More discussion on the ATF and Fire Marshal rulings

Hatcher's Armory
#46

That was the same argument they were trying to use for manufacturing, except we are now using it for gunsmithing. Both are licensed activities for the purposes of the BATFE.

The GCA established the FFL system, in which a gunsmith requires an FFL with the exception of an individual. The entire precedent established here that is of concern is that shared equipment rented by an organization can be seen as subversive to the GCA. Since there is no explicit statement from the ATF regarding gunsmithing, enforcement will look to precedent. Whomever is looking at this could argue it one way or the other, but the ATF tends to lean toward the more restrictive side when it comes to licensing involving an organization and this precedent doesn’t help us.

Do you know how precedent is used? The precedent here was that when evaluating a similar situation that came up, in this case the only difference being manufacturing versus gunsmithing both of which are licensed operations, the BATFE decided that just because the business wasn’t involved in the actual work, they rented the tools and made a business of doing so and thus needed to be licensed.
The point of precedent is that it is looked to when evaluating similar cases, but those that are not yet explicitly defined (edge cases, extenuating circumstances, etc), they look for what has already been evaluated and try to find the meaning of the rulings in addition to whatever is there verbatim. The precedent here is that the BATFE doesn’t care if it’s an individual using the machine, but that a business got involved by renting them the machine for the purpose.

Any enforcement proceeding looking at us is going to look at prior rulings for guidance, and ask why if manufacturer on shared equipment cannot avoid licensing why is gunsmithing any different?

This is what is referred to as Persuasive Precedent; it’s not binding, but it is looked to by whomever ends up evaluating if what DMS is doing is within the confines of the law since there is not an explicit ruling particular to gunsmithing. Sure, we could win in an eventual fight but it’s not something DMS could afford to be the test case for.

This analogy doesn’t make any sense here. The problem is more akin to that of laws regarding cellphone use while driving versus a ham radio.
The laws were written such that CB radio was exempted, but it did not explicitly call out amateur (ham) radios. When electronic devices became illegal in certain jurisdictions to use on public roadways, courts had to settle the case law when they started getting situations with amateur radio operators being ticketed. They looked to the precedent established with CB radios, and even though the systems were not the same nor used for the same purpose, it was overall a similar enough case that they applied the CB laws to amateur radio operators granting them the exemption.

Name’s not Tom, but that Tl;Dr was meant more as for the entirety of my arguments thus far and the situation we are have, including background; not a specific post. :stuck_out_tongue:

#47

Why the secrecy though? :thinking:

#48

You are allowed to talk to the ATF. Just not on the behalf of DMS. You can go talk to government officials all day long. Talk to them about a community workshop or makerspaces in general, just not this one.

I have spoken to most of the BoD about this subject. They are not unfriendly people and are willing to help. Except Luke Strickland … he runs away. I’m kidding. As far as I can see, they all are willing to listen. But they are not willing to argue. And arguing some of these technical rulings with them isn’t going to fly. They are not an attorney and you are not one either.

The way it was explained to me is it wasn’t a legal opinion or even the ATF telling us anything but just some friendly advice about how to stay out of trouble from an ATF agent. It wasn’t an official ATF visit but someone volunteering their time. I don’t think you are going to get an official response from the ATF specifically for DMS nor do we need one. We really don’t want the ATFs attention.

This is something that I think the board should explain. I agree, they need to show why they are making the ruling the way they are. May I suggest that we all show up for the board meetings? They generally give more reasoning in the meetings but I do think in this case, the reasoning should be written down.

Again, the only way to check with the laws is to consult an attorney specializing in this. Go find one and then we can talk to the board and see if they would be willing to have a consult. An ATF agent cannot give a legal opinion and neither can we.

This is semi-true. They may be willing if a case was made. This is something that we can bring up in the Hatcher’s / Board meeting. But it can’t be a vague idea but instead a well planned idea. They also want us to write some of the exceptions in the rules. We need to come up with the wording.

All this arm chair lawyering is going to get you no where except annoying everyone.

2 Likes
#49

Respectfully, this is technically not correct. While an agent can’t give an opinion, the ATF can and does issue letters of opinion.

See this link for an example unrelated to our issues.

2 Likes
#50

I’ve not been handling any of our firearms policies, I know the policy and how we’re going to enforce it, but for questions or suggestions on it, you should talk to @Photomancer or @dr_cee. I’m booked with other things.

3 Likes
#51

If that is the case, the agent didn’t actually over rule the official opinion that I got for DMS from the ATF which is documented here.

This was an official response given in writing. So we should be good for AR15 classes then.

The vast majority of this discussion is moot then, lets just follow the official opinion we have on record then.

#52

My understanding was that another BATFE agent said that determination was invalid; if that is not the case, then we have a more specific determination than the 2015 that causes a lot more concern and thus would not be an issue for precedent, as this is more specific.

-Jim

#53

That was my understanding as well when the meeting was first explained to me. But, @Draco has more knowledge than I and I haven’t seen anything in writing or even in any official communication that stated our ruling was incorrect. I know when I got the ruling, the agent said that she had gone through the legal arm of the ATF to get the ruling. So it was not her opinion, but the opinion of the ATF.

#54

In that case, all the previous precedent stuff I had mentioned can be disregarded since we have something more specific, but we need to find out where that statement of it being overruled came from.

Did you get a control number with the document by chance? With a control number we can find out where in the chain someone either would have pulled it, or any determination would have superseded it.

2 Likes
#55

Crickets on this other than a he said, she said.

1 Like
#56

I didn’t,
But, given permission from the BOD, I’m sure we could reach out to Anita for more help. She was incredibly helpful in explaining and working with the legal arm to get an opinion for DMS quickly. I’m talking a week rather than the response time of still waiting after 6 months as others have been dealing with. I will note that I’ve read that opinions like ours are legal for the group they were given to, but not for any other group.

#57

As far as I know there have not been any documents in writing from the ATF that we have that have directly opposed the letter that Nick got. There have been phone calls with other members with the ATF and unofficial personal visits from ATF agents that say it was incorrect. I think the board brought up many of these issues in the visit. But I think we are confusing the issue here. This is not a technical issue but a trust issue and a CYA issue. It is the board’s duty to protect the makerspace for all and not just try and get away with something that seems dubious. We have to think about things from that perspective. What is best for DMS as a whole and for the long term?

#58

An official ruling from the ATF of what they’re official position on the matter would be best as that would be the least confusing and most definitive(until a new official ruling is given out) would be a logical conclusion.

#59

I agree with @Ferman, we have done the CYA and gotten an official written opinion on the matter. if anything, the other non-official stuff are the dubious arguments here.

#60

I agree. The letter Nick got was not an ATF ruling but an opinion. And we have gotten other opinions from other agents that makes things dubious. Until there is a ruling or something more substantial that takes away the uneasiness, I don’t think we will make much headway in this direction. This is why I want to pause this line and pursuit until we can come up with something better. Can we move past this one issue for a while and talk about what exceptions we actually want to get? We have alot of work to do, coming up with ideas that might be acceptable.

Here are the current rules:

Dallas Makerspace Policy on Working on Firearms.pdf (704.9 KB)

What do we want to change? I think we need an exception for gun cleaning for one.

#61

We need an exception on doing things with bullets and casing that do not involve gunpowder and primers.

There needs to be some clear examples that we need to come up with that we can discuss.

For example, we bring up an airsoft gun. It doesn’t function like a firearm and should be exempted but the rules are cloudy.

Airsoft should not be covered by this rule …

Replicas: replicas are meant to look and mechanically act like a firearm and the inability to readily
differentiate the two means they and their components are NOT EXEMPTED and are prohibited like
firearms.

Also, this rule

exempt except that any parts that are interchangeable on a firearm and
are not exempted (e.g. sighting devices).

You should be able to put sighting devices on any non-firearm. As well as put a gun stock on your crossbow.

The Reloading section should not be listed twice.

This needs to be reworded

General advice: If in doubt, do not bring it into DMS. Accidentally bringing a firearm or replica to work
on it is not a defense and may result in expulsion.

General advice: Firearm are permitted at DMS, however if in doubt, do not bring it in. Accidentally working on a firearm in a manner that goes against these rules is not a defense and may result in expulsion.

1 Like
#62

Where are these opinions? If it isn’t in writing it means nothing, because we can’t document and check the opinion. I went through the 95 page packet that the BOD submitted and they are just ruling to do with the paperwork and licensing required to manufacture new firearms. None of them even question the position from Anita as to assembly classes and sharing tool for that use.

The issue is that we don’t know the foundation of any of the rules. So how do we know where we can change them without setting off another avalanche of hear say and opinions never made in writing of laws that don’t exist. It wasn’t difficult for me to get my official opinion, however the members with licensing and direct connections can’t seem to take the opinion we have and get an official opinion in writing countering it. What is the deal with that?

#63

Sorry, wrong choice of words. But yes, opinion letters is what ATF gives out, same as they gave Thordsen for their cheek rest(see link) and the shouldering a shockwave brace would consitute “redesigning” the brace equipped pistol into an SBR( which they later reversed recently as seen in the link).

http://2ht1mik98ka4dogie28vqc4y.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Barnes_ATF_letter.pdf

There hasn’t been anything similar that rescinded the letter Nick got (that has been made public).

#64

Alright … how do you want to proceed in convincing the board? I’m open to ideas. Thus far, these arguments have not worked.

This is something we can ask for at the Hatcher’s / Board meeting. That we want a write up of the foundation for the firearm rules. We can also take notes as they explain them. And set up a second meeting once we have all thought a bit more on the subject. We aren’t in a rush. There is no push.

1 Like
#65

I don’t mind getting further clarification through Anita in writing. I can try to get this in a particular manner the bod would like if they have a format they would prefer. I could also ask Anita to again push it up the chain and try to get a higher up opinion on the matter as well. To my understanding this was done before, and I might be able to get my hands on that direct communication from Anita as well.

1 Like