Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 6/12/2003 10:47:48 PM EDT
I posted this in the Legal forum, but I still haven't been able to track down the source document that lays out the 80% lower rules.

http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=6&t=190869&page=1

Can anybody tell me where the laws / regs for 80% lowers can be found?


Thanks.
R_R_W
Link Posted: 6/13/2003 2:17:11 AM EDT
Here ya go: A7) Does the GCA prohibit anyone from making a handgun, shotgun or rifle? [Back] With certain exceptions a firearm may be made by a nonlicensee provided it is not for sale and the maker is not prohibited from possessing firearms. However, a person is prohibited from making a semiautomatic assault weapon or assembling a nonsporting semiautomatic rifle or nonsporting shotgun from imported parts. In addition, the making of an NFA firearm requires a tax payment and approval by ATF. An application to make a machinegun will not be approved unless documentation is submitted showing that the firearm is being made for a federal or state agency. [18 U. S. C. 922( o), (r), (v), and 923, 27 CFR 178.39, 178.40, 178.41 and 179.105] TS
Link Posted: 6/13/2003 1:24:20 PM EDT
My pair [img]http://photos.ar15.com/WS_Content/ImageGallery/IG_LoadImage.asp?iImageUnq=4203[/img] [img]http://photos.ar15.com/WS_Content/ImageGallery/IG_LoadImage.asp?iImageUnq=4206[/img] They really aren't that difficult to make.
Link Posted: 6/13/2003 1:30:48 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Paul: My pair [url]http://photos.ar15.com/WS_Content/ImageGallery/IG_LoadImage.asp?iImageUnq=4203[/url] [url]http://photos.ar15.com/WS_Content/ImageGallery/IG_LoadImage.asp?iImageUnq=4206[/url] They really aren't that difficult to make.
View Quote
1) Are those SS? 2) But the jig and tools are pretty expensive, right? TS
Link Posted: 6/13/2003 1:47:16 PM EDT
Don't tell me they ain't that hard to make. I just finished one and it was a bitch. Coarse I had to teach myself how to run a milling machine. Make a jig. Find the hard to find tap, long drill bit, Buy some JB weld to fix my mistakes and it goes on and on, but I finally finished it and am waiting on the Molly Resin to finish the lower finish with. I used two different kinds of finish and neither worked very well but this Molly Resin suppose to do the trick. It is a bake on. When I get the finish on it I will try to post some pictures of it with my friends camera. I don't have one but am looking to buying a digital in the future. My AR looked just like yours with the aluninum showing but I couldn't wait to shoot it so I left the finish off and started shooting. I even got some comments as to leaving the aluminum showing as some people said they liked the looks of it just as it was. I am determined to get it black.
Link Posted: 6/13/2003 2:04:51 PM EDT
I highly recommend anodizing even if you want to paint it. You can skip the dying step, but the AL oxide coat is important.
Link Posted: 6/13/2003 4:00:39 PM EDT
Everything that you ever need to really know is right here. [url=http://quartz2.cyberstation.net/~dwpaul/bs-home.htm]Builders Squad AR-15 Project Site[/url] HTH . . . . Doug . . . . [beer]
Link Posted: 6/13/2003 5:54:31 PM EDT
[url=ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=4&t=148435]BIY Lower Build site listings[/url]
Link Posted: 6/13/2003 5:58:12 PM EDT
[img]www.chesapeake.net/~mcfadden/bigtoys/law/1.jpg[/img]
Link Posted: 6/13/2003 8:00:36 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Rip_Roarin_Wacko: I posted this in the Legal forum, but I still haven't been able to track down the source document that lays out the 80% lower rules. http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=6&t=190869&page=1 Can anybody tell me where the laws / regs for 80% lowers can be found? Thanks. R_R_W
View Quote
I'm getting all kinds of good info, but nobody has grabbed the brass ring yet. I cannot find a single reference anywhere saying 0-80% is not a firearm and 81-100% is a fire arm. Could this possibly be an urban legend that even the BATF believes? [banghead] [banghead] [banghead]
Link Posted: 6/14/2003 5:39:27 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/14/2003 5:50:28 AM EDT by Wolfrick]
The problem is that the BATFE won't show their cards. They apparently have rules or guidelines, but they choose not to share them with us. What happens is this: You, Mr. Non-Licensee, decide you want to make "80% receivers" to sell to folks. You build your attempt at a receiver that isn't complete, and send it off to the ATF's Tech Branch for their opinion whether it IS or IS NOT a firearm. They don't supply an "official percentage" to the inquirer, just a yes or no. If the part is deemed too complete, it's a firearm, is regulated as a firearm, and would require you to be licensed in order to sell it. If not, it doesn't fall under their purview, so you are free to sell it. Alternately, you could do a little more work on it, and resubmit it to see whether it's now considered a Firearm or not. Incrementally (and over a long period of time) you could find out the break-points or various configurations at which the ATF considers something a Non-Firearm, but at the most complete stages. In other words, you could deduce what they consider to be 80%. I'm not sure exactly where the 80% figure comes from, but it seems that the BATFE has determined that "raw materials" "becomes" a "firearm" when MORE than 80% of the machining operations required to fire the weapon have been completed. Obviously this is open to interpretation, since some weapon systems are much simpler than others, and some are made via different processes, eg. castings. If you are able to locate any official statement from the BATFE outlining the processes and guidelines they use for determining the Firearm or Non-firearm status of parts, I would dearly love to read it. Maybe you should compose a carefully written letter and send it to the Tech Branch, asking them to disclose their methods for making this determination. ~Wolfrick
Link Posted: 6/14/2003 6:41:58 AM EDT
Wolfrick, I think you are right on the money with your reply. Not only do they not show their cards about how they determine when the 80 percent mark is reached, they apparntly don't have anything that's publicly available saying that 80 percent finished is even legal to transfer as a "non-firearm". At least nobody has been able to produce the a copy of the document declaring 0-80% are paper weights. I think I'll take up that suggestion about writing a letter to the BATF asking them to clarify their policies and procedures regarding this matter.
Link Posted: 6/14/2003 8:04:03 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Rip_Roarin_Wacko: (SNIP, SNIP) I think I'll take up that suggestion about writing a letter to the BATF asking them to clarify their policies and procedures regarding this matter.
View Quote
You probably are not the first... but I wouldn't. Just in case they crack down and say no more selling.... but that is just me talking out of my azz..... [:D]
Link Posted: 6/14/2003 12:48:52 PM EDT
Generally, the makers of the 80% and less receivers submit them to BATFE to check if they will be considered Firearms or not. This may not be true in all cases, but tanneryshop has done so with his, and I believe KT has also.
Link Posted: 6/14/2003 12:48:59 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Rip_Roarin_Wacko: .... At least nobody has been able to produce the a copy of the document declaring 0-80% are paper weights.
View Quote
That's not exactly the case.... the problem is that the BATFE expects the seller to submit a sample and have it be judged a non-firearm, before the seller sells any. At least, that's what you'd have to do to be safe. Then you could include a copy of the ATF letter with each piece, showing that it was ATF-approved as a non-firearm. The problem is that the ATF expects you to consult them any time you want to do a little business. I assume that a seller who varied his non-firearm configuration even a tiny bit could come in for an unwelcome visit to Club Fed, if the ATF took it in mind to mess with him. Free people shouldn't have to ask permission to go about their business. The ATF should publish their guidelines, and stick by them. ~Wolfrick
Link Posted: 6/14/2003 1:30:57 PM EDT
It occurs to me that the 80% receiver cannot be a weapon at all, in any way. If it was they would be illegal to ship, sell, store or own-- SINCE THEY HAVE NO SERIAL NUMBERS! And no silly yellow paperwork to sign, either, which is a plus in every book I've read. AND! As a private citizen, you do not need to assign it a serial number, unless you'd like to. Regards, FastVFR800
Link Posted: 6/14/2003 1:33:57 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/14/2003 1:34:45 PM EDT by philsAR]
Originally Posted By Rip_Roarin_Wacko: I posted this in the Legal forum, but I still haven't been able to track down the source document that lays out the 80% lower rules. http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=6&t=190869&page=1 Can anybody tell me where the laws / regs for 80% lowers can be found? Thanks. R_R_W
View Quote
Might wana try an email to these guys for some insight before you go harrassing the BATF. They sell the things and may have some input. [url]ktordnance.com[/url]
Link Posted: 6/14/2003 4:30:49 PM EDT
KT has had some contact with ATFE on his KT15 and KT10 lowers, but I don't know if he has anything in writing. He is just duplicating many of the 80% frames/lowers that are currently available (although I personally think they are of better quality than many).
Link Posted: 6/14/2003 7:31:35 PM EDT
Originally Posted By fastvfr800: It occurs to me that the 80% receiver cannot be a weapon at all, in any way. If it was they would be illegal to ship, sell, store or own-- SINCE THEY HAVE NO SERIAL NUMBERS! And no silly yellow paperwork to sign, either, which is a plus in every book I've read. AND! As a private citizen, you do not need to assign it a serial number, unless you'd like to. Regards, FastVFR800
View Quote
parts 2 & 3 [img]www.chesapeake.net/~mcfadden/bigtoys/law/2.jpg[/img] [img]www.chesapeake.net/~mcfadden/bigtoys/law/3.jpg[/img]
Link Posted: 6/14/2003 7:48:47 PM EDT
Originally Posted By TigerStripe:
Originally Posted By Paul: My pair [url]http://photos.ar15.com/WS_Content/ImageGallery/IG_LoadImage.asp?iImageUnq=4203[/url] [url]http://photos.ar15.com/WS_Content/ImageGallery/IG_LoadImage.asp?iImageUnq=4206[/url] They really aren't that difficult to make.
View Quote
1) Are those SS? 2) But the jig and tools are pretty expensive, right? TS
View Quote
T6 Aluminum. I think the jig and tools ran me $460-$480 something which is cheap in my book. Tools and an 80% upper: $580 Having an AR-15 without a serial number: Priceless I already had 6 when I built these two. Once you have the jig, yes, everything is simple - drill some holes, plain the top, assemble. The first one took me about 10 hours between taking all the pictures and going really too slow on the top flat. The second one took about 8 hours.
Link Posted: 6/14/2003 8:04:49 PM EDT
Thanks Paul! TS
Link Posted: 6/15/2003 7:41:45 AM EDT
Thanks to everybody that provided input in this thread.It's been informative, but the question is still up in the air. This "80% or less completed is a non-firearm" classification is a lot tougher nut to crack than I thought it would be. It's looking more and more like a unicorn hunt. After 20 replys to this post and 353 readers, there is not a single definitive answer that can identify any "official" document that says anything about 80% or less is NOT classified as a firearm. Looks like it's time to start writing my letter to the feds. Thanks again to everybody that took the time to respond. R_R_W
Link Posted: 6/15/2003 9:47:10 AM EDT
The only time you'll get a definitive answer from BATFEtc. is in court. TS
Link Posted: 6/15/2003 12:45:10 PM EDT
I'll take another stab at answering Rip's question, with the initial caveat that there _IS_ no official documentation on the 80% figure, as far as I know. The 80% concept arrises out of the AFT's definition of a firearm. [url=http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/14mar20010800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2002/aprqtr/27cfr53.11.htm]27 C.F.R. § 53.11[/url] defines 'firearm' as "Firearms. Any portable weapons, such as rifles, carbines, machine guns, shotguns, or fowling pieces, from which a shot, bullet, or other projectile may be discharged by an explosive. For ATF's purposes, the receiver of the firearm IS the entire firearm. Further, ATF seems to have expanded the definition of "firearm" to include "any device readily convertible to that use" as have most states. So, nowhere can I find any documentation of the 80% complete figure, or its inverse, 20% of the machining required left to do. It does seem to me to be a fair and logical determination of the dividing line between "raw materials" and "firearm", since some determination is necessary. Remember, the ATF could have chosen any figure they like. I'd still like to see it in writing, so folks don't have to submit samples for opinions from the ATF. And I'd like to see copies of correspondence from the Tech Branch on this matter. ~Wolfrick
Link Posted: 6/15/2003 2:20:06 PM EDT
Until the ATF judges the hunk of material you are working on a firearm, it's not a firearm. I imagine that your question will get similar answers from them or "please submit samples or more information" kind of answers. Let us know.
Link Posted: 6/15/2003 8:44:31 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ProfessorEvil: Until the ATF judges the hunk of material you are working on a firearm, it's not a firearm.
View Quote
Yep, just like the guy in Phoenix with the Maadi-Griffin 50 Cal. I think he was judged to be selling fire arms because he was over the 80% line. I think he's doing time now, but apparently he had a few other skeletons (read MGs, felon in posession, etc.) falling out of the closet thus making his legal status less than envious. I'll let you know what the G-men tell me. This is turning into quite an edumakashun, huh?
Link Posted: 9/13/2003 2:47:03 PM EDT
Well, here it is. There is no such thing as an 80 percent casting according to the ATF. [url]http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=6&t=190869&page=1[/url]
Top Top