All the equipment I thought was labeled “no firearm parts” which, as much as I am annoyed, is unfortunately the state it needs to be (especially since the ATF refuses to clarify how shared spaces are interpreted for organizations like DMS. Even if we all agreed to machine parts it’s a dubious legal situation).
I’m pretty certain the ATF letter was talking about manufacturing (e.g., finishing 80% receivers), not making legal modifications to existing firearms. If a firearm is legally a firearm when it comes into the space, nothing you do to it can constitute “manufacturing” (again, excepting illegal modifications which would be “manufacturing” an NFA weapon). So why an arbitrary-seeming “no firearms” rule? Seems a bit pantywaistish if you ask me.
There is (was) a welcome board with the rules posted on it. Not sure where it is since things got moved around.
There is a “no working on firearms” tag on the the Bridgeport,lathe, and haas since the BoD meeting in wish the rule was set
Doesn’t matter what we think of it. It’s an official rule, per the Rules page. It has been passionately debated many, many times throughout our existence. The rule was codified by the Board on 10/20/2017 after various inputs from the ATF.
If anyone wants to debate this, please start a separate thread.
I’m only trying to get the existing rule consistently marked on the equipment.
“The manufacture of firearms or any item covered by the National Firearms act, is strictly prohibited.”
A literal reading of that rule is that merely working on firearms is NOT prohibited. Finishing an 80% lower would be prohibited, as would making silencers or performing illegal conversions.
But merely working on a gun (turning a barrel down for threading, for example) would not be a prohibited activity.
I’m not trying to debate it. But the machine labeling should reflect the requirements of the rule.
It is intended to be read with a literal interpretation. Not all of our 1700 members are versed enough in the intricacies of the ATF law to make a valid interpretation, so the Board has opted to enact the strictest policy possible. This is in order to prevent liability to DMS and to the Board. Even if you think you are capable of making your own interpretation, all firearms manufacturing work is prohibited.
I don’t have a problem with that but the rule needs to state what the actual intent of the board is.
If they don’t want any firearms OR firearms parts worked on at all, the rule needs to say that. Words have meanings and especially with a rule a violation of which would earn expulsion, the correct words need to be used.
I could easily have brought a barrel in and done some work on it after reading that rule and I would have been completely reasonable in doing so. The rule needs to be changed.
I forgot to include the word ‘not’ in my post above. A literal reading of the rule is that merely working on firearms is not prohibited. We literally have no rule that prohibits working on firearm parts - or firearms, for that matter, as long as it doesn’t constitute manufacturing (which has a definition) or NFA implications.
I have to agree with Matt here. The item passed as follows from the minutes:
Robert: I would like to see a formal policy or rule. I propose we ban the manufacture of all firearms and NFA items.
David seconds.
Robert, Kris, David IN FAVOR
Brian, Alex ABSTAIN.
Motion passes.
This does NOT cover making or modifying firearm parts. It does NOT cover minor gunsmithing on your own firearm. It does cover manufacturing lowers, amongst other things.
I’ve been told that Machine Shop has a rule against any sort of work on firearms, yet I am unable to find such a rule on the Machine Shop Wiki or meeting minutes… and yet there are signs up to that effect.
And working on firearm parts (not firearm manufacturing, NFA, 80% lowers) was never part of the ATF letter, which gets us back to arbitrary and pantywaistish.
Interpret the BoD rule however you want. The Machine Shop Rule is no working on fire arms. Period. That’s what is posted on the machines.
If you’d like to change that rule, bring it up at a Machine Shop committee meeting. However, changing that rule that still doesn’t change the BoD rule.
I’m actually not trying to be a dick. But if there is a rule then the rule passing needs to happen per the bylaws and the rule needs to state the intentions of its creators. Not some nebulous thing that can be arbitrarily turned into banning somebody from an area or the space because we were supposed to magically divine the intentions of the rule-makers.
I am a little bit concerned that a board member thinks a rule means something other than what the rule says.
That doesn’t bode well for anybody who is accused of violating that rule, and could open us up to some liability, or at least expense. Because if I know anything, it doesn’t matter who wins or loses in court, everybody loses.