's what it takes to answer the question "can I sell a kit with a buttstock and 2 barrels?"
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/fed.../505/case.html

I'll persist in this point as long as you persist in claiming that the law is something else; not for your benefit, but for the benefit of everyone else. I assume that you and your builder already did this, and were not caught, so good for you.

There doesn't have to be a law specifically stating that you can't legally do exactly what you want to do, as long as the law covers it generally. As it does. The law defines the "maker", the Form 1 is to "make and register" a firearm, block "i" asks you to "State Why You Intend To Make Firearm", meaning that you can't legally have someone else be the "maker" after you get the stamped Form 1 back.

BTW, here's a link to the Form 1:
http://www.atf.gov/files/forms/downl...f-f-5320-1.pdf

[knight0334]

I'm sorry that you have such disdain for lawyers, complicated reading, and things that frustrate you in general. The law is complex, many legal decisions are based on reviewing the many related pieces and making a "wall of text" that takes some effort to digest.

For example, here's what it takes to answer the question "can I sell a kit with a buttstock and 2 barrels?"
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/fed.../505/case.html

I'll persist in this point as long as you persist in claiming that the law is something else; not for your benefit, but for the benefit of everyone else. I assume that you and your builder already did this, and were not caught, so good for you.

There doesn't have to be a law specifically stating that you can't legally do exactly what you want to do, as long as the law covers it generally. As it does. The law defines the "maker", the Form 1 is to "make and register" a firearm, block "i" asks you to "State Why You Intend To Make Firearm", meaning that you can't legally have someone else be the "maker" after you get the stamped Form 1 back.

BTW, here's a link to the Form 1:
http://www.atf.gov/files/forms/downl...f-f-5320-1.pdf

Quoted for the truth. US v Thompson/Center cleared this up.

You cannot have another entity make the NFA gun if you are the person the tax stamp was issued to. Otherwise the assembler would need to do the Form 1, and it(the firearm) would have to be Form 4'd to you.