Legality of making your own firearm? (VT and federal)

[greenr18]

I live in VT, I wish to legally make my own shotgun, essentially a copy of the Richardson Guerilla Gun. I have not done so nor have I ever manufactured a firearm before and do not have any materials at hand to do so.

However, there are many questions and concerns I have about this.

1: VT has a law against possession or creation of a "zip gun" and as far as I know the only definition of that from the sources I've gathered is something to the effect of an AOW (concealed firearm type AOW IE a 'pen gun') or according to one website anything that would fall under the label of "a crude design." This leads me to believe that since there is no real definition of a "crude design" that any ATF agent or law enforcement officer could essentially under personal opinion justify an arrest with something along the lines of 'this wasn't made in a factory therefore it is a crude design and is illegal.' Is not the word crude something entirely based on opinion? Kind of an odd legal term to use. Which leads me to

2: the fact that federal law states nothing about not being able to create something that would (for legal reasons) be deemed as a "zip gun." If it were NFA applicable, it would just need the proper tax stamp and registration; correct? Does not federal law trump state law regardless?

3: I have had people tell me, regardless of whether or not it's an NFA item, or whether or not you have intent to distribute or sell, that any personally made firearm's design must be approved by the ATF before you can manufacture it and that it would need a federally registered (or at least locally registered) serial number to be permanently engraved on the receiver, etc etc. Is this true?

4: Is it true that if a firearm can operate without the stock, and if without the stock it could be easily concealed as something else, (IE stainless steel pipes) that it would technically be an AOW?

 

[pdsmith505]

I can answer #3 for you:
None of that is true.
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/firearms-technology.html

 

[Grumulkin]

In regards to number 2; no, Federal law doesn't trump State law regardless. There are plenty of State regulations that are different and even more restrictive than Federal law.

I looked at images of the Richardson Guerilla Gun and it looks pretty crude to me. Whether or not Vermont would consider it a "zip gun" I have no idea.

There is nothing in Federal law that prevents one from making an otherwise legal firearm for personal use. There are kits out that permit one to make their own AK-47, AR-10, AR-15 and 1911 that are sold openly and without the need to go through a FFL holder and there is no need to get any approval from the BATFE.

 

[Sunray]

What makes you think stainless steel pipes are easily concealed? Just curious.
You'd best look into VT's definition of what a 'zip gun' is first. A field expedient like that Richardson Guerilla Gun is very likely covered by that definition.
Zip guns are usually crude things fired with rubber bands and nails. The Richardson is operated very close to that.
In any case, making a firearm isn't illegal unless it's a Class 3. I think.

 

[deadin]

As said earlier, as long as it doesn't run afoul of the NFA regs or some State regulation, it's perfectly OK to make your own.
HOWEVER, if you ever decide to sell it or transfer it to someone else, you must comply with all of the other regulations concerning markings and serial numbers.
And, if you make a habit of building and selling, you will need to be licensed as a manufacturer. ($$$).

And understand that just any old piece of pipe (stainless or otherwise) stands a good chance of instantly converting itself into a pipe bomb upon firing........

 

[Elkins45]

#1 Why would ATF (fed) be enforcing VT law?
#2 The most restrictive law applies. Silencers aren't legal in some states even though ATF says they are OK with the tax stamp.
#3 Completely wrong.

 

[Grumulkin]

As said earlier, as long as it doesn't run afoul of the NFA regs or some State regulation, it's perfectly OK to make your own.
HOWEVER, if you ever decide to sell it or transfer it to someone else, you must comply with all of the other regulations concerning markings and serial numbers.
And, if you make a habit of building and selling, you will need to be licensed as a manufacturer. ($$$).

And understand that just any old piece of pipe (stainless or otherwise) stands a good chance of instantly converting itself into a pipe bomb upon firing........

No, a self made gun does not require markings or serial number at least for a legal face to face transfer.

 

[Jim K]

One point that is often overlooked. If you decide to manufacture your own gun for your own use, whether an "ordinary" gun or something you need a Form 1 for, YOU MUST MAKE IT YOURSELF. That is important. If you get someone else, say a gunsmith, to do the work for you, HE must have a manufacturer's license.

If you decide to make a new design of bolt action rifle, fine, but if you hire Joe the Gunsmith to do it for you, HE must have a manufacturer's license. The same is true whether the final product is made from a block of steel, or from another gun (like making an SBR out of a long barrel rifle). It is also true if you get approval under a Form 1 for, say, that SBR. If you hacksaw the barrel off and then take the gun to Joe to crown the barrel, OK. But if you take the long gun to Joe and he cuts the barrel, he has violated the law unless he has a manufacturer's license. (And if he does, your Form 1 tax and time were really wasted, since he has to transfer the now-SBR to you on a Form 4, with another tax payment.)

Jim

 

[loose noose]

greenr18, I would first seek the advice of an attorney that is familiar with Vermont firearm regulations. It might cost ya a little but would definitely erase any potential problems in the future.

 

[stompah]

Looks like a home built single shot shotgun to me. But I am not an ATF agent, prosecutor or judge...

 

[Armor Snail]

#1 Why would ATF (fed) be enforcing VT law?
#2 The most restrictive law applies. Silencers aren't legal in some states even though ATF says they are OK with the tax stamp.
#3 Completely wrong.

Silencers aren't legal in any state or federally.

The stamp is an exemption. Some states recognize it. Some don't.

Just saying...



Also fwiw (federally). As long as it is "L" shaped to fire. You are good barring you conform to Title I dimensional regulations such as OAL, BBL length, etc.


Pen gun that fires while looking like a pen? A.O.W.

Pen gun that has to be "opened into an " L" shape to fire? Firearm

 

[Sam1911]

Silencers aren't legal in any state or federally.
The stamp is an exemption. Some states recognize it. Some don't.
Just saying...

That's sort of one way of saying it, but it isn't actually the right way.

Silencers are illegal under the laws of a few states. Federal law is irrelevant in those cases as the state law is more restrictive, and even complying with the federal NFA won't make it legal to own a silencer in those states.

Silencers are completely legal in most other states. Federal law is then the controlling factor and you must follow the NFA to be legal. (Absent the NFA, silencers would be perfectly unregulated in those states.)

There may be a few states which have separate regulations about silencers which you must follow to own one, in addition to following the federal NFA. (This is the case with machine guns in some states.) I can't recall any, but some probably do.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

As said earlier, as long as it doesn't run afoul of the NFA regs or some State regulation, it's perfectly OK to make your own.
HOWEVER, if you ever decide to sell it or transfer it to someone else, you must comply with all of the other regulations concerning markings and serial numbers.

I see that claim very often but I do not believe it is true for non-NFA homebuilts.

As far as to OP's question, I do not believe that to be the case because a large number of firearms would not meet such a test (if it were to exist). If the stock is at all adjustable, the ATF says the longest position is the one you need to measure for OAL compliance, which would allow for some pretty interesting designs.

I've been slowly tinkering with a 4-winds type shogun for a while. Right now the barrel is 24" and the AOL will definately be over 26". I plan to test it with some kind of gravity sled and a long rope I probably won't fire it with my hands except for blanks. If I test fire it a large number of times with buckshot, I might try low wall birdshot.

Mike

 

[Sam1911]

I see that claim very often but I do not believe it is true for non-NFA homebults.

The BATFE suggests that you should mark regular "GCA" or "Title I" firearms before selling them, however when they provide the citation of the law on that, the one they point to is in regards to NFA Title II "Firearms." A bit misleading.

Sort of like the referee saying you can't kick a soccer ball down field because the football rule book says you can't kick the ball down field.

 

[ol' scratch]

You can build your own firearms but....

I just read that the Richardson shoots by slam firing the ammunition. Wouldn't that be considered firing from an open bolt and thus a no-no as far as BATF is concerned? I really don't know that much about the design, but that struck me as a possible issue. A really interesting article about the Richardson. http://www.guns.com/2013/04/29/richardsons-philippine-guerrilla-gun-a-gun-to-get-a-gun/

 

[Sam1911]

I just read that the Richardson shoots by slam firing the ammunition. Wouldn't that be considered firing from an open bolt and thus a no-no as far as BATF is concerned?

Good question, but I'd think the fact that it isn't a repeating design (not semi-auto) would make that a moot point.

Unless you can load it mighty fast, it would be hard to convert to full-auto fire! And that was the reason for nixing open-bolt guns.

A model '97 or model 12 or 37 shotgun can be "slam fired" too, but they aren't semi-auto so steps have to be taken by the shooter to fire the next shot.

 

[LRShooting]

In regards to number 2; no, Federal law doesn't trump State law regardless. There are plenty of State regulations that are different and even more restrictive than Federal law.

I looked at images of the Richardson Guerilla Gun and it looks pretty crude to me. Whether or not Vermont would consider it a "zip gun" I have no idea.

There is nothing in Federal law that prevents one from making an otherwise legal firearm for personal use. There are kits out that permit one to make their own AK-47, AR-10, AR-15 and 1911 that are sold openly and without the need to go through a FFL holder and there is no need to get any approval from the BATFE.

Doesn't federal law technically trump state law regardless though? I dont mean whatever the federal law says has to be taken word for word, but if a state has a lax law on something that is federally more restrictive, then federal AFAIK trumps.

I guess what I am saying is that in the few U.S. government classes I have taken, federal law is always going to be higher and therefore the reason why disputes between states or about state laws are ultimately taken to the supreme court in many cases. That being said, a state cannot make "less" of a federal law, but can extend it as to be more restrictive. Laws that we seem to be talking about almost always take a way from the gun owner. Of course it could be the opposite with somethings and the federal law may allow for something that the state wants to allow even more of if the federal law has not prohibited it such as state government subsidies to a business.

I.E. a federal law is passed banning all automatic weapons, the state cannot say that residents with in its state are allowed to possess said firearms, but they can go further and ban semi-automatic firearms.

Maybe I read the answer wrong or you meant the same thing and I just took it different. I hope to stand corrected if anything I said was false. Im still learning!

 

[Sam1911]

Doesn't federal law technically trump state law regardless though?

Post 12.

 

[culpeper]

Doesn't federal law technically trump state law regardless though? I dont mean whatever the federal law says has to be taken word for word, but if a state has a lax law on something that is federally more restrictive, then federal AFAIK trumps.

I guess what I am saying is that in the few U.S. government classes I have taken, federal law is always going to be higher and therefore the reason why disputes between states or about state laws are ultimately taken to the supreme court in many cases. That being said, a state cannot make "less" of a federal law, but can extend it as to be more restrictive. Laws that we seem to be talking about almost always take a way from the gun owner. Of course it could be the opposite with somethings and the federal law may allow for something that the state wants to allow even more of if the federal law has not prohibited it such as state government subsidies to a business.

I.E. a federal law is passed banning all automatic weapons, the state cannot say that residents with in its state are allowed to possess said firearms, but they can go further and ban semi-automatic firearms.

Maybe I read the answer wrong or you meant the same thing and I just took it different. I hope to stand corrected if anything I said was false. Im still learning!

Federal law has NEVER technically trumped the laws of the States. The States and the People made certain of that in 1787 and it has never been changed. Oh sure. They, the usupers, yes I said usurpers, want you to believe the States are in the same relative position to the Constitution that a county is in relation to a State. But the Supreme Law of the Land says the two do not mix and one is not superior over the other.

A State of the Union can make any law it wants and the constituted government of the Union of States in congress can write any law it wants but the two do not exist in the same sphere of responsibilities.

You have learned incorrectly.

 

[Sam1911]

A State of the Union can make any law it wants and the constituted government of the Union of States in congress can write any law it wants but the two do not exist in the same sphere of responsibilities.

Just like how going to state prison and going to federal prison do not exist in the same sphere.

 

[Jim K]

The federal gun laws have been enacted under the interstate commerce clause, since guns are a product that moves in interstate commerce. There have been cases brought arguing that if a company makes guns in only one state and sells them only in that state, they are not in interstate commerce and don't need an FFL, books, etc. But I think they lose that argument because they have no control over a buyer taking the gun to another state or selling it to someone in another state. That dispute is still in a gray area, though.

Jim

 

[culpeper]

Just like how going to state prison and going to federal prison do not exist in the same sphere.

That is correct but not for the way you may have meant it. You do not go to a federal prison to serve a term of imprisonment if you are tried and convicted in a state court and the opposite is also true.

The unabomber and McVey were sent to a federal prison and Charlie Manson tried and convicted in a State court and is rotting away in California's Corcoran State Prison.

 

[Sam1911]

That is correct but not for the way you may have meant it. You do not go to a federal prison to serve a term of imprisonment if you are tried and convicted in a state court and the opposite is also true.

LOL. I'm not sure how you think I might have meant it, but you're certainly right there.

However, you certainly may end up in prison for breaking federal law, or in prison for violating state law. Not having violated state law, won't get you out of a conviction if you did violate federal law...

And in the context of this thread, that's all that matters.

 

[culpeper]

The federal gun laws have been enacted under the interstate commerce clause, since guns are a product that moves in interstate commerce. There have been cases brought arguing that if a company makes guns in only one state and sells them only in that state, they are not in interstate commerce and don't need an FFL, books, etc. But I think they lose that argument because they have no control over a buyer taking the gun to another state or selling it to someone in another state. That dispute is still in a gray area, though.

Jim

Your words are flawed with your incorrect understanding of the federal statute. I can show you the error in your thinking if you are open to the truth but it is not a five sentence explanation.

The part about the buyer is irrelevent because every citizen has a right to do with her property as she wishes.

 

[culpeper]

LOL. I'm not sure how you thing I might have meant it, but you're certainly right there.

However, you certainly may end up in prison for breaking federal law, or in prison for violating state law. Not having violated state law, won't get you out of a conviction if you did violate federal law...

And in the context of this thread, that's all that matters.

That is why the OP needs to know what Vermont Law states first and then know his location with in the boundaries of the State. The second thing he must have is copy of the Constitution and the Statute at large and the statute as codified in the US Code with amendments. Either the State has full jurisdiction to a crime or violation or the Congress has full jurisdiction to a crime or violation.

He did not say where he was living but I will presume he is not living in the boundaries of a US National Forest so the federal law will not apply to what ever he might create for his self. That leaves only State law.