perdurabo93
Member
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2006
- Messages
- 121
I'd like to bring up a hypothetical situation, just for the sake of experimentation. Using the analogy of the 80% receiver not being a firearm subject to ATF regulations or excise taxes, I'd like to speculate on an analogous situation with ammunition. At what point does an assembled set of centerfire cartridge components constitute a cartridge that:
1) Requires an 06 FFL in order to manufacture and sell
2) Requires an 11% excise tax to be paid on the sale thereof
3) Would be prudent for the seller/manufacturer to carry liability insurance in order to sell
Does a cartridge have to be 100% loaded in order to require these things for public sale? If somone came up with a method to create an *mostly* loaded cartridge (pre-sized, pre-primed, powder measured, an inexpensive and reusable method for the end user to quickly, consistently and easily assemble and seat the bullet accurately) would marketing that set of pre-measured components require an 06 FFL? Would the sale of these components together, but unassembled require an 11% excise tax to be paid on their sale by the seller? Would it be prudent for the seller to carry liability insurance despite the fact that the end-user is technically responsible for all the components ultimate assembly? Do reloading component manufacturers generally carry liability insurance despite the fact that its almost never the manufacturers fault, legally speaking, when a reloading accident occurs?
If you could come up with a way to sell unloaded ammunition components to people in such a way that the vast majority of the work is taken out of the loading process, but you are still selling unloaded ammunition components, would you not be able to avoid ATF licensure or paying excise taxes, and therefore be able to undercut the price of already loaded ammo? I understand there are HAZMAT issues with shipping primed-but-unloaded ammo and loose powder, but on the surface this seems like a potential way, if a technology or system can be devised, of reducing the cost of ammo by skirting taxes and placing the liability on the user, but without requiring them to invest in a lot of expensive and sometimes frustrating reloading equipment.
The black powder world has already come up with pre-measured pyrodex pellets that you just drop down the barrel of your .50cal muzzleloader that dont require a measure. What about pre-measured loads of smokeless powder compressed/infused somehow into a primed case but without a seated bullet for very common loads like .223/62gr, .308/147gr, 9mm/115gr, and 45acp/230gr. You could then sell a cheap manual hand loading device that is pre-calibrated for seating the bullets that comes with the pre-charged cases so that all the end user has to do to is drop in both components and then whack it with a hammer or on a hard surface, or some other very simple process.
Since the loading is done by the end user using the tool, is all the liability for ammunition failure mishaps theirs? Do reloading component companies ever get sued successfully for component "defects" despite the fact that the final assembly is totally the purview of the end user?
1) Requires an 06 FFL in order to manufacture and sell
2) Requires an 11% excise tax to be paid on the sale thereof
3) Would be prudent for the seller/manufacturer to carry liability insurance in order to sell
Does a cartridge have to be 100% loaded in order to require these things for public sale? If somone came up with a method to create an *mostly* loaded cartridge (pre-sized, pre-primed, powder measured, an inexpensive and reusable method for the end user to quickly, consistently and easily assemble and seat the bullet accurately) would marketing that set of pre-measured components require an 06 FFL? Would the sale of these components together, but unassembled require an 11% excise tax to be paid on their sale by the seller? Would it be prudent for the seller to carry liability insurance despite the fact that the end-user is technically responsible for all the components ultimate assembly? Do reloading component manufacturers generally carry liability insurance despite the fact that its almost never the manufacturers fault, legally speaking, when a reloading accident occurs?
If you could come up with a way to sell unloaded ammunition components to people in such a way that the vast majority of the work is taken out of the loading process, but you are still selling unloaded ammunition components, would you not be able to avoid ATF licensure or paying excise taxes, and therefore be able to undercut the price of already loaded ammo? I understand there are HAZMAT issues with shipping primed-but-unloaded ammo and loose powder, but on the surface this seems like a potential way, if a technology or system can be devised, of reducing the cost of ammo by skirting taxes and placing the liability on the user, but without requiring them to invest in a lot of expensive and sometimes frustrating reloading equipment.
The black powder world has already come up with pre-measured pyrodex pellets that you just drop down the barrel of your .50cal muzzleloader that dont require a measure. What about pre-measured loads of smokeless powder compressed/infused somehow into a primed case but without a seated bullet for very common loads like .223/62gr, .308/147gr, 9mm/115gr, and 45acp/230gr. You could then sell a cheap manual hand loading device that is pre-calibrated for seating the bullets that comes with the pre-charged cases so that all the end user has to do to is drop in both components and then whack it with a hammer or on a hard surface, or some other very simple process.
Since the loading is done by the end user using the tool, is all the liability for ammunition failure mishaps theirs? Do reloading component companies ever get sued successfully for component "defects" despite the fact that the final assembly is totally the purview of the end user?
