ATF Idiocy: Gun makers baffled by ATF criteria

[Jumping Frog]

From the Washington Times:

Gun makers baffled by ATF criteria
Models OK’d on case-by-case basis


The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is in charge of determining whether a gun model is legal, but the agency won’t say much about its criteria.

Despite overseeing an industry that includes machine guns and other deadly weapons, ATF regulations for the manufacture of weapons are often unclear, leading to reliance on a secretive system by which firearms manufacturers can submit proposed weapons for testing and find out one at a time whether they comply with the law, critics say.

The ATF recommends that manufacturers voluntarily submit weapons for case-by-case determination. But those judgments are private and, it turns out, sometimes contradictory. Critics say nearly identical prototypes can be approved for one manufacturer but denied for another.

Much more here

The article lists multiple instances of manufacturers starting production based on an ATF opinion letter that green lights their design, then the ATF reverses itself leaving them with a half million in unusable inventory.

ATF has no rules, except those they make up on the fly to suit whatever executive decision they want to promote. Look at Elite Ammunition or Cav Arms! Ask ATF if doing X is OK, and they send an official letter saying YES, it is... then a year or two later they change their mind, don't inform you, but send in the shock and awe stormtroopers to serve a warrant and kick in your office and seize all your inventory.

In these sort of things, perhaps an open discussion with the manufacturer FIRST and explain the situation "Hey, we reconsidered, we're going to issue a change of opinion, might want to go ahead and be ready for the announced change by being compliant in advance."

I guess that might be too much to ask. Sensibility from the BAT-Fers.

Here is a perfect example of the above:

The original ruling:



Now the reversal:


The whole "AP ammo" is a ridiculous law anyway. If a criminal wants to defeat a vest, they aren't going to use an FN Five-seveN pistol anyway when virtually any decent rifle caliber will zip though an ordinary vest like butter.

If we get tired of discussing Barnes Banded Solid bullets, how about shoestrings that are a "machine gun"?

[Heartland Patriot]

They do, and have done, this sort of thing on purpose. The lack of clear definitions within the law allows petty, ideology-driven bureaucrats to make the call on what is "legal" and "illegal". Also, saying something is okay, and then rescinding that decision is also likely done on purpose. It keeps confusion spread within the firearms industry so that no one can ever be sure that something that had a positive decision made on it will not later come back with a negative decision. Its like a little game with those people. My pet peeve with the BATFE is SBRs. ANY measurable amount shorter than 16" and an unregistered "short" rifle barrel can get you TEN YEARS in Federal Prison. JUST HAVING IT. Now, you can use a 16" barrel rifle to shoot someone and very possibly get less than ten years in jail...so its not about committing a violent crime, its about running afoul of some trivial bureaucratic law that makes no real difference in preventing or stopping violent crime. And to top that off, if its a "modular" firearm like an AR, be very careful about having even a registered SBR (upper) and other lowers...you might get busted for an unregistered combination EVEN IF THE TWO WERE NEVER ACTUALLY MATED TOGETHER. (For the record, I have ZERO short barreled rifles of any sort. I have a family and I really don't want to sit behind bars for ten years for upsetting some petty bureaucrat with access to a rubber-stamp judge. And I am NOT paying them and jumping through paperwork hoops for the privilege, either.) The whole darned NFA/GCA/FOPA circus around firearms is ROTTEN...most of it needs to be DUMPED. What should be the only thing that matters is HOW YOU USE THE FIREARM, PERIOD.

[i8godzilla]

ATF Idiocy -- Is that redundant?

[OldCannon]

If you think the ATF is bureaucratic, try ITAR, managed by the Department of State. If you build and sell so much as ONE gun, you could be subject to colossal penalties due to manufacturing a "military-grade weapon". For people that have an 02/07 license, this does NOT authorize you to actually manufacture a weapon, you must get a license for that (starting around $2500 without the legal fees). It's a horrible mess. It's not just weapons either, _anything_ the DoS decides to classify under ITAR requires an export license (doesn't matter if you're not exporting!).

Welcome to the world of Government Bureaucracy

[74novaman]

Federal govt regulations stifling business innovation and growth?!

I'm shocked!

Shocked I tell you!

[Jumping Frog]

It's not just weapons either, _anything_ the DoS decides to classify under ITAR requires an export license (doesn't matter if you're not exporting!).

I was looking into a little sideline of swapping wheelweights for cast bullets. I had a half dozen people that were interested in working all the tire shops in their area for me in return for cast/sized/lubed bullets.

I backed off because of ITAR concerns. What was basically a hobby wasn't worth a $2500 license to me.

[OldCannon]

It's not just weapons either, _anything_ the DoS decides to classify under ITAR requires an export license (doesn't matter if you're not exporting!).

I was looking into a little sideline of swapping wheelweights for cast bullets. I had a half dozen people that were interested in working all the tire shops in their area for me in return for cast/sized/lubed bullets.

I backed off because of ITAR concerns. What was basically a hobby wasn't worth a $2500 license to me.

That doesn't falls under ITAR rules. First, you're bartering. Second, lead-cast bullets don't fall under ITAR. It's weird, I know. Don't get overly paranoid if you're just doing little stuff like that. It's the FFL's selling stuff on the internet (custom-build uppers, etc.) that has everybody nervous. This is particularly true with gunsmiths that make custom uppers for competitive shooting, maybe 10 or so a year. It's a real pain. Most don't even know about ITAR, which complicates matters.

[rm9792]

I ran across this stuff when doing research on getting NFA items. There are exceptions to the excise tax and export license. One of the limits was if you make 49 or less then you are exempt from the excise tax but number 50 triggers the previous 49. It is confusing and the ATF has a lot of published letters contradicting themselves. AR15.com has a lot of good stuff posted, including actual letters. I was concerned that Cerakoting a buddies gun makes me a "manufacturer" but found out that refinishing was an exception. However if I put the nice Videcki trigger in there for him he bought I become a "manufacturer". Just beyond ridiculous.

[OldCannon]

However if I put the nice Videcki trigger in there for him he bought I become a "manufacturer". Just beyond ridiculous.

Not quite, but the gyrations between "selling" and "servicing" and "enhancing" are a nightmare. ARFCOM is a good resource, but in the end, sadly, you will want a lawyer skilled at ITAR at your side.

[rm9792]

Thats what I mean, the ATF website calls any "meaningful change" a case of manufacturing unless the customer brings you the parts and the gun. Another wonderful term with no real definition. In my case I provided the trigger from my stash and he paid in hot wings (bought dinner). From what I read since I provided the parts and got "paid" I broke the law? In my mind I was giving him the part as a friend, not conducting business.

[MeMelYup]

Thats what I mean, the ATF website calls any "meaningful change" a case of manufacturing unless the customer brings you the parts and the gun. Another wonderful term with no real definition. In my case I provided the trigger from my stash and he paid in hot wings (bought dinner). From what I read since I provided the parts and got "paid" I broke the law? In my mind I was giving him the part as a friend, not conducting business.

Look at it as, that part bought you your half of the dinner.

[Jumping Frog]

Here is another example where a shoestring is a machine gun, but then it isn't:

Here is how he set up the shoe string to bump fire:


First letter stating a shoe string is a machine gun.


Second letter stating a shoe string is a not a machine gun unless it is mounted on the gun.

[The Annoyed Man]

So that begs the question, if you're wearing shoes that lace up instead of slip on, and you're carrying a Garand in one hand and a range bag in the other, are you breaking any laws? If one of your shoes comes untied, is that "reasonable suspiscion" or probable cause for a search?

Jesus wept.

[Heartland Patriot]

Now, someone correct me if I am wrong but...on a Garand rifle, the proper nomenclature for the piece of metal that includes the "handle" that is referred to in the letter is Operating Rod, right? And perhaps, they could have also used the term "charging handle", since by pulling it to the rear, you are charging the weapon. But they called it a "cocking handle". To ME, that is wrong. You cock a hammer of the external type, such as on a Peacemaker or 1911. Yes, I understand that the Garand and similar types (Mini-14) also have a hammer inside...but it is not readily apparent from the outside. What I am getting at is this: the BATFE is supposed to be the "authority" on firearms. But by using ill-defined, or weak terminology, they show that they are not so authoritative on the subject. And I believe that this goes right back to the heart of both their incompetence and bureaucratic mindset. I know that this is splitting hairs, but doesn't the BATFE do that to companies and citizens all the time? If they want to ruin people's livelihoods and/or send them to Federal jail, THEY are the ones that need to have all THEIR ducks lined up perfectly before they go jumping down on people with both boots.

[Dave2]

So that begs the question, if you're wearing shoes that lace up instead of slip on, and you're carrying a Garand in one hand and a range bag in the other, are you breaking any laws? If one of your shoes comes untied, is that "reasonable suspiscion" or probable cause for a search?

In their eyes, probably, yeah. In fact, won't the ATF flat-out arrest you for walking around with a pistol-length upper in one hand and a regular lower in the other? By that logic anyone who's carrying a rifle with a fixed charging handle and has access a bit of string — such as your example of the shoe lace — just needs to go to jail... forever... because they're terrorists.