Armory Sponsor
Posted: 11/9/2016 6:59:16 PM EDT
| As an 01 FFL, can you buy complete lowers, slap on an upper, sell as a complete rifle? Or do you have to have an 07 and apply for ITAR? |
|
Quoted:
As an 01 FFL, can you buy complete lowers, slap on an upper, sell as a complete rifle? Or do you have to have an 07 and apply for ITAR? That would constitute manufacturing activity, and require 07. You could sell customers a complete lower and a complete upper (separately), and later assemble them for them under an 01 as gunsmithing. |
|
Quoted:
I dont think itar needed. Funny how pushing 2 pins is manuf. Quoted:
Quoted:
As an 01 FFL, can you buy complete lowers, slap on an upper, sell as a complete rifle? Or do you have to have an 07 and apply for ITAR? I dont think itar needed. Funny how pushing 2 pins is manuf. ITAR needed because as Circuits points out, it is manufacturing and the items are on the US Munitions List. |
|
Quoted:
ITAR needed because as Circuits points out, it is manufacturing and the items are on the US Munitions List. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
As an 01 FFL, can you buy complete lowers, slap on an upper, sell as a complete rifle? Or do you have to have an 07 and apply for ITAR? I dont think itar needed. Funny how pushing 2 pins is manuf. ITAR needed because as Circuits points out, it is manufacturing and the items are on the US Munitions List. State Dept DDTC says they don't consider assembly of existing parts as "manufacturing". There's a letter on FFLsOnly. |
|
Quoted:
State Dept DDTC says they don't consider assembly of existing parts as "manufacturing". There's a letter on FFLsOnly. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
As an 01 FFL, can you buy complete lowers, slap on an upper, sell as a complete rifle? Or do you have to have an 07 and apply for ITAR? I dont think itar needed. Funny how pushing 2 pins is manuf. ITAR needed because as Circuits points out, it is manufacturing and the items are on the US Munitions List. State Dept DDTC says they don't consider assembly of existing parts as "manufacturing". There's a letter on FFLsOnly. This is a difference of opinion between DHS/DJ and DoS, State continues to control DoS for ITAR, not clear between DHS/DJ on issues after. |
|
Quoted:
State Dept DDTC says they don't consider assembly of existing parts as "manufacturing". There's a letter on FFLsOnly. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
As an 01 FFL, can you buy complete lowers, slap on an upper, sell as a complete rifle? Or do you have to have an 07 and apply for ITAR? I dont think itar needed. Funny how pushing 2 pins is manuf. ITAR needed because as Circuits points out, it is manufacturing and the items are on the US Munitions List. State Dept DDTC says they don't consider assembly of existing parts as "manufacturing". There's a letter on FFLsOnly. Yeah this isn't exactly true. They have a decades long history across multiple industries saying otherwise. I would tread carefully before picking one letter and ignoring Case Law precedent. |
|
Quoted:
Yeah this isn't exactly true. They have a decades long history across multiple industries saying otherwise. I would tread carefully before picking one letter and ignoring Case Law precedent. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
As an 01 FFL, can you buy complete lowers, slap on an upper, sell as a complete rifle? Or do you have to have an 07 and apply for ITAR? I dont think itar needed. Funny how pushing 2 pins is manuf. ITAR needed because as Circuits points out, it is manufacturing and the items are on the US Munitions List. State Dept DDTC says they don't consider assembly of existing parts as "manufacturing". There's a letter on FFLsOnly. Yeah this isn't exactly true. They have a decades long history across multiple industries saying otherwise. I would tread carefully before picking one letter and ignoring Case Law precedent. What ATF considers as manufacturing is different from what DDTC considers as manufacturing. For example, an 07FFL can assemble AR's, but does not need to pay ITAR because DDTC doesn't consider assembly of parts made by another manufacturer as a manufacturing activity. ATF considers assembly as a manufacturing activity. Similarly, ATF does not consider 01FFL gunsmithing activities such as threading barrels, trigger jobs, installing sights/scopes or other customization as manufacturing...........yet DDTC does and therefore requires ITAR. If you manufacture firearm parts (not lowers or receivers) you pay ITAR, but do not need an FFL. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
As an 01 FFL, can you buy complete lowers, slap on an upper, sell as a complete rifle? Or do you have to have an 07 and apply for ITAR? I dont think itar needed. Funny how pushing 2 pins is manuf. ITAR needed because as Circuits points out, it is manufacturing and the items are on the US Munitions List. State Dept DDTC says they don't consider assembly of existing parts as "manufacturing". There's a letter on FFLsOnly. This is a difference of opinion between DHS/DJ and DoS, State continues to control DoS for ITAR, not clear between DHS/DJ on issues after. It's not a difference of opinion.....just different definitions of the term "manufacturing". |
|
Quoted:
What ATF considers as manufacturing is different from what DDTC considers as manufacturing. For example, an 07FFL can assemble AR's, but does not need to pay ITAR because DDTC doesn't consider assembly of parts made by another manufacturer as a manufacturing activity. ATF considers assembly as a manufacturing activity. Yes I am aware of this and a whole lot more most will never know. To say "DDTC doesn't consider assembly of parts made by another manufacturer as a manufacturing activity." is not exactly true. I should have previously mentioned I was not referring to ATF when I wrote "They have a decades long history across multiple industries saying otherwise"; I was referring to ITAR/AECA/COCOM/DOS/DDTC Precedence and Case Law These letters that float around the internet are just plain dangerous. Often written by low-level staffers with little prior knowledge of Case Law or history. I have dozens of them from ATF that are just plain wrong too for example. As I mentioned before, even the NFA Handbook is wrong to the point of authorizing felonies. Buyer Beware. As I wrote, I would tread carefully before picking one letter you found on the internet and think it is gospel and you are safe. Though In my experience it would not be a criminal charge, you would most likely just have to pay what you did not pay + penalty. On the other hand, if one of your violations makes it way to a prohibited person, there is precedence for criminal conviction. |
|
Quoted:
Yes I am aware of this and a whole lot more most will never know. To say "DDTC doesn't consider assembly of parts made by another manufacturer as a manufacturing activity." is not exactly true. I should have previously mentioned I was not referring to ATF when I wrote "They have a decades long history across multiple industries saying otherwise"; I was referring to ITAR/AECA/COCOM/DOS/DDTC Precedence and Case Law These letters that float around the internet are just plain dangerous. Often written by low-level staffers with little prior knowledge of Case Law or history. I have dozens of them from ATF that are just plain wrong too for example. As I mentioned before, even the NFA Handbook is wrong to the point of authorizing felonies. Buyer Beware. As I wrote, I would tread carefully before picking one letter you found on the internet and think it is gospel and you are safe. Though In my experience it would not be a criminal charge, you would most likely just have to pay what you did not pay + penalty. On the other hand, if one of your violations makes it way to a prohibited person, there is precedence for criminal conviction. Quoted:
Quoted:
What ATF considers as manufacturing is different from what DDTC considers as manufacturing. For example, an 07FFL can assemble AR's, but does not need to pay ITAR because DDTC doesn't consider assembly of parts made by another manufacturer as a manufacturing activity. ATF considers assembly as a manufacturing activity. Yes I am aware of this and a whole lot more most will never know. To say "DDTC doesn't consider assembly of parts made by another manufacturer as a manufacturing activity." is not exactly true. I should have previously mentioned I was not referring to ATF when I wrote "They have a decades long history across multiple industries saying otherwise"; I was referring to ITAR/AECA/COCOM/DOS/DDTC Precedence and Case Law These letters that float around the internet are just plain dangerous. Often written by low-level staffers with little prior knowledge of Case Law or history. I have dozens of them from ATF that are just plain wrong too for example. As I mentioned before, even the NFA Handbook is wrong to the point of authorizing felonies. Buyer Beware. As I wrote, I would tread carefully before picking one letter you found on the internet and think it is gospel and you are safe. Though In my experience it would not be a criminal charge, you would most likely just have to pay what you did not pay + penalty. On the other hand, if one of your violations makes it way to a prohibited person, there is precedence for criminal conviction. What about a letter direct from the state dept.? |
|
Quoted:
What about a letter direct from the state dept.? The simple fact is, this is not a profitable way to go. As mentioned, you need an 07. You need to collect excise tax if you sell more than a handful, you need to engrave your info on the guns, etc. It is just not worth it. We had an 01 FFL here in Texas, who did EXACTLY what OP described, I warned him (need 07, ITAR, engrave, etc), he told me to fuck off, he knew more than me, etc. He foolishly did this at gun shows in full view of the public. He got lucky, no criminal prosecutions (yet) but he does not have an FFL anymore nor ever again. |
Armory Sponsor