quote:

Originally posted by Rick Lee:
They are not considered firearms until the frame is more than 80% complete, which you do on a Poly80 by drilling out 2-3 holes and then some other milling/shaving inside the dust cover. Takes 20 min. if you have a Dremel and probably less with a drill press. Once that's done, it's a firearm. Doesn't need a serial number unless you take it to a gunsmith, who will be required to engrave it. For personal use, have at it, no serial # required.

I wouldn't go into business building for people or selling completed ones. But you can sell one if you built it for personal use and then later decided you didn't want it. It's not like they can trace it back to you without a serial #.

So I buy a kit, drill the holes out, install all the guts to make it work, get a barrel, etc, etc. I'm driving to the range and get stopped and the LEO sees it, and it's legal to possess in finished form?

quote:

Originally posted by slabsides45:

quote:

Originally posted by Rick Lee:
They are not considered firearms until the frame is more than 80% complete, which you do on a Poly80 by drilling out 2-3 holes and then some other milling/shaving inside the dust cover. Takes 20 min. if you have a Dremel and probably less with a drill press. Once that's done, it's a firearm. Doesn't need a serial number unless you take it to a gunsmith, who will be required to engrave it. For personal use, have at it, no serial # required.

I wouldn't go into business building for people or selling completed ones. But you can sell one if you built it for personal use and then later decided you didn't want it. It's not like they can trace it back to you without a serial #.

So I buy a kit, drill the holes out, install all the guts to make it work, get a barrel, etc, etc. I'm driving to the range and get stopped and the LEO sees it, and it's legal to possess in finished form?

It is in AZ, probably not in some other states. One of the range officers at my local range carries one on his belt at work, all DIY'ed. I've shot it and he has shot mine. No problem at all with the law.

quote:

Originally posted by slabsides45:

quote:

Originally posted by Rick Lee:
They are not considered firearms until the frame is more than 80% complete, which you do on a Poly80 by drilling out 2-3 holes and then some other milling/shaving inside the dust cover. Takes 20 min. if you have a Dremel and probably less with a drill press. Once that's done, it's a firearm. Doesn't need a serial number unless you take it to a gunsmith, who will be required to engrave it. For personal use, have at it, no serial # required.

I wouldn't go into business building for people or selling completed ones. But you can sell one if you built it for personal use and then later decided you didn't want it. It's not like they can trace it back to you without a serial #.

So I buy a kit, drill the holes out, install all the guts to make it work, get a barrel, etc, etc. I'm driving to the range and get stopped and the LEO sees it, and it's legal to possess in finished form?

Pretty much, unless you have some local laws against the spooky ghost guns.

Building your own guns is perfectly legal, companies like Polymer80 just made it easier, and more well known, which of course we cannot have. The Man gets anxious when they don't have lists of all the little people who can fight back.

There's a big difference in federal law between having no serial number and having a defaced or destroyed serial number. If there never was a serial number, you're in the clear. Mess with a serial number or possess a gun that's had it defaced or removed and that's a big problem.

So if I’m reading correctly, the articles say the focus is on the kit that has everything needed, and not necessarily on the sale of the 80% frames themselves?

Also a previous, recent post(s) on the Firearm Blog highlighted the fact that different branches of ATFE, technical office vs criminal investigation have had different interpretations to suit the circumstance in front on them, ala pistol braces.

This apparent flexibility in interpretation keeps me away from braced pistols.....and now 80% items, which may be desired effect.

The gov’t. makes the interpretation that suits the moment.

quote:

Originally posted by BGULL:
[W]hich may be desired effect.

Could be, as I have often opined elsewhere.

Although it is surprisingly hard for many (most?) people to understand or at least accept, the ultimate, unwavering goal of the antigun crowd is the complete banning of the possession of all firearms. Period. End of discussion.

Because, however, that’s an impossible goal for the moment, the tactic the smarter ones have (reluctantly) settled on is to make firearms ownership less desirable, and less convenient. Only a small minority of even gun owners want “ghost” guns, but if they can be made less available or less desirable to own, that reduces the overall number of guns possessed. And by reducing the number of gun owners and the number of guns they own, that makes is easier to enact legislation and rules further restricting their ownership.

I've seen these (the lower kit) all over the place at gun shows I've been to in the last few years. I always thought it I'd buy one, it would be for cash, no info given.

Receivers that are less than 80% complete are not firearms.

Slides, barrels, and small parts needed to complete a firearm are not firearms.

A jig that allows you to complete the receiver to 100% is not a firearm.

All of these things individually are completely legal. So now the legality of a part that isn't a firearm is dependent on its proximity to other parts that aren't firearms?

Selling the jig with the receiver is probably the only thing the BATFE has a chance of making a real issue of. And moreso if the right drill bits are included. But what about buying the jig separately. Are jigs illegal, but CNC machines are not?

Otherwise this is overreach, and anyone who values gun rights should not be saying "they had it coming". It is our duty to PUSH BACK on the absurd, illogical, and unreasonable restrictions being place on us. Don't give an inch, because that's how those against us play it.

And The Constitution doesn't say who is disqualified from the 2nd amendment, or that it is even permitted. Why felons or dishonorable discharges or anything else? What other rights can be disqualified for life?

quote:

Originally posted by Lefty Sig:
What other rights can be disqualified for life?

Not that I disagree with most of your comments, but rights, including “inalienable” rights, only mean that the “government” (i.e., the rest of the members of our society) cannot legally take them from us without just cause. And probably the most common just cause is our voluntarily surrendering a right.

Every member of a human society surrenders many rights that they could exercise if they lived totally apart and away from all other human contact. More obvious examples of surrendering basic rights are the actions of criminals. All people normally have the right to life, but someone entering my house with the intent of harming me or my wife has surrendered that right to life instantly on the spot. We can and will debate whether other acts justify or constitute surrendering other rights, but one of the rights we surrender by living among other people is the right to arbitrarily decide that we won’t obey the rules of the society—or a least the ones that include significant penalties for disobeying them.

quote:

So I buy a kit, drill the holes out, install all the guts to make it work, get a barrel, etc, etc. I'm driving to the range and get stopped and the LEO sees it, and it's legal to possess in finished form?

Aren't MOST of the laws Federal in nature?
Would a LEO even be looking into this area ~ not that he couldn't but would it even be on his radar unless something odd didn't smell right to him?

quote:

Originally posted by smschulz:

quote:

So I buy a kit, drill the holes out, install all the guts to make it work, get a barrel, etc, etc. I'm driving to the range and get stopped and the LEO sees it, and it's legal to possess in finished form?

Aren't MOST of the laws Federal in nature?
Would a LEO even be looking into this area ~ not that he couldn't but would it even be on his radar unless something odd didn't smell right to him?

Pretty routine question around here for a cop to ask someone he pulled over for a traffic violation: "So, just for my safety, what guns, knives, or other weapons do you have on you or in the car?"

And, with the motorist trying to be as cooperative as possible, it goes south from there.

Not a ghost gun issue but on a similar note regarding bizarre gun laws, in MA. a gun with a folding stock becomes illegal forever if fired with the stock folded. May be federal as well. Stay vigilant folks!

quote:

Originally posted by Windwolf:
May be federal as well.

No such Federal law.

quote:

Originally posted by Windwolf:
in MA. a gun with a folding stock becomes illegal forever if fired with the stock folded. May be federal as well.

No, that is not a federal law. And if that actually is the wording of a MA law, that would be completely unenforcable.

It's not like rifles are fitted with an indicator that turns permanently red and sets off an alarm if a round is ever fired while the stock is folded. There's literally no way to be able to tell if a rifle with a folding stock has ever been fired with the stock folded vs. being fired with the stock unfolded.

So there'd be no way for anyone to examine a rifle and tell whether it was just a regular folding stock rifle, or an "illegal forever" folding stock rifle that at some point happened to have been fired with the stock folded.

I know there are a lot of inane firearms laws out there, but that seems far-fetched. Perhaps the MA law is actually something more like "rifles that can be fired with their stock folded are illegal to possess in MA", or "rifles with folding stocks must have the stocks permanently fixed into the unfolded position before they can be sold in MA", or similar?

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:

quote:

Originally posted by Lefty Sig:
What other rights can be disqualified for life?

Not that I disagree with most of your comments, but rights, including “inalienable” rights, only mean that the “government” (i.e., the rest of the members of our society) cannot legally take them from us without just cause. And probably the most common just cause is our voluntarily surrendering a right.

Every member of a human society surrenders many rights that they could exercise if they lived totally apart and away from all other human contact. More obvious examples of surrendering basic rights are the actions of criminals. All people normally have the right to life, but someone entering my house with the intent of harming me or my wife has surrendered that right to life instantly on the spot. We can and will debate whether other acts justify or constitute surrendering other rights, but one of the rights we surrender by living among other people is the right to arbitrarily decide that we won’t obey the rules of the society—or a least the ones that include significant penalties for disobeying them.

Oh I get it, and there are always some limitations. Just that it is interesting that we ban felons from having firearms for life after a conviction, even after they complete their sentences and have "paid their debt to society". Same goes for being dishonorably discharged - which in the past could have happened due to homosexuality, but now it's usually for what would have been the equivalent of a felony.

Yes in these cases, there is due process. But you know, even people on death row have the right to free speech, exercise of religion, a fair trial, an attorney, and the right not to be subject to cruel and unusual punishment, unlawful evidence gathering (except prison cells are not subject to a need for a search warrant), etc. They retain most of their rights except those that are nullified by imcarceration.

The right to bear arms is the one that we keep trying to restrict, having added more and more disqualifying events - misdemeanor domestic violence conviction (if it's not a felony...?) is one of the more recent ones. And the list goes on, and will keep getting longer as long as the anti's can keep adding to the list. That is my point.

Also to add: I am getting tired of this whole "ghost gun" narrative. As if guns are registered to your fingerprint or DNA and instantly traceable. Only first owners are traced by the 4473 (or used guns sold by dealers), so anything on the secondary market, which is almost ALL GUNS USED IN CRIME, is "off the grid" so to speak and untraceable. And criminals can file off serial numbers too. This is all much ado about nothing, and it preys upon the ignorance of the public. Just like "cop killer" bullets, and every other boogeyman they try to use to further the gun ban agenda.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Lefty Sig,

quote:

Originally posted by radioman:

quote:

Originally posted by smschulz:
Would a LEO even be looking into this area ~ not that he couldn't but would it even be on his radar unless something odd didn't smell right to him?

Pretty routine question around here for a cop to ask someone he pulled over for a traffic violation:
"So, just for my safety, what guns, knives, or other weapons do you have on you or in the car?"

The few times I've been stopped (over the last 20 years) only a couple times did they ask if I "had" a weapon and most likely because I handed them my CHL with my DL.
NEVER did they ask to look at my weapon.
I doubt they would even have inquired if I didn't show a CHL.