PDA

View Full Version : Colorizing is Manufacturing


republic
August 18, 2008, 23:46
Ok, so the BATF has released new guidelines (http://www.atf.gov/firearms/firearmstech/081508manufacturing-of-firearms.pdf) on who may be considered a manufacturer of firearms. In it they say that colorizing is a manufacturing process. If this is the case, it seems to me that there is no need for 922r parts anymore. All one needs to do is make sure that the requisite number of parts are phosphated or painted or refinished in the good old USA by yourself or a manufacturer FFL and add your/thier "own markings." Can the ATF have its cake and eat it too, or do the scraps from the table fall to the dogs? How many gunsmiths will this affect?

republic

thedrickel
August 19, 2008, 00:37
Oh they have their cake and eat it too, on many issues.

For example, Saigas come in with the serial # on the trunnion. Is the trunnion part of the receiver or not? Definitely not when it comes to 922r, but I guess they don't mind too much when it comes to the markings???

I'm just disgusted with the way they make stuff up out of thin air and all of a sudden it has the force of law. WTF!

NoNotAgain
August 19, 2008, 05:24
Originally posted by thedrickel
Oh they have their cake and eat it too, on many issues.

For example, Saigas come in with the serial # on the trunnion. Is the trunnion part of the receiver or not? Definitely not when it comes to 922r, but I guess they don't mind too much when it comes to the markings???

I'm just disgusted with the way they make stuff up out of thin air and all of a sudden it has the force of law. WTF!

The trunion on most commie block type rifles is indeed a part counted for 922r compliance.

BATFE does not recognize the serial number on the trunion as being the serial number of the firearm, only the number on the shell if it's sheet metal.

It's bad enough that importers can't bring in complete barrels. Now if you can't import the trunion AK building would die a fast death.

Your tax dollars at work.

Deltaten
August 19, 2008, 06:13
"Now if you can't import the trunion AK building would die a fast death."

Bingo!
Give the man a cee-gar :D

Don't wanna bother changing or writing new legislation??
Just make a new ruling!
Easy!!!

Ruling obfuscate or contradict?
Good! JUst the way it should be!
Keep 'em dazed and confused !!!

THey believe the polarization promulgated will render more power and prestige. THat sorta isolation will only exacerbate the problem and make them legends in thier own minds.

ALl it will do, in reality, is to seperate them and prevent collateral damage when the SHTF :D

Ricketts
August 19, 2008, 08:16
According to this logic, US Automakers just got a lot of competition. Considering, according to this-- if you paint a car, it now can now be classified as manufacturing it.

Glad I got out when I did.

gunplumber
August 19, 2008, 10:21
Its a cash generating issue.

manufacturing means excise tax (even though excise tax may already have been paid on it)

There is no basis in law for this "opinion". They just made it up, in direct contradiction to early "made up opinions" on excise tax.

Manedwolf
August 19, 2008, 10:28
Colorizing means manufacturing?

Is this their latest attempt to smack down Duracoat for their irreverant ads? Does this mean that anyone who does hardchroming or Duracoat is now a manufacturer and must be licensed?

If someone has a dip tank and re-blues an old milsurp, or even uses cold blue, they are now a manufacturer?

V guy
August 19, 2008, 10:53
Step by step, the bureaucrats are trying to move to ban the home mfg or assembly or gunsmithing ...of or on..... any firearm unless your are a licensed gunsmith or mfg......despite existing regulations

they want to prevent the public from buying park kits, flats, or gun blue or replacement parts......... so that they can inspect you and they probably want gunsmiths to become mfgs or to limit your to one or the other and then bring in the EPA.........despite the existing regs...........frankly this is either going to go one of two ways...either the SCOTUS is going to wipe the slate clean and allow you do do anything at home and vacate those regs or it will get so bad, even cleaning or loading your gun or possessing ammo will be a bureaucratically regulated crime meaning that if your gun breaks....its to the gunsmith and if it needs a new barrel...it has to go to a licensed mfg...

TheOtherChris
August 19, 2008, 11:29
I'd say that letter merits a request for clarification.

If a friend (not a "company") brings his personal firearm to my house and I spray&bake it, am I a manufacturer?

Is plating a "colorization"?

If I rattle can all of my firearms, have I become a manufacturer?

If the "logic" behind this is that the physical appearance of the firearm has been materially altered from factory, would it apply to engraving?

I am unable to ascertain what constitutes compliance.:confused:

jaykden
August 19, 2008, 13:34
so, what does this mean for us to send kits/ rifles to guys like ricketts who refinish for a decent price?

also, it wouldn't count if the kit or parts were refinished and not the receiver, right?

Manedwolf
August 19, 2008, 13:51
MANUFACTURED!

http://cache.gizmodo.com/assets/resources/2007/12/KittyRifle.jpg

gunplumber
August 19, 2008, 14:10
As I read it, its guns purchased for resale , refinished or otherwise value added and sold. I do not read anything about refinishing customer supplied.

Should have no affect whatsoever on a non-FFL, but I am reading it as taking normal FFL/gunsmith activities and making them double taxed.

Because tax is what its all about.

A finished rifle has already been taxed at 11%. Now ATF wants to pretend if you reblue it before selling it, then its liable for tax AGAIN. Of course this is total bullshit, but what can you do - just another out of control federal agency desperately searching for more ways to pay their own salaries.

It has always been the case that if a gunsmith assembles a parts kit on a virgin receiver for purpose of resale it is a taxable item because there was no excise tax paid on the virgin receiver.

In the same way, a private party building a gun NOT FOR PORPOSE of resale was not taxable.

But what we are seeing here is a huge leap into what are normal gunsmithing repair and customizing activities and calling them manufacturing.

Particularly the crazy notion that buying a handgun as a dealer for resale, and then gee - it got scratched in handling - I'd better reblue it ., .. oh, now I'm the MANUFACTURER? Thats grasping at straws.

Maybe its a good time to get our congresscritters and senators involved in the mockery.

2barearms
August 19, 2008, 17:29
Originally posted by gunplumber
As I read it, its guns purchased for resale , refinished or otherwise value added and sold. I do not read anything about refinishing customer supplied.

Should have no affect whatsoever on a non-FFL, but I am reading it as taking normal FFL/gunsmith activities and making them double taxed.

Because tax is what its all about.

A finished rifle has already been taxed at 11%. Now ATF wants to pretend if you reblue it before selling it, then its liable for tax AGAIN. Of course this is total bullshit, but what can you do - just another out of control federal agency desperately searching for more ways to pay their own salaries.

It has always been the case that if a gunsmith assembles a parts kit on a virgin receiver for purpose of resale it is a taxable item because there was no excise tax paid on the virgin receiver.

In the same way, a private party building a gun NOT FOR PORPOSE of resale was not taxable.

But what we are seeing here is a huge leap into what are normal gunsmithing repair and customizing activities and calling them manufacturing.

Particularly the crazy notion that buying a handgun as a dealer for resale, and then gee - it got scratched in handling - I'd better reblue it ., .. oh, now I'm the MANUFACTURER? Thats grasping at straws.

Maybe its a good time to get our congresscritters and senators involved in the mockery.




Cha Ching, you can already hear the cash register opening. It's all about the money, most here know they are still part of the Treasury Dept. but under the Justice Dept/Homeland Insecurity. The small gunsmith is in real jeopardy here. The unsuspecting folks who do parkerizing as well.

There have been some recent cases in which a gunsmith who did mods
to Rugers for Cowboy shooting got in trouble, this may be part of that.

cotter
August 19, 2008, 20:59
Originally posted by gunplumber
As I read it, its guns purchased for resale , refinished or otherwise value added and sold. I do not read anything about refinishing customer supplied.

Should have no affect whatsoever on a non-FFL, but I am reading it as taking normal FFL/gunsmith activities and making them double taxed.

Because tax is what its all about.

A finished rifle has already been taxed at 11%. Now ATF wants to pretend if you reblue it before selling it, then its liable for tax AGAIN. Of course this is total bullshit, but what can you do - just another out of control federal agency desperately searching for more ways to pay their own salaries.

It has always been the case that if a gunsmith assembles a parts kit on a virgin receiver for purpose of resale it is a taxable item because there was no excise tax paid on the virgin receiver.

In the same way, a private party building a gun NOT FOR PORPOSE of resale was not taxable.

But what we are seeing here is a huge leap into what are normal gunsmithing repair and customizing activities and calling them manufacturing.

Particularly the crazy notion that buying a handgun as a dealer for resale, and then gee - it got scratched in handling - I'd better reblue it ., .. oh, now I'm the MANUFACTURER? Thats grasping at straws.

Maybe its a good time to get our congresscritters and senators involved in the mockery.
I have seen somewhere in the past that this situation the tax would be due on the increase in value, not the value. But I am sure that will change as well. Nothing like billing me for killing me.
Chad

Itchingforaninchpattern
August 20, 2008, 13:12
What if you're lazy and the firearm rusts from neglect. Is that colorizing?

John Culver
August 20, 2008, 13:21
Originally posted by Itchingforaninchpattern
What if you're lazy and the firearm rusts from neglect. Is that colorizing?
yup, and if you change the sights on it, you manufactured a new gun

AndyC
August 23, 2008, 13:35
S'cuse me - I'm just going to park my spare foreign-made parts so I can now claim to have manufactured them and put them back into a FAL.

That would be 922r-compliant under their own rules now, right? :rolleyes:

K. Funk
August 23, 2008, 15:08
This affects me and my local gunsmith. I as an 01 buy a rifle with some rust at auction. I send it over to my gunsmith for reblue. I then sell the gun. BOTH of us need to be manufacturers according to BATFE. I believe that replacement of broken parts on guns for re-sale requires mfg-er as well.

krf

Manedwolf
August 23, 2008, 23:04
Originally posted by K. Funk
This affects me and my local gunsmith. I as an 01 buy a rifle with some rust at auction. I send it over to my gunsmith for reblue. I then sell the gun. BOTH of us need to be manufacturers according to BATFE. I believe that replacement of broken parts on guns for re-sale requires mfg-er as well.

krf

Sounds like they want to take guns out of the hands of the public entirely through attrition.

If you stop a gun from rusting, you've broken the law.