Quoted:


If you have an approved tax stamp in one hand and an SBR in the other, nobody is going to say jack shit about it. The mental masturbation over this topic astounds me.

Quoted:
The mental masturbation over this topic astounds me.

Quoted:
I thought sbr's were legal now, was going to use nwlawgroup for my trust but if they can't figure out basic sbr shit whats the point?

Quoted:I would not recommend their $99 trust for SBR anyway.  You can't change the name and it's your full legal name + DocX GunTrust which all has to be engraved on the SBR.  No thanks.

Quoted:
I thought sbr's were legal now, was going to use nwlawgroup for my trust but if they can't figure out basic sbr shit whats the point?

Quoted:
only 'controversial' if you make the SBR inside the borders of Washington...

Quoted:
I know this doesn't address all of the possible questions, but ATF is very clear on what constitutes manufacturing and therefore requires a manufacturer's license versus what does not constitute manufacturing. I haven't checked to see if the state relies on ATF's definitions or if WA publishes its separate definitions.

Take a look ate #7 in the Q&A posted on ATF's website as I think this is where ATF sees people applying to make an SBR via an F1 fall, and the reason why they are approving them. Personal use versus for sale also seems to be a discriminator. I wish it were more clear cut in the new WA law, but it is what we were given. https://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/manufacturers.html  

Q: May a person engage in gunsmithing under a dealer’s license (type 01), or do gunsmiths need to be licensed as "manufacturers” of firearms?

Generally, a person engaged in gunsmithing requires only a dealer’s license (type 01). There are circumstances in which a gunsmith might require a manufacturing license. Generally, a person should obtain a license as a manufacturer of firearms if the person is: 1. performing operations which create firearms or alter firearms (in the case of alterations, the work is not being performed at the request of customers, rather the person who is altering the firearms is purchasing them, making the changes, and then reselling them), 2. is performing the operations as a regular course of business or trade, and 3. is performing the operations for the purpose of sale or distribution of the firearms.

Below are examples of operations performed on firearms and guidance as to whether or not such operations would be considered manufacturing under the Gun Control Act (GCA). These examples do not address the question of whether the operations are considered manufacturing for purposes of determining excise tax. Any questions concerning the payment of excise tax should be directed to the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, U.S. Department of the Treasury.

1.A company produces a quantity of firearm frames or receivers for sale to customers who will assemble firearms. The company is engaged in the business of manufacturing firearms and should be licensed as a manufacturer of firearms.



2.A company produces frames or receivers for another company that assembles and sells the firearms. Both companies are engaged in the business of manufacturing firearms and each should be licensed as a manufacturer of firearms.



3.A company provides frames to a subcontractor company that performs machining operations on the frames and returns the frames to the original company which assembles and sells the completed firearms. Both companies are engaged in the business of manufacturing firearms and should be licensed as manufacturers of firearms.



4.A company produces barrels for firearms and sells the barrels to another company that assembles and sells complete firearms. Because barrels are not firearms, the company that manufactures the barrels is not a manufacturer of firearms. The company that assembles and sells the firearms should be licensed as a manufacturer of firearms.



5.A company receives firearm frames from individual customers, attaches stocks and barrels and returns the firearms to the customers for the customers' personal use. The operations performed on the firearms were not for the purpose of sale or distribution. The company should be licensed as a dealer or gunsmith, not as a manufacturer of firearms.



6.A company acquires one receiver, assembles one firearm, and sells the firearm. The company is not manufacturing firearms as a regular course of trade or business and is not engaged in the business of manufacturing firearms. This company does not need to be licensed as a manufacturer.



7. An individual acquires frames or receivers and assembles firearms for his personal use, not for sale or distribution. The individual is not manufacturing firearms for sale or distribution and is not required to be a licensed manufacturer.

8.A gunsmith regularly buys military type firearms, Mausers etc., and â??sporterizesâ? them for resale. The gunsmith is in the business of manufacturing firearms and should be licensed as a manufacturer.



9.A gunsmith buys semiautomatic pistols or revolvers and modifies the slides to accept new Style f sights. The sights are not usually sold with these firearms and do not attach to the existing mounting openings. The gunsmith offers these firearms for sale. This would be considered the manufacturing of firearms and the gunsmith should be licensed as a manufacturer.



10.A gunsmith buys government model pistols and installs â??drop-inâ? precision trigger parts or other â??drop-in partsâ? for the purpose of resale. This would be considered the manufacturing of firearms, as the gunsmith is purchasing the firearms, modifying the firearms and selling them. The gunsmith should be licensed as a manufacturer.



11.A gunsmith buys surplus military rifles, bends the bolts to accept a scope, and then drills the receivers for a scope base. The gunsmith offers these firearms for sale. This would be considered the manufacturing of firearms and the gunsmith should be licensed as a manufacturer.



12.A gunsmith buys surplus military rifles or pistols and removes the stocks, adds new stocks or pistol grips, cleans the firearms, then sends the firearms to a separate contractor for bluing. These firearms are then sold to the public. This would be considered manufacturing of firearms and the gunsmith should be licensed as a manufacturer.



13.A company purchases surplus firearms, cleans the firearms then offers them for sale to the public. The company does not need to be licensed as a manufacturer.

The approval of the Form 1 application authorizes the applicant to make the firearm.

The approval does
not authorize the applicant to convey or ship the firearm to another person to manufacture the NFA
firearm. If another person will manufacture the NFA firearm, the other person would be the maker and
the application must be submitted by that person. Subsequent to the making, the firearm could then be
transferred, subsequent to an approved Form 4 application, to the person who wanted the modification to
be made.

If the applicant on the Form 1 lacks the skill, ability, and/or equipment to manufacture the NFA firearm,
the applicant, after receipt of the approved Form 1, can have the firearm created or modified at a
premises other than shown on the approved Form 1 as long as the creation or modification was done
under the direct oversight of the applicant, thus having the applicant retain custody and control of the
firearm. If the location is outside the applicant’s State and the firearm being made is a short barreled
rifle, short barreled shotgun, destructive device, or an unserviceable machinegun which is being
reactivated, the applicant will also need to request permission to transport the firearm interstate as
required by 27 CFR 478.28.

Quoted:How do I prove that I took it across state lines and built it in OR or ID? Also, does this affect the city/state that I engrave on the receiver?

Quoted:
Yea, and now the ATF is denying the Form 1s. got mine back tonight denied because to put the buttstock on is manufacturing and no can do in wa state.

\my head hurts!

Quoted:
So here is what I got from Brian Blake, the original sponsor of the bill.

A staff member at the DOL had a conversation with the ATF a few weeks back and the discussion centered on SB 5956, and lack of clarity and confusion about manufacturing SBR's.  This person is not a policy maker, but apparently the ATF person may have taken it that way.   The head of Washington DOL Firearms Division will be contacting the ATF to let them know that the conversation was not with a representative allowed to direct policy on behalf of Washington State.

The AG's office has not made any official statements on the bill at this time.

Also, the DOL did not advise the ATF to not approve the forms, nor did the AG's office.  The DOL's position is that it isn't their position to interpret the laws, and that it is up to the ATF to make their own interpretation.

<snip>