Firearms Rules Discussion

DMS General
#41

This is really one of the few main points/elements, along with requiring weapons not holstered being brought into 'Space be in some state of disassembly or obviously be “locked-out”, that mitigate virtually all risk.

If the debate and/or policy decision devolves to if there is even a .000000001 chance of an accident, or if because “people break rules!!”, then let’s not waste time on it. Of course, we should then re-examine, from that same “risk” and “insurance” perspective: the two-post lift; the table saws; all lathes; using tall ladders; and…ad infinitum/ad absurdum.

But it’s not a big stretch to require people wanting to work on weapons to notify the appropriate committee chair and/or acknowledge, even sign-off on, some simple safety rules and consequences if ignored or broken. If Hatcher’s were ever to be reconstituted, this seems like a no-brainer “101/safety & basics” requirement.

I note as an aside that I get that the main concern is really (or should be) about incremental risk as opposed to simply “how risky is this particular activity?” That’s a weighting only the BoD via a vote on an agenda item can/shoud make.

Note, other than an occasional cleaning with parts washer, I don;t real have a dog in this hunt. But I think some members, and prospective members, would appreciate being to do stuff like this.

1 Like
#42

It seems your position is people break rules therefore we should disallow an entire field of work. This is unhelpful. The same logic could easily be used to dismantle half of the space. People could make drugs so no chemistry equipment and no hydroponics. People could 3D print regulated things so no 3D printing. Digital media could be used to duplicate copyrighted material so no digital media. You get the idea. There’s no valuable discussion and nothing to gleam going down that path.

People used to be able to work on firearms at the space and it was that way for years. It wasn’t an issue until the ATF changed it’s opinion on a few things. The change to disallow work on firearms at the space had nothing to do with member behavior or rule breaking. It was an external thing (that we as an organization overreacted to). It seems like we’re starting from scratch when it’s not necessary. It’s already been done and we know how it works.

5 Likes
#43

Per my just posted point, according to the logic being used this should mean immediately banning all use of two post lift and getting rid of it because “rules broken!!”

#44

This is the whole quote, and I believe you will find it is true. If you want to CNN #Fakenews soundbite misquote me, you only lose credibility.

But, generally DMS is in the law observation business, not the law enforcement business. Follow the law.

#45

The point of mentioning the auto lift situation is to illustrate how “We should allow this thing because everyone should/will follow the rules” is not a very convincing argument at DMS.

1 Like
#46

Correct. And no one is making that argument!

Red Herring?

#47

Except I didn’t misquote you; I pointed out that people break the law regardless and you shouldn’t base your logic behind something already being illegal in the given circumstance.

The rest of the line does not change my argument, my presentation, nor my credibility.

Your reply, however, shows that you’re here looking for an argument and throwing red herrings rather than seriously reading and contributing to the discussion

Except in this case when someone breaks the law the business can be held liable since we provided the equipment. That is the crux of the current BATFE positions and the grey areas that need to be sorted out.
Even if a finding of fact came back in DMS’ favour should an enforcement action take place, said enforcement actions are almost universally a business shutdown by the BATFE until all is said and done which would be devastating to us as a business.

Things can be a little different when enforcing things involving guns though. I’m not saying we should prohibit all work, but unlike the lift I know many members would have hangups bringing a safety concern / raise a complaint against someone when they’re in the middle of holding a deadly weapon.

This would need addressing; the lift is dangerous but only from a safety perspective rather than a legal one (other than personal injury stuff). The science lab has locks on much of the chemical stock and does periodic inventory which would provide at least a measure of control.

Things like the machine shop however unless someone could clearly identify something illegal being made we would never know until the BATFE knocks down the door because they guy they busted said he made them here.

I do like this idea if some things were hashed out. Titanium work on the plasma for example we in practice have someone present for it’s work.
We could maybe arrange “approved work days” or something where a committee member can be around to watch the work (ideally one of the members that has a very high familiarity with this scope of work).

Even if the final result isn’t “always allowed,” work days with supervision is still a great improvement (and would be good comradery with everyone involved and much more communal which makes enforcement of requirements easier)

2 Likes
#48

I think most people don’t willfully and wantonly break our rules. Most just don’t see the possible end effects of their methods, or are conscious of the rules to begin with.

The auto lift is a good illustration of a member pushing the rules and rationalizing their misbehavior.

The DMS golden rule: “Be Excellent to Each Other” is a great place to start, but seemingly difficult to uphold sometimes.

#49

Maybe I’m misunderstanding the repetition of “follow the law” in this discussion. I probably am.

2 Likes
#50

People can already do that by breaking the rules as-is today. Going down the road of what if is unhelpful. This discussion seems to have run it’s useful course at this point.

#51

We have far more than rationalising by members.

  • When informed of a rule in automotive, I’ve had a member say “I’m going to whoop your ass” for asking them to follow it.
  • When a volunteer was marking a vehicle for removal (whose owner had been previously informed was not allowed to be here), the owner threatened that volunteer. (this was after the owner had to be removed by police for outright refusal to comply with our policies)
  • When a prior board member was informed that someone had nothing to do with an incident, they asked me to try and frame that member to justify removal from the space since that member was investigating that board member’s embezzlement (and no, I’m not talking about LeCody)
  • When explicitly told that acid removal of surface coatings in bulk was not permitted at DMS (in the fashion it was performed at least), the individual (who stopped paying for membership and had been tailgating in at the time) abandoned an acid container that ended up spilling in the parking lot prompting a $4,000 cleanup as mandated by the city since we had to hire a crew to cleanup before rain that day versus being able to clean it up ourselves at our own pace
  • When a member was asked to place the car on the lift locks when working on it, they proceeded to scream at the committee member whilst lifting the vehicle with someone’s head in the wheel well because “I’m a master mechanic” (which fun fact, doesn’t make you an engineer who knows what causes stress on equipment that an engineer designed and instructed that way for a reason and doesn’t nullify the fact they almost seriously injured someone)

The list goes on and on.

Now, imagine adding firearms into this mix. You can’t just say “let them follow the law”

Any rules have to be made with our operations, our dependency on volunteers, and our maker mindset in mind.

Only difference is right now with “no firearm parts” a member is more likely to notice “hey that’s a gun” versus “hey, that’s a gun but I don’t know if that’s an NFA item, a machine gun, or what”

Probably. I’d like to revisit the matter, but this seems like something that needs an actual process rather than just threads on talk. I’d like to see proposals for ways to be able to enforce requirements, host events, etc that factor in how we operate rather than “just let the law handle it”

Things like requiring chamber flags or notify committees are a great example of actual mitigations to consider.

1 Like
#52

If you have specific suggestions please let me know so they can be drafted.

#53

I put one above:

and most importantly I suggested (or at least intended to suggest; my post could have been clearer) we get a fresh letter from the BATFE technical division (@Nick had one previously, then the local field office got involved and we had a conflict). Anything from National supersedes but not having seen the specific letter we should evaluate it and if required get one that is very specific and clear

#54

To the best of my knowledge, the truly illegal things (or for the pedants, ‘things that run afoul of ATF rulings’) will remain prohibited whether this proposed rule change is approved or not.

The bitter pill reality is that illegal things are likely to happen regardless of whether or not we have the rule in place, thus to what extent does the rule protect the organization given its near-inability to finely regulate usage of its facilities? Finishing an 80% receiver can be a simple as a P80 build - 30 minutes with hand tools and a jig - or an AR-15 ‘blank’ - that might be done in an hour or two on the bridgeport - all without drawing attention or leaving any real trace.

2 Likes
#55

I think that’s a bad idea to have supervised work sessions as the only way to work on firearms so I’m not going to draft anything for that. It increases the administrative burden and volunteer burden to a point that it’s not sustainable in the context of DMS. It also makes the rules even more convoluted. I think less is more in this case. But I like actionable suggestions like this over FUD and what if. :smiley:

Like many things Kris did as a director, shrouded in secrecy, making it easier to manipulate others. Shocker.

5 Likes
#56

On the other hand, it reduces our liability for what goes on in the night and the unease of members calling out safety issues.

They’d be good times to host workshops and other things, kind of like an Open Forge day for blacksmithing.

Is it a perfect idea? Absolutely not; we’ll never have a perfect solution. However, it’s something that could be workable in the interim at least to get something rolling whilst sorting out the rest of the mess.

Indeed; I think the most important step in advancing this dialogue and forming a long term solution is getting that whole clarification resolved. If national comes back with a clarification and determination that sides with Nick’s original letter I’d say we open it back to the way things were (supposedly were at least; this debacle started not long after I joined). If they put in any restrictions or say this isn’t feasible how we want it, we go from there.

#57

Speaking for myself - as someone that had past involvement in DMS operations and governance - I would also like some actual clarification on the issue, however the BATF is notoriously expansive in their powers and I suspect any answers they deign to provide will provide a combination of long-winded non-answers and the insinuation that they can prosecute for the slightest rumor of possible gray-area activity.

In the meantime, I feel that the present proposed rules are close to the KISS principles that have better success at DMS than lengthy rules.

1 Like
#58

I don’t see any mention of posts that were made in the past from members stating to the effect that they’ll do whatever work they want with their weapons. These are the types that will flaunt the rules and put DMS in danger from unsafe practices and outright illegal (per BATF) activities.

That was part of the consideration of banning work on weapons.

1 Like
#59

If they’re willing to flaunt the rules then they could be doing work on firearms right now anyway. This is a moot point. Also I think at least one of them is dead now. Banning people is perfectly reasonable response to people who break the rules.

1 Like
#60

I’d say that’s the most important road to go down when deciding to implement a policy change, but that’s just like, my opinion, man.