Whta Gun Control Act allows us to manufacture our
own firearms, i.e. buying 80% finished lowers and
finishing them ourselves? I saw it here several months
ago, and I don't remember if it was the Gun Control Act
of 1968? Also give me a link.

Thanks.

Quoted: Whta Gun Control Act allows us to manufacture our own firearms, i.e. buying 80% finished lowers and finishing them ourselves? I saw it here several months ago, and I don't remember if it was the Gun Control Act of 1968? Also give me a link. Thanks.

There is no act that "allows" anything, ever! A "gun control act" takes away rights.

There is no law against it, therefor it is legal!

You have a sheeples mentallity. Don't worry thow, hang around here awhile and we can fix you.

Go to the BATF&E web site, then FAQ, it asks/answers "may a non-licensey build a firearm for pewrsonal use?" "yes"
It's that simple.

holy shit! we can own guns?

From ATF online FAQ:
________________________________________________________________________________
(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]
__________________________________________________________________________________

The part in red no longer applied after 14 SEPT 2004.

Quoted: Quoted: Whta Gun Control Act allows us to manufacture our own firearms, i.e. buying 80% finished lowers and finishing them ourselves? I saw it here several months ago, and I don't remember if it was the Gun Control Act of 1968? Also give me a link. Thanks. There is no act that "allows" anything, ever! A "gun control act" takes away rights. There is no law against it, therefor it is legal! You have a sheeples mentallity. Don't worry thow, hang around here awhile and we can fix you. Go to the BATF&E web site, then FAQ, it asks/answers "may a non-licensey build a firearm for pewrsonal use?" "yes" It's that simple.

No, I don't have a sheeples mentallity, and I have seen quotes like you have down a couple of strings from the US code. I'm one of the people who like to find these writings, and keep copies of them. In this forum, the question had come up about legality of making a gun for ones self, using 80% lowers for an AR rifle for instance, finishing it and completing a rifle. An answer came back with a quote similar to yours from a document that was called the "Gun Control Act" of some year, and I couldn't remember the year, but it states building guns for your self is legal, within certain parameters. I want to print a copy to keep with other writings such as The Declaration of Independence, The Bill of Rights, The U.S Constitution, the Federalist papers, and the Anti-Federalist papers. I also have a copy of the last ruling Justice Renquist made supporting the 2nd Ammendment befrore he died. Some of us out here keep copies of documents like these for safe-keeping. I also use them to straighten out the crap sent home with my kids from time to time, since teaching history in school is getting leaner and leaner. So, I asked the question, "what document is your quotes and the other ones I read hear a part of?' to get the right document from someone on this esteemed board who knew. Then I could pull it up and print a copy. That's all.

I found it here:

www.atf.gov/firearms/faq

Thank you for the response Real_estate_salesman.

Moderator, please move this thread to the trash.

Quoted: From ATF online FAQ: ________________________________________________________________________________ (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] __________________________________________________________________________________ The part in red no longer applied after 14 SEPT 2004.

Not exactly. It says "However, a person is prohibited from making a semiautomatic assault weapon or assembling a nonsporting semiautomatic rifle or nonsporting shotgun from
imported parts.

You still can't build up an AR from imported parts without running into compliance parts. That, and they can't import "non-sporting" parts for "military rifles".

The guys building AK's run into the compliance parts problem because they can't have a certain number of imported parts in their rifles.

The thing you quoted doesn't deal with building rifles in general, it deals in building from imported parts.

WIZZO

Quoted: Quoted: From ATF online FAQ: ________________________________________________________________________________ (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] __________________________________________________________________________________ The part in red no longer applied after 14 SEPT 2004. Not exactly. It says "However, a person is prohibited from making a semiautomatic assault weapon or assembling a nonsporting semiautomatic rifle or nonsporting shotgun from imported parts. You still can't build up an AR from imported parts without running into compliance parts. That, and they can't import "non-sporting" parts for "military rifles". The guys building AK's run into the compliance parts problem because they can't have a certain number of imported parts in their rifles. The thing you quoted doesn't deal with building rifles in general, it deals in building from imported parts. WIZZO

I thought it was refering to an assault weapon as in what was banned in 1994, because under that law it is illegal to own one, so it is illegal to build one. They probably haven't updated that part of their website since the ban expired...

Well, it says right there at the end of the statement everything it pertains to.

However, a person is prohibited from making a semiautomatic assault weapon or assembling a nonsporting semiautomatic rifle or nonsporting shotgun from imported parts.

It says nothing about assault weapons with more than 2 evil features as outlined in the 1994 ban. This quote is talking about "building" a rifle out of imported parts.

WIZZO

Whatever! I think it would have been clearer (is ATF ever clear about anything?) if that had been put in two seperate sentances.
___________________________________________________
However, a person is prohibited from making a semiautomatic assault weapon.or A person is also prohibited from assembling a nonsporting semiautomatic rifle or nonsporting shotgun from
_________________________________________________________________
That's how I interpeted it.

TXSquid: I didn't meen to offend you, I just didn't understand your wording. Sorry.

Quoted: holy shit! we can own guns?

Didn't the Second Amendment give us the right to ARM BEARS?

See the Constitution works like this (idealy/in theory)  unless something is expressly (or implied, which is sneaky) prohibited, you can do it.

Quoted: Whta Gun Control Act allows us to manufacture our own firearms, i.e. buying 80% finished lowers and finishing them ourselves? I saw it here several months ago, and I don't remember if it was the Gun Control Act of 1968? Also give me a link. Thanks.

The Gun Control Act of 1776!

No offense taken, Real_estate. This is an excellent forum where like-minded people can discuss and debate issues, particularly bearing arms issues, and still heft a beer to us! So far, my build is going well, and I owe a big thanks to all who have had input in different threads related to the same.
Knowledge is power, and collectively we're a powerful force, that's for sure.
Now, where's that beer wench...

There are those on the left who believe the Constitution and Bill of Rights are living documents and are open to interpolation.  Following this model I revisit the second amendment.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The left argues the National Guard (well regulated Militia) is over stretched with both deployments and national disasters.  Assuming this is true it is the duty of the average citizen to the security of a free State.  Our enemy has shown the intent and ability to attack us on our own soil.  Our security then requires the law abiding citizen to keep and bear arms.  In this interpretation, to not own firearms would be illegal.



A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity. -- Sigmund Freud, General Introduction to Psychoanalysis (1952)

Quoted:
There are those on the left who believe the Constitution and Bill of Rights are living documents and are open to [interpretation].

It's not the Constitution that changes, it's us.  

Rather than being a "living document" that can be reinterpreted to suit the whim of current political theories, the Constitution contains many unchanging fundamental principles that must be applied to new or changing situations.

When I argue that a constitution that can be constantly reinterpreted is worthless because it ceases to have meaning, the "living document" people almost always bring up the example of the Constitution being "reinterpreted" to deal with the issue of slavery.  I point out that the basic concept didn't change - the right of the people to be free didn't change, Congress merely expanded the definition of "people" to include former slaves.

Thus, the 2nd Amendment isn't obsolete because there aren't many local militias around today, it just has to be applied in a way relevant to our current situation.  Maybe the Founding Fathers didn't envision Glocks, but they didn't envision illegal immigration, domestic terrorism, crack, or gang warfare, either.  

The 1st Amendment was applied by analogy to the electronic media, there's no reason the 2nd can't be applied to our current situation in a similarly valid way - no reinterpretation necessary.

Quoted: Whta Gun Control Act allows us to...

I keep beating on this one, but think of it this way, from a Constitutional perspective.

The People have Rights, which originally included all human activity of whatever nature.

The People then give certain Powers to the state, in order to impose lawful order, that allow it to infringe on certain rights in pursuance of that responsibility.

The government doesn't have any Rights whatsoever, only the Powers we give it.
You will often hear people in the media and elsewhere referring to the "right" of the government or some government official to do something - this is incorrect, either they have the power, or they don't.

If the government doesn't have the power to prohibit or infringe on a right, or may only infring upon a right up to a certain limit, then that Right is retained by the People to that extent.

Please excuse me if this question has been covered before but I could only search back 30 days. I've looked at the ATF website and didn't get an answer either.

If you complete an 80% receiver do you have to mark it or serial number it? If you do what are the requirements? If you know where the specifics are I'd appreciate the link.

Thanks

I kept looking for an answer after I posted the prev question. It seems you should have it marked so it would be unique enough for the police to identify the gun if it's stolen. Some sites say the law requires a serial number so that might be enough if it's unique enough. Obviously I am not posting a legal opinion.

Here's a link I found. There are 3 pages. Just change the page number.

http://www.chesapeake.net/~mcfadden/bigtoys/law/1.jpg

Welcome aboard zonie77!

If you ask this question in the Build It Yourself forum or the Legal forum here the answer you'll get is you are under no legal obligation to mark your receiver in any way, shape or form. But it is generally considered wise to add a unique marking/serial number/whatever to aid in recovery if the firearm is stolen.

Oh! This IS the Build It Yourself forum. I think I feel the sudden need for a nap.

I'm getting close to building one and don't want any nasty surprises down the road. I did a bunch of searching and it's clear if you are a mfg but gets pretty murky if you build an 80%.

I hadn't noticed the legal section. Just found it. Thanks.

My wife is mad enough with all the time I spend on the internet!

Cumulonimbus clouds are pretty...

Quoted: Quoted: Whta Gun Control Act allows us to... I keep beating on this one, but think of it this way, from a Constitutional perspective. The People have Rights, which originally included all human activity of whatever nature. The People then give certain Powers to the state, in order to impose lawful order, that allow it to infringe on certain rights in pursuance of that responsibility. The government doesn't have any Rights whatsoever, only the Powers we give it. You will often hear people in the media and elsewhere referring to the "right" of the government or some government official to do something - this is incorrect, either they have the power, or they don't. If the government doesn't have the power to prohibit or infringe on a right, or may only infring upon a right up to a certain limit, then that Right is retained by the People to that extent.

Here,here! This is the essence of the whole Constitution and the base reason our forefathers had for fighting to free ourselves. This man deserves a LARGE ale, wench.