Man Makes $21,000 in NY Gun Buy Back

[FrankB]

https://www.foxnews.com/us/man-makes-21000-selling-3d-printed-guns-ny-ag-gun-buyback-program

The guy in the story used a $200 3D printer he got for Christmas, and printed 110 lowers! 🤣👍🤣👍🤣

[Rex G]

I cannot find the source, now, but I remember reading that a Houston-area gun-buy program has stated that its next event will not pay anything for “ghost” guns. Apparently, their previous event did buy ghost guns, that were specifically 3d-printed for the purpose.

[Elwin]

Will they still buy slamfire shotguns made from hardware store materials?

[BillSWPA]

https://www.foxnews.com/us/man-makes-21000-selling-3d-printed-guns-ny-ag-gun-buyback-program

The guy in the story used a $200 3D printer he got for Christmas, and printed 110 lowers! 🤣👍🤣👍🤣

The guy's only mistake was failing to keep quiet about his profit.

[boing]

Does this expose him to prosecution for engaging in the business of manufacturing firearms without a license?

[0ddl0t]

Does this expose him to prosecution for engaging in the business of manufacturing firearms without a license?

I think the buy backs are supposed to be "no questions asked," but I don't know if that has any legal weight

[jh9]

I think the buy backs are supposed to be "no questions asked," but I don't know if that has any legal weight

The NY AG may not care because of that but I would imagine the ATF is an entirely different story.


"I 3D-printed a bunch of lower receivers and frames for different kinds of firearms," the man, who would only identify himself as "Kem," told WKTV last week.

...

"And he sees the tote and says, 'how many firearms do you have?' And I said, '110,'" Kem reacalls.

From there, Kem said he spent the rest of the day negotiating with the Attorney General's staff over how much the payment for the 3D-printed parts would be.

"And it ended with the guy and a lady from the budget office finally coming around with the 42 gift cards and counting them in front of me," Kem said. "$21,000 in $500 gift cards."



Didn't the recent federal law that was overshadowed by Dobbs have some changes to the language that defines who is "in the business"?

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/2938/text


SEC. 12002. DEFINING ``ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS''.

Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (21)(C), by striking ``with the principal
objective of livelihood and profit'' and inserting ``to
predominantly earn a profit'';

I'd imagine he's probably fucked.

[OlongJohnson]

I'd imagine he's probably fucked.

Ayup. He'll be lucky if they are satisfied with surrendering the gift cards and probably the printer and stuff. More likely, Brandon's peeps will decide to make an example of him.

The same thing would apply to doing a big Home Depot run the week before a buyback.

[jh9]

Ayup. He'll be lucky if they are satisfied with surrendering the gift cards

Beginning and hopefully ending the only time a legitimate government agency will want to be paid in gift cards. This guy is going to be the dumbass that launched a thousand new scams.

hey its me ur ATF we caught you engaging in bisuiness and u will have to pay a fine OR GO TO JAIL IMMEDIATELY you OWE US $21,000 USD in iTunes or Amazon gift cards we have your phone and you will be call soon

[PNWTO]

Since I have no idea about 3D printing I am wondering what the cost was to make those 110 pieces? Obviously, this guy was more interested in the stunt but what’s the average cost to build a lower?

[joshs]

PLA spools can be as cheap as $15 per kilo. There is pretty minimal waste when printing (depending on how much support is needed for the print), so the material cost is pretty low. Printing that may lowers would take a ton of time tough. Since he had no intention of using them, he could have used a reduced number of walls with minimal infill which would have helped to reduce print time, but printing all those on a single small printer would still take quite a few days.

[RevolverRob]

Is it making a profit if you've done this with the ultimate goal of exposing the farcical nature of gun buybacks? I have no idea to be honest.

[joshs]

Is it making a profit if you've done this with the ultimate goal of exposing the farcical nature of gun buybacks? I have no idea to be honest.

I don't think so. "Manufacturing" with the intent to surrender the firearms to the government doesn't fit within the meaning of "engaged in the business." "The term 'engaged in the business' means . . . as applied to a manufacturer of firearms, a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to manufacturing firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the sale or distribution of the firearms manufactured . . . ." 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(21)(A). Since he neither "sold" nor "distributed" the firearms, he cannot be "engaged in the business."

[BillSWPA]

I would be more concerned about the NY statute prohibiting possession of an unfinished frame or a ghost gun.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[joshs]

I would be more concerned about the NY statute prohibiting possession of an unfinished frame or a ghost gun.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

NY should be estopped from enforcing any of their statues because the solicitation for the buyback said "no questions asked."

[BillSWPA]

NY should be estopped from enforcing any of their statues because the solicitation for the buyback said "no questions asked."

Not questioning your reasoning, but curious: do you think this would still apply if he was pulled over and searched while still 4 hours away from the buyback?

Also, I completely agree with your reasoning re: engaging in business. However, playing devil's advocate, would this change if he could be shown to have sold multiple dozen 3D printed receivers at 5 of the last 5 buybacks within a 6 hour drive?

[joshs]

Not questioning your reasoning, but curious: do you think this would still apply if he was pulled over and searched while still 4 hours away from the buyback? It should, but it might be trickier to establish. This used to be an issue in D.C., which required firearm registration applicants to take their unregistered firearm to MPD headquarters to register it. I always advised people to send an email to MPD regarding their intent to register so they would have documentation. I often do the same thing when shooing USPSA matches in Maryland (send an email to the MD) so that I have evidence that I am travelling to a match (which is an exception there for transporting a handgun).


Also, I completely agree with your reasoning re: engaging in business. However, playing devil's advocate, would this change if he could be shown to have sold multiple dozen 3D printed receivers at 5 of the last 5 buybacks within a 6 hour drive?

I don't think so (at least not in a case of first impression). At the very least the terms "sale" and "distribution" don't clearly apply to surrendering firearms to the government. I think a criminal defendant would have a strong lenity claim if the statute was going to be enforced in that manner without any type of rulemaking clarifying those terms.

This is not legal advice and no attorney-client relationship is expressed or implied by this post. (Bill, I know you know this, but I get worried about applying law to facts on a public post without a disclaimer).

[Caballoflaco]

It should, but it might be trickier to establish. This used to be an issue in D.C., which required firearm registration applicants to take their unregistered firearm to MPD headquarters to register it. I always advised people to send an email to MPD regarding their intent to register so they would have documentation. I often do the same thing when shooing USPSA matches in Maryland (send an email to the MD) so that I have evidence that I am travelling to a match (which is an exception there for transporting a handgun).



I don't think so (at least not in a case of first impression). At the very least the terms "sale" and "distribution" don't clearly apply to surrendering firearms to the government. I think a criminal defendant would have a strong lenity claim if the statute was going to be enforced in that manner without any type of rulemaking clarifying those terms.

This is not legal advice and no attorney-client relationship is expressed or implied by this post. (Bill, I know you know this, but I get worried about applying law to facts on a public post without a disclaimer).

All your fancy posts sure do make it seem like the quality of legal services you perform are greater than the legal services performed by other lawyers....

[jh9]

I don't think so. "Manufacturing" with the intent to surrender the firearms to the government doesn't fit within the meaning of "engaged in the business." "The term 'engaged in the business' means . . . as applied to a manufacturer of firearms, a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to manufacturing firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the sale or distribution of the firearms manufactured . . . ." 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(21)(A). Since he neither "sold" nor "distributed" the firearms, he cannot be "engaged in the business."

Isn't... that the very definition that changed four months ago?

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/2938/text

[BillSWPA]

The definition that changed a few months ago was the part about making a profit. The intent is to make it easier to prosecute people who regularly sell from their “personal collection” at gun shows who are in fact engaging in business and should obtain FFL’s. The requirements of sale or disposition do not appear changed in a manner that would include surrendering the guns to the government.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[joshs]

Isn't... that the very definition that changed four months ago?

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/2938/text

No, as Bill pointed out, that legislation changed changed the term as it applied to a dealer. I don't think there is any way that making firearms for surrender to the state could fit in that definition: "as applied to a dealer in firearms, as defined in section 921(a)(11)(A), a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business to predominantly earn a profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms, but such term shall not include a person who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms . . . ." 18 U.S.C.A. § 921(a)(21)(C).

Since he didn't purchase the guns, I don't see how the dealer definition could be applied.

This is not legal advice and no attorney-client relationship is expressed or implied by this post.

[Stephanie B]

NY should be estopped from enforcing any of their statues because the solicitation for the buyback said "no questions asked."

Well, maybe if the person who printed out the lowers and thereby got $21K from the buyback had kept his ever-lovin' yap shut about it....

[joshs]

Well, maybe if the person who printed out the lowers and got $21K from the buyback had kept his ever-lovin' yap shut about it....

No doubt. He violated the most important rule for not getting prosecuted: don't embarrass the crown.

[Stephanie B]

No doubt. He violated the most important rule for not getting prosecuted: don't embarrass the crown.

I hope he has good luck finding a criminal defense attorney who takes gift cards.

[Coyotesfan97]

Print
Trade
Shut Up!