The “rules assigned to us” were written to the Board of Directors. So by definition - yep - we need to adhere to those.
I’d like to point out that it would have been easier for the Board to just implement a few word policy that said, “No guns or gun parts at DMS”. They spent a great deal of time and effort writing something that fits within what the ATF told them because they’d like to enable members do as much as possible but without jeopardizing DMS.
Which two members do you think these are?
I was referring to the ATF rules not the BoD. Sorry for the confusion.
That I don’t know. But was referring to what Luke mentioned.
The way I understand it, the ATF didn’t assign any rules to us. They gave us their interpretation of the Federal Code as it applies to us.
The ATF didn’t assign them to us. They simply said here are the rulings. They are an enforcement agency. They aren’t our legal counsel. They are under no obligation to do anything other than publish the prior rulings. It is up to each manufacturer to figure out what counsel to seek, and how close to the sun they want to fly, then the ATF figures out which ones to go after for actual violations, and which ones to go after for political witch hunts. They don’t ever want to provide any clear guidance other than don’t play with firearms and we most likely won’t be able to find a way to get you.
These are the topics that were assigned to us in the letter from the ATF. They are but a fraction of the ATF rules.
ETC.
These items where assigned to us because we said something that caused the ATF agent to think we’re manufacturing firearms and machine guns. Otherwise they would not have said we need to adhere to these laws.
My understanding is that the ATF supervisor in question came to DMS and gave her personal view of how the ATF’s rulings should be applied to us and then dumped 95 pages of manufacturing rulings on us. But, she did not give us any official opinions on behalf of the ATF, so we do not actually have anything that authoritatively contradicts or invalidates the opinion that we received from the original agent that we got a formal opinion from.
I’m trying to be specific with my language, because I haven’t seen any official contradiction in the ruling we were given. We also have no record of what was said at the private meeting with the Agent, nor any written statements from the agent to the best of my knowledge.
Was there an official letter issued by the ATF with regards to the visit?
As Chris Marlow said, the policy was written by the Dallas Makerspace based on rulings from the ATF and a visit from an ATF agent. The agent brought with them all possible rulings they think could apply to us (which is the PDF we provided to the membership), and then had a discussion about what actually happens at our business.
No.
Was the agent made aware of the official letter that was given to Nick?
These are the questions we should gather at the Hatcher’s meeting and submit for formal response from the BOD. That way we have an official response to work from rather than one person said yes while another said no.
I guess my response was not clear even though I stated we need to reach to the the ATF with the following questions. I don’t see how we would ask the ATF if the BoD rules applied to us…
My question was, why did the ATF assign manufacturing rules to us?
They did not assign Alcohol, Tobacco, or the many other Firearm rules. They specifically called out Firearm Manufacturing. Why???
They specifically called out Firearm Manufacturing. Why???
The prevailing information on Talk is that it is because the equipment is owned by DMS. You’re free to gunsmith, finish an 80% lower receiver, fit a stock or grips, or whatever, at your house on equipment you own. But because members have no ownership interest in DMS’ assets, that makes working on firearms at DMS a commercial enterprise. Or somesuch. That’s my layperson’s interpretation of all the armchair lawyering here on Talk.
I believe it is because the ATF regulates particularly manufacture of firearms. After the firearm is manufactured and sold/distributed the vast majority of the ATF’s regulations have no effect outside of the regulation of items on the Nation Firearms Act (NFA).
Questions to ponder and maybe ask the ATF, or find in the regulations:
If two individuals equally share the cost of buying tooling and the tool is used by one of the shared owners (to work on a firearm that person owns), is that considered manufacturing or personal use? What if the ownership is equally shared by three individuals, four individuals, or more?
What is the minimum ownership share in a shared-ownership tool before use of said tool (to work on a firearm that person owns) by one of its owners is considered manufacturing and not personal use?
If Person A buys a tool, and stores it in Person B’s garage, Person A’s use of the tool to work on his/her own firearm considered manufacturing? If Person B uses the tool to work on his/her own firearm, is that considered manufacturing?
I’m expecting that from an ATF perspective, buying tooling with a buddy and using for the two of us is manufacturing. Buying with my spouse and using is a gray area.
Let’s do a little armchair lawyering …
From: ATF Rul. 2015- Summary
Any person (including any corporation or other legal entity) engaged in the business of performing machining, molding, casting, forging, printing (additive manufacturing) or other manufacturing process to create a firearm frame or receiver, or to make a frame or receiver suitable for use as part of a “weapon … which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive,” i.e., a “firearm,” must be licensed as a manufacturer under the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA); identify (mark) any such firearm; and maintain required manufacturer’s records. A business (including an association or society) may not avoid the manufacturing license, marking, and record keeping requirements of the GCA by allowing persons to perform manufacturing processes on firearms (including frames or receivers) using machinery or equipment under its dominion and control where that business controls access to, and use of, such machinery or equipment. ATF Ruling 2010-10 is hereby clarified.
IMO, this ruling has to do with manufacturing of a frame or the receiver part of a weapon.
As far as I know, no one is wanting to become a manufacturer or go for that license at Dallas Maskerspace.
The idea that this ATF agent thinks we want to do this can only come from what was said in the meeting. The board might have asked if we can use our machining tools to work on firearms. In this case, a firearm is the frame or receiver. We do not want to allow this as this requires a license.
Why does the ATF agent think we are manufacturing then?
From: hhttps://www.fflconsultinggroup.com/license-to-manufacture-firearms/
Gun Assembly and Disassembly requires a Type 07 Manufacturers Federal Firearms License (FFL). Building firearms and firearms manufacturing are considered one in the same under most circumstances.
Federal gun manufacturing laws apply to persons engaged in the assembly of guns for profit and livelihood (ATF Rul.2010-10;Revenue Ruling 55-342) . Some FFLs mistakenly believe that gun assembly and disassembly, or simply building guns from distinctive parts is not considered “manufacturing” and therefore doesn’t require a Type 07 Federal Firearms License. FFLs may consider this type of activity to be gunsmithing. ATF licensees should be careful and secure the proper federal firearms license for the type of activity they engage in.If you have decided to apply for a FFL, it’s critical you apply for the Type required for the business conducted. Don’t think that a “Dealer’s” license is sufficient if you are in the “firearms building” business only and don’t “manufacture” in the traditional sense. Also be mindful of what ATF defines as manufacturing a gun or “modifying” a gun. Building guns or assembling guns from separate parts is considered “manufacturing” by definition and you should be properly licensed if you engage in a business that meets the definition of “manufacturing” firearms. If you are unsure of the matter, it’s better to either ask ATF for an opinion or get licensed.
Ok, so “Building guns or assembling guns from separate parts is considered “manufacturing” by definition and you should be properly licensed if you engage in a business that meets the definition of “manufacturing” firearms.”
What is the definition that they are talking about? Is Dallas Makerspace a business that meets that definition?
From: 18 U.S. Code § 921 - Definitions
The term “manufacturer” means any person engaged in the business of manufacturing firearms or ammunition for purposes of sale or distribution; and the term “licensed manufacturer” means any such person licensed under the provisions of this chapter.
The term “dealer” means (A) any person engaged in the business of selling firearms at wholesale or retail, (B) any person engaged in the business of repairing firearms or of making or fitting special barrels, stocks, or trigger mechanisms to firearms, or ( C) any person who is a pawnbroker. The term “licensed dealer” means any dealer who is licensed under the provisions of this chapter
Additional definitions:
The term “engaged in the business” means—
A. as applied to a manufacturer of firearms, a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to manufacturing firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the sale or distribution of the firearms manufactured;
B. as applied to a manufacturer of ammunition, a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to manufacturing ammunition as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the sale or distribution of the ammunition manufactured;
C. as applied to a dealer in firearms, as defined in section 921(a)(11)(A), a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms, but such term shall not include a person who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms;
D. as applied to a dealer in firearms, as defined in section 921(a)(11)(B), a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to engaging in such activity as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit, but such term shall not include a person who makes occasional repairs of firearms, or who occasionally fits special barrels, stocks, or trigger mechanisms to firearms;
E. as applied to an importer of firearms, a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to importing firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the sale or distribution of the firearms imported; and
F. as applied to an importer of ammunition, a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to importing ammunition as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the sale or distribution of the ammunition imported.
The term “with the principal objective of livelihood and profit” means that the intent underlying the sale or disposition of firearms is predominantly one of obtaining livelihood and pecuniary gain, as opposed to other intents, such as improving or liquidating a personal firearms collection: Provided, That proof of profit shall not be required as to a person who engages in the regular and repetitive purchase and disposition of firearms for criminal purposes or terrorism. For purposes of this paragraph, the term “terrorism” means activity, directed against United States persons, which—
A. is committed by an individual who is not a national or permanent resident alien of the United States;
B. involves violent acts or acts dangerous to human life which would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States; and
C. is intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping.
The key thing is "with the principal objective of livelihood and profit"
Does Dallas Makerspace fit these definitions?
I think we may need an attorney to explain these laws as I am not an attorney nor is the ATF agent as far as I am aware and may be missing something important.
You may as well go piss in the wind and tell yourself it is raining. It will be about that effective. Bottom line here that nobody can seem to wrap their head around is that DMS is never going to be willing to do this. It is counter to the communities well being. The risk is too great. This is a business. As such, unnecessary risk is to be avoided. This falls centrally into that category.
With the above being said, I’ll state again I am not anti-gun nor do I have a problem with what people want to do. I just see it as completely unrealistic to continue to beat the dead, decaying and bloating horse.
Anyways, I’ll be over here in my flame-proof suit. So flame-on…