Quote History That’s actually one of the more straightforward government documents I’ve read - and it’s very clear that the ATF wrote it to apply to
businesses - dealers or “unlicensed machine shops” that are performing services - or allowing access to their equipment - in exchange for some sort of compensation. The document repeatedly makes that point. For example:
“the term ‘engaged in the business’ means, 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.’”
“An FFL or unlicensed machine shop may also desire to make available its machinery (e.g., a computer numeric control or “CNC” machine), tools, or equipment to individuals... The FFL or unlicensed machine shop would typically charge a fee for such activity, or receive some other form of compensation or benefit.”
Part of the document is also obviously intended to prevent the financial loss to the government from dealers attempting to avoid the fees associated with a manufacturing license:
“A business (including an association or society) may not avoid the manufacturing license, marking, and recordkeeping requirements under the GCA simply by allowing individuals to initiate or manipulate a CNC machine, or to use machinery, tools, or equipment under its dominion or control...”
The clear and repeated use of the term “business” indicates what they are targeting.
Has there actually been a case where an individual, who is not engaged in a business, has been charged / prosecuted for loaning gunsmithing tools to another individual, has a representative of the ATF said that would be prosecutable, or is this just people “assuming” that’s how the document could be interpreted?
@PursuitSS - I totally get the issue with ATF interpretation and the risks / expenses of a court case. I have no interest in loaning or borrowing tools for finishing 80% lowers. This document just seems pretty straightforward to me, so I’m curious what generated the concern about it applying to private individuals who are not engaged in a business. I’ll be happy to continue the discussion in a more appropriate thread.