Test case for Build It Yourself?

Gunter · 12-06-2006, 02:57 PM

Some may or may not know that earlier this year KTO was raided by the ATF. Charges were filed on Nov. 31st and a pdf file of the charges can be read here:
http://www.ktordnance.com/kto/
About half down the page. USA vs 1911

It goes into detail on how Mr. Celata's business sold 80% frames that had never been sent to the ATF tech branch for review. However, the case is against the 2 1911 that Mr. Celata admitted to building. He built the frames from billet stock and finished the rest with a parts kit. They were marked with a serial number but no manufacturer marks and were in his possession. If I read it correctly, they are making a case where any firearm you built (80%, chuck of steel, etc.) would make you a manufacturer and therefore need a license to build even one for yourself.

Any legal eagles out there to make heads or tails of the charges?

nutinauniversalshell · 12-06-2006, 10:07 PM

not a lawyer or anything, but it looks like he fucked up by not submitting his stuff for approval first....and it doesnt help that the thing mentions people who do it are trying to avoid the govt knowing("militant individuals" was mentioned wasnt it?).

i guess we will see how this works out and hopefully we all don't get screwed in the process.

Tailgunner · 12-06-2006, 11:58 PM

+1, contrary to popular belief there's no such thing as a 80% receiver. Legally either it is a receiver or it isn't, and he screwed the pooch by not getting approval before selling them.

Winn R · 12-07-2006, 12:52 AM

But the case is for the guns they got from his house through a search order, if I read that damn thing right.

Wasn't he in possession and the gov wants to take them?

Gunter · 12-07-2006, 10:21 AM

Winn, that's the point I'm wondering about. The case is against the 1911's which he admits to building from billet stock, for his own use, that he had in his possession at the time of the warrant, and displayed a serial number that was not required according to the ATF regs since it was not for sale. It would be the same for someone who took a piece of sheetmetal, drilled, bent it, making it into an AK receiver, installed a parts kit, and created a working firearm.

As far as the other stuff it would seem he is in deep do-do, but this case is not against him. I don't understand why they lumped the undercover buys, selling frames that he knew did not have the ATF ruling of non-firearms(as Tailgunner pointed out the ATF does not give % amounts to an item. It is a firearm or non-firearm.), and how he was receiving payments for said frames. What does that have to do with 1911's (that seem according to the charges) built within the regs? Unless he had someone else machine the frames out or sold the completed 1911's, what was wrong with the builds?

Tailgunner · 12-07-2006, 03:36 PM

Only thing I can guess is they haven't filed the other charges yet, and they don't want to give the guns back to someone they're building a felony case against.

Phudd · 02-08-2007, 04:14 PM

FYI
There is NO law requiring approval of a block of metal that is not a gun.

12-06-2006, 02:57 PM	#1
Gunter Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 54	Test case for Build It Yourself? Some may or may not know that earlier this year KTO was raided by the ATF. Charges were filed on Nov. 31st and a pdf file of the charges can be read here: http://www.ktordnance.com/kto/ About half down the page. USA vs 1911 It goes into detail on how Mr. Celata's business sold 80% frames that had never been sent to the ATF tech branch for review. However, the case is against the 2 1911 that Mr. Celata admitted to building. He built the frames from billet stock and finished the rest with a parts kit. They were marked with a serial number but no manufacturer marks and were in his possession. If I read it correctly, they are making a case where any firearm you built (80%, chuck of steel, etc.) would make you a manufacturer and therefore need a license to build even one for yourself. Any legal eagles out there to make heads or tails of the charges?

12-06-2006, 10:07 PM	#2
nutinauniversalshell Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: TN Posts: 1,238	not a lawyer or anything, but it looks like he fucked up by not submitting his stuff for approval first....and it doesnt help that the thing mentions people who do it are trying to avoid the govt knowing("militant individuals" was mentioned wasnt it?). i guess we will see how this works out and hopefully we all don't get screwed in the process. __________________ If you can't buy it build it. If you can't build it buy two.

12-07-2006, 12:52 AM	#4
Winn R Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: 40 miles north of Atlanta Posts: 61	But the case is for the guns they got from his house through a search order, if I read that damn thing right. Wasn't he in possession and the gov wants to take them? __________________ And man can be as big as he wants. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. JFK I believe in one thing only, the power of human will. Joseph Stalin

12-06-2006, 11:58 PM	#3
Tailgunner MCMLXV Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 313	+1, contrary to popular belief there's no such thing as a 80% receiver. Legally either it is a receiver or it isn't, and he screwed the pooch by not getting approval before selling them.

12-07-2006, 10:21 AM	#5
Gunter Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 54	Winn, that's the point I'm wondering about. The case is against the 1911's which he admits to building from billet stock, for his own use, that he had in his possession at the time of the warrant, and displayed a serial number that was not required according to the ATF regs since it was not for sale. It would be the same for someone who took a piece of sheetmetal, drilled, bent it, making it into an AK receiver, installed a parts kit, and created a working firearm. As far as the other stuff it would seem he is in deep do-do, but this case is not against him. I don't understand why they lumped the undercover buys, selling frames that he knew did not have the ATF ruling of non-firearms(as Tailgunner pointed out the ATF does not give % amounts to an item. It is a firearm or non-firearm.), and how he was receiving payments for said frames. What does that have to do with 1911's (that seem according to the charges) built within the regs? Unless he had someone else machine the frames out or sold the completed 1911's, what was wrong with the builds?

12-07-2006, 03:36 PM	#6
Tailgunner MCMLXV Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 313	Only thing I can guess is they haven't filed the other charges yet, and they don't want to give the guns back to someone they're building a felony case against.

02-08-2007, 04:14 PM	#7
Phudd Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 10	FYI There is NO law requiring approval of a block of metal that is not a gun.