{Snide remarks I desperately wanted to include have been self-censored in the following}
@Nick
I think you missed the subtext.
Y’know what lobbiests do to get congressional approval?
That’s right. BBQ @ Old House. Hatcher’s & the BOD chewing the fat, so to speak…
Less of this “electronic stuff”.
4 Likes
As far as I know, the BoD has not yet recieved the promised letter from the BATFE agent who visited.
3 Likes
I was understanding it was the 95 page pdf of the different rulings.
1 Like
We need a copy of that 95 page document. The problem is the BoD lacks confidence, understandably, because it would shut down DMS. What about other hackerspaces. How are they handling this?
Sorry, you don’t have access to that topic!
Wow, truly didn’t realize how many member do not have access to the Members Only categories… Please PM John_Marlow or StanSimmons
In the mean time a direct link:
The agent of the ATF described the following on how to read these ATF rulings.
ATF Rulings are today’s interpretations on the Gun Control Act of 1968. You read them starting at the most recent year, going backwards. So a 2009 ruling could be out of date if a 2015 ruling replaces that. The ATF changes as the industry changes. Rulings do change, and they change often.
So ATF Rule 2016-5 applies to manufacturing.
USC 921 A.4.A reads
(4) The term “destructive device” means—
(A) any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas—
- (i) bomb,
- (ii) grenade,
- (iii) rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces,
- (iv) missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce,
- (v) mine, or
- (vi) device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clauses;
nfa 26 USC 5845 (f) (1)
(1) any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas (A) bomb, (B) grenade, © rocket having a propellent charge of more than four ounces, (D) missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce, (E) mine, or (F) similar device;
18 USC 293
(i) Licensed importers and licensed manufacturers shall identify by means of a serial number engraved or cast on the receiver or frame of the weapon, in such manner as the Attorney General shall by regulations prescribe, each firearm imported or manufactured by such importer or manufacturer
27 CFR 478.92 & 479.102
(1)Firearms. You, as a licensed manufacturer or licensed importer of firearms, must legibly identify each firearm manufactured or imported as follows:
(i) By engraving, casting, stamping (impressing), or otherwise conspicuously placing or causing to be engraved, cast, stamped (impressed) or placed on the frame or receiver thereof an individual serial number. The serial number must be placed in a manner not susceptible of being readily obliterated, altered, or removed, and must not duplicate any serial number placed by you on any other firearm. For firearms manufactured or imported on and after January 30, 2002, the engraving, casting, or stamping (impressing) of the serial number must be to a minimum depth of .003 inch and in a print size no smaller than 1/16 inch; and
27 cfr 555.109
(a)General. Explosive materials, whether manufactured in the United States or imported, must contain certain marks of identification.
(b)Required marks -
(1)Licensed manufacturers. Licensed manufacturers who manufacture explosive materials for sale or distribution must place the following marks of identification on explosive materials at the time of manufacture:
(i) The name of the manufacturer; and
(ii) The location, date, and shift of manufacture. Where a manufacturer operates his plant for only one shift during the day, he does not need to show the shift of manufacture.
… I need to stop here but none of this sounds like it would applicable unless we are allowing members to convert 80% receivers to 100%. I would be concerned with the liability for this and the correct use of materials.
But we need to go through law by law and make sure it’s applicable or write polices for these items.
Google docs would be a great place to store something like this unless we already have something in place.
1 Like
Ok.
We need to go back to the ATF agent and ask why the following ATF ruling were assigned to us and what they think we’'re doing here.
2016-5-–-marking-variance-government-defense-contractors/
2016-3 Consolidation of Records Required for Manufacturers
2016-1-requirements-keep-firearms-records-electronically
2014-1-manufacturinginventory-machineguns-le-and-military
2013-3-adopting-identification-firearms
2012-3. ARMER Electronic Form
2012-1-time-period-marking-firearms-manufactured
2011-4-pistols-configured-rifles-rifles-configured-pistols
2010-10 - Manufacturing Operations Maybe Performed by Licensed Gunsmiths Under Certain Conditions
2010-3 - Identification of Maxim Side-Plate Receivers
2009-5-firearms-manufacturing-activities-identification-markings-firearms
1997-2-semiautomatic-firearms-resembing-browning-1919a-4-and-6-machineguns
77-1 GENERAL (RECORDS) The recordkeeping requirements for licensed gunsmiths are clarified.
77-13 MEANING OF TERMS
3 Likes
They are just dumping the database on us. They are an enforcement agency. Their job isn’t to tell us what we can do within the law, it is to decide who has been skirting the law and make them pay.
1 Like
That’s fine. They need to explain to us how this applies to us since we’re not making equipment for the government, Law enforcement or machine guns.
2 Likes
Good question. That’s something we would know if there wasn’t the lack of sharing of information.
This instantly reminded me of this thread:
1 Like
Please consider that there are four issues:
(1) What the ATF doesn’t specifically disallow. This is the simplest issue - and the bulk of the preceding discussion.
(2) Enforcing the above rules i.e., determining which activities do or do not violate the nuances of any rules without :
- spending a fortune on a firearms-specific lawyer
- requiring one individual to take that liability upon himself/herself or
- vetting all members as to eligibility to own firearms.
(3) Liability to DMS if we allow everything the ATF doesn’t disallow - and someone gets hurt or commits a crime with an asset we allowed them to modify or “manufacture”
(4) Liability to individual instructors if we certify that someone is safe to use a machine tool and they get hurt or killed with a firearm part that they have modified or manufactured using a machine on which we certified they were safe/knowledgeable
Yes, I know that technically items 3 and 4 aren’t any different for an automotive part but a firearm part is a much higher profile test case - and one that many lawyers would take on for free.
Do we know who the ATF agent is? We can reach out to them directly and inquire as to why these rulings where assigned to us.
https://dallasmakerspace.org/wiki/Rules_and_Policies#Code_of_Conduct
Only persons or members that have been formally authorized to act as an agent or representative for the Dallas Makerspace, are permitted to represent DMS in any and all conversations, writing, or other communication with any public official. Failure to secure permission may result in the forfeiture of membership.
2 Likes
Thanks Luke. Who would be the authorized representative?
Currently, only the directors are authorized to act as an agent or representative of the Dallas Makerspace. There are two other members who can speak to specifically to the Fire Marshal and City Officials for the expansion.
Understood.
20 characters
So the plan of attack should be to get the correct person from the BoD to reach out to the ATF with a list of questions such as.
- Why were these rules assigned to us?
- If we prohibit building 80% recivers and all work on ATF defined firearms (receiver with S/N) do we need to adhere to the rules assigned to us?
- Can we as members teach basic tasks such as firearm maintenance, or even a dis-assembly/reassembly of a firearm?
4.a. Would using the machine shop on accessories such as a barrel to attach a scope, put us in any of the atf rules?
4.b. Even if the receiver is prohibited from being in the machine shop?
Anyone else have questions?
Also, prior to going to the ATF agent, we need to inquire what was asked by the BoD to get the responses we received.
Lastly, I know the BoD is busy. SInce there are 2 members that can talk to the fire Marshall and City Officials, Does it make sense to assign 2 people to this task as well, and they can report to the BoD?