80% Lower Legal Question

[extropic]

@Jake P

Did you read reply #6?

 

[Jake P]

@Jake P

Did you read reply #6?

Indeed I did.

The issue here for me is where is the line between helping a young man do a machining project vs. just letting him lose on my equipment. The referenced text, in my interpretation, is not clear as to where that line is. Hence why I asked what the reference for this interpretation is. If it is clear in the text that I can loan, but not perform any portion, I’m not seeing it. But I’m not the sharpest tool in the shed.

I was a flight instructor in the military for over 20 years, and our regular response to anyone stating how something should be done was always “what’s your reference”. Hence, I’m just wanting to see something that, at least to me, clearly states where the line is on this.

Thus far, it appears that the consensus is that he must do all the work himself.

 

[extropic]

Indeed I did.

The issue here for me is where is the line between helping a young man do a machining project vs. just letting him lose on my equipment. The referenced text, in my interpretation, is not clear as to where that line is. Hence why I asked what the reference for this interpretation is. If it is clear in the text that I can loan, but not perform any portion, I’m not seeing it. But I’m not the sharpest tool in the shed.

I was a flight instructor in the military for over 20 years, and our regular response to anyone stating how something should be done was always “what’s your reference”. Hence, I’m just wanting to see something that, at least to me, clearly states where the line is on this.

Thus far, it appears that the consensus is that he must do all the work himself.

I think your conclusion is a reasonable one. "Do all the work himself" to me means he performs all the setups and all the manufacturing operations himself. However, I don't know why you couldn't observe, discuss and advise him.

 

[lordbeezer]

Until you know for sure I wouldn’t risk it for a 100 dollar lower. Or a 10,000 dollar one. Had a guy that has cnc stuff with code that was gonna do couple for me then said he couldn’t due to a rule change.

 

[wrat]

A lot of interesting responses so far, but it appears that non of us know the simple yes or no answer to this question. There is most certainly a yes or no answer, legally. I strongly suspect that in this case it's not an issue.

Should someone have that kind of knowledge, that would be much appreciated. Otherwise I will have to dig deeper to find it. Thanks guys!

If you've come here thinking you can deal with the BATFE on simple "yes or no" grounds, you will look long and hard the world over for someone with "that kind of knowledge".
If you think they have NOT left it intentionally ambiguous, you're gonna be disappointed.
You've been given some very good advice just in this thread. If that's not to your liking, it's time for a lawyer. Something around $500/hour with Federal alphabet experience oughta be about right.
Then, when yes really means no - and when no really means yes - you can take it up with your lawyer, for some additional fee.

People that make a lifetime of dealing with these agencies can't get a straight answer. But maybe it will be different with you.

 

[addertooth]

The current interpretation falls down to intent. If you make it with the "intent to sell, or gift" it is a violation. If he makes it for his personal use, it is not a violation.

Some people make them off a blueprint. Some people use the JIG which is designed to allow someone with a drill press and a router to make an "acceptable quality lower".

It is okay for you to do the setup, but he must be turning the handles the moment ANY metal is being removed. You are not "making" anything when you are setting up, the making has been defined as the "changing the shape of the metal" part of the operation. The holes for the pins are best made with four operations. Start with a center punch, then a spot drill for precise placement, a undersized drill bit for the majority of the stock removal, a reamer for precise hole diameter (although some people just use a good quality, properly sized bit). The holes for the pins must be precise so that it is a properly snug fit without binding (holes for trigger group pins, and holes for the knock-down pins which hold the upper and lower together). You will find sellers who specfically sell the drill/reamer pair online. You can eliminate the center punch stage if you are doing the pin drilling on a milling machine. The other major operation is milling the "pocket" for the trigger/hammer group. There are two version of the pocket. One which only works for an AR-15, and the other which works for both the M16a2 or an AR-15. Making the AR-15 only variant of the pocket eliminates any risk of being accused of making a fully automatic capable weapon. But both variants are legal to make, as it is the trigger group which defines whether it will do burst fire.

 

[Jake P]

Thanks for all the input folks!

I’ve informed the young man that it would be best if he and his father got themselves a router and a jig and have at it themselves.

This is not worth all the potential pitfalls.

It’s an unfortunate state of affairs (on so many levels) to say the least.

 

[rwm]

I guess my response should not have been so dogmatic since I am not an attorney or FFL. I agree with Wrat that the law is intentionally ambiguous here. The BATF has not given such detailed and specific guidance to resolve this question and would likely leave it up to the courts. I was trying to reflect the consensus opinion that I took away from discussions on AR15.com. There seems to be consensus that if you produce a lower(s) with the intent to distribute you are taking a risk. You could make a legal argument that you are not a manufacturer but that may not prevail, especially if the weapon was used in a serious crime.

 

[wrat]

It’s an unfortunate state of affairs (on so many levels) to say the least.

In a nutshell....

 

[7milesup]

If you've come here thinking you can deal with the BATFE on simple "yes or no" grounds, you will look long and hard the world over for someone with "that kind of knowledge".
If you think they have NOT left it intentionally ambiguous, you're gonna be disappointed.
You've been given some very good advice just in this thread. If that's not to your liking, it's time for a lawyer. Something around $500/hour with Federal alphabet experience oughta be about right.
Then, when yes really means no - and when no really means yes - you can take it up with your lawyer, for some additional fee.

People that make a lifetime of dealing with these agencies can't get a straight answer. But maybe it will be different with you.

That was a little harsh. Jake was a professional pilot for his entire career, as I was. Both of us have extensive experience and knowledge of how regulations work since we were involved in the MOST regulated industry on the planet, outside of nuclear.