No, they haven’t ruled any such thing. If the person using the machine owns or has rented the the tools to make the part, it doesn’t matter how it is used. They don’t have that authority to determine how a firearm is made by mere internal fiat regulation, which is one of the things this judge was going to rule, Yo-Yo. It has not been adjudicated. They cannot tell an individual WHAT tools HE is permitted to use in manufacturing his own firearm, that is not within their regulatory authority. if it were there would be nothing stopping them from prohibiting the use of lathes, machine tools, or even files. For the time that individual has rented that tool, it is his to use as he chooses within the purposes it is designed to do. That’s why I very specifically and carefully stated the CNC machinery and tools had to be rented to the customer for the time he worked on his gun, not just borrowed, and no matter how he used the tool, it would be the customer machining the 80% lower with his rented tools. That is well established in Contract law. It doesn’t matter how or where or from whom they were rented. But did you just choose to ignore my point? You’re just pulling that claim out of your nether regions.
If you re-read the article, Roh asked the ATF in writing if his “press the green button” 80% lower finishing parties were legal, they replied with a determination letter that it was not.
I’m not saying it was right or wrong, but it is a fact that the ATF had made a ruling.