BATFE: New Proposal: Permission to Construct a Weapon?

Federal Register ^ | May 28,2004 | Brenda E. Dyer, Dept. Clearance Officer, USDOJ

[Drammach]

[Federal Register: June 15, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 114)]
[Notices]
[Page 33404]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access
[wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr15jn04-67]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives

Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection;
Comments Requested

ACTION: 30-Day Notice of Information Collection Under Review:
Letter Application To Obtain Authorization for the Assembly of a Nonsporting Rifle or Nonsporting Shotgun for the Purpose of Testing.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

The Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
The proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.
This proposed information collection was previously published in the Federal Register Volume 69, Number 42, on page 10063, on March 3, 2004, allowing for a 60-day comment period.
The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days for public comment until July 15, 2004.
This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.

Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the items contained in this notice, especially the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to The Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention Department of Justice Desk Officer, Washington, DC 20503.

Additionally, comments may be submitted to OMB via facsimile to (202) 395-5806.

Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged.
Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:

--Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
--Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
--Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
--Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

Overview of This Information Collection

(1) Type of Information Collection: Extension of a currently approved collection.

(2) Title of the Form/Collection: Letter Application to Obtain Authorization for the Assembly of a Nonsporting Rifle or a Nonsporting Shotgun for the Purpose of Testing.

(3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department of Justice sponsoring the collection: Form Number: None. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

(4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Business or other for-profit. Other: none. Abstract: The information is required by ATF to provide a means to obtain authorization for the assembly of a nonsporting rifle or nonsporting shotgun for the purpose of testing or evaluation.

(5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: There will be an estimated 5 respondents, who will complete a written letter within approximately 30 minutes.

(6) An estimate of the total burden (in hours) associated with the collection: There are an estimated 3 total burden hours associated with this collection.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brenda E. Dyer, Department Clearance Officer,
United States Department of Justice, Policy and Planning Staff,
Justice Management Division, Suite 1600, Patrick Henry Building, 601 D Street NW., Washington, DC 20530.

Dated: May 28, 2004.
Brenda E. Dyer,
Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice.
[FR Doc. 04-13421 Filed 6-14-04; 8:45 am]

[Hat-Trick]

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brenda E. Dyer, Department Clearance Officer,
United States Department of Justice, Policy and Planning Staff,
Justice Management Division, Suite 1600,
Patrick Henry Building,
601 D Street NW., Washington, DC 20530.

I have to imagine that Patrick Henry, the man who said:

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense?"; and

"The great object is that every man be armed."; and

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined."; and

"I have now disposed of all my property to my family. There is one thing more I wish I could give them, and that is the Christian religion."; and finally

"Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!"

...is looking down at the country he help father, with disgust, as tyranny is emanating from a building that bears his name.

[George Smiley]

as right now, you can't build a prototype Class III firearm unless it is being made specifically for the government.

Go and read U.S. v. Rock Island Armory for some interesting history surrounding NFA34.

There's another case, the name of which eludes me where a guy built his own. The end result was that because it hadn't crossed state lines, that there was no federal jurisdiction.

[gieriscm]

That would be Bob Stewart. The case was heard by the 9th Circuit which, incredibly enough, ruled that since he had made his own machine gun there was no Federal jurisdiction.

[elbucko]

"There is no paperwork required presently unless the firearm falls under NFA restrictions."

However these notices are not required to be filed by convicted felons, as that would violate their 5th. Amendment right against self-incrimination.

[elbucko]

"Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel [liberty]. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.".......[Patrick Henry]

"I did some terrible things [while president] just because I could....." [Bill Clinton].

There are those who are willing take our liberty, "just because they can".

FMCDH

[GingisK]

no requirement to notify the ATF at all if you want to build a title 1 firearm...

Well, crap! Then it is a casse of "creeping crud". Thanks for the correction.

[gieriscm]

Ok, don't panic. This is nothing new. Apparently the "forms" filed involve only manufacturer's seeking to use certain imported parts. It doesn't affect an individual who wishes to build a firearm from scratch, with a parts kit, etc.

Text of rule:

With certain exceptions a firearm may be made by a nonlicensee provided it is not for sale and the maker is not prohibited from possessing firearms. However, a person is prohibited from making a semiautomatic assault weapon or assembling a nonsporting semiautomatic rifle or nonsporting 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 machinegun 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), (r), (v), and 923, 27 CFR 178.39, 178.40, 178.41 and 179.105]

So, focus your efforts back to fighting the real battle - the AWB sunset!

[NRA2BFree]

Ping!

[Blood of Tyrants]

Isn't shooting tyrants with your Homeland Defense/Sport Utility rifle considered sport?

[jdege]

We have got to get rid of this "sporting use" test.

[Cloud William]

This does not relate to the NFA act (class 3) at all... This is ALL non-sporting purpose firearms as the ATF defines them... which can change at any time. Basically, if you can't import it, you won't be able to assemble one without their permission.

I believe you are correct. This appears to be directed at the "bare receiver + parts kit" crowd, such as the "Build-It-Yourself" guys at AR-15.com and the bunch over at the FAL Files "Gunsmithing" forum. I'll have to cruise around the gun-related message boards and see if this is the prevailing suspicion.

FRegards,

Cloud William (BCR callsign "Dismantler")

(+)

[Tanstaafl]

I agree - our constitution makes no distinction. When/where did this 'sporting use' Malarkey start?

[ninenot]

VERY interesting case.

One who is a bit daring can, I suppose, manufacture a machinegun without bothering to register it or to ask permission.

Then one can claim that since NFA is not applicable, the only bar is the 1986 law, which is patently un-constitutional, as machineguns are most certainly 'military use' weapons, as contemplated and approved under the 2A.

Of course, the first $300K in legal fees are the hard part.

[coloradan]

To answer your question, it started in Nazi Germany, and was imported to the US in the 1968 Gun Control Act by a senator Dodd from CT. I haven't read the laws side by side, but apparently there is a striking similarity between the Nazi weapons law and 1968 GCA that goes well beyond merely the mention of "sporting purpose" as a condition of lawful firearms ownership.

[coloradan]

The 3AM raid in which your pregnant wife is beaten into miscarrying and your cat is stomped to death is pretty unsettling too. And the BATFE does those things, though not yet in a single "raid". (Note that the even use the military term for what they do, even though they are allegedly a tax collection agency. )

[MarkL]

I don't really have a problem with this, unless the builder is one of "those people" who have a penchant for saying, "Hey, hold my beer and watch this!"

Mark

[MamaTexan]

unless the builder is one of "those people" who have a penchant for saying, "Hey, hold my beer and watch this!"

Sorry, it has to be for everyone, or it can be for no one.

Hopefully, Darwin will take out only the idiots and not innocent bystanders too!

[El Gato]

If the BATFE had meant class III firearms, they would have quoted the applicable section of the law for the definition of "firearm", (It's in the internal revenue code, not the criminal code, although violations carry criminal penalties of course.) The use of the term "non-sporting" is the key. They are after folks wanting to make self defense shotguns and semi-auto militia type rifles. Lots of folks "make" these sort of rifles, AR-15s, FN/FAL, and H&K G-3s from parts kits. In the latter cases the parts, save the receiver and a certain number of other parts, come from disassembled battle rifles, and now the equivalent is being done with assault rifles, older M-16s, and various other 5.56x45 rifles, such as the HK-93, FNC etc. You can see the parts sets in any issue of Shotgun News. (You can't use all the parts, because that would be assembling a non-importable non-sporting purposes firearm from imported parts, but if you use the correct number of non-imported parts, it's legal)

I suspect their justification for doing this is to enforce that prohibition on assembling a non-importable non-sporting purposes weapon from imported parts. It's still a crock.

[El Gato]

Ok, don't panic. This is nothing new. Apparently the "forms" filed involve only manufacturer's seeking to use certain imported parts. It doesn't affect an individual who wishes to build a firearm from scratch, with a parts kit, etc

It would seem to if the parts are imported.

With certain exceptions a firearm may be made by a nonlicensee provided it is not for sale and the maker is not prohibited from possessing firearms. However, a person is prohibited from making a semiautomatic assault weapon or assembling a nonsporting semiautomatic rifle or nonsporting shotgun from imported parts.

That last paragraph is what they are trying to enforce. Sounds like an invitation to self incrimination if you happend to have one less US made part than they require, and they get to define which parts count as not all do.

[El Gato]

And the BATFE does those things, though not yet in a single "raid". (Note that the even use the military term for what they do, even though they are allegedly a tax collection agency. )

Not anymore they aren't. When they were moved to Justice from Treasury, they became a law enforcement agency. Of course other than a few laws on the manufacture of alcohol, all the laws they enforce are infringements on the peoples' RKBA, and thus completely unconstitutional. Their tax collection function, primarly on smokes and booze but also on short barrelled fireams and machine guns, remained in treasury. They'll still come stomp on your cat if you fail to pay that tax, which their Treasury brethern won't accept any longer anyway, unless it's for transfer of an existing registered weapon. Actually I'm not sure that the NFA portion of their tax collection function stayed in treasury or not. I'm pretty sure they, BATFE, still maintain (poorly) the registry.