More discussion on the ATF and Fire Marshal rulings

Hatcher's Armory
#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There hasn’t been anything similar that rescinded the letter Nick got (that has been made public).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
#66

+1 No one likes a bum deal.

1 Like
#67

It is certainly something we can ask if the board would be willing to forward a letter to them. We can work on the wording of that letter. The board needs to be the ones to send it and get the response and they should share it with everyone. This can be something we ask them to do. We have to be prepared for them to say no… and that the agent they spoke to was good enough for them.

#68

Isn’t this a he said, she said issue, given there are official channels; particularly with the stinginess in the giving out of information being exhibited.

#69

I wasn’t privy to the actual conversation that happened. I do not know all the details. It could very well be but I will tell you that they were very impressed by this woman both in what she had to say and how she said it. If you want, we can bring this up as a discussion point. I just do not want this to turn into an argument… this is why I said that we have to be prepared for them to say no … and still move forward with other things. Remember it takes time for people to process things sometimes. The board is very busy doing not only the makerspace things but everything else in their lives. They have a very short window to devote to the firearms topic. We need to be clear and non-argumentative or disgruntled with the answers as some have been. The meetings should go smooth as glass.

#70

No arguments there.
IMO, can be solved by less stinginess of information.
I don’t think anyone that’s been presenting verifiable facts is being argumentative for the sake of as that would counter productive.
Outside of the people who were present during the visit no one is privy. Unfortunately, Nick(Hatcher’s chair)was excluded/unable to attend(no idea which, it may have been an impromptu visit as well, no idea really).

How do you play a game against the house which can change the rules at their whim in a flash?

1 Like
#71

It is still argumentative to try to present the same facts over and over again to people that have rejected the argument even if the facts are verifiable. You have to go about it a different way.

Here is why I think they might have excluded anyone else … this is just my personal opinion … I think we had a large discussion over all of these topics with a many people a while back … it was very tiring for many of us and it was long an drawn out and never seeming to get anywhere … people got upset and I think the board didn’t want any of that to interfere with the meeting … they wanted a fresh opinion and to make a good impression … like I said this is my personal opinion …

#72

Facts are such pesky creatures. lol
But I hear you and I don’t envy any of the BOD in what they have to deal with on behalf of DMS.

#73

@Draco I hope we can get a clear understanding of what the basis is for the rules. I do want to understand what we can and can’t allow and though I never cut off communications with the board, I hope you can reopen them.

I’ve heard rumor that the message we effectively received from the ATF Agent’s visit, was that the agent felt that if anyone did as much as sand a sratch on a firearm, that the agent felt it was remanufacturing that firearm. I’ve heard this from multiple people, but not the BOD yet. However, the rules are so stringent that I could see this being their understanding as well from the meeting. To me this seems like an overstatement of the current law. That said, I’m hoping to find a group willing to do the legal work for DMS to answer the harder questions without having to spend DMS funds on it. If I find this group, I would hope the BOD would allow us to follow through on it, rather than take it over and cut us out.

I don’t really like the idea of mixing airsoft with firearms. people do things with airsoft guns that they would never do with a firearm. It also suggests a level of playfulness I’m not a fan of around real firearms.

I really want to get our brass annealing plan up and running, since we have the funds and can offer a service that would cost an individual $1.5K to do at home. Also, I would like to get our bullet casting program running as well, because I worked hard raising money and donated some of my own to purchase that tooling for the group. These are 2 programs inside of hatcher’s that should have zero issue with the ATF, FM, or BOD to my understanding.

If we get those going, we should move forward from that position. In August, I’ll be on a panel with the head of the ATF’s Explosives Division, I’ll pick his brain about the issues and mixed information we are getting out of the Dallas Branch. I don’t know a better person to ask, as he was near the top or the head of the Firearms Technical Division 2 years ago. I already have a friendly relationship with him and have enjoyed how open he has been with me. Also, we still have Anita to work with as well. I would like to meet the other agent that visited hopefully we can tempt her back to discuss the issues again in a more public environment.

1 Like
#74

The problem is that the DMS can’t afford to get wrapped up in a legal battle with the US Government. We want to stay as far away from that possibility as possible.

1 Like
#75

As long as you aren’t misconstrued as representing DMS, because I read somewhere that rule was made specifically because of you(may or may not be true)…

#76

rather than talk about what is exempted from the definitions of a firearm, I would state what a firearm is according to the GCA

The GCA defines the term “firearm” as:
(A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive;
(B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon;
© any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or
(D) any destructive device.
Such term does not include an antique firearm.

and point them to the 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(3): DEFINITIONS (FIREARM)

That being said what does “All work on firearms, as defined by Dallas Makerspace, is STRICTLY PROHIBITED”. I realize we state “Included in this definition are all components that attach to a firearm to unless specifically exempted.”

Does that mean my flashlight that connects to my firearm is prohibited?

Since barrels are not a firearm, but an accessory, can I re-chamber a barrel blank that has never been attached to a firearm? What if I wanted to use that barrel for an alternative purpose? like a snorkel?

Not trying to cause trouble, but these are grey area that we need to explore and understand.

I would remove replicas completely. It either is a firearm or it’s not.

BTW, IF you need someone who is licensed to help I am a FFL.

2 Likes
#77

We need to reach out to the ATF and their agents and get the code they’re quoting.

There may be exceptions like under the watch of a gunsmith, or teaching a course on how to do engraving…

1 Like
#78

Hey George,
Welcome to the conversation. Glad we have another ffl in the group. To not reopen the cookie jar of repetitive discussion, the conversation has changed direction a bit at this point. The issue is less what is legal and more how can we build confidence in the board as to what is legal. The ATF visit has lead to a full shut down and a pushing of ourbolder off the cliff. Now we have to some how get that bolder back up the mountain.

#79

You aren’t causing trouble. We can author changes to the rule and if accepted will be come the new rule. We just have to come up with a better wording and good reasoning that the majority of the board agrees with…

#80

Personally, I love planned discussions in person. What I would do in your / Draco’s situation is exactly what y’all have already talked about. Do research, find organizations like us that do what you want to do, gather and prepare documents, and then be prepared to have a discussion with the Board. Build a team of people who are smart and passionate about this, do the grunt work and then help the board understand.

4 Likes
#81

Well, that is the plan. Just so we don’t get flagged as toxic topics, a fair bit of the research is discussing the issues public on these threads. This is important, because the BOD often mirrors the membership. Some board members are well versed while others have no interest in the topic and being able to answer from both perspectives is important. Plus, we can have some long form documented views explained here as well, which is great when other have questions later.

3 Likes