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

[Sam1911]

culpeper, we sometimes do go 'round about the interstate commerce clause and that's lots of fun, but does any of this have anything to do with the subject of this thread?

 

[culpeper]

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

Darn the written word. It is difficult to hear inflections when reading a post entry.

Best regards, sir.

 

[Sam1911]

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.

That is one theory and a popular one on gun boards, and among the legislators who write dead-end state "Firearms Freedom" laws to gin up support among their base. But that isn't the way the law works today, nor has for a very, very long time. Maybe someday it will. Keep the faith!


But until then, DON'T tell ANYONE that all they have to care about is their state law when it comes to firearms, or that a person can do whatever they want with their own property. We aren't trying to make people potential test case subjects, here and will not stand on theory (however laudable) when it conflicts with the way the law is enforced today.

 

[culpeper]

culpeper, we sometimes do go 'round about the interstate commerce clause and that's lots of fun, but does any of this have anything to do with the subject of this thread?

The OP referenced the NFA and was in a quandry between State laws and the NFA and the item he was comtemplating. He was using legal terms as if they were regular words as used between people in normal course of their day or business.

It is a case of the gentleman needs to have a broader understanding of law and juridiction before he moves forward.

He asks a question relating to opinions as an example. That is a total lack of understanding regarding the Void for Vagueness doctrine. If he can not read and comprehend the statute, any statute, to discern if he has a duty to obey it or ignore it and then asks others to do the same and come up with twelve different answers then the statute is void. The old adage is true and has always been true that ignorance of the law is no excuse. He must get the laws as written and not rely on any other opinions especially ATF agents, Lawyers, prosecuters and the like.

Legally make a shotgun? The word "make" is a legal term. What does it mean? Read the law. Have copies of the law or laws and not excerpts or clif notes.



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

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?

 

[culpeper]

That is one theory and a popular one on gun boards, and among the legislators who write dead-end state "Firearms Freedom" laws to gin up support among their base. But that isn't the way the law works today, nor has for a very, very long time. Maybe someday it will. Keep the faith!


But until then, DON'T tell ANYONE that all they have to care about is their state law when it comes to firearms, or that a person can do whatever they want with their own property. We aren't trying to make people potential test case subjects, here and will not stand on theory (however laudable) when it conflicts with the way the law is enforced today.

The law as written is fact. The theory you refer to is the corruption of the law.

I read one of those reciprosity bills in the congress recently. It would do abolutely nothing regarding priviledge of carrying a gun in a different state. But every one was crying Halaluiah over it. But try telling that to people who have closed ears and blind eyes.

I don't tell anyone to do anything except to learn to read law correctly.

Any way it has been a pleasure. Afghanistan is calling in six hours.

Best regards,

 

[Sam1911]

The law as written is fact. The theory you refer to is the corruption of the law.

Yeah, that's what all us gunny folks say. And we understand that the Constitution is only a limitation on the federal government, and that all rights are reserved to the States, and that the Commerce Clause is used for massive over-reach by the federal government, etc.

However, the Judges, empowered by the Constitution to decide conflicts have read the Constitution and federalism to be the way it is used today and we must play the ball where it lies, as they say.

Want to work to change it? Great. 'Till then, we're going to aim to keep people out of jail.

 

[culpeper]

Then you would not object if posts are made dealing with nature of the current government of the States?

 

[Sam1911]

Yes, I would object, because that's not the point of this thread and we, as a forum culture, try to be very narrowly focused on individual topics at hand.


If you want to discuss how gun laws are applied and interpreted by the states as opposed to the federal government, and how federalism works in relation to gun laws, please feel free to make a thread about that subject in our Legal forum.



If you'd like to answer his four questions succinctly, in practical terms, to the best of your understanding, please do. If you want to discuss the theoretical implications of those questions as relating to federalism and the wording of the US Constitution, please save that for another discussion.

 

[Frank Ettin]

I'm cutting this off at this point. We've long since left the OP's question in the dust. If anyone has substantive, relevant information responsive to the OP, please consider sending him a PM. Or if the OP wants to start a new thread in this Forum, I'll monitor it more closely and prune off-topic post vigorously.

However, I would like to close by pointing out why this is incorrect:

...Federal law has NEVER technically trumped the laws of the States....

The Founding Fathers provided otherwise in the Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2):

...This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding....

So if anyone has substantive information he thinks is helpful to the OP, remember that both state law and federal law are relevant and that if federal law is more restrictive than state law, federal law controls.