Can you turn an 80% into a 100% and gift it?

[Zane]

Not sure if this is the right spot,but couldn't find one that made more sense. If you build a 80% receiver into a rifle, can you give it as a gift? Searched this on the web and this site, but found nothing.

Your thoughts are appreciated, links to regs/laws are more so!

Thanks!

 

[Fox123]

I believe that building it with the intent of transfer would put it in the category of manufacture.

You can build for personal use. Even at a later date you can sell it if for some reason you wish to part ways. Not sure on the marking you would have to put on it at that point.

However building with the intent of selling or giving away is illegal

IANAL.

 

[Ab_Normal]

I believe that building it with the intent of transfer would put it in the category of manufacture.

You can build for personal use. Even at a later date you can sell it if for some reason you wish to part ways. Not sure on the marking you would have to put on it at that point.

However building with the intent of selling or giving away is illegal

IANAL.

No it isn't unless you do it routinely and/or as a source of regular income. As far as gifting, that only applies between certain family members.

 

[lasher9999]

The real question is does anyplace have 80% lowers right now?

 

[Fox123]

if you find one let me know.

 

[mbz300sdl]

Um nice screen name

 

[Markp]

Not sure if this is the right spot,but couldn't find one that made more sense. If you build a 80% receiver into a rifle, can you give it as a gift? Searched this on the web and this site, but found nothing.

Your thoughts are appreciated, links to regs/laws are more so!

Thanks!

Couple of ways of doing this:

1. You could decide to gift this after you build it, nothing inherently wrong with that.

ATF FAQ: "With certain exceptions a firearm may be made by a non-licensee provided it is not for sale and the maker is not prohibited from possessing firearms." 18 USC 922(o)& (r), 26 USC 5845.27, 27 CFR 478.39, 479.62 and 479.105

The ATF would not call you a manufacturer, which they define as: Manufacturer. Any person engaged in the business of manufacturing firearms or ammunition. The term shall include any person who engages in such business on a part-time basis. - The gifting of a firearm is not a business, clearly.

A gift is NOT a sale and you would not be subject to 27 CFR 478, in general. However, there are provisions of the law you must abide by:

a. You can ONLY transfer that receiver to another person within the state.
b. You cannot transfer it with a barrel of less than 16" or with a lightweight barrel of any length without doing MSP regulated paperwork.

Remember, a stripped received does NOT have a barrel and is NOT a pistol, MD law specifically states that pistols must have a barrel less than 16" in length nor can it be a regulated firearm without a barrel per MD law which does not regulate receivers in general.

2. If you don't feel comfortable making it a gift, have them build it under your supervision. As long as they built it, it's theirs. Done. End of story.



Good Luck! IANAL.

Mark

PS - I still have 80% lowers, but I ain't selling them. I'm getting ready to finish them before any ban goes into effect.

 

[rob-cubed]

Mark's advice is spot on. I will add that before the 100% receiver is transferred (either sold or gifted, whether built or stripped) it is required to be engraved with your name, location, and a serial per BATFE specs in 27 CFR 478.92

The best solution is to have the giftee build it with your supervision. That avoids both any legal issues with transfer of a regulated item in MD, and the requirement to engrave the receiver. Engraving is optional up until a transfer occurs.

 

[Markp]

Mark's advice is spot on. I will add that before the 100% receiver is transferred (either sold or gifted, whether built or stripped) it is required to be engraved with your name, location, and a serial per BATFE specs in 27 CFR 478.92

The best solution is to have the giftee build it with your supervision. That avoids both any legal issues with transfer of a regulated item in MD, and the requirement to engrave the receiver. Engraving is optional up until a transfer occurs.

27 CFR 478.92 only applies to licensees, he is not a licensee.

Unless you caught something I missed.

 

[rob-cubed]

Right, that was written for commercial manufacturers but the BATFE extends it to non-licensed individuals in the event of a transfer. See the last sentence on their Tech FAQs under "Is it legal to assemble a firearm...":
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/firearms-technology.html

When I was neck deep in the whole "is heat treating manufacturing or not" issue I had conversations with agents in the Baltimore office who confirmed this. It's a good example of them expanding the reach of existing regulations through regular rulings. YMMV.

 

[Markp]

Right, that was written for commercial manufacturers but the BATFE extends it to non-licensed individuals in the event of a transfer. See the last sentence on their Tech FAQs under "Is it legal to assemble a firearm...":
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/firearms-technology.html

When I was neck deep in the whole "is heat treating manufacturing or not" issue I had conversations with agents in the Baltimore office who confirmed this. It's a good example of them expanding the reach of existing regulations through regular rulings. YMMV.

Here is the problem:

"However, we suggest that the manufacturer at least identify the firearm with a serial number as a safeguard in the event that the firearm is lost or stolen. Also, the firearm should be identified as required in 27 CFR 478.92 if it is sold or otherwise lawfully transferred in the future."

There is a big difference between a "suggestion", "may", or "should" and "required", "must", or "shall". These clever bastards have no standing in law or regulation to require shit in this case. If it was an NFA weapon, then 27 CFR 479 would apply, but in this case, it's wishful ATF thinking.

Should does not equal Shall.

They "should" suck cock. I "suggest" that they swallow.

M

 

[Zane]

Thanks for all of the advice. I have had the 80% for a while, so I have not found a current source (damn!). Was thinking that having my friend do the work with my help might be the "cleaner" solution, thanks for the confirmation.

 

[Zane]

Mark, how do you really feel??

 

[rob-cubed]

LOL. Sometimes it's better to ask for forgiveness than permission. Don't even get me started on their "opinion" letters... I got a more strongly worded version over the phone, but it wasn't in writing.

They have changed other rules over the years (like the legality of relocating a serial on a receiver) via rulings. I would love to see someone challenge them on their jurisdiction to do so. You have the moxie for it!

 

[DieselDent]

The real question is does anyplace have 80% lowers right now?

if you find one let me know.

if you dont mind spending a little more this guy has billet ones and had great reviews on pirate4x4.com

http://billet80.com/index.php?route=common/home

 

[Markp]

LOL. Sometimes it's better to ask for forgiveness than permission. Don't even get me started on their "opinion" letters... I got a more strongly worded version over the phone, but it wasn't in writing.

They have changed other rules over the years (like the legality of relocating a serial on a receiver) via rulings. I would love to see someone challenge them on their jurisdiction to do so. You have the moxie for it!

The precise wording, from a legal standpoint, is very important. I deal with this stuff in the military on a regular basis with regulations that I have to follow. Should and Shall are very different.

If they say you "must, will, or shall" and they can point to the regulation or law that provides that justification. Then so be it... as far as what they suggest, I may or may not listen to their suggestions.

 

[Fox123]

if you dont mind spending a little more this guy has billet ones and had great reviews on pirate4x4.com

http://billet80.com/index.php?route=common/home

Yeah almost double the price.

 

[razorV23]

There is an 80% in our very own classifieds

 

[DeadeyeJack]

Here is the problem:

"However, we suggest that the manufacturer at least identify the firearm with a serial number as a safeguard in the event that the firearm is lost or stolen. Also, the firearm should be identified as required in 27 CFR 478.92 if it is sold or otherwise lawfully transferred in the future."

There is a big difference between a "suggestion", "may", or "should" and "required", "must", or "shall". These clever bastards have no standing in law or regulation to require shit in this case. If it was an NFA weapon, then 27 CFR 479 would apply, but in this case, it's wishful ATF thinking.

Should does not equal Shall.

They "should" suck cock. I "suggest" that they swallow.

M

If only there were a "like" button. + 2 internets.

 

[Fox123]

There is an 80% in our very own classifieds

Yours, you are looking for trade not cash. I already PM'ed you with no response.