Do I Need To Register An Upper

Thread Status:: Non open up for further replies.

I was talking to a gunsmith today who specializes in doing custom varmint uppers with his own barrels, and he was telling me he'southward got so many uppers people send him to build that he doesn't have time to make barrels anymore. I guess it's what pays the bills since they're quick and easy to bang out. But he gets so many he has to reject piece of work.
Only I was thinking, it really doesn't require a gunsmith to get together uppers. He could farm the work out to someone, and they could gather them in their garage, allowing him to focus on the auto work.

Is at that place any legal barrier to this? I mean, would the person he contracted the work out to accept to take licensing of any kind to just build uppers?
Sure doesn't seem similar any issues contracting out assembly work on non-controlled parts, but for certain this is a question to ask the ATF.
JIMHO
BATFE'southward just business for uppers is about calibers larger than .fifty. They only keep track of the lowers, via series numbers.
I thought equally much. Whatever risk he would meet trouble with itar?
If he exports any parts, I would guess yes. ITAR broadly encompasses weapons, and he should hire an export lawyer.
I can't brand heads or tails of ITAR. The way information technology'southward written information technology could mean just well-nigh anything they want it to mean.
ITAR has to do with foreign sales. In this example, the barrel builder's labor should not be at result merely due to his location at habitation instead of at the gunsmith'southward.
To be honest, I don't think even he has ITAR or FFL stuff. He won't bear on a receiver anymore.
If your friend works equally a concern, who ever is assembling the uppers could exist treated as an employee or subcontractor and so some type of contract limiting liability/responsibility could be determined. But that is lawyer stuff to be worked out past a pro.
This is kind of what I was wondering well-nigh, if they were still trying to make that fly with Trump in office.
ITAR registration is required for ANYONE manufacturing items on the Usa Munitions list, not but items that may exist exported.ITAR has to do with sales AND manufacturing of whatever item on the US Munitions list.
***And equally you can see the Us Munitions list is pretty broad:https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=86008bdffd1fb2e79cc5df41a180750a&node=22:1.0.i.13.58&rgn=div5
Hither'southward just the restricted items from Category I:

Category I—Firearms, Shut Assault Weapons and Combat Shotguns
*(a) Nonautomatic and semi-automatic firearms to caliber .50 inclusive (12.vii mm).
*(b) Fully automated firearms to .50 caliber inclusive (12.7 mm).

*(c) Firearms or other weapons (e.thousand. insurgency-counterinsurgency, close assault weapons systems) having a special military machine application regardless of caliber.

*(d) Gainsay shotguns. This includes any shotgun with a barrel length less than 18 inches.

*(e) Silencers, mufflers, sound and flash suppressors for the articles in (a) through (d) of this category and their specifically designed, modified or adjusted components and parts.

(f) Riflescopes manufactured to military machine specifications (Come across category XII(c) for controls on nighttime sighting devices.)

*(g) Barrels, cylinders, receivers (frames) or complete breech mechanisms for the articles in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this category.

(h) Components, parts, accessories and attachments for the manufactures in paragraphs (a) through (g) of this category.

(i) Technical data (as defined in §120.10 of this subchapter) and defense services (equally defined in §120.ix of this subchapter) directly related to the defense articles described in paragraphs (a) through (h) of this category. Technical information directly related to the manufacture or production of any defence force articles described elsewhere in this category that are designated every bit Significant Military Equipment (SME) shall itself exist designated SME.

(j) The following interpretations explain and amplify the terms used in this category and throughout this subchapter:

(1) A firearm is a weapon not over .50 caliber (12.7 mm) which is designed to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or which may be readily converted to do so.

(ii) A burglarize is a shoulder firearm which can discharge a bullet through a rifled butt 16 inches or longer.

(three) A carbine is a lightweight shoulder firearm with a barrel under sixteen inches in length.

(4) A pistol is a hand-operated firearm having a chamber integral with or permanently aligned with the bore.

(5) A revolver is a manus-operated firearm with a revolving cylinder containing chambers for individual cartridges.

(half-dozen) A submachine gun, "auto pistol" or "auto gun" is a firearm originally designed to fire, or capable of existence fired, fully automatically past a unmarried pull of the trigger.

Notation: This coverage by the U.S. Munitions List in paragraphs (a) through (i) of this category excludes whatever non-combat shotgun with a barrel length of 18 inches or longer, BB, pellet, and muzzle loading (blackness powder) firearms. This category does not cover riflescopes and sighting devices that are not manufactured to military specifications. Information technology also excludes accessories and attachments (e.g., belts, slings, after market place rubber grips, cleaning kits) for firearms that do not raise the usefulness, effectiveness, or capabilities of the firearm, components and parts. The Department of Commerce regulates the consign of such items. See the Export Administration Regulations (xv CFR parts 730-799). In addition, license exemptions for the items in this category are available in various parts of this subchapter (eastward.1000., §§123.17, 123.eighteen and 125.four).
ITAR covers much more munitions. I'm a machinist and several of our production lines are controlled by ITAR because they could potentially be adapted to weapons systems or support systems. Control for ITAR goes all the way downward to the blueprints of these products beingness stamped with ITAR notices.
The problem may be operational (i.e. find someone to do the work, verify their capability, account for the received uppers, etc.) more than anything legal.
From my own enquiry I concluded that a person tin can build uppers without ITAR registration so long every bit they don't remanufacture any of the components, similar threading a butt. Do I empathize correctly that is also the full general determination of the grouping? Or is this a gray surface area with no real answer?
Basically where I'm at is I tin't work total time right now due to health problems, just I wouldn't mind picking up some work putting uppers together, mostly just to feel useful. Just if it requires that I jump through a bunch of hoops and pay out the olfactory organ to ITAR and then it merely isn't viable at all for me. But to reemphasize, I would have no protection under anyone else'due south FFL or ITAR membership. He would only be sending work my way whenever he got too backed up to accept new customers.
Please post your research. I've never seen anyone make a claim as to an exemption for "remanufacturing".
Remember, the ATF definition of "manufacturing" is not necessarily the aforementioned as The Land Section.
Prince Law Business firm https://blog.princelaw.com/2016/07/25/ddtc-issues-guidance-on-itar-registration/ has a skillful writeup. The question is, if "Occasional associates of firearm parts and kits that do not require cutting, drilling, or machining..." is okey dokey...........how many is "occasional"?There's a real answer, but it changes every time some drone at the Land Dept decides to effect a new stance. Best bet? E-mail the DDTC and explicate what you lot are going to do.
None of this seems to employ to me. This is what does require registration:It sounds to me like not even the state section has a clue. Everything is so capricious. Similar item B would make information technology a twenty year crime to remove someone's plastic mag tube restrictor. I hateful, can you imagine. Someone brings in a shotgun to their local range and the range officer helps them remove the restrictor, and now suddenly everyone has to pay a absurd meg and spend 20 years in federal prison. Lord, how did we ever let this happen...
If your friend works equally a business organization, who ever is assembling the uppers could be treated as an employee or subcontractor so some type of contract limiting liability/responsibility could be determined. But that is lawyer stuff to be worked out by a pro."
This is by far the best communication.

Assembling a AR Upper may exist considered as manufacturing. After all practise all firearm companies actually make their own parts? Or practice they purchase individual parts from contractors, do their ain in-house inspection insuring the parts meet specifications and then have trained employees gather the parts with inspection and quality command steps earlier the completed Upper / Firearm leaves the facility?

I read comments that edifice a AR is like putting LEGOS together. Still a AR is non LEGOS. There are serious risks involved if the gun is not correctly fabricated using quality parts that are free of defects, fabricated to proper specifications and tolerances. A Upper Assembly built by you failing and injuring the shooter volition likely lead to a huge lawsuit whose fees for a defence force lawyer lonely will bankrupt you.

As a employee you will be covered by his FFL as well as being covered by his insurance.

If I was going to exercise this as employment I would want to go grooming from a recognized form / training program that states I met certain industry standards for building firearms. That way if you are sitting on stand in the Court defending yourself for a huge civil lawsuit and the question is asked about what training you have you can give a ameliorate reply than "I slept at the Holiday Inn."
How practice you know for sure?
Again, seek input from DDTC as well equally an attorney versed in firearms law.Well, no. The range officer isn't engaged in the business concern of removing parts and sporting shotguns aren't covered nether ITAR.
Y'all need to seek professional expertise before taking another step.

Last edited: Jul 12, 2017
Oh yes information technology would. The range officer is a paid employee, and all information technology takes is a single occasion of providing a "defense service" that increases mag capacity. The more I read about this, the more than it strikes me that the entire firearms industry could be the object of a witch hunt at any time under these electric current "interpretations."
But nether the current guidelines I don't see how assembling uppers could fall into any of those categories.

a) Use of any special tooling or equipment upgrading in order to meliorate the capability of assembled or repaired firearms;

b) Modifications to a firearm that change round capacity;

c) The product of firearm parts (including, just not express to, barrels, stocks, cylinders, breech mechanisms, triggers, silencers, or suppressors);

d) The systemized production of ammunition, including the automated loading or reloading of armament;

e) The machining or cutting of firearms, due east.k., threading of muzzles or cage restriction installation requiring machining, that results in an enhanced adequacy;

f) Rechambering firearms through machining, cutting, or drilling;

m) Chambering, cutting, or threading barrel blanks; and

h) Blueprinting firearms past machining the barrel.

I hesitate to call and ask because they have had a habit of telling everyone who ever touched a gun they need to register. Information technology would be similar calling the ATF and asking if information technology's okay to shoulder a sig brace. You lot already know what their answer is going to be, simply that doesn't make them right. What we have here is an organization trying to make up the rules as they go along without any legislative guidance, and for the sole purpose of terrorizing pocket-size time gunsmiths and the like. Y'all might as well call a used motorcar salesman and ask him if you need a new car.

A lawyer wouldn't exist much better. He'due south going to tell y'all not to practice information technology if in that location's whatsoever possible doubt, merely like he would tell you not to shoulder a sig caryatid.

By and large what I'm interested in at this indicate is finding other people who are doing the same thing and asking them what their conclusions are, whether they registered or not and why. This gunsmith, or retired gunsmith rather, is the just one I know of at this betoken, so if anyone could bespeak me to people doing it that would be most helpful.
If you lot go to a lawyer and ask "is this legal", you will likely go that answer. But if you become to a lawyer and say "I would like to do X, what is the best way to accomplish this while limiting my liability and regulatory overhead" you lot will become a completely different answer - which should come back with an opinion based on research. Note this probably won't be free.
I think your all-time bet would exist to go set as a function time/every bit needed employee under the gunsmith's company, and but take the contract say "...hours to exist scheduled when needed...grampajack will be paid $xx per upper completed..." or something to that effect. This should (hopefully) protect you from having to annals with regulatory agencies or pay for your ain liability insurance.
Again, that's non an option. I wouldn't have whatsoever relationship with him other than he would refer people to me whenever he couldn't have new customers. For 1 affair, I don't think he has liability insurance or anything else. He's a retired gunsmith with no FFL, and I highly dubiety he'southward registered for ITAR. I would just grade an LLC of my own to encompass my own liability. This would be and so small time I would end upwards paying more for liability insurance than I would be making. Like I said before, this is only a way to experience useful and brand some ammo money on the side.
I thing I might non have fabricated clear is I will not be selling anything. I will only be offering a service. Basically they ship me a box of parts and I send them back an assembled upper. So I think this all hinges on the definition of a "defense service." I but establish this:So as long equally I don't provide this service to any foreign persons, I don't see how I could need to register. This clearly states that assembly is only a "defense force service" if information technology involves a foreign person. Am I oversimplifying this?
Okay, I think I've constitute a clear reply. The following quotes come from this thread on gunbroker, where an FFL with a gunsmith really did contact them.
This was their response:
Here's the part that I'thousand primarily interested in:Looks like I'k in the clear as far as ITAR is concerned.
ITAR is an intrusive and circuitous organization.
In a legalistic sense, if a strange national even sees some drawings of something that might be weapons related, that is considered to exist "exporting".

One of our customers is a expert sized defense and aerospace contractor. They have a whole bunch of guys who spend all of their time deciding whether something is controlled or not. And there is no line in the sand as to whether something is controlled or non.