Slashdot Mirror

100% WRONG and Fake News. If you can legally own it. You can build it. You can make as many firearms as you like so long they are for your personal use and not for sale. ZERO markings are required from the ATF. A simple Google search will tell you that you are full of BS.

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/q...

It doesn't matter anyway; it is not illegal to make your own firearm in the first place. Who cares if they can ID where it comes from, it's not a crime to make a firearm for personal use.

The ATF says you're wrong. But what do they know, they're just the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, they know NOTHING about regulation of guns - not like you, AC!

No, a license is not required to make a firearm solely for personal use.

There, you can make your own firearm. "Aha!", you say, thinking you trapped me... "I said 'granted the right to make weapons without restriction' and you didn't realize that!"

In addition, the making of an NFA firearm requires a tax payment and advance approval by ATF.

Pay a tax, tell the ATF you're going to make it - and you're good to go.

What did we learn? A person can make their own firearm - handgun or rifle - if they choose. And if it's a restricted item (fully automatic, or fires explosives), they have to pay a tax and register with the ATF, as you do when you buy such things. But you can make them still the same.

No, manufacturing an fully automatic weapon, or modifying a semi-automatic to be fully automatic is illegal for all non-FFLs, and even then, not all FFLs can do it: https://www.atf.gov/firearms/d...

The one exception I suppose... is if you've a serialized auto-sear which is properly registered with the feds... that you could drop into something new, maybe.

Correct. An auto-seer is itself considered a machine gun. (Even though it's just a little tiny trivially manufactured piece of metal that goes into the gun. It is the Fun Part.)

No, manufacturing an fully automatic weapon, or modifying a semi-automatic to be fully automatic is illegal for all non-FFLs, and even then, not all FFLs can do it: https://www.atf.gov/firearms/d...

The one exception I suppose... is if you've a serialized auto-sear which is properly registered with the feds... that you could drop into something new, maybe.

All the regulations apply the moment you transfer said gun to any other person.

And STILL you can't cite that regulation.

Are you really so stupid you can't google this?

Apparently... I'm so stupid that I found, read and posted the first link you referenced a full eight minutes before you replied: https://news.slashdot.org/comm...

Your second link actually confirms what I said, which you did here:

Although technically you can transfer a homemade firearm

Ok...

you would have to prove your intent

And here I thought it was up to the government to prove guilt, not for the accused to prove their innocence

You'll note that the BATFE is very specific with the use of the term "engaged in the business":

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/q...
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/q....

There are people in jail for this because the Jury believed they intended to transfer the firearm they produced.

[Citation Needed]

Any legal position where you base your defense around your intent at the time is going to be VERY dangerous

Any legal position you take that the government opposes is very dangerous... see the case of Defense Distributed as a recent example.

Maybe your willing to gamble a decade in prison for it, but I'm not.

That's fine, but who said I am? I am simply recognizing what the law and regulations say today.

And you transfer that firearm to any person and they commit a crime with it and I can guarantee you will be arrested and more than likely convicted.

Here in Washington state all transfers require a background check... if I decide to sell off some part of my collection because I'm short on money, including one or two completed 80% lowers, it would have to occur with the assistance of an FFL... would they go to jail as well if the person who receives it passes the background check and then goes on to do evil with it?

No, in both would be complying with the law as written.

All the regulations apply the moment you transfer said gun to any other person.

And STILL you can't cite that regulation.

Are you really so stupid you can't google this?

Apparently... I'm so stupid that I found, read and posted the first link you referenced a full eight minutes before you replied: https://news.slashdot.org/comm...

Your second link actually confirms what I said, which you did here:

Although technically you can transfer a homemade firearm

Ok...

you would have to prove your intent

And here I thought it was up to the government to prove guilt, not for the accused to prove their innocence

You'll note that the BATFE is very specific with the use of the term "engaged in the business":

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/q...
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/q....

There are people in jail for this because the Jury believed they intended to transfer the firearm they produced.

[Citation Needed]

Any legal position where you base your defense around your intent at the time is going to be VERY dangerous

Any legal position you take that the government opposes is very dangerous... see the case of Defense Distributed as a recent example.

Maybe your willing to gamble a decade in prison for it, but I'm not.

That's fine, but who said I am? I am simply recognizing what the law and regulations say today.

And you transfer that firearm to any person and they commit a crime with it and I can guarantee you will be arrested and more than likely convicted.

Here in Washington state all transfers require a background check... if I decide to sell off some part of my collection because I'm short on money, including one or two completed 80% lowers, it would have to occur with the assistance of an FFL... would they go to jail as well if the person who receives it passes the background check and then goes on to do evil with it?

No, in both would be complying with the law as written.

All the regulations apply the moment you transfer said gun to any other person.

Are you really so stupid you can't google this?

http://www.gunsholstersandgear... (not a legal source, a home gun maker site)
https://www.atf.gov/resource-c... (look at answer 11 and 10)

Although technically you can transfer a homemade firearm you would have to prove your intent. There are people in jail for this because the Jury believed they intended to transfer the firearm they produced. Any legal position where you base your defense around your intent at the time is going to be VERY dangerous path. Maybe your willing to gamble a decade in prison for it, but I'm not. And you transfer that firearm to any person and they commit a crime with it and I can guarantee you will be arrested and more than likely convicted.

What is so complicated about "[s]hall not be infringed?"

The Second Amendment talks about the right to keep and bear arms, not manufacture them ...

It's ALREADY legal to manufacture your own firearms:

No, a license is not required to make a firearm solely for personal use. However, a license is required to manufacture firearms for sale or distribution. ...

It's the SELLING part that the government restricts.

Now maybe you understand when a conservative rails about "activist judges".

This one damn judge has set his own rectally-sourced opinion above both current law and the US Constitution.

More Pro gun control Fake News.

VERY IMPORTANT point. If you are legally able to buy/own a firearm (AK, AR, BB gun, Shotgun, Pistol, etc). You are 100% legally able to build yourself one or 100 of them. Just not for sale, must be for your own use. Making a gun for someone else would make you a manufacturer and need a Type 7 FFL. They would need to ban blueprints and STL files of gun receivers too. A CNC milling machine uses "flies from the web" also.

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/q...
ATF FAQs
Does an individual need a license to make a firearm for personal use?
No, a license is not required to make a firearm solely for personal use. However, a license is required to manufacture firearms for sale or distribution. The law prohibits a person from assembling a non–sporting semiautomatic rifle or shotgun from 10 or more imported parts, as well as firearms that cannot be detected by metal detectors or x–ray machines. In addition, the making of an NFA firearm requires a tax payment and advance approval by ATF.

[18 U.S.C. 922(o), (p) and (r); 26 U.S.C. 5822; 27 CFR 478.39, 479.62 and 479.105]

Also VERY IMPORTANT point. If you are legally able to buy/own a firearm (AK, AR, BB gun, Shotgun, Pistol, etc). You are 100% legally able to build yourself one or 100 of them. Just not for sale, must be for your own use. Making a gun for someone else would make you a manufacturer and need a Type 7 FFL. They would need to ban blueprints and STL files of gun receivers too. A CNC milling machine uses "flies from the web" also.

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/q...
ATF FAQs
Does an individual need a license to make a firearm for personal use?
No, a license is not required to make a firearm solely for personal use. However, a license is required to manufacture firearms for sale or distribution. The law prohibits a person from assembling a non–sporting semiautomatic rifle or shotgun from 10 or more imported parts, as well as firearms that cannot be detected by metal detectors or x–ray machines. In addition, the making of an NFA firearm requires a tax payment and advance approval by ATF.

[18 U.S.C. 922(o), (p) and (r); 26 U.S.C. 5822; 27 CFR 478.39, 479.62 and 479.105]

Also VERY IMPORTANT point. If you are legally able to buy/own a firearm (AK, AR, BB gun, Shotgun, Pistol, etc). You are 100% legally able to build yourself one or 100 of them.

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/q...

Does an individual need a license to make a firearm for personal use?
No, a license is not required to make a firearm solely for personal use. However, a license is required to manufacture firearms for sale or distribution. The law prohibits a person from assembling a non–sporting semiautomatic rifle or shotgun from 10 or more imported parts, as well as firearms that cannot be detected by metal detectors or x–ray machines. In addition, the making of an NFA firearm requires a tax payment and advance approval by ATF.

[18 U.S.C. 922(o), (p) and (r); 26 U.S.C. 5822; 27 CFR 478.39, 479.62 and 479.105]

Only in a few states, Florida not included: https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-...

well then, I guess i can just leave this here and point to question 11 a-i.
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/d...

We've only started having these problems recently.

That might have something to do with:

From 1968 to 2012 the number of guns per capita doubled.

From 2008 to 2013 gun manufacturers doubled their output from 630K/yr to 1200K/yr

Per capita. Means very little if Farmer Bob owns now 9 guns instead of the 3 he had 40 years ago while his 2 neighbors don't own any. Does he walk around with 9 guns on him at all time? Does he walk into a bar or the supermarket or to church with them? So even IF the number of guns in private ownership increased, and yet the overall firearms homicide rate dropped during that same period, I guess I should thank you for proving the point that it's quite unequivocally not the guns that are the causative agent here.

You've decided that instead of restricting the freedom of mentally ill people you'd rather restrict the freedoms of everyone in order to avoid dealing with the mentally ill.

Stop being so PC, persecution complexes are for betas.

Every other country in the world has the same amount of mental illness as the US. No other wealthy industrialized country as even close to the same level of gun violence. The problem isn't mental illness.

The US has the same amount of mental illness as every other country in the world? Citation please. In fact, for such a claim, multiple citations from differing sources, peer reviewed.

The US has always had lots of guns in civilian hands. It's one of the reasons Japan never invaded in WW2.

That and a couple thousand miles of blue water. But yeah, it was teh guns.

We've only started having these problems recently.

That might have something to do with:

From 1968 to 2012 the number of guns per capita doubled.

From 2008 to 2013 gun manufacturers doubled their output from 630K/yr to 1200K/yr

You've decided that instead of restricting the freedom of mentally ill people you'd rather restrict the freedoms of everyone in order to avoid dealing with the mentally ill.

Stop being so PC, persecution complexes are for betas.

Every other country in the world has the same amount of mental illness as the US. No other wealthy industrialized country as even close to the same level of gun violence. The problem isn't mental illness.

Hell, I"ve heard talk of the Feds revoking your rights to guns if you have a medical or even recreational weed permit.

Marijuana is still illegal at the federal level, there is no "medical" uses for it according to federal law. From

Form 4473: "Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?"

If you answer yes to that question, no guns for you.
Warning: The use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful under Federal law regardless of whether it has been legalized or
decriminalized for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside."

This is correct! State and local jurisdictions may classify a muzzle loader as a firearm, but the BATFE does not. AC is spot on and more people should be aware of this. For those in doubt, here is a citation:

https://www.atf.gov/resource-c...

Notably, some muzzle loading rifles are not lawful for felons to own, but the number is small and it matters if it can be easily converted to use regular ammunition.

There are a million things you're not allowed to buy. Your freedom of choice is basically an illusion. For instance, you're not allowed to buy a car that violates all kinds of safety rules. You can't buy many dangerous chemicals. You can't buy a bazooka.

You can in the United States. A bazooka is a NFA regulated weapon with a $200 transfer tax just like a fully automatic rifle.

Bazooka,

The "gun control" crazies never seem to get that Americans have always been allowed ownership of all sorts of weapons without significant problems.

I agree that there are far too many homicides in the U.S. but that rate has declined even as the total numbers of firearms in civilian hand has increased dramatically over the last decade.

Non-immigrant aliens (i.e. temporary residents) need specific authorization to legally possess or carry firearms.

Rather than going to a law library, I'll just go to the people who actually matter, the ATF. They will tell you that "An alien admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa is prohibited from shipping, transporting, receiving, or possessing a firearm or ammunition unless the alien falls within one of the exceptions provided in 18 U.S.C. 922(y)(2), such as: a valid hunting license or permit,[...]", which effectively means anyone can get one. In the vast majority of cases, you can do any necessary training for a hunting permit online. So yes, anyone can own a gun in 'merica. And hunting isn't even covered by the 2A.

Citation needed on this one.

Until the 1990s, nearly all US states had highly restrictive concealed-carry permit issuance [citation]. The legislative roadblocks to collecting research data on gun ownership and use hobbles any response to a demand for more direct citations, but the combined number of guns manufactured and imported into the US has risen from 3.5 million (net of exports) to about 16 million in 2013 (4.5x); the same figure for handguns has gone from 1.5 million to 8.6 million (5.7x) [citation]. Compare this to the US population growth of 240.1 to 316.5 (1.3x) and it's clear that (a) guns are a lot more popular and (b) handguns relatively even more popular than long guns.

And since over the same time advocacy of concealed and open carry has successfully liberalized most states' laws regarding carrying handguns, I'd say that the burden of proof here is on you if you believe cops are no more likely to encounter an armed person during a traffic stop than they were thirty years ago.

Second, there is the sorry state of the relationship between police and minorities. This itself is nothing new, but the focus of minority anger on police is new.

With all due respect... a/s/l? If you're old enough to remember the early 90's and the LA Riots, you'll realize that "minority anger on police" is very much not new.

Note the newly bolded bit above. I didn't say that minority of resentment of cops didn't exist. I'm saying it's an area of greater focus for activists.

In an era of social media, the poisoned atmosphere created by clumsily intrusive police tactics spreads far beyond the places that employ them.

Actually, I think this is the root of the problem -- added and abetted by sensationalist media and our generally increasing cultural propensity for cocooning with like-minded individuals.

I think it's simplistic to assign blame to any single "root", unless it is the very concept of race itself. But if it were not for race, we'd dream up some other basis for having trouble getting along. More fundamental is that the minimally adequate standard of professionalism for police is very high; if police have even a fraction of the share of incompetents and sociopaths (about 5% in the general population) the impact of that would be staggering. Oh, and of course there's the proliferation of cell phone cameras.

Is there a specific reason this interaction deserved to be highlighted above others (in a neutral sense)?

Whenever someone is killed by an agent of the state without recourse to due process of law, I'd say that goes to the front of the queue for attention, whether the killing was justifiable, a failure of training, or outright murder. The answer isn't for people to not talk about it. People do jump to conclusions, and they do it both ways -- e.g. that the dead person deserved it, or that the cop executed.

No. Replacing human police officers with RoboCop will not help the situation, and will not help mend American culture going forward.

Sometimes I want to take all the app-focused millennials in Silicon Valley, sit them down, and force them to watch a bunch of back-to-back Dystopian science fiction films from the 70s and 80s.

I was born in January 1961, so I'm hardly a millennial. But if fear of personal injury is a factor in police shootings of innocent citizens, then why not consider employing the assistance of Officer Drone?

Pawn shops that take firearms should be federally license dealers under federal law. I'm not sure that the same requirement is true for gunsmiths.

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/d...

I scanned through this (PDF warning) but didn't spend much time on it. It appears that in some instances, a gun smith is a dealer and in others they are not.

In this case, the only official result I've found is a new (or revised) publication from the BATF. If what it contains is the full extent, then you're right, I have no complaint because there is no substantive change. If you're aware of any other authoritative reference on any resulting changes, please provide a citation.

OTOH, Obama does have a history of unconstitutional overreach. Notably in delaying implementation (i.e. enforcement) of some sections of the health care bill he pushed. That was in direct violation of his oath and duty to uphold US law.

Not everywhere. In California, perhaps (you mention DROS which is only Cali AFAIK). Here in Florida, most dealers charge $20-30 plus the phone call fee, the state charges tehm $5 per call but the dealer is allowed (by law) to charge $8.

Of course, if you like older stuff, you can get a C&R FFL (aka Type 3 FFL) for under $50 for 3 years and have qualifying firearms shipped directly to you.

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/c...

Having a restraining order, felony conviction, conviction of a crime would could get you a sentence of more than 1 year, and having a misdemeanor conviction of domestic violence all make you a prohibited buyer and the NCIC check *should* catch it.

https://www.atf.gov/file/61446...

That is the 4473 form, which the buyer fills out when purchasing from a licensed dealer.

Face to face private transactions are legal where I am (and in many states) but as a personal thing if a buyer doesn't have a CCW permit then I pay the $20 to transfer it to them thru a local FFL.

Actually the buying and selling aren't technically illegal either. but makeing one with the intent to sell it without a federal license is illegal.

Here it is from the fed's mouth and here

Actually the buying and selling aren't technically illegal either. but makeing one with the intent to sell it without a federal license is illegal.

Here it is from the fed's mouth and here

the current understanding of gun rights in the USA is a late 1900s dirty harry style invention of anyone should have a gun

Unless you:

1. Are a convicted felon.

2. Are a convicted domestic abuser.

3. Are currently charged with any crime punishable by a year or more in prison.

4. Are an unlawful user of any controlled substance.

5. Are addicted to any controlled substance, even one lawfully proscribed.

6. Have been dishonorably discharged from the United States military.

7. Have renounced your American citizenship.

8. Are the subject of an order of protection.

9. Are a fugitive from justice.

10. Are in the United States illegally.

Those are just the people proscribed from ownership under Federal law. Many States have tougher laws and add even more people to the list. Some (my home state, New York) go further and treat gun rights as a privilege, requiring a license, which is doled out at the whim of local bureaucrats who can deny you for virtually any reason they wish.

Point being, nowhere in the United States does the "current understanding" of gun rights say anyone should have firearms. Do you actually know what the existing body of Federal, State, and Local law has to say on this subject or are you just repeating talking points you read somewhere?

Also, if you are mentally ill, you are prohibited from owning a firearm. However, that is seldom enforced, because, almost by definition, if you WANT a gun, you are fucking crazy.

Not by executive order but under request by the executive brach via BATF letters. The difference is trivial. Yes I am an arms dealer and licensed FFL.

ATF PDF here

the current understanding of gun rights in the USA is a late 1900s dirty harry style invention of anyone should have a gun

Unless you:

1. Are a convicted felon.
2. Are a convicted domestic abuser.
3. Are currently charged with any crime punishable by a year or more in prison.
4. Are an unlawful user of any controlled substance.
5. Are addicted to any controlled substance, even one lawfully proscribed.
6. Have been dishonorably discharged from the United States military.
7. Have renounced your American citizenship.
8. Are the subject of an order of protection.
9. Are a fugitive from justice.
10. Are in the United States illegally.

Those are just the people proscribed from ownership under Federal law. Many States have tougher laws and add even more people to the list. Some (my home state, New York) go further and treat gun rights as a privilege, requiring a license, which is doled out at the whim of local bureaucrats who can deny you for virtually any reason they wish.

Point being, nowhere in the United States does the "current understanding" of gun rights say anyone should have firearms. Do you actually know what the existing body of Federal, State, and Local law has to say on this subject or are you just repeating talking points you read somewhere?

Most gun control laws, as currently written, are unconstitutional. The reason they have stood for so long is either challenges were not brought, or the supremes refused to hear the case.

Heller and Peruta affirmed the individual right to bear arms for the purposes of individual self-defense as well as group defense . It is legal to manufacture firearms for personal use (and always has been). Licensing and serialization are only required if you choose to manufacture arms for sale to others.

The bottom line is that manufacturing your own weapons is legal - as per the ATF FAQ:

http://www.atf.gov/files/firea...

9. May I lawfully make a firearm for my own personal use, provided it is not being made for
resale?
Firearms may be lawfully made by persons who do not hold a manufacturer’s license under the GCA
provided they are not for sale or distribution and the maker is not prohibited from receiving or
possessing firearms. However, a person is prohibited from assembling a non-sporting semiautomatic
rifle or shotgun from 10 or more imported parts, as set forth in regulations in 27 C.F.R. 478.39. In
addition, the making of an NFA firearm requires a tax payment and advance approval by ATF. An
application to make a machinegun will not be approved unless documentation is submitted showing
that the firearm is being made for the official use of a Federal, State, or local government agency (18
U.S.C. 922(o),(r); 26 U.S.C. 5822; 27 C.F.R. 478.39, 479.62, and 479.105).

Currently there is a very pro-gun trend throughout the country. I do not see lawmakers stomaching any more gun-control any time soon. Personally, I would like to see many of our unconstitutional gun-control laws repealed or struck down by the courts.

The ATF doesn't agree with you. People, not the milita but people, are free to make their own handguns/shotguns/rifles as long as it is not intended for sale. 1st amendment allows Mr Wilson to publish the plans, and the 2nd amendment allows individuals to use those plans to make a weapon. Quite frankly I am not sure how much more settled it could be.

Common sense, first of all. Does it harm someone or something? Could it easily harm someone or something if misused? Does it interrupt any other government function? Have you ever heard of someone getting in trouble for anything similar?

When the answer to any of those questions is "yes", it warrants further investigation. Go to a library. Ask the librarian for help. They actually do far more than just point out books. Often, they can help you with understanding the law in question (though note that they are not authoritative sources of legal advice... those are lawyers).

Don't just assume that laws are complicated. Here's a few examples of laws chosen nearly at random. They're all pretty simple to read, though a few of them require skipping over large definition sections or clarifying clauses. In fact, consider this a challenge: Find me an American law that can't be understood with high-school reading skills.

The US is using its national intelligence agencies to obtain intelligence on terrorists trying to kill people.

Yes, and obtaining intelligence on political movements like Occupy Wall Street.

The intelligence agencies themselves don't have police powers.

Oh? What's that you say? TFA is about warrantless surveillance undertaken by the FBI, which is the federal agency with explicit domestic police powers.

The suspect in this case is accused of assisting a terrorist group.

Under the USA PATRIOT Act, providing "material support" to a terrorist group can be as simple as expressing support for it. And having a terrorism suspect browse your web site is enough to spark a secret investigation of your organization which scares away many of the donors who keep it in operation.

East Germany's secret police had both an intelligence function and police powers.

The FBI, Secret Service, Drug Enforcement Agency, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, at least, are agencies with police powers and intelligence operations. Heck, even the NYPD is in on the deal.

Their primary purpose was to keep the East German Communist party in power.

Given that NSA snooping hasn't indisputably foiled even a single terrorist plot, and the FBI instigated virtually all of the "terrorist" plots they've busted, I have to wonder what is the primary purpose of these agencies. Surely not to intimidate political dissidents!

You could be arrested and imprisoned for such things as making jokes about the nation's leadership, wanting to form a new political party,

Here in the U.S., they've at least figured out that making jokes about the leadership is essentially harmless and does nothing to erode their power. If people started to rise up to challenge them, we might see that change; the architecture of oppression is in place. As for forming a new political party, it does no harm to talk of it, because it's essentially impossible due to the laws in most areas which protect the two incumbent parties.

being a member of an unapproved church,

Like a mosque?

trying to leave the country without permission (could get you shot on the spot)

It won't get you shot, but you apparently can't leave without permission. The U.S. apparently has more finesse than East Germany did.

and many other possible infractions.

There are plenty of other infractions that'll get you in trouble, like walking while black,

Just looking up the phone number will not provide the useful sorts of things that NSA can do with additional analysis.

Binary explosives certainly exist, and are available commercially. The posting on Slashdot about that plot and the explosives was execrable. Everyone kept pointing to a posting by a chemistry student who admitted to having no background in explosive that concocted a ridiculous scenario for preparing the explosives as a final product. It was so bad you almost have to wonder if it was active disinformation.

As to the Enigma business, many people posting here don't think that the US keeping a similar secret would be OK. They demand to know what is being done and how, even if it make the program useless, and would open the possibly of many people being killed.

Effective January 24, 2003, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) was transferred under the Homeland Security bill to the Department of Justice. The law enforcement functions of ATF under the Department of the Treasury were transferred to the Department of Justice. The tax and trade functions of ATF will remain in the Treasury Department with the new Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau.

In addition, the agency's name was changed to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to reflect its new mission in the Department of Justice.

You're statement is incorrect with respect to Federal laws (I don't know which, if any, states have stricter laws than the Feds on manufacturing firearms).

You might be correct if Lumpy had said that his friend sold or distributed the AK47 he made, but he didn't say that.

Check this out for more info (there are some restrictions, so read more than the portion I quoted):

For your information, per provisions of the Gun Control Act (GCA) of 1968, 18 U.S.C. Chapter 44, an unlicensed individual may make a “firearm” as defined in the GCA for his own personal use, but not for sale or distribution.

he's afraid of his rights being taken away

I don't see your suggestion of some other way for him to defend himself.

in violation of the law.

[citation needed]

Nevermind, I gotcha here. The United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives doesn't agree with you.

Q: Does the GCA prohibit anyone from making a handgun, shotgun or rifle?

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. However, a person is prohibited from assembling a non-sporting semi-automatic rifle or non-sporting shotgun from imported parts. In addition, the making of an NFA firearm requires a tax payment and approval by ATF. An application to make a machine gun will not be approved unless documentation is submitted showing that the firearm is being made for a Federal or State agency.

[18 U.S.C. 922(o) and (r), 26 U.S.C. 5822, 27 CFR 478.39, 479.62 and 479.105]

My emphasis added. NFA would be the National Firearms Act, and it applies to machine guns, machine gun parts, short barreled shotguns/rifles, silencers, etc. It doesn't apply to your standard handgun, rifle, or shotgun.

When the 3D printer was invented people envisioned a technology that could help, that could make development rapid, that would improve our lives. Now Mr. Wilson has ruined all that and made it a tool to create weapons.

I don't understand how his use of some tool changes your ability to use your own similar tool for some other use. Sure, go ahead and tell me about how 3D printers are going to be outlawed, it's been a busy morning and I need a laugh.

he's afraid of his rights being taken away

I don't see your suggestion of some other way for him to defend himself.

in violation of the law.

[citation needed]

Nevermind, I gotcha here. The United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives doesn't agree with you.

Q: Does the GCA prohibit anyone from making a handgun, shotgun or rifle?

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. However, a person is prohibited from assembling a non-sporting semi-automatic rifle or non-sporting shotgun from imported parts. In addition, the making of an NFA firearm requires a tax payment and approval by ATF. An application to make a machine gun will not be approved unless documentation is submitted showing that the firearm is being made for a Federal or State agency.

[18 U.S.C. 922(o) and (r), 26 U.S.C. 5822, 27 CFR 478.39, 479.62 and 479.105]

My emphasis added. NFA would be the National Firearms Act, and it applies to machine guns, machine gun parts, short barreled shotguns/rifles, silencers, etc. It doesn't apply to your standard handgun, rifle, or shotgun.

When the 3D printer was invented people envisioned a technology that could help, that could make development rapid, that would improve our lives. Now Mr. Wilson has ruined all that and made it a tool to create weapons.

I don't understand how his use of some tool changes your ability to use your own similar tool for some other use. Sure, go ahead and tell me about how 3D printers are going to be outlawed, it's been a busy morning and I need a laugh.

"I can sell some of the pieces that we've been making" Hope he has a license to do so. As per, http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/general.html#gca-manufacturing ->> 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. However, a person is prohibited from assembling a non-sporting semi-automatic rifle or non-sporting shotgun from imported parts. In addition, the making of an NFA firearm requires a tax payment and approval by ATF. An application to make a machine gun will not be approved unless documentation is submitted showing that the firearm is being made for a Federal or State agency. [18 U.S.C. 922(o) and (r), 26 U.S.C. 5822, 27 CFR 478.39, 479.62 and 479.105]

Still, though, why do we have these restrictions? Why is an 11-inch barrel legal in one instance and illegal in another?

You should stop looking for a legitimate rationale or intellectual honesty within the NFA: it's almost entirely arbitrary and enforcement is capricious. Essentially, the only valid functional classification within the NFA is that of a machine gun (ie. a firearm that fires two or more shots with a single pull of a trigger); however, even that led to the ATF issuing a machine gun classification to a shoelace.

Furthermore, do you know that suppressors (aka "silencers") are classified as Title II firearms according to the NFA? Suppressors aren't "Hollywood quiet" in real life. As a matter of fact, I believe we should propose gun safety legislation to allow "firearm mufflers" ownership to be unrestricted, just like in Finland, Norway, Poland, Italy, etc. Gun safety for hearing protection, of course.

Essentially, the NFA was the 1930's equivalent of the "assault weapons" ban: a ban on "scary looking things" and machine guns. However, at that time the intellectual dishonesty of the Wickard v. Filburn decision had yet to come to pass. Therefore, the gun control proponents felt constrained by the Constitution: they had no power to ban these weapons but they had the power to tax. Therefore, they set a fixed $200 tax on these "evil weapons" that was many times the value of the regulated items.

Now they don't bother with workarounds that. According to the Supreme Court in Gonzales v. Raich, even producing something and giving it away for free within a single state qualifies as "interstate commerce", which implies that Congress can regulate, restrict, or ban it.

So, you asked the correct question, but ultimately there is no valid rationale for the law for you to find. Your question also applies to the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban (and Feinstein's current proposed law): what valid reason exists to ban things simply due to cosmetics? Why are pistol grips on rifles "evil", but are okay on pistols? Why are adjustable rifle stocks evil?

It's farcical.

What possible public interest is served by making rifles legal, pistols legal, "short-barreled rifles" legal, but a Frankengun that's a rifle with a barrel less than 16 inches illegal?

Actually, all of those are legal provided you comply with the NFA.

Title I firearms (eg. rifes, pistols, shotguns) are the "regular" kind of firearms found in everyday stores and require no NFA tax stamps. Title II firearms are things like short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, suppressors, machine guns, and "Any Other Weapons" (AOW); these require the tax stamp, approval from the federal government to own, etc.

The "Frankengun" you describe would be classified as an NFA short-barreled rifle (cf. this rifle) needing a stamp + federal approval, unless it lacked a stock, whereupon it would be classified as a regular handgun (cf. this pistol) with no restrictions, unless it had a vertical forward grip, whereupon it would be an AOW and need a stamp + federal approval.

BTW, you have to choose the firearm's classification *before* you make/obtain the firearm (see first link in my post).

You left out AOW (any other weapon).

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/guides/importation-verification/firearms-verification-nfa-aow.html

if you have access to a multi axis CNC machine I can print out lowers from blocks of aluminum all day long.

Not only is it technically feasible, it's 100% legal (in many states) as long as you don't manufacture them with intent to sell. You can make all the guns (without serial numbers if you prefer) for personal use you want. The ATF's only "rule" about it is actually a suggestion that owners should still put serial numbers on any firearms they have manufactured for personal use in case that weapon is ever stolen.

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/manufacturers.html

7. An individual acquires frames or receivers and assembles firearms for his personal use, not for sale or distribution.

The individual is not manufacturing firearms for sale or distribution and is not required to be a licensed manufacturer.

They have no rules about individuals producing frames or other parts for their own use, therefore it is not illegal. As long as the person would be able to legally own a comparable firearm produced by a company, it is legal. A printer is no different than any other method and shouldn't be viewed as different.

Will people have to register 3D printes with Homeland Security now?

No, you will have to register 3D printers with the BATFEP (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, Explosives and Printers), but only if you buy two or more semi-automatic printers capable of printing items larger than 11 inches in any dimension with a detachable plastic-ink cartridge in a 5-day period in a state that shares a border with Mexico. Alternatively, you could just drive to Oregon to buy your printer and avoid the registration, sales tax and electronic waste fee.

The lasttime I looked the Republicans on behalf of the NRA had crippled the ATF to the point where it is hardly able to function. They are not allowed to carry out a number of types of inspections of gun vendors and manufacturers anymore that are regarded as routine and essential for safety and law enforcement purposes in other countries. The ATF also hasn't had a director in years due to Republicans heroically blocking his apointment so you should not worry about your 3D printer so much. As long as there are Republicans out there safeguarding the right of every Tom Dick and Harry in the USA to own an assault weapon regardless of what they want to use it for your 3D printer is probebly more safe after 3D printing becomes a weaponized technology than if it wasn't. So get used to the NRA campaigning for your right to own a 3D printer without fear of police interference because 3D printers are protected under the 2nd ammendment, the people's militia need to be able to print them selves up an arsenal in case the Marxists in Washington decide to liquidate every right thinking christian conservative in the USA.

Will people have to register 3D printes with Homeland Security now?

No, you will have to register 3D printers with the BATFEP (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, Explosives and Printers), but only if you buy two or more semi-automatic printers capable of printing items larger than 11 inches in any dimension with a detachable plastic-ink cartridge in a 5-day period in a state that shares a border with Mexico. Alternatively, you could just drive to Oregon to buy your printer and avoid the registration, sales tax and electronic waste fee.

I'd rather have the option to inflict a gunshot wound on an assailant, and to be armed when confronting a criminal than unarmed.

Sawed off shotguns and fully automatic weapons are available for a $200 tax payment --- see:

http://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-5320-1.pdf

and the Supreme Court has refused to rule on ownership of specific weapon types, hence the use of taxes to attempt to control transfers and manufacture of such.

Outlawing inexpensive firearms discriminates against the poor being able to own firearms --- what we really need is to win Johnson's war on poverty.

I stand corrected. According to the ATF FAQ for National Firearms Act weapons, you need a permit from the ATF to buy or sell. That's probably the "tax stamp" you're talking about.

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/national-firearms-act-firearms.html#legally-acquire-nfa

Q: How can an individual legally acquire NFA firearms?

        Basically, there are 2 ways that an individual (who is not prohibited by Federal, State, or local law from receiving or possessing firearms) may legally acquire NFA firearms:

                By transfer after approval by ATF of a registered weapon from its lawful owner residing in the same State as the transferee.
                By obtaining prior approval from ATF to make NFA firearms.

        [27 CFR 479.62-66 and 479.84-86]

You should probably read the legal definitions, because 1898 isn't a magic cutoff and you're confusing the terms firearm, antique firearm, gun, and weapon.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/5845
http://definitions.uslegal.com/a/antique-firearm/
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/collectors.html

He is a gun owner, whether that gun qualifies as an antique firearm is a different question. They may also count as unserviceable. You would also need to consider the laws of his specific state as the references above are federal and ATF.

It's actually illegal to buy a gun outside your State of legal residence unless:

1) it is a private sale, not innvolving a licensed dealer (you want to buy a gun from your uncle, no problem, you go into a gunshop, no sale)

or...

the sale is executed through a gun dealer local to you. I had to do this once when I saw a really sweet Mauser hunting rifle while traveling. Only way to actually buy it was to arrange with the gunshop that had it to ship it to a gunshop local to where I lived, and do the actual sale there. And pay sales tax twice, essentially, plus dealer markup twice.

You're actually wrong on both counts. It's unlawful for an unlicensed person to transfer a firearm (be it handgun or longarm) to an unlicensed person who is not a resident of their state, and it is perfectly lawful for an unlicensed person to acquire a longarm (though not a handgun) from a licensee in any state. See the BATF FAQ.