Quote Originally Posted by S&W645 View Post
And guess what BATFE has done, made it a requirement that the owners of 3-D printers that are used to make a receiver get a manufacturer's FFL. It also applies to any gunsmith, or machine shop that makes an 80% receiver functional or even if the machine shop allows someone for a fee to use their equipment to machine out the recesses or fire control points.

http://www.atf.gov/sites/default/fil...unsmithing.pdf Another example of the DOJ legislating things that Congress is who should do it if it needed doing in the first place. Printing ( additive manufacturing ) is on pg 5 of the 6 page ruling.
No requirement to get a FFL. The problem is, the people at ATF who wrote that up don't write things very clearly and it's just not plain English. It's very poorly written. Apart from that it violates rights...

So there's a few directions you can take.

You can start from a 100% block. (Arduous)
You can start from a 80% milled receiver (essentially a big metal lego). (Easier) Example is Juggernaut Tactical: JTACTICAL - Home Call them up if you think their product cannot be legally finished by the end user (customer), I am sure they will disagree with you.
The 80 percent block process you can do with something like a router or a drill press. (Simplest / least expensive)
Juggernaut Tactical's finishing guide: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKz2sLJUvGU (No you do not need a license, no serialization)
80 Percent Arms' product line and finisher (jig setup designed to be used with their lowers): 80% AR-15 Easy Jig? - 80% AR15 Lower Jig | 80 AR-15 Lower Receiver Jig | 80% Arms (No license needed, no serialization)

Beware. If you get one it is just for you to make (finish from 80% actually) for yourself. It is totally against federal law to you to sell or transfer these for example (you can't get one at 80% milled, finish it, and sell it to your cousin... you might want to, but you could get in some serious trouble) and there are various nuances. (But under our laws, corporations are persons and technically have just as many rights as you do if not more, such are the wierd and ridiculous laws of this country.)

So what did that ATF ruling do?

It supposedly clarified a former ruling (ATF Ruling 2010-10) to the extent that

If you are "creating" a "firearm frame or receiver", or "making" a
frame or receiver suitable for use as part of a “weapon ... which will or is designed to or may readily be converted
to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive,”
the claim is you ” must be licensed as a
manufacturer under the GCA; but only in those circumstances where you are engaging in a "machining, molding, casting, forging, printing (additive manufacturing) or other
manufacturing process" that results in the firearm frame or receiver...

But it is impossible to maintain this argument can be applied to thie individual who is making (or finishing) the firearm solely for one's own use and who has no intention of commercial sale or transfer, because such an argument has never held up in any court in the land in 224 years of our history. Therefore, I can dismiss such an argument right away, unless you are applying it to the actual persons who are commercial manufacturers and distributors. To have a printer or device in your own home that is similar to a printer (a finisher with an example being the "Ghost Gunner" whose drill bit is directed by a computer so that you don't have to do it by hand) is the same thing, there's no provable commercial activity merely because someone is using technology that didn't exist. When the internet came to be remember the similar discussions around the world wide web, the attempts during the Clinton administration to "control the net" with proposals for a Clipper Chip in every computer? Imagine if that had come to pass.

The ruling goes on to state,
"Held further,
a business (including an association or society) may not avoid the
manufacturing license, marking, and recordkeeping requirements of the GCA by allowing
persons to perform manufacturing processes on blanks or incomplete firearms (including frames
or receivers) using machinery, tools, or equipment under its dominion and control where that
business controls access to, and use of, such machinery, tools, or equipment"
"This ruling is limited to an interpretation of the requirements imposed on
persons under the GCA, and does not interpret the requirements of the National Firearms Act, 26
U.S.C. 5801
et. seq"

Note! The Juggernaut Tactical thing I mentioned earlier doesn't require that you do any "machining, molding, casting, forging, printing (additive manufacturing) or other
manufacturing process." Thus so far as I can see it requires no license whatsoever of the end user (you, the purchaser of the 80 percenter) under the ATF's new January 2015 guidance, nor would you have to serialize it once you finish it at your home.

Note! The 80% Arms products I mentioned earlier don't require that you do any "machining, molding, casting, forging, printing (additive manufacturing) or other
manufacturing process." Thus so far as I can see they don't require that you (as the purchaser / end user) have any license whatsoever under the ATF's new January 2015 guidance. And there is no serialization involved once you are done finishing it for your own use.

As an aside, Mike Honda, this horrible Representative in California (this garbage proposed legislation is always from CA, NY, or one of another handful of states that I forget these days), has introduced two Congressional bills (yes Congressional ones that could affect the whole USA) called: Home-Assembled Firearms Restriction Act of 2015 (H.R. 376) and Homemade Firearms Accountability Act of 2015 (H.R. 377). Basically, trying to make it illegal to make your own weapons in your own home and if he can't do that, will make it so that you explicitly have to register every firearm you make with the federal government. And that's written into his proposed laws which you can find here:
1) https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-...-bill/376/text (HR 376)
2) https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-...-bill/377/text (HR 377)

What this does, or would do if it were to pass, would be to overturn over 224 years of tradition and history that allows us to make our own stuff, in our own homes, for ourselves. I know you are all concerned about the ATF and BATFE and what-all, but that ruling does not change what we are allowed to make for ourselves, it only affects commercial manufacturers. What this character Rep Mike Honda is a proposing is a law that would seriously limit how we exercise our rights because it would impose forced registration and it would make all people who refuse to register (because of Constitutional or other objections) sort of silent dissidents - or organized and vocal opponents of the law who would then be jailed as a result.

I will be interested to see how this all turns out.