Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Is it legal to mount scopes for a fee without being an FFL?

I would be very interested to hear the answer after you talk to them.

This gets a +1

I seriously doubt anybody would get in trouble with the ATF for keeping it overnight... but I also wouldn't put it past some idiot agent/prosecutor to try to say that keeping it overnight constituted a transfer and that a number of transfers involving $$ changing hands takes you into the lands of "being in the business of dealing in firearms".

Besides... who the heck wants to keep a stranger's gun in their house overnight? And what the heck do you do when some idjit with a new AR he leaves with you can't come back for a week until he makes bail?

"Engaged in the business" further defined...


(21) The term "engaged in the busi-
ness" means—

 (D) as applied to a dealer in fire-
arms, as defined in section
921(a)(11)(B), a person who devotes
time, attention, and labor to engaging
in such activity as a regular course of
trade or business with the principal
objective of livelihood and profit, but
such term shall not include a person
who makes occasional repairs of fire-
arms, or who occasionally fits special
barrels, stocks, or trigger mecha-
nisms to firearms;

Thank you!

(see post below)
V
V
V
V
V

This has nothing to do with the OP question because no money is changing hands.

If I ever get a response I will post it.

So if my buddy loans me a gun for a duck hunt for the weekend, its illegal now?

Or if I loan out a deer rifle? Overnight?

Of course I"m NOT saying I"d ever do any of the above or break or even think about breaking any of the phoucking kings laws.... but inquiring minds....

Sorry, just realized the above post tehre... and the reference to dollars changing hands or not issue.

I wouldn't ever charge anyone to do something so simple like putting a scope on or sighting a gun in anyway so I guess I"m safe from the lion king.

See, that's where the fun begins. That paragraph can be interpreted any number of ways.

You start with the federal criminal code, 18 USC whatever. Then you look to BATF regulations (the quote) which interpret and implement the federal code. Then you look to ATF rulings and letters which "clarify" the meaning of the regulations. Along the way you look at private letter rulings, curious creatures. Letter rulings apply to the particular individual asking the question but nobody else. And of course any relevant court cases. Now you take that whole mess and try to synthesize an opinion on what position the BATF will take on a particular issue. Sometimes it's clear, often not.

Perusing all that junk, BUT NOT EXHAUSTIVELY so I will stand to be corrected, to be included in "gunsmithing" does not require that you take possession as in "transfer" and they tie "in the business" as trying to turn a profit no matter how infrequently. i.e. making occasional repairs means without an eye to making a profit.

Actually part way through the research I decided it wasn't worth even the research time for the few coins I might pick up on the occasions I'd would like something for my time.

BTW, like the IRS a BATF agent's opinion is not legally binding on the BATF. But going by their advice shows you have every intent to follow the law so it would be rare for them to make an issue of it. Unless you're trying to do something sneaky, they don't like that. That's where people tend to get hammered.

Rost,

That actually came up as an issue, does a loan with no money changing hands constitute a transfer?

I recall a letter being issued on that which said no. Also addressed game preserves providing firearms I THINK. You can probably find it somewhere on the Q&A page (if you really care, between real criminals and terrorists the BATF has plenty of other things to worry about.)

Yea, just like when you fly some place and turn over custody of your firearm to the airline. You're guilty of a felony and so is the airline if you're out of state.

Now if you're just flying in the same state you're OK as long as there is no state requirement that transfers go through a FFL holder BUT if you then fly to another state after having transferred custody to the airline then when you get your gun back you're guilty of a felony for receiving custody of a firearm that you transferred custody of to another because you received it from said transferee in a state in which you weren't a resident without going through a FFL holder.

So, in order to travel, you need to take your gun to a FFL holder and have him, or in rare instances her, send your gun to a FFL holder at your destination who can transfer it to you but ONLY if you're are a legal resident of said state OR said state has an agreement with your state of residence allowing said transfers.

Sadly, if it's a handgun, you're out of luck. The BATFE will take you to prison.

LOL

No problem. If anyone ever comes knocking to tell you you're violating some law that isn't even clear and subject to interpretation, you just tell them you're not a gunsmith. You're a scopesmith. That's not even close to being a gunsmith, because a set of rings/mounts come between the gun and the scope, so you're two steps removed from being a gunsmith.

Steve.

Talked to a Texas Ranger and a Fort Worth policeman that came in to the store this morning. They both said it would not be breaking any local or state laws and didn't see how it would be breaking federal law. Talked to another BATF agent on the phone this afternoon and he did not know the answer but promised to get back with me in a week.

I do think it is sad that three BATF agents could not give me an answer. The one I talked to today was friendlier than the first two and did say that it was a gray area. I asked him if when we talked again and he said it was okay and then at a later date the BATF paid me a visit and said it was not, what the consequences would be for me. He said, we would just tell you to stop, we have much bigger issues than worrying about someone making extra money mounting scopes.

"Gray area" = maybe yes, maybe no, I don't know.

ATF would look pretty ridiculous trying to prosecute someone for mounting a scope on a rifle and picking up a few bucks for doing it.

Steve.

I think you're being WAY to quiet about this, and should maybe put up a billboard across from your regional BATFE H.Q.

.....Maybe run a Radio and TV ad every 5 minutes.

GTC

It is obvious you would handle it differently.

Yep, the BATF has to many things going on to worry about stupid stuff.

http://www.wnd.com/2008/07/68590/


WORLDNETDAILY EXCLUSIVE
OWNER OF BROKEN RIFLE SURRENDERS FOR 30-MONTH SENTENCE
'The conviction of David Olofson is a gross miscarriage of justice'
Published: 07/02/2008 at 11:30 PM
image: http://www.wnd.com/wp-content/plugins/wp-print/images/print.png

Printer Friendly
Text smaller
Text bigger
102
A Wisconsin man today surrendered to federal authorities to begin serving a 30-month prison term for having a broken rifle, prompting the Gun Owners of America to issue a warning about the owner’s liability should any semi-automatic weapon ever misfire.

“A gun that malfunctions is not a machine gun,” Larry Pratt, executive director of GOA, said. “What the [federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives] has done in the [David] Olofson case has set a precedent that could make any of the millions of Americans that own semi-automatic firearms suddenly the owner [of] an unregistered machine gun at the moment the gun malfunctions.”

Officials with Gun Owners of America told WND they met with Olofson today before he surrendered to federal authorities for his prison term. U.S. District Judge Charles Clevert had imposed the sentence after the gun in question let loose three shots at a firing range.

“It didn’t matter the rifle in question had not been intentionally modified for select fire, or that it did not have an M16 bolt carrier … that it did not show any signs of machining or drilling, or that that model had even been recalled a few years back,” said a commentary in Guns Magazine on the case against Olofson, of Berlin, Wis.

“It didn’t matter the government had repeatedly failed to replicate automatic fire until they replaced the ammunition with a softer primer type. It didn’t even matter that the prosecution admitted it was not important to prove the gun would do it again if the test were conducted today,” the magazine said. “What mattered was the government’s position that none of the above was relevant because ‘[T]here’s no indication it makes any difference under the statute. If you pull the trigger once and it fires more than one round, no matter what the cause it’s a machine gun.’

“No matter what the cause.”

“David Olofson is a victim of BATFE abuse,” Pratt said. “He has been railroaded by an agency that is out-of-control.”

An appeal is being assembled by a legal team at the William J. Olson, P.C., law firm, supplemented by attorney Bob Sanders, whose career stretches from being assistant director of criminal investigations at BATFE to many years in private trial law, officials said.

Constitutional expert Herb Titus also is counsel to the Olson law firm.

WND reported earlier when Olofson, a drill instructor in the National Guard, was convicted in a federal court for illegally transferring a machine gun.

The verdict came in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

An expert witness said then the decision was filled with problems.

“If your semiautomatic rifle breaks or malfunctions you are now subject to prosecution. That is now a sad FACT,” wrote Len Savage, a weaponry expert who runs Historic Arms LLC.

“To those in the sporting culture who have derided ‘black guns’ and so-called ‘assault weapons’; Your double barreled shotgun is now next up to be seized and you could possibly be prosecuted if the ATF can get it to ‘fire more than once,’” he wrote in a blog run by Red’s Trading Post.

“Hey, but don’t worry,” Savage said. “The people testing it have no procedures in writing and the testing will be in secret.”

He said during an interview with Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership that Olofson had been instructing a man in the use of guns, and the student asked to borrow a rifle for some shooting practice.

“Mr. Olofson was nice enough to accommodate him,” Savage said. So the student, Robert Kiernicki, went to a range and fired about 120 rounds. “He went to put in another magazine and the rifle shot three times, then jammed.”

He said the rifle, which was subject to a manufacturer’s recall because of mechanical problems at one point, malfunctioned because of the way it was made.

Savage said once the government confiscated the gun, things got worse.

“They examined and test fired the rifle; then declared it to be ‘just a rifle,’” Savage said. “You would think it would all be resolved at this point, this was merely the beginning.”

He said the Special Agent in Charge, Jody Keeku, asked for a re-test and specified that the tests use “soft primered commercial ammunition.”

“FTB has no standardized testing procedures, in fact it has no written procedures at all for testing firearms,” Savage said. “They had no standard to stick to, and gleefully tried again. The results this time…’a machinegun.’ ATF with a self-admitted 50 percent error rate pursued an indictment and Mr. Olofson was charged with ‘Unlawful transfer of a machinegun.’. Not possession, not even Robert Kiernicki was charged with possession (who actually possessed the rifle), though the ATF paid Mr. Kiernicki ‘an undisclosed amount of money’ to testify against Mr. Olofson at trial,” Savage said.


Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2008/07/68590/#D38c0EmGALVhmJa3.99

I mounted a few while working in a Dick's store some years back. My son worked at Gander and mounted them all the time.

It's amazing how many people want you to tell them that bore-sighting will eliminate the need for shooting the rifle at a target. I don't know if they're cheap, lazy, afraid, or just don't have a place to shoot.

Most guys with 300 magnums are not real eager to shoot from the bench.