I’m in. One more for the wiki.
ESmith gave the short answer. We are not allowed to store powder, primers or loaded ammunition at DMS.
Russell
Dan, This is easier to understand than cad programming. All you need is to learn a few buzz word and no one will notice. It is like cutting a board with a hand saw - in a minute you can understand how to do it. But it takes a lifetime to make a straight cut.
If I might suggest - it would be a good idea to establish a relationship/affiliate with the Machine Shop committee, since their tools really enable amateur gunsmithing at a high level. Cross training on the lathe and mill would be a great thing. For example, I’ve been pestering Walter to oversee me cutting and recrowning a barrel - but that would make a great class.
Fact is, an “Amateur Gunsmithing” special interest group with access to a machine shop, might attract a metric crapload of new members to the space (shooting is a hugely popular sport in Texas), and the tooling their classes might purchase, would likely be fairly common machine shop items - lending support to both groups, and the Space as a whole. But Machine Shop is having trouble fielding classes on the basic machines, so flooding them with new members wanting access to/training on the mill and lathe, might not be a great idea without a little prep.
1 Like
I’m curious, too are there any professional gunsmiths or FFL holders who are members at DMS? I’d like to know what the associated laws are with regard to smithing, selling and reselling firearms and general manufacture of firearms/equipment for reloading at DMS? @wandrson you seem to have some knowledge/experience in these areas. Can you explain what the limits are at DMS without the appropriate licenses?
Didn’t somebody recently mention the legality of manufacturing firearms at the space?
That’s one of the topics that was discussed at the BoD meeting - the committee will have to formulate policy on the subject to comply with a strict interpretation of BATFE rules.
My knowledge has been on a case by case basis, where I have had an interest. I then research and seek an opinion from my attorney for some things.
I know that finishing off a 80% receiver and anything that involves ‘creating’ a gun is off limits, but performing modifications to an existing gun are mostly okay. Not sure about the class aspect of cutting and recrowning a barrell would be ok though. That would require some research.
It’s a good question, and for clarity, where amatuer gunsmithing at Makerspace is concerned, a more formal query to the BATF delineating can and can’t, is necessary I think. Generally, as I know it, activities involving work on another person’s firearm involving any exchange of consideration, probably requires a license. Whether an honorarium counts, I don’t know. The idea could be bypassed, simply by demonstrating techniques on bar stock or something similar during classes, and requiring that members may only work on their own firearms at the space. But getting a formal ruling is wise, and the questions should be specific enough and cover enough contingencies, that we know exactly where the boundaries are.
Getting a formal ruling is quite difficult. Indeed almost impossible. Beauracrats don’t like definitive answers. And the ones they give you are rarely reliable. For instance try getting an IRS agent to tell you whether something is allowed before they are auditing you and fining you.
Like many other forms of written regulations, it boils down to reading and understanding the specifics. And occasionally consulting an attorney.
3 Likes
Well, I think we can agree that with the changing law, some rules related to the practice are definitely in order, and should be thoughtfully considered and applied. This is probably timely, given the current interests in defining CHL activities etc,
And speaking as a bureaucrat myself, I can tell you that a good definition of such a job is:
Bureaucrat - A person attempting to feed his or her family by performing a function or service in which:
- No matter what you do, 1 person will approve, and 5 disapprove.
- You will have to give answers that you, yourself, may not agree with as a matter of duty,
- Various people will feel absolutely justified in characterizing you in the foulest way they can summon. Thin skinned or weak minded people need not apply.
- Your professional will always be defined by the actions of your poorest representative to win arguments about any/everything.
1 Like
To the best of my understanding, you are allowed to modify your weapon personally in anyway that doesn’t recategorize it under the NFA(national Firearms Act). Follow the link for more detail on what are consider NFA weapons. Private citizens are banned from making these kinds of modification, as they are not able to personally register for the NFA permit. The only groups able to register for an NFA permit are manufacturers, makers, importers, and certain governmental entities. If your interested in more information on the NFA they have a webpage. I hope this proves to be a source of first hand answers to your questions rather than relying on the mixed knowledge of others.
I think the 80% issue ruling is this link if people have not seen it: https://www.atf.gov/file/11711/download
Maybe we can get someone for the NRA to come and speak to us about the relevant issues.
Something to keep in mind, that these issues have implications that extend beyond the boundaries of this SIG, and should be considered in that light.
Lawyers render opinions, just like the rest of us. One hopes they will be well informed, and that the opinions will be good ones, but in such an unsettled and politically charged area of regulatory law, it’s more a matter of policy at the enforcing agency, and inclinations of the Court, that determines outcome, rather than even plain readings of the law. And in some cases, even if your actions are correct, the cost of defending yourself in the system, means you lose.
Maybe the most important issue is: What questions do we need answers for?
1 Like
Yes they do, but ostensibly have better understanding of the current meaning of things in a legal context, and much like an engineer when they sign and seal a document, an attorneys opinion for a client carries certain responsibilities. However, you only pay for such an opinion if you are in an area where the regulation is unclear.
Both policies at the beuracracies as well as court opinions need to be published before they really have a meaning or consequence. As long as we follow the letter of the law and the beuracrats regulations, the most we would receive is a warning, after which we can modify behavior accordingly. The recent change concerning 80% receivers is a perfect example. Up to December 31st it was perfectly legal to use our equipment to work on one. With the publication of the document @Kentamanos linked above in January it is no longer advisable. The law hasn’t changed, but the beuracrats opinions have. It may still turn out that their opinion is legal, but that will require someone else to pursue the case and tell another set of buearacrats that they once again overstepped their authority. It isn’t something DMS should waste resources on.
If we were to avoid anything that might violate some beauracrats’ sensibilities we might as well close the space right now. I could walk through the space and find dozens, possibly hundreds of possible regulatory violations right now. Much as can be done most anywhere, including the spaces that house these beuracrats.
1 Like
@Tapper, thanks for you concern about the new committee. I hope I can ease your mind a bit. Russell (@Gimli) and I as well as a few other member where talking about the 80% lower issue during the Wednesday Philosophy meet up. (Collin would like me to point out everyone please come and join us.) Russell stated that his goal for having gunsmithing being part of the committee isn’t to finish 80% lowers, instead it is to share more knowledge he has gather from Competitive Match Shooting. Also, an 80% unfinished lower is actually more expensive than just buying a fully finished lower. Personally, I want to spend my time and money shooting and making my gun as accurate as possible.
Also, please understand the burden that can be imposed by questioning without the willingness to do the research to answer the question. We are volunteers and I’ve personally try to answer questions. It requires work to give a real answer and not an off the cuff opinion. We should try not to punish those working to help, by over using their voluntary resources.
I’m sorry Walter, but respectfully, I disagree with some of what you are saying. I think that first, we need to keep in mind, that there are no such thing as misdemeanor violations of the various laws and regulations imposed by the NFA and successor acts, or BATFE regulations and interpretations thereof. Each and every violation is a Federal Felony, and no one can expect a merciful interpretation of the law. The DOJ prosecutes mercilessly, and that’s a fact. Characterizing the BATFE as bureaucrats, is also wrong. They are Law Enforcement Officers, they carry badges and guns, and they perform arrests, very frequently of people who seriously need arresting. They get shot and killed in the line of duty, and demeaning them as bureaucrats is just disrespectful and wrong. But like all Officers, they are charged with enforcing law, even when they don’t want to, and that includes interpretations of badly written and politically motivated laws, or their own regulations, in an intensely heated political environment. Having a sworn duty is a bitch, and seldom understood until you have one yourself.
And as to published opinions, they are subject to interpretation and correction by judges, political pressure, the evening news, and a host of other things, but at the end of the day, it’s always one cop that says “this thing violates that law” and performs the arrest, at which point you may beat the time, but you won’t beat the ride, or the legal fees.
Nick - don’t sweat it, my mind doesn’t need easing. This is Talk, and we’re all talking. I have confidence the Board will deal appropriately with the various issues that have been recently raised with respect to firearms and so forth.
That’s one thing I’m a bit confused about. That document is dated 1/2/2015 (not 2016). In and of itself it doesn’t state when their “ruling” would go into effect etc., but it seems to me this happened on 1/2/2015?
That said, I don’t know a potentially larger backstory etc.
The understanding I have is that the new ‘interpretation’ by the ATF was proposed in 2015, but only took effect in January of this year. As is customary when the beuracrats decide to re-intepret existing law (they are not able to actually create new laws), there is a comment period where they ignore those who disagree and eventually activate the new regulation.