ITAR Registration -- Plan on Paying your Gunsmith more...
- Thread starter Rustystud
- Start date
hoz53
Gold $$ Contributor
Anybody thought that this may be a way for them to actually identify who is doing gunsmith work? If an 01 FFL is working on a few guns a year how do they (State) know it. Well they would know it if you told them because you were scared of the fines/jailtime. If you call that helpline they have and tell them you chamber a few barrels a year they will put you on THE LIST.
If I was a FFL holder that would be my fear.
Knowing how they made the rules to start with I wouldn't expect anything less. . Larry
9 simple Numbers is all they need . Larry
I had a long talk with the ATF yesterday and I was told that as long as the customer supplies a complete firearm meaning barreled action which mine do it is not considered manufacturing to put a new barrel on or customize it as long as I am not adding something to the frame like a side bolt release that was not there to begin with and an 01 FFL is fine for this. I did confirm the 07 ruling was made 5 years ago which is not right and needs to be stopped because I know full well the 01 FFL's will be told the same going down the road. I also did some digging on my own. Here is the link for reference to what I posted below. https://www.ttb.gov/applications/pdf/gunsmith-letter-revised.pdf
In general, two events must occur for the FAET to apply to the alteration or modification of any firearm:
1. An act of manufacture involving a firearm must occur.
2. The person who is responsible for the act of manufacture must sell the firearm or use it for a business use.
To be considered an “act of manufacture,” alterations must materially change a firearm so that a different article results. Modifications to a firearm that significantly change the function of a firearm also amount to manufacture. The following are some examples of “events” that may or may not constitute manufacturing:
When existing parts of a firearm are replaced, refinished or repaired, no manufacture takes place. However, if parts are added to a frame, receiver or action, such alterations are generally found to be manufacture. Additionally, when custom firearms are produced from new or used firearms acquired by a gunsmith, as when surplus military firearms are “sporterized” and the custom firearms are a new and different type of firearm, then manufacture has taken place.
Cutting off part of the barrel of a firearm is, of itself, an act of manufacture. I found this one pretty interesting.
Refinishing a firearm, as in bluing or black anodizing does not change the
form of a firearm and would generally not be considered an act of
manufacture.
Checkering is also an activity that does not normally change the form of a
firearm and would generally not be an act of manufacture.
Engraving performed on a firearm could be considered an act of
manufacture when the engraving substantially increases the value of a
firearm. Engraving that does not substantially increase the value of the
firearm is generally not an act of manufacture.
The cutting of trapezoidal/oval ports into the side of the barrel of a
handgun or long gun to reduce recoil and muzzle lift would not amount to
manufacture.
Excise tax is not imposed on the sale of parts or accessories of firearms,
pistols, revolvers, shells and cartridges when sold separately or when sold
with a complete firearm for use as spare parts or accessories.
It should be noted that FAET applies to the sales of complete firearms.
A frame or receiver for a firearm is not a complete firearm and is not
subject to FAET.
However, a manufacturer who sells a firearm in a knockdown condition,
which is complete as to all component parts, will be liable for FAET.
Liability for FAET will be incurred whether the component parts are sold in
one transaction or a series of separately invoiced transactions.
So with the paragraphs below the way I read this if the customer brings me their rifle which mine do and have me machine it the customer is considered the manufacture not me.
The second part of determining whether FAET applies concerns whether the
person who is responsible for the act of manufacture has sold or used the
firearm. Let us assume that a gunsmith’s alterations to a firearm for a customer
amount to an act of manufacture as detailed in the following scenarios:
In a situation where a customer supplies a firearm to a gunsmith for
modification, the customer is usually considered to be the manufacturer
for FAET purposes.
The customer is considered to be the manufacturer
because he directs what type of modification is to be done to the firearm
and he retains title to the firearm while it is being modified. Even though
the gunsmith performs the physical modifications to the firearm, he would
not usually be considered the manufacturer for FAET purposes in this
situation.
In general, two events must occur for the FAET to apply to the alteration or modification of any firearm:
1. An act of manufacture involving a firearm must occur.
2. The person who is responsible for the act of manufacture must sell the firearm or use it for a business use.
To be considered an “act of manufacture,” alterations must materially change a firearm so that a different article results. Modifications to a firearm that significantly change the function of a firearm also amount to manufacture. The following are some examples of “events” that may or may not constitute manufacturing:
When existing parts of a firearm are replaced, refinished or repaired, no manufacture takes place. However, if parts are added to a frame, receiver or action, such alterations are generally found to be manufacture. Additionally, when custom firearms are produced from new or used firearms acquired by a gunsmith, as when surplus military firearms are “sporterized” and the custom firearms are a new and different type of firearm, then manufacture has taken place.
Cutting off part of the barrel of a firearm is, of itself, an act of manufacture. I found this one pretty interesting.
Refinishing a firearm, as in bluing or black anodizing does not change the
form of a firearm and would generally not be considered an act of
manufacture.
Checkering is also an activity that does not normally change the form of a
firearm and would generally not be an act of manufacture.
Engraving performed on a firearm could be considered an act of
manufacture when the engraving substantially increases the value of a
firearm. Engraving that does not substantially increase the value of the
firearm is generally not an act of manufacture.
The cutting of trapezoidal/oval ports into the side of the barrel of a
handgun or long gun to reduce recoil and muzzle lift would not amount to
manufacture.
Excise tax is not imposed on the sale of parts or accessories of firearms,
pistols, revolvers, shells and cartridges when sold separately or when sold
with a complete firearm for use as spare parts or accessories.
It should be noted that FAET applies to the sales of complete firearms.
A frame or receiver for a firearm is not a complete firearm and is not
subject to FAET.
However, a manufacturer who sells a firearm in a knockdown condition,
which is complete as to all component parts, will be liable for FAET.
Liability for FAET will be incurred whether the component parts are sold in
one transaction or a series of separately invoiced transactions.
So with the paragraphs below the way I read this if the customer brings me their rifle which mine do and have me machine it the customer is considered the manufacture not me.
The second part of determining whether FAET applies concerns whether the
person who is responsible for the act of manufacture has sold or used the
firearm. Let us assume that a gunsmith’s alterations to a firearm for a customer
amount to an act of manufacture as detailed in the following scenarios:
In a situation where a customer supplies a firearm to a gunsmith for
modification, the customer is usually considered to be the manufacturer
for FAET purposes.
The customer is considered to be the manufacturer
because he directs what type of modification is to be done to the firearm
and he retains title to the firearm while it is being modified. Even though
the gunsmith performs the physical modifications to the firearm, he would
not usually be considered the manufacturer for FAET purposes in this
situation.
Thanks still a clear a muddy water Larry
Hi Dakor,
Your ATF office is giving you their interpretation of ATF rules and regulations. The new ITAR regulations are issued by the Department of State and their guidance is what matters in this regard. If you ask the ATF office how ITAR will be enforced, I am sure they will respond "not our juristiction."
Last edited:
Forum Boss
Administrator
What Scott Harris says is correct.
This Rule is NOT an ATF Rule. This ITAR Registration requirement comes from the Department of State. The terms are NOT the same as ATF Rules.
DDTC issued this guidance 7/22/2016. I doubt if many ATF minions have even read it yet. But the point is... What counts is what the Dept. of State believes, and how DDTC intends to enforce the ITAR regs as "modified" by this 7/22/2016 "Guidance" statement.
Do NOT rely on what some ATF guy tells you. This is not an ATF policy!
This Rule is NOT an ATF Rule. This ITAR Registration requirement comes from the Department of State. The terms are NOT the same as ATF Rules.
DDTC issued this guidance 7/22/2016. I doubt if many ATF minions have even read it yet. But the point is... What counts is what the Dept. of State believes, and how DDTC intends to enforce the ITAR regs as "modified" by this 7/22/2016 "Guidance" statement.
Do NOT rely on what some ATF guy tells you. This is not an ATF policy!
AckleymanII
Gold $$ Contributor
AckleymanII
Gold $$ Contributor
I was wondering if the Dept of Justice, Homeland Defense may be stopping by gunshops for an inspection?
Obama did ask for 700 more ATF agents as part of his last budget!
Obama did ask for 700 more ATF agents as part of his last budget!
I am one of the legion who totally disavows Obama and Clinton, but I can find nothing that shows either of those Dems as responsible for this State Department determination.
Anybody got a link, showing either as responsible ?
Brief discussion w/ my 'smith yesterday… he's got his attorney looking into it.
FWIW, my local Senate or House offices have no knowledge of this issue.
TNX, been there (and at other sites/pages discussing the DDTC determination) but do not see any "copy" of the Executive Order (EO).
That EO is what I'd like to see/read.
FORUM Boss: There is NO Executive Order. Please, Guys, stop repeating that. This is a DDTC "Guidance" Rule.
Last edited by a moderator:
gme
Site $$ Sponsor
Remember when Obama said this last January?
“A few months ago, I directed my team at the White House to look into any new actions I can take to help reduce gun violence, And on Monday, I’ll meet with our attorney general, Loretta Lynch, to discuss our options."
This was not an EO but a "directive"
I called the DDTC and spoke with a Compliance Specialist Supervisor. I was told that the firearms industry asked for this ruling and I was also told this was ran through the ATF head quarters before it was released. So plain and simple you are completely legal with the ATF and Illegal with the DDTC. Now anyone knows a good lawyer would have a field day with this in court and everyone knows that a good lawyer is not cheap.
The DDTC regulates basically all firearms in the United States with their munitions list and so does the ATF so now you have one saying one thing and the other saying something different.
So I was told to pass along this email address DDTCResponseTeam@state.gov. and have everyone write a email to them that this ruling is wrong and making honest businesses that are completely legal with the ATF a criminal with the DDTC and we do not need to be governed by DDTC since we are already by the ATF. I was also told yesterday by the ATF that if you are a gun owner you should never vote for the democratic party. So for all the guys out there that are Democrats and own guns guess what it is the pay me later stage of the game.
The DDTC regulates basically all firearms in the United States with their munitions list and so does the ATF so now you have one saying one thing and the other saying something different.
So I was told to pass along this email address DDTCResponseTeam@state.gov. and have everyone write a email to them that this ruling is wrong and making honest businesses that are completely legal with the ATF a criminal with the DDTC and we do not need to be governed by DDTC since we are already by the ATF. I was also told yesterday by the ATF that if you are a gun owner you should never vote for the democratic party. So for all the guys out there that are Democrats and own guns guess what it is the pay me later stage of the game.
Last edited:
Really
The ATF employees are members of the NTEU, a Federal Union that supports the Democrats. They vote to keep Democrats in office, and campaign finance records reveal that ATF agents and DOJ employees contributed a stunning $1.8 million to Obama's campaign's and the Democratic party
Someone has fed you a bucket full of malarkey!
Upgrades & Donations
This Forum's expenses are primarily paid by member contributions. You can upgrade your Forum membership in seconds. Gold and Silver members get unlimited FREE classifieds for one year. Gold members can upload custom avatars.
Click Upgrade Membership Button ABOVE to get Gold or Silver Status.
You can also donate any amount, large or small, with the button below. Include your Forum Name in the PayPal Notes field.
To DONATE by CHECK, or make a recurring donation, CLICK HERE to learn how.
Click Upgrade Membership Button ABOVE to get Gold or Silver Status.
You can also donate any amount, large or small, with the button below. Include your Forum Name in the PayPal Notes field.
To DONATE by CHECK, or make a recurring donation, CLICK HERE to learn how.