Federal Gun Manufacturing Without a License: When Building Your Own Firearms Becomes a Federal Crime (2025 Guide)

Picture this: It’s 6 AM on a Tuesday, and your seeing fifteen ATF agents at you’re front door with a search warrant. Their seizing your computers, your 3D printer, the three AR-15s you built from 80% lowers in you’re garage. They’re calling you an “illegal arms manufacturer.” Your thinking: I thought this was legal? Your completely confused because the website where you bought the parts said it was perfectly fine to build firearms for personal use. Now you’re facing federal charges that could put you in prison for 10 years, and you ain’t got no idea how this happened.

Here’s the thing—the rules changed in 2022, and if your like most gun owners, nobody told you. What was legal when you started building has became illegal while you was doing it. The ATF basically moved the goalposts, published some new regulations in the Federal Register (which, let’s be honest, nobody reads), and now their prosecuting hobbyists like they’re cartel weapons suppliers. Its not just about “ghost guns” anymore. It’s about CNC machines in garages, Polymer80 kits, 3D-printed frames, and even just assembling parts in the wrong order or quantity.

The federal law on manufacturing firearms without a license is codified in 18 U.S.C. § 922, but what actually counts as “manufacturing” versus legal assembly has became a moving target. And the personel use exception—which theoretically protects hobbyists—is a trap that most people don’t understand untill its to late. If you built firearms at home, sold even one of them later, or made more then a handful, you might already be in ATF’s crosshairs.

This isn’t your typical “hire a lawyer” article. We’re going deep on the tactical realities of how these prosecutions actually work in 2025, what evidence ATF relies on (hint: its mostly digital), where the constitutional challenges are heading after the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision, and why where you get prosecuted might matter more then what you actually did. Their are circuit splits, prosecutorial economics at play, and cooperation opportunities nobody talks about.

What Legally Counts as “Manufacturing” Under Federal Law

So first question: did you actually “manufacture” a firearm, or did you just assemble parts? Because believe it or not, the distinction matters—alot. Under federal law, specifically 18 U.S.C. § 922, you need a Federal Firearms License (FFL) if your “engaged in the business” of manufacturing firearms. But what does that even mean?

Here’s what counts as manufacturing: creating a reciever or frame from raw materials or partially complete components, machining an 80% lower past the legal threshold, 3D printing functional firearm components that become a reciever, or assembling parts into a funtional weapon with the intent to sell or distribute. The key is the reciever or frame—that’s the part ATF considers “the firearm” under federal law. Everything else (barrel, trigger assembly, stock) is just parts.

What doesn’t count: buying a complete lower reciever (already serialized and sold through an FFL) and adding a parts kit to build an AR-15. That’s legal assembly, not manufacturing. Millions of people do this every year. The reciever was already “manufactured” by a licensed entity, you’re just putting furnitures on it. Same with buying a complete Glock frame and swapping out the slide or trigger—your not manufacturing nothing, your just customizing.

But here’s were it gets tricky. ATF uses this concept called “readily convertable,” which is there way of saying: if it’s close enough to being a firearm, we’re gonna call it a firearm. An 80% lower—so named because its supposedly only 80% complete—falls into this gray zone. Technically its not a reciever yet because the fire control cavity hasn’t been milled out. But if you got the 80% lower, the jig, the drill press, and the instructions, ATF argues you’ve got everything you need to convert it into a reciever in under an hour. Therefore, constructive posession of a firearm. Therefore, if you made it yourself, you “manufactured” it.

And here’s the real kicker: what counts as “readily convertable” is different depending on which federal circuit your in. The 9th Circuit (covering California, Oregon, Washington, and other Western states) gives ATF broad deference on this standard. If ATF says your 60% complete lower is “readily convertable,” courts in the 9th Circuit generally defer to that. But the 5th Circuit (Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi) has took a narrower approach, requiring more specific proof that the item could actually be converted without significant machining. Same 80% lower kit, different legal outcome based purely on geography.

This creates what I call jurisdictional arbitrage. If you bought parts online in California but assembled them in Texas, there might be multiple venue options for where your case gets prosecuted. We’ll get into that more later, but for now, just know: location matters as much as the facts.

Examples to make this concrete. You use a CNC machine to mill out a reciever from a block of aluminum—that’s manufacturing, no question. You complete a Polymer80 kit by drilling the pin holes and milling the rail section—ATF says that’s manufacturing as of 2022. You buy a complete AR-15 lower from a gun store and add an upper, barrel, and stock—that’s not manufacturing, thats assembly. You 3D print a Glock frame using a file you downloaded online—ATF definately calls that manufacturing (and their coming after 3D-printed guns hard in 2025).

One more thing on the “readily convertable” standard: its vague on purpose. ATF wants flexability to interpet what counts based on the specific facts. That vagueness creates due process problems (how are you supposed to comply with a standard that changes case by case?), but it also creates defence opportunities. If the line between 79% complete and 81% complete is arbitrary, your attorney can challenge whether the government has actually proved you crossed it.

The Personal Use Exception—And Why It’s a Trap

Alright, so you’ve probly heard about the “personal use” exception, and your thinking: I built these guns for myself, not to sell, so I’m good, right? Well… sorta. Yes, federal law allows you to manufacture firearms for personal use without an FFL. That’s been true since, like, forever. The problem is how ATF and prosecutors interpet “personal use,” and more importantly, when they evaluate your intent.

Here’s the trap: intent is evaluated at the time of manufacture, not at the time of sale. Let me explain why this matters. Say you build an AR-15 from an 80% lower in January 2024. You take it to the range a few times, decide you don’t really like it, and sell it on Armslist in March 2024. You’re thinking: “I built it for personal use, tried it, didn’t like it, sold it. No big deal.” But ATF is thinking: “He sold it two months after building it—he must have intended to sell it all along. The ‘personal use’ story is bullshit. He’s an unlicensed manufacturer engaged in the buisness of selling firearms.”

And now, retroactivley, your January manufacturing becomes illegal because your March sale is treated as evidence of your original intent. Its like a time travel prosecution. They look at what you did later and use it to rewrite what you ment earlier. The fact that you genuinely changed you’re mind doesn’t matter if they can construct a narrative that you always intended to sell.

So what evidence does ATF use to prove you had intent to distribute from the beginning? Here’s the list, and this is based off actual cases:

Bulk parts purchases. If you ordered 10 AR-15 lower receiver kits at once, ATF argues no one needs 10 rifles for “personal use.” Your obviously planning to sell some. Same with buying 500 rounds of the same caliber ammo at the time you’re building—looks like your setting up for sales.

Social media posts. Did you post on Reddit or Instagram about you’re build and say something like “might sell this if anyone’s interested”? Congratulations, you just admitted intent to distribute. Even posts like “built this to see if I like it” can be used against you, because it implies you might sell it if you don’t like it.

Text messages. ATF will get a warrant for your phone and search every text message you sent before, during, and after the manufacturing. If you texted a freind saying “building a few ARs, let me know if you want one,” that’s evidence of distribution intent. Doesn’t matter if you never actually sold one to that freind—the intent was their.

Quantity. This is the big one. Internal ATF guidance (which they don’t publish, so good luck complying with it) suggests that manufacturing 10 or more firearms in a year creates a presumption that your engaged in the buisness. Even if you never sold a single one, they’ll argue no one needs 10 personally-made guns for personal use. Your obviously planning to sell them, or your stockpiling for some nefarious purpose, or your a prohibited person trying to arm you’re criminal organization. The narrative writes itself.

Now, can you overcome this presumption? Maybe. You’d need to document personal use—range records showing you actually shot these guns regularly, photos of you using them at different times, cleaning logs, modification notes showing ongoing personel tinkering. Basically, evidence that these were genuine hobby projects, not commercial inventory. But here’s the problem: most people don’t keep that kind of documentation because they didn’t think they needed to. And by the time ATF shows up, its to late to create it.

Their’s also the “change of heart” defense, which is exactly what it sounds like: you genuinely built the gun for personal use, used it for six months or a year, and then decided to sell it because you needed money or wanted to try a different platform. That’s legal. But proving a genuine change of heart versus always having planned to sell is extremly difficult. The longer the time gap between manufacture and sale, the better this defence looks. Selling after six months looks like a change of heart. Selling after six days looks like you always planned to sell.

And one more thing—if you made a gun that’s in a popular, high-demand caliber (9mm Glock clone, .223 AR-15), ATF is more likely to suspect commercial intent then if you built some wierd custom rifle in .300 Blackout with a binary trigger. The logic is: people build mainstream stuff to sell because thats what buyers want. People build wierd custom stuff because their hobbyists. Its not a legal distinction, but its a practical one that influences prosecutorial decisions.

Bottom line: the personal use exception exists, but it’s not a safe harbor if you ever sell, transfer, or even talk about selling your homemade guns. And if you made more then a handful, your gonna have to prove you ment to keep them all. Good luck with that.

The 2022 Ghost Gun Rule Changes Everything

Okay, so let’s talk about the regulatory earthquake that happened in April 2022—ATF Final Rule 2021R-05F, aka the “ghost gun rule.” This is the rule that changed what counts as a “firearm” under federal law and made alot of previously legal activity illegal overnight. If you built guns before 2022 and haven’t kept up with the regulatory changes, you need to understand this, because it might be the reason ATF is investigating you right now.

Before this rule, the definition of a “firearm” was pretty straightforward: a reciever or frame that could expell a projectile. But 80% lowers, 3D-printed frames, and buy-build-shoot kits existed in a grey area. Technically they weren’t recievers yet, so they weren’t “firearms,” so they didn’t require serial numbers or background checks. That’s why companys like Polymer80 could sell kits online with no FFL involved—the parts weren’t firearms untill you finished them.

The new rule expanded the definition of “firearm” to include anything that is “readily convertable” into a reciever or frame. It also created a new category called “privately made firearms” (PMFs), which are firearms made by individuals rather then licensed manufacturers. And here’s the key part: all PMFs must be serialized, even if you made them for personal use, even if you never plan to sell them, even if you made them before the rule took affect.

Wait, so if you built a gun in 2020, you now have to serialize it? Yes. The rule is retroactive in that sense. ATF gave a 120-day “grace period” from May to August 2022 where people could bring there unserialized PMFs to an FFL, get a serial number engraved, and have the gun entered into ATF’s registry. No questions asked, no prosecution. But here’s the thing: most gun owners had no idea this grace period existed. ATF published it in the Federal Register (which, again, nobody reads) and maybe put out a press release, but their was no direct notification to people who had previously bought 80% lowers or build kits. You were just supposed to… know, somehow.

So if you missed that 120-day window—and statistically, you probly did—your now in posession of an unserialized PMF, which is illegal under federal law as of August 2022. And possession of an unserialized PMF can be charged as a seperate crime on top of unlicensed manufacturing. Its like they created a new crime category and then expected people to comply with a rule they didn’t know existed.

This creates a mens rea defence: how can you be guilty of knowingly violating a law if the government didn’t adequately notify you that the law changed? Criminal statutes generally require willful violation—you have to know your breaking the law and do it anyway. If ATF failed to publicize the new requirements in a way that actually reached gun owners (as opposed to just publishing in the Federal Register), then you’ve got an argument that you didn’t have the required mental state to commit the crime.

Discovery request for your attorney: How did ATF notify the public about the new serialization requirement? Did they send direct mail to people who had previously purchased 80% lowers from major retailers? Did they run public service announcements? Or did they just publish in the Federal Register and call it a day? If its the latter, your attorney can argue inadequate notice.

Now, the ghost gun rule is currently being challenged in multiple federal courts. There are cases pending in the 5th Circuit, 9th Circuit, and others, with plaintiffs arguing that ATF exceeded its statutory authority, that the rule is unconstitutionally vague, and that it violates the Second Amendment (more on that in a minute). As of 2025, the rule is still in affect, but its on shaky legal ground. If a circuit court strikes it down, or if the Supreme Court eventually takes the case and rules against ATF, alot of these prosecutions could collapse.

Which brings up a defense strategy: delay. If your case is in the early stages, your attorney might file motions to stay the prosecution pending the outcome of the constitutional challenges. Courts dont always grant these motions, but even requesting one creates a record for appeal. And if the legal landscape shifts while your case is pending—if a circuit court strikes down the ghost gun rule—you’ve suddenly got much stronger ground to stand on.

But until that happens, the rule is the rule. Unserialized PMFs are illegal. Manufacturing firearms without an FFL is illegal unless its genuinely for personal use. And ATF is enforcing these rules aggressivley as part of there “Zero Tolerance” policy that started in 2021. They’re not messing around.

What Evidence ATF Actually Uses Against You

Alright, so lets say ATF is investigating you for unlicensed gun manufacturing. What are they actually looking for? What evidence do they use to build there case? Because understanding this is critical to knowing weather you’re in serious trouble or weather they’ve got a weak case that might fall apart under scrutiny.

First and foremost: digital evidence. This isn’t 2005. This is 2025. ATF knows that if you manufactured firearms, theres a digital trail a mile long, and their going after it hard. When they execute a search warrant at you’re house, the first thing they seize is your computer, phone, tablet, and any other electronic device. They’re imaging your hard drives, going through you’re cloud storage, pulling your browsing history, looking at your Amazon and eBay purchases, reading your text messages and emails. And trust me—they will find stuff.

Heres what their looking for:

CAD files. If you used a CNC machine to mill out recievers, you had to have CAD files (computer-aided design) that told the machine what to cut. Those files are evidence that you manufactured specific firearm components. Even if you deleted them, forensic software can often recover deleted files from your hard drive. And if you stored them in the cloud (Google Drive, Dropbox, iCloud), ATF will get a seperate warrant for those accounts.

3D printer cache files. If you 3D-printed frames or recievers, your printer has a cache of recent print jobs. ATF will seize the printer itself, extract the cache, and see exactly what you printed and when. They can also match the layer patterns on the physical gun to the print settings in the cache, basically fingerprinting the gun back to your printer.

YouTube and browsing history. Did you watch tutorials on how to complete an 80% lower? How to mill out a reciever? How to assemble a Glock from a P80 kit? ATF will pull your YouTube watch history and your Google search history. Searches like “how to finish 80 lower” or “is it legal to build AR-15 without serial number” are evidence of knowledge and intent.

Purchase records. ATF will supeona Amazon, eBay, Brownells, Palmetto State Armory, and any other retailer where you might of bought parts. Their looking for bulk purchases—did you buy 10 lower reciever kits? 50 Glock barrels? 1000 rounds of 9mm? Bulk purchases suggest commercial intent, not personal use. And if you bought parts from a company thats now under investigation (like certain 80% lower suppliers), you’re automaticaly on ATF’s radar as a customer.

Social media. Facebook, Instagram, Reddit, gun forums—ATF will search all of it. They’re looking for posts where you talked about you’re builds, offered guns for sale, discussed prices, or just generaly showed off your work. Even innocent posts like “finished my first AR build, turned out great!” can be used as timeline evidence (you admitted you built it, now they just need to prove you didn’t have an FFL).

Now, physical evidence still matters, but its secondary. The guns themselves, obviously—they’ll seize every firearm in your house, even the legal ones. They’ll examine tool marks on homemade recievers to match them to your CNC machine or drill press. They’ll test-fire the guns to confirm there functional. If the guns don’t have serial numbers, thats automatic evidence of PMF violations. If they find an unregistered short-barreled rifle (SBR) or suppressor, thats seperate NFA charges stacked on top.

They’ll also seize your tools—CNC machine, 3D printer, drill press, jigs, files, whatever you used to manufacture. These become exhibits at trial to show you had the capability. And they’ll seize any parts inventory you have, because bulk parts suggests intent to build more guns, which suggests commercial activity.

Testimonial evidence is the third leg. If you sold any guns to other people, ATF will track those people down and flip them. “We found this unserialized AR-15 in your possesion. Where’d you get it?” “Uh, I bought it from some guy on Armslist.” “What guy?” And now your the guy. The buyer becomes a witness against you, and unless they refuse to cooperate (and risk there own charges), they’ll testify that you sold them a gun. Even one sale is enough to blow up the “personal use” defence.

ATF also does undercover buys. If your selling guns online or through word-of-mouth, they might send an undercover agent to buy from you. You think your selling to a fellow gun enthusiest, but its actually an ATF agent recording the whole transaction. Once they’ve got you on tape selling an unserialized firearm, the case is basically over.

And finally—and this is the biggest mistake people make—your own statements. ATF will show up at your door, knock politely, and say something like, “Hey, we’re investigating some online gun sales, mind if we ask you a few questions?” And alot of people, because they think they didn’t do anything wrong, or because they want to cooperate, or because there just naturally talkative, start answering questions. “Yeah, I built a few AR-15s from 80% lowers. No big deal, right? I mean, I only sold one of them…” And congratulations, you just confessed to unlicensed manufacturing and distribution. Never, ever talk to ATF without a lawyer present. I mean it. Even if you think your innocent. Even if you think cooperation will make it go away. It wont.

Now, here’s were ATF sometimes screws up: chain of custody on digital evidence. Your computer gets seized, it sits in an evidence locker for nine months before anyone images the hard drive. During that time, who had access? Was it properly sealed? When the forensic analysis finaly happens, was it done by a qualified expert, or by some ATF agent who took a weekend course on computer forensics? If the chain of custody is broken, or if the forensic imaging wasn’t done correctly, your attorney can file a motion to supress the evidence. And without the digital evidence, ATF’s case might fall apart.

Same with warrant scope. If the warrant authorized a search for “evidence of illegal firearm manufacturing,” but ATF agents searched through your personal emails about unrelated topics, thats a Fourth Amendment violation. Evidence obtained outside the scope of the warrant can be supressed. So your attorney needs to scrutinize every detail of the search warrant and the search itself—what did they seize, was it within scope, did they exceed there authority?

And one more thing: expert witnesses. ATF will bring in an “expert” to testify that your 80% lower was “readily convertable,” or that your CAD files show you manufactured a reciever, or that your 3D-printed frame meets the definition of a firearm. But is this person actually an expert? What are there qualifications? Have they published research on this topic? Or are they just an ATF agent with an opinion? Your attorney can challenge the expert under Daubert standards (the legal test for expert testimony admissability). If the “expert” doesn’t hold up, there testimony gets excluded, and ATF’s case takes a major hit.

So yeah—evidence is mostly digital, sometimes physical, often testimonial, and always scrutinizable. ATF isnt perfect. They make mistakes. And a good defence attorney knows how to find those mistakes and exploit them.

The Charge Stacking Problem (NFA Violations)

Heres something that catches alot of people off guard: if you manufactured a firearm that also happens to be a short-barreled rifle (SBR), or if you made a suppressor, or if you installed an auto sear or Glock switch, your not just facing one federal charge. Your facing multiple charges—one for each item. This is called charge stacking, and its a massive source of plea pressure in federal gun cases.

Lets break it down. Say you built an AR-15 from an 80% lower without an FFL. Thats Count 1: Manufacturing a firearm without a license, which violates 18 U.S.C. § 922. Maximum penalty: 10 years in federal prison.

But wait—the barrel on your AR is only 14 inches long, which makes it a short-barreled rifle under the National Firearms Act (NFA). SBRs have to be registered with ATF and have a $200 tax stamp. You didn’t register it because, well, you built it yourself and didn’t think about the NFA requirements. So now thats Count 2: Possesion of an unregistered SBR, which violates 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d). Maximum penalty: another 10 years.

Oh, and you also made a suppressor to go with it because you wanted to shoot without hearing protection and you saw a YouTube tutorial on how to build one from a solvent trap kit. Suppressors are also NFA items that require registration and a tax stamp. You didn’t register it. So thats Count 3: Possesion of an unregistered suppressor, also under 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d). Another 10 years.

And lets say, just for fun, that you also installed a Glock switch (an auto sear that converts a semi-automatic Glock into a fully automatic machine gun) on one of the pistols you built. Machine guns manufactured after 1986 are flat-out illegal for civilian posession, no exceptions. Thats Count 4: Possesion of an unregistered machine gun, under 18 U.S.C. § 922(o). Another 10 years.

So you built one or two guns, but your facing four federal felony counts with a combined maximum sentance of 40 years. See how this works? The government stacks charges to create massive exposure, which creates massive pressure to plead guilty. Because even if you think you can win at trial on the manufacturing charge, are you willing to risk 40 years? Or would you rather plead to one count, get the other three dismissed, and take your chances with a sentencing guidelines calculation that might land you at 2-3 years?

This is prosecutorial economics at work. The government doesn’t actually want to try all four counts. Trials are expensive and time-consuming. Expert witnesses cost money. Jury trials are unpredictable. But if they can stack enough charges to scare you into pleading, they get a conviction without the hassle or expense of trial. Its a business decision for them.

Now, heres the other thing about NFA charges: there strict liability. That means you dont need to know the law to be guilty—you just need to posess the item. With the main manufacturing charge under 922, the government has to prove you knowingly violated the law (mens rea). But with NFA violations, they only have to prove you posessed an unregistered SBR or suppressor. Weather you knew it required registration is irrelevent. You had it, it wasn’t registered, your guilty. Period.

This is why alot of people get nailed on NFA charges even when the underlying manufacturing charge is shakier. You might have a decent argument that you genuinely built the gun for personal use and didn’t know you needed an FFL. But if that gun has a 10-inch barrel and no tax stamp? Your screwed on the SBR charge, no matter what your intent was.

That said, their are technical defences on NFA charges, particularly around measurement. An SBR is defined as a rifle with a barrel less then 16 inches or an overall length less then 26 inches. But how do you measure barrel length? From the breech face to the end of the barrel, not including any muzzle device unless its permanantly attached. If your barrel is 15.9 inches but you’ve got a permanantly attached muzzle brake that brings it to 16.1 inches, its not an SBR. These measurements can be disputed, and if ATF measured wrong, the charge doesnt stick.

Same with suppressors. The legal definition requires that the device “substantially reduces” the sound of firing. If you built something that looks like a suppressor but doesn’t actually work (because you screwed up the baffles or whatever), is it realy a suppressor under the law? Maybe not. Your attorney can bring in a defence expert to test it and testify that it doesnt meet the statutory definition.

But even with technical defences, the reality is that NFA charges are serious and there used as leverage. In plea negotiations, the government might offer to drop the NFA counts if you plead guilty to the main manufacturing charge. Or they might agree to recommend concurrent sentances (you serve all the time at once) rather then consecutive sentances (you serve them one after another). These are the kinds of deals that get worked out behind the scenes, and why having an attorney who understands federal sentancing is critical.

Constitutional Challenges After Bruen

Okay, so this is where things get interesting from a legal nerd perspective—and potentialy very good for defendants. In June 2022, the Supreme Court decided New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which fundamentaly changed how courts analyze Second Amendment challenges to gun regulations. And as of 2025, no court has definitively ruled on weather ATF’s ghost gun regulations or unlicensed manufacturing prosecutions survive Bruen scrutiny. That creates an opportunity.

Before Bruen, courts used a two-step test: first, does the regulation burden conduct protected by the Second Amendment? If yes, then second, apply some level of scrutiny (intermediate or strict) to see if the regulation is justified by public safety interests. Under this framework, alot of gun regulations survived because courts would defer to the government’s public safety arguments.

Bruen threw that test out. Now, the government has to prove that any gun regulation is “consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” In other words, you can’t just argue “this regulation makes people safer.” You have to show that theres a historical analogue—a similar type of regulation that existed during the Founding era (1790s) or the Reconstruction era (1860s-1870s). If no such regulation existed, then the modern regulation is presumptively unconstitutional.

So how does this apply to unlicensed gun manufacturing? Well, here’s the thing: during the Founding era, their was no licensing requirement for manufacturing firearms. Gunsmiths made guns. Individuals made there own guns. It was completley normal and unregulated. In fact, it was expected that citizens would be able to manufacture and repair there own arms, because that was part of being self-sufficient and maintaining the capacity to resist tyrany (which was kind of the whole point of the Second Amendment).

The first federal licensing requirement for gun manufacturers didn’t come untill the Gun Control Act of 1968. Before that, nothing. So if the government is trying to prosecute you for manufacturing firearms without a license, your attorney can argue: “Show me the historical tradition of requiring a license to make guns for personal use. Show me the Founding-era statute that required gunsmiths to get government permission before making a rifle. It doesnt exist. This prosecution is inconsistant with historical tradition and therefore violates the Second Amendment under Bruen.”

Now, the government’s response will be something like: “But comercial gun manufacturing for sale is different from personal use. We’ve always regulated comercial activity more heavyly then personal activity. And besides, modern firearms are more dangerous then muskets, so modern regulations are necesary.” But Bruen specifically rejected the “modern guns are different” argument. The Court said the Second Amendment protects arms “in common use,” and AR-15s are definitley in common use (millions in circulation). As for the comercial vs. personal distinction, thats a harder question, but if you genuinley made the guns for personal use and the government is prosecuting you anyway, the historical tradition argument is strong.

And heres the other thing: ATF’s 2022 ghost gun rule came out after Bruen. The rule was finalized in April 2022, Bruen was decided in June 2022. So ATF published this sweeping new regulation expanding what counts as a “firearm” and requiring serialization of PMFs, and then two months later the Supreme Court changed the entire constitutional framework. Theres a very good argument that the ghost gun rule doesnt survive Bruen, and multiple lawsuits are currently pending in federal courts making exactly that argument.

As of 2025, we dont have a definitive ruling yet, but circuit courts are starting to weigh in, and theres gonna be a circuit split soon (some circuits uphold the rule, others strike it down). When that happens, the Supreme Court will probly take the case, and we’ll get a final answer. But until then, theres uncertainty, and uncertainty is good for defendants.

Heres the tactical play: if your case is in the early stages (pre-trial motions, discovery), your attorney should file a motion to dismiss on Second Amendment grounds, citing Bruen. The motion will probly be denied (trial judges are cautious and dont want to be the first to strike down a federal gun law), but it preserves the issue for appeal. And if you get convicted and appeal, and by the time your appeal is heard the Supreme Court has struck down the ghost gun rule or ruled that unlicensed personal-use manufacturing is protected, you’ve got a very strong argument for reversal.

Even if the motion is denied, it creates leverage in plea negotiations. Prosecutors dont want there convictions reversed on appeal. If they think theres a decent chance the constitutional landscape will shift in your favour, they might offer a better plea deal just to avoid the risk of an appeal.

And one more thing: if your out on bail pending trial (which you should be, assuming your not a flight risk or danger to the community), and a favorable Bruen-related ruling comes down while your case is pending, your attorney can file a motion to stay the prosecution pending final resolution of the constitutional issue. Courts dont always grant these, but its worth trying, because delay is your freind here. The longer your case takes, the more likely it is that the legal landscape shifts in your favor.

The Cooperation Option Nobody Talks About

Alright, this section is gonna be controversial, because alot of people in the gun community have strong feelings about “snitching” or cooperating with the feds. But Im gonna lay out the reality, and you can decide for yourself weather its something you’d ever consider. Because heres the truth: if you bought your 80% lowers or parts kits from an online supplier, your cooperation testimony might be worth more to ATF then your conviction. And that creates opportunities.

ATF doesnt really care about prosecuting individual hobbiests who built a couple guns in there garage. I mean, they’ll do it if they have to, but its not there priority. What they realy want is to shut down the suppliers—the companys selling “build kits” online, marketing them as “unregulated” or “no background check required,” and moving thousands of units. One supplier prosecution is worth a hundred individual buyer prosecutions, both in terms of publicity and in terms of financial impact (asset forfeiture from the company).

So if you bought parts from a company that’s now under investigation, your a potencial witness. You can provide purchase records (when you bought, how much you paid, what was included in the kit). You can provide communications (emails or text messages with the seller, especially if they made claims about legality). You can provide technical details (did the kit come with instructions? CNC code files? A jig? Was it marketed as “easy to complete” or “no FFL required”?). All of this is evidence that can be used against the supplier to prove they were engaged in unlicensed manufacturing or dealing.

And what can you get in return for cooperating? Potentially alot. If you cooperate before your charged (pre-indictment cooperation), you might get complete immunity—they agree not to prosecute you at all in exchange for your testimony. If your already charged, you might get a deferred prosecution agreement, were the charges are dismissed after you cooperate and stay out of trouble for a certain period. Or, if your convicted, you can get a substantial assistance departure under the sentancing guidelines, which can reduce your sentance significantly (were talking from 5 years to probation in some cases).

Heres the economics from ATF’s perspective: prosecuting you costs $30K-$50K (agents time, forensics, court costs, trial if it goes that far). The result is one conviction, maybe a couple years in prison, minimal deterrent affect. But if you cooperate and they use your testimony to prosecute the supplier, that case could result in $500K+ in asset forfeiture (seizing the company’s bank accounts, inventory, equipment), dozens of customer prosecutions (if they want to pursue them), and a major press release about “cracking down on ghost gun manufacturers.” Thats a way better return on investment.

So your worth more to them as a witness then as a defendant. Its pure math.

Now, should you cooperate? That depends on alot of factors. If you genuinley built guns for personal use and you think you can win at trial, cooperation might not make sense—why give the government anything when you might walk? But if the evidence against you is strong (they’ve got digital forensics, bulk purchases, sales records), and your facing 10 years or more, cooperation might be your best option.

The key is timing. Cooperation is worth way more if you do it early, before your charged. Once the indictment is filed, your leverage drops, because the government has already invested resources in building the case against you. But if your attorney reaches out to the prosecutor during the investigation phase and says, “My client is willing to provide information about where he bought these parts and cooperate fully,” that gets there attention. They might decide not to charge you at all and just use you as a witness in the bigger case.

One more thing: if you do cooperate, you need a cooperation agreement in writing. Not a handshake deal, not a verbal promise from an agent. A written agreement signed by a prosecutor that specifies exactly what your providing and exactly what your getting in return (immunity, reduced charges, sentancing recommendation). Without that, you’ve got no protections, and the government can use your cooperation against you and still prosecute you fully. Dont ever cooperate without a written agreement.

I know alot of people reading this are thinking, “I’d never snitch, Id rather do the time.” And thats your choice. But Im telling you the option exists, and for some people in some situations, its the smartest move. Especially if your facing life-altering prison time for what was essentialy a regulatory violation.

Venue, Jurisdiction, and Geographic Arbitrage

So heres something most people dont realize: where your prosecuted can matter as much as what you did. Federal crimes can be prosecuted in any district where part of the crime occured, and in cases involving interstate commerce (which almost all gun cases do, because parts were probly shipped across state lines), that gives prosecutors multiple venue options. And different districts mean different circuit courts, which mean different legal standards, which can be the difference between conviction and acquittal.

Lets say you live in Texas (5th Circuit), but you ordered your 80% lower online from a company based in California (9th Circuit), and the parts were shipped from a warehouse in Nevada (also 9th Circuit). Where can you be prosecuted? Potentially in any of those districts, because part of the offense (the purchase, the shipping, the receipt, the manufacturing) occured in each location. The government gets to choose, and surprise, there gonna choose the venue most favorable to there case.

Why does this matter? Because, as I mentioned earlier, the 9th Circuit gives broad deference to ATF’s interpretation of “readily convertable,” while the 5th Circuit requires more specific proof. If your prosecuted in California (9th Circuit), the court is more likely to defer to ATF’s claim that your 80% lower was readily convertable into a firearm. If your prosecuted in Texas (5th Circuit), you’ve got a better shot at arguing that the lower wasn’t actually readily convertable without significant additional machining.

This is what I call jurisdictional arbitrage—exploiting geographic variations in legal standards to your advantage. And the way you do it is through a motion to transfer venue under 18 U.S.C. § 3237. Your attorney files a motion arguing that the case should be transfered to a different district (idealy one in a more favorable circuit) because thats where the majority of the conduct occured, or thats where the witnesses are, or thats where you live and it would be more convenient for your defence.

Courts dont always grant these motions, because the government has alot of discretion in choosing venue. But if the government’s venue choice seems arbitrary or motivated by forum shopping, you’ve got a stronger argument. For example, if you live in Texas, the manufacturing occured in Texas, and the only connection to California is that the company you bought from is based there, a Texas court might agree that Texas is the more apropriate venue.

And even if the motion is denied, it creates a record for appeal. If your convicted in a jurisdiction with unfavorable law, you can argue on appeal that the venue was improper and that you were prejudiced by being tried in a circuit with legal standards that disfavored your defence.

Theres also the issue of prosecutorial culture. Some districts are more agressive about gun cases then others. The Southern District of New York (Manhattan) is known for hammering gun defendants. The Western District of Texas (where alot of gun-friendly judges sit) might be more sympathetic. This isnt a legal distinction, its a practical one, but it affects outcomes. If you’ve got a choice between being tried in a jurisdiction where the judges and juries are generally pro-gun-rights versus a jurisdiction where there more skeptical, you want to fight for the favorable venue.

Bottom line: geography is part of the strategy. Your attorney needs to think about venue from day one and be prepared to fight for a transfer if the government chooses an unfavorable district.

Prohibited Persons—When Possession Charges Replace Manufacturing Charges

Heres an intresting quirk of federal gun prosecutions: if your already a prohibited person under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (meaning your a felon, or you’ve got a domestic violence conviction, or your subject to a restraining order, or any of the other categories that make it illegal for you to posess guns), ATF might not even bother charging you with unlicensed manufacturing. They’ll just charge you with prohibited person in posession, because its easier to prove and carries the same 10-year maximum sentance.

Think about it from there perspective. To prove unlicensed manufacturing, they have to show that you actually made the gun (tool marks, CAD files, purchase records of parts). To prove prohibited person in posession, they only have to show that you had the gun and that your a prohibited person. The latter is way simpler. They pull your criminal record, show you’ve got a felony conviction, show that the gun was in your house, done. No need for expert testimony on machining, no need to prove intent to distribute, no need to get into the weeds on the personal use exception.

This creates a bizzare outcome: if your a prohibited person, you might face an easier prosecution then a law-abiding citizen who manufactured the same gun. Because for the law-abiding citizen, the only available federal charge is unlicensed manufacturing, which requires proof of manufacturing activity. For the prohibited person, possession is enough, and manufacturing is just an aggravating factor that might increase the sentancing guideline range but isn’t a seperate charge.

Now, this doesnt mean prohibited persons get off easy—your still facing 10 years. But it does mean the government’s case is simpler, which means less room for defence challenges. You can’t argue “I didn’t actually manufacture this, I just assembled parts” if the charge is possession, because the charge doesnt require proof of manufacturing. You had the gun, your a felon, your guilty. Period.

The defence implication here is intresting. If your NOT a prohibited person, and the only available federal charge is manufacturing, it might make sense to try to plead to a state-level charge instead (if your state also has gun manufacturing laws, which many do). State charges might carry less time, and you avoid the federal system entirely, which is generally harsher. But if your a prohibited person, the feds are gonna charge you no matter what, so you might as well fight the manufacturing charge if its there, because at least it requires proof of more elements.

One more thing: if your a prohibited person and you manufactured guns, the sentancing guidelines treat that as a significant aggravating factor. Under § 2K2.1 of the sentancing guidelines, your base offense level is higher if you manufactured firearms rather then just possessed them. So even though the government might charge you with simple possession, they’ll argue at sentancing that you should get more time because you were making guns, not just having them. Its a backdoor way of punishing the manufacturing without having to prove it as a seperate charge.

What To Do Right Now

Okay, so you’ve read all this, and now your probly thinking: “What do I actually do?” Because understanding the law is one thing, but taking action is another. So heres the breakdown based on were you are in the process.

If your under investigation but not yet charged: This is the best-case scenario for you, because you still have options. First, do not talk to ATF without an attorney present. I cant stress this enough. If agents show up at your door, politely decline to answer questions and ask them to contact your attorney. If they ask to search your house, do not consent. If they have a warrant, let them execute it, but dont volunteer anything. Second, preserve any documentation of personal use (range records, photos, maintenance logs). If you’ve got evidence that you genuinley used these guns for personal purposes, thats critical to your defence. Third, consider pre-indictment cooperation if you think the evidence against you is strong. Your attorney can reach out to the prosecutor, feel out what there interested in, and potentially negotiate immunity or a deferred prosecution agreement before charges are filed.

If your already charged: You need an attorney, obviously. The question is weather you go with a federal public defender or hire a private attorney. Public defenders are often very good—they handle federal cases all the time and know the system. But there overworked and might not have time to dig into every detail of your case. A private attorney with experience in federal gun cases might be able to devote more resources to your defence, but there expensive (were talking $50K-$100K+ for a trial). If you can afford private counsel, its probly worth it. If not, the public defender will do there best. Either way, make sure your attorney understands the issues we’ve discussed here: the personal use exception, the 2022 rule changes, the Bruen constitutional challenges, venue issues, digital evidence challenges, all of it.

Your attorney should also file aggressive discovery requests. You want every piece of digital evidence ATF collected, every forensic report, every witness statement. You want to see the chain of custody documents for evidence seized from your home. You want to know who the government’s expert witnesses are and what there gonna testify to. And if theres any gaps or errors in the government’s evidence, your attorney needs to file motions to suppress.

If the case goes to trial, your looking at a jury trial in federal court, which is a whole different animal then state court. Federal juries tend to be more educated, more skeptical of the government in some ways, but also more willing to convict on technical violations. Your attorney needs to frame the case as a regulatory misunderstanding, not a crime. “My client thought he was following the law. He built these guns for personal use. The rules changed without adequate notice. This is not someone who deserves to go to prison.”

If ATF is executing a search warrant RIGHT NOW: Okay, first, dont resist. Dont physically interfere with the search. Let them do what there gonna do. But also, dont consent to anything beyond the scope of the warrant. If the warrant is for your home, they cant search your cloud storage accounts without a seperate warrant (though they’ll probly get one). Dont give them your passwords. Dont unlock your phone or computer for them. Dont answer there questions. Just say, “I want to speak to an attorney before answering any questions.” And then shut up. Seriously. The number one mistake people make during searches is talking. They think there being cooperative or helpful, but there actually confessing to crimes. Just dont do it.

After the search is over, call an attorney immediatley. You need someone who can review the warrant, figure out what they took, and start preparing a defence or negotiating with the government before charges are filed.

Look, Im gonna be honest—this is a rough area of law right now. The regulations are changing, the constitutional framework is in flux, enforcement is ramping up, and alot of people are getting caught in the middle. If you built guns at home and thought you were following the law, you might be facing serious federal charges through no real fault of your own. But knowlege is power, and understanding how these prosecutions actually work gives you a fighting chance. Get a good attorney, know your options, and dont give up. The government isnt unbeatable, and there are defences if you know where to look.