Manufactoring license???????????

I would like to see where these laws are in written form. Of course, it's always te USC. But specifically, something like replacement of a bolt. The ATF states that drop in parts are not considered manufacturing along with several other things that would definitely change the appearace and possible function. So, where can a person find a copy of these laws. I mean I can buy as many AR lowers I want and the kits to assemble them. They may already carry and 11% tax I don't know. But, I obtain the lower, which is actually the firearm, drop in the parts, which the FFL says is not manufacturing, drop in the upper, again the same. Now I have a rifle and according to the ATF, I've done nothing wrong UNLESS there are significant imported parts involved, and that part I understand and agree with.

So, the question is, where does the 11% excise tax come in. If I call Flash Ebert and get an action, have it sent to an FFL holder, take it to a gunsmith, and drop in a barrel, according to the ATF, that's okay. I wouldn't have to pay 11% and neither would the gunsmith, unless it's built into the price of the action.

Are these really the laws or just a misinterpretation of them or the NRA's rallying cry to give them more money?
 
So, the question is, where does the 11% excise tax come in. If I call Flash Ebert and get an action, have it sent to an FFL holder, take it to a gunsmith, and drop in a barrel, according to the ATF, that's okay. I wouldn't have to pay 11% and neither would the gunsmith, unless it's built into the price of the action.
I'm quite certain that what you have stated above is in conflict with the ATF's stance on manufacturing. You CANNOT legally do what you have stated above without the gunsmith having a manufacturer's license and the 11% excise tax being paid on the entire finished rifle.

Like I said - I can't find the info at ATF's website right now, but they published a letter last year specifically addressing this issue. Hopefully someone can do a better job than me, and can produce the ATF rulings in question.
 
So, the question is, where does the 11% excise tax come in. If I call Flash Ebert and get an action, have it sent to an FFL holder, take it to a gunsmith, and drop in a barrel, according to the ATF, that's okay. I wouldn't have to pay 11% and neither would the gunsmith, unless it's built into the price of the action.
I'm quite certain that what you have stated above is in conflict with the ATF's stance on manufacturing. You CANNOT legally do what you have stated above without the gunsmith having a manufacturer's license and the 11% excise tax being paid on the entire finished rifle.

Like I said - I can't find the info at ATF's website right now, but they published a letter last year specifically addressing this issue. Hopefully someone can do a better job than me, and can produce the ATF rulings in question.

It's very possible that what I have stated is in conflict with the ATF or more specifically, the USC. That's the problem, their site is all but unsearchable, but read the attached document to see what they say specifically when you search manufacture. Note the emphasis on imported parts.
 

Attachments

  • building_a_firearm.pdf
    15.4 KB · Views: 225
Here's an excerpt from the original .pdf file. The link to the original .pdf is dead now. Hopefully someone has the entire article.

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/firearmstech/081508manufacturing-of-firearms.pdf

8. A gunsmith regularly buys military-type firearms, Mausers, etc., and sporterizes" them for resale. The gunsmith is in the business of manufacturing firearms and should be licensed as a manufacturer.

9. A gunsmith buys semiautomatic pistols and modifies the slides to accept a new style of sights. The sights are not usually sold with these firearms and do not attach to the existing mounting openings. The gunsmith offers these firearms for sale. This would be considered the manufacturing of firearms, and the gunsmith should be licensed as a manufacturer.

10. A gunsmith buys government model pistols and installs "drop-in" precision trigger parts or other "drop-in parts" for the purpose of resale. This would be considered the manufacturing of firearms, as the gunsmith is purchasing the firearms, modifying the firearms, and selling them. The gunsmith should be licensed as a manufacturer.

11. A gunsmith buys surplus military rifles, bends the bolts to accept a scope, and then drills the receivers for a scope base. The gunsmith offers these firearms for sale. This would be considered the manufacturing of firearms, and the gunsmith should be licensed as a manufacturer.

12. A gunsmith buys surplus military rifles or pistols and removes the stocks, adds new stocks or pistol grips, cleans the firearms, then sends the firearms to a separate contractor for bluing. These firearms are then sold to the public. This would be considered manufacturing of firearms, and the gunsmith should be licensed as a manufacturer.
 
I think this is the full article. George, while we may agree on the fundamental definitions of assembly and manufacturing, you probably don't want to argue with the ATF in a Federal courtroom.

Caution - interpret the following at your own risk.

Text of File:

U.S. Department of Justice
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms and Explosives
Firearms Technology Branch
August 15, 2008
Martinsburg, West Virginia 25405
www.atf.gov

Manufacturing of Firearms

Below are examples of operations performed on firearms and guidance as to
whether or not such operations would be considered manufacturing under the
Gun Control Act (GCA). These examples do not address the question of whether
the operations are considered manufacturing for purposes of determining
excise tax. Any questions concerning the payment of excise tax should be
directed to the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, U.S. Department of
the Treasury.

Generally, a person should obtain a license as a manufacturer of firearms if
the person:

1) is performing operations that create firearms or alter firearms (in the
case of alterations, the work is not being performed at the request of
customers, rather the person who is altering the firearms is purchasing them
making the changes, and then reselling them);
2) is performing the operations as a regular course of business or trade;
and
3) is performing the operations for the purpose of sale or distribution of
the firearms.

1. A company produces a quantity of firearm frames or receivers for sale
to customers who will assemble firearms. The company is engaged in the
business of manufacturing firearms and should be licensed as a manufacturer
of firearms.

2. A company produces frames or receivers for another company that
assembles and sells the firearms. Both companies are engaged in the
business of manufacturing firearms,
and each should be licensed as a manufacturer of firearms.

3. A company provides frames to a subcontractor company that performs
machining operations on the frames and returns the frames to the original
company that assembles and sells the completed firearms. Both companies are
engaged in the business of manufacturing firearms and should be licensed as
manufacturers of firearms.

4. A company produces barrels for firearms and sells the barrels to
another company that assembles and sells complete firearms. Because barrels
are not firearms, the company that manufactures the barrels is not a
manufacturer of firearms. The company that assembles and sells the firearms
should be licensed as a manufacturer of firearms.

5. A company receives firearm frames from individual customers, attaches
stocks and barrels, and returns the firearms to the customers for the
customers’ personal use. The operations performed on the firearms were not
for the purpose of sale or distribution. The company should be licensed as a
dealer or gunsmith, not as a manufacturer of firearms.

6. A company acquires one receiver, assembles one firearm, and sells the
firearm. The company is not manufacturing firearms as a regular course of
trade or business and is not engaged in the business of manufacturing
firearms. This company does not need to be licensed as a manufacturer.

7. An individual acquires frames or receivers and assembles firearms for
his or her personal use, not for sale or distribution. The individual is
not manufacturing firearms for sale or distribution and is not required to
be a licensed manufacturer.

8. A gunsmith regularly buys military-type firearms, Mausers, etc., and
sporterizes” them for resale. The gunsmith is in the business of
manufacturing firearms and should be licensed as a manufacturer.

9. A gunsmith buys semiautomatic pistols and modifies the slides to
accept a new style of sights. The sights are not usually sold with these
firearms and do not attach to the existing mounting openings. The gunsmith
offers these firearms for sale. This would be considered the manufacturing
of firearms, and the gunsmith should be licensed as a manufacturer.

10. A gunsmith buys government model pistols and installs “drop-in”
precision trigger parts or other “drop-in parts” for the purpose of resale.
This would be considered the manufacturing of firearms, as the gunsmith is
purchasing the firearms, modifying the firearms, and selling them. The
gunsmith should be licensed as a manufacturer.

11. A gunsmith buys surplus military rifles, bends the bolts to accept a
scope, and then drills the receivers for a scope base. The gunsmith offers
these firearms for sale. This would be considered the manufacturing of
firearms, and the gunsmith should be licensed as a manufacturer.

12. A gunsmith buys surplus military rifles or pistols and removes the
stocks, adds new stocks or pistol grips, cleans the firearms, then sends the
firearms to a separate contractor for bluing. These firearms are then sold
to the public. This would be considered manufacturing of firearms, and the
gunsmith should be licensed as a manufacturer.

13. A company purchases surplus firearms, cleans the firearms, then
offers them for sale to the public. The company does not need to be
licensed as a manufacturer.

14. A company produces firearms or firearm receivers and sends the firearm/receivers out for colorizing (bluing, camouflaging, phosphating, or plating) and/or heat treating. Do the companies performing the colorization and/or heat treating need to be licensed as manufacturers, and are the companies required to place their markings on the firearm? ATF has determined that both colorization and heat treating of firearms are manufacturing processes. The companies performing the processes are required to be licensed as manufacturers. If the companies providing colorization and/or heat treating have not received variances to adopt the original manufacturer’s markings, they would be required to place their own markings on any firearm on which they perform the manufacturing process of colorization and/or heat treating.
 
10. A gunsmith buys government model pistols and installs “drop-in”
precision trigger parts or other “drop-in parts” for the purpose of resale.
This would be considered the manufacturing of firearms, as the gunsmith is
purchasing the firearms, modifying the firearms, and selling them. The
gunsmith should be licensed as a manufacturer.


I wouldn't want to take on the ATF in court either because if they take you to court, they pretty much know they've already won. Cases they may not win they drop or settle because their high win percentage (somewhere around 99%) is imtimidating and is designed as such.

However the question of "drop-in" parts appears to still be a question. The letter prosted was written in 2008. The PDF below is ATF ruling 2009-2. I don't know if that is February or their second ruling of the year. Knowing other federal agencies I assume it to be the second ruling of the year.

Now define "drop-in". Because it looks like to me a gunsmith can put any "drop-in" part in a gun. "Drop-in" regardless the way it sounds does not indicate that it will not require fitting. But they seem to think it does. With the exception of just a few parts, I've never seen anything that does not require some fitting. Whether that constitutes drilling, cutting, or machining is probably an argument.
 

Attachments

  • atf_ruling2009-2.pdf
    12 KB · Views: 113
Last edited by a moderator:
The phrase "drop in" is defined in the .pdf provided by Madrox.

A “drop in” replacement part is one that can be installed in or on an existing,
fully assembled firearm (not solely a frame or receiver) without drilling, cutting, or machining.
 
They are right, the ATF has been hitting gunsmiths in the N VA area and making them get the mftr license and pay the excise tax. On a couple that was quite a bit of back taxes they had to pay and could not recoup back with the customers.

Herman
 
True that is Jettmugg, but now interpret that. I will guarantee you that as much as you try and as much laxative as you can take you can't go crap out a 1911 barrel. At some point it has to be machined. Same with everything else. At some point it is made. So, as long as somebody supplies a gunsmith wth a part that will fit, or he simply bought it for that purpose, and says it fit from the start, they're gonna have a tough time with that contradition.
 
I think we can all see why a gunsmith without a manufacturing license (and charging his customers the excise tax) might be very hesitant to take delivery of an action, build it into a completed rifle, and then sell it to someone. As per the original poster, at least one custom action manufacturer has been advised by the ATF that they may only ship their actions to another manufacturer for the purpose of building a completed rifle.

The way I read the ATF regulations, if the rifle is being built expressly for the purpose of resale, then the 'smith must have a manufacturing license, and excise tax must be paid on the entire assembly. (I am not a lawyer).

Most gunsmiths are not lawyers, and even if they were, they still might have a hard time interpreting the BATFE regulations.

This issue did come up at some point last year, when at least one gunsmith decided that the downside risk wasn't worth the potential reward.

SteveM.
 
I had an action orderd and was just told that the BATF stopped by to inform the action builder that an new action has to go to a smith with a manufacture license or the smith will be braking the law. I can not have the new action sent to my FFl untill it is placed in the hands of someone with a manufacture license. This was discussed in 2008 on this site. Go to search and type in Manufacture license and then go to "Question about FFL" and you will see the conversation about the latest manufacturing license required. I do not want to mention any names, but after my smith talked to the action builder, I was told by the smith that because he does not have a manufacture license, he will not build any more rifles, that start out with a (new) custom action. DJB in Wi


If the action is as you say, well known and established then it can be sent to any FFL holder. No problem. If you're having someone build a new action, then that's going to fall under manufacturing. It would do you no good to send it to someone with a manufacturing license becuse then what? #1. It the person that built does not have a license then the other person is taking repsonsibility; that's not gonna happen. #2. You still can't send it to your gunsmith.

Not all gunsmiths are licensed and they don't keep books. That's probably the issue with your guy and he's scared he'll be found out. Probably a bunch of gunsmiths you see named here regularly are not licensed. I know of one who is not and you see his guns all the time, but you don't see his name on them. If you're simply buying an action, have it sent to a gunship, pick it up and take it to a reputable gunsmith. If you have designed and had built a new action, it's probably in limbo.
 
The whole thing seems to hinge on resale to the public. That means it has little to do with gun control and more to do with tax revenue.

I don't think I would have a problem ordering an action, receiving it through a gunshop, or any licensed dealer, taking it to my gunsmith (who does have a license) and letting him customize it. I don't think the ATF would have an issue with it either.

Makes you wonder about SPEC guns though. From what I've read, I don't think Calfee has ever made a true SPEC gun. They're sold to the customer before he ever gets the action. But other gunsmiths have made true SPEC guns and even advertised them here as something they modified and now have for sale to the highest bidder (general public). Subtance over form, tells me that #2 needs a manufactuer's license and #1 does not.
 
""Sorry rant off ""

No need to be sorry. Remember-blame he who made it-NOT he who said it.

Lots of people assuming much. Remember about ASS u ME.
 
Correct understanding.

I don't know the specifics of this case, but it sounds like the original poster is saying something like this... Please correct me if I'm wrong.

The original poster wants to buy a pre-made action from somebody like Hall, Turbo, Panda, ULA etc. (not saying that any of these folks are the actual supplier in question). It doesn't sound like the OP wants to have someone make an action of his own design, just an off the shelf action from one of the action makers.

The ATF has advised the supplier (i.e. Hall, Turbo, Panda, ULA, etc.) that THEY (the supplier) may only ship the action to someone who holds a type 7 FFL (for manufacturing). Once the ATF has told them this information, they sure as heck aren't going to send the action to someone with a type 1 FFL.

If the ATF does this to all of the "custom" action manufacturers, then it will only be a short matter of time before the action manufacturers comply with the ATF's request, and will only ship to licensed type 7 FFL's, who will, of necessity, charge the 11% FET on the finished product.

Rifle prices will go up, the hassle factor will go up, and the gubment will get a little more tax revenue from us shooters.
 
Jetmugg,

I agree with you that's what he's saying but the whole story is not there. There's no point in sending the action to a company holding a manufacturer's license if the only real reason to do that is so that they can send it to an FFL holder. If the action is one of the ones you mentioned or similar, that action maker already holds a manufacturer's license or should. What the original poster is saying he needs to do is send it from one entity holding a manufacturer's license to another holding the same license then to his FFL holder so that he may get it to his gunsmith. Something smell a little fishy to you? I think he has asked his gunsmith to get the action; gunsmith has no license; gunsmith makes up remarkable story. Now this guy has bought it and is trying to jump through the imaginary rings made up by the gunsmith.

The only other option is that someone has actually made a custom action; does not have a manufacturer's license and now told the poster you need to find somebody to take responsibility. Good luck if that's the case, because I wouldn't want to count the laws broken there. Just SOL.
 
I believe the Jettmugg

story if probably the case. As an action mfr, I have not been told that. I ship to any type 7, 1 or individual that fills out the yellow sheet if in person. The yellow sheets gets a type "other" on it. The mfr rules for what can be changed to require mfr licenses probably has not changed but just now being enforced. Most mfr are now being required to be registered with the state dept to the tune of about $2500. This is not a new rule either, just one lately enforced. This was done in order for the state dept to generate 80% of its operating costs along with hiring more people to work licenses faster. Also keep in mind that if you only build 49 complete guns in a year you dont pay excise tax per oct of last years ruling.
 
Please corect me if i'm wrong, if I supply all the parts to my gunsmith, receiver, barrel, stock, trigger, etc., to build me a benchrest rifle, there is no mfg license required and no taxes to be paid, by the gunsmith or myself? I think this scenario is prolly 95% of what happens for us benchresters, that's how I do it anyway. I'm not so sure gunsmiths are even required to have a FFL. The action manufacturer will have the license and pay the tax, that's a given, but i think it ends there. When we get into the area of sporterizing old Mausers and 1911's that's a different story, but that's not what the members of this forum are concerned with.

So, does this thread have any value to us, other than to enlighten about us about the BATF and the IRS?

Thanks, Douglas
 
I am the OP

I just talked to the (very well known ) action muanufacture, who does have a license. The ATF is coming back in a couple days to talk to him and explain it all to him.He has not had anyone from ATF come to their shop in 10 years and they are now going to all the FFL and manufacture holders in that state.
I do not want to believe what is going on either, but it is really happening. You will find out soon that the ATF is going to change the way smiths can do buisness. The action builder said that they (ATF) made it very clear that the excise taxes will be paid if you are a registerd manufacture or a smith building off a new action etc. They want the customer to pay the 11% excise tax. If it is not done their way you could spend some time in the slammer. I do not mean to piss people off by not giving more details on the smith or action maker. I am sure they do not want their phone ringing off the hook. As you are finding out, there is info out there pertaining to the manufacture rule, and the ATF has just begun to inform the FFL and manufacture license owners that they (Gov)wants the excise taxes they feel they should be getting. That is the bottom line. DJB in Wi
 
story if probably the case. As an action mfr, I have not been told that. I ship to any type 7, 1 or individual that fills out the yellow sheet if in person. The yellow sheets gets a type "other" on it. The mfr rules for what can be changed to require mfr licenses probably has not changed but just now being enforced. Most mfr are now being required to be registered with the state dept to the tune of about $2500. This is not a new rule either, just one lately enforced. This was done in order for the state dept to generate 80% of its operating costs along with hiring more people to work licenses faster. Also keep in mind that if you only build 49 complete guns in a year you dont pay excise tax per oct of last years ruling.

Stiller,

I thought I posted this but apparently not. I know you send actions to type 1 FFL's to the buyer because I bought one from you about a month and half ago and I doubt you've changed practices since. I assume you have a manufacturer's license and that's a safe bet. If you look at the original post, the poster ultimately wants the action sent to an FFL dealer (Type 1). However, he's been told he has to send it to a type 7 dealer who will then send it to a type 1 dealer. Would you do that or would you just send the action to the type 1 dealer. Now if he wants it sent to the gunsmith, that may be a different story, yet at the same time it's the same story. If the gunsmith has an FFL and can accept the action from a company with a manufactuer's license, there is no sense to to from one manufactuer to another then to the gunsmith. If, however, the gunsmith, or the action maker has no license then the whole kettle of fish has the right smell.

Something is missing in this story. If I bought another of your actions, and while pretty, they're worthless without a barrel so you know what I'm going to do, would you send it to my type 1 dealer or would you go through someone with a type 7 license who would then send it to my type 1 dealer?
 
Well, if you spend $1.6 trillion you probably need a little pocket change. Why not get it by destroying an industry that is second only to golf in terms of money spent for sports (and second by very little).

Still I think it comes down to whether or not you're building for a customer or for resale. And, bad as I hate to say it, this was not an Obama law. So, we can all B**** at him for making sure it's enforced but he couldn't enforce it if it was not on the books.

DJB in Wi I still have one question. Why did you feel you needed to move the action from a manufacturer to a manufacturer to your FFL and then to the gunsmith. That just does not add up. Almost seems alarmist.

Keep us posted
 
Back
Top