80% lower, after you die!

[AWick]

The term "Manufacturer" as most people consider it is a licensed manufacturer and they produce many guns per year (someone earlier said 50 was the cut off number) so a "Homebuilder" that decides to, or because of death it automatically, transfers would not be a "Manufacturer".  But in this case the "Homebuilder" would become a manufacturer even if they only manufactured one firearms in their lifetime.  I can see nothing that says a homebuilder must have any markings on what they build as long as it is only them that posses and owns what they built; but as soon as that rifle goes to be transferred to someone else either by a) an active decision to sell the firearm, or b) because of death of the homebuilder the rules would change because the "Homebuilder" becomes a manufacturer and the firearm requires markings.  If it is option a the manufacturer/homebuilder would simply need to add the appropriate markings before making the sale, if it is option b the "Homebuilder's" next of kin could be considered guilty of receiving an illegal firearm. 

Is there a mechanism to avoid any charges, my guess is that upon discovering the firearm if the next of kin contacted police and turned it over there would not be any charges, but an investigation into what the "Homebuilder" had been doing would take place.

The recommendation to put markings (serial number of some type, who manufactured and when) on a firearm you manufacture as a "Homebuilder" is as much about protecting yourself and your family from unneeded attention as it is about following all the rules and regulations, because truthfully they tend to have conflicts with themselves.  Nothing of these marking needs to be reported to anyone (but you should keep a record of some type for yourself, especially if producing more than one).

Thanks AAllen for contributing further to the discussion. That was my understanding of the law before this thread, but it was muddled by some extra side discusion that wasn't directed at the meat of the inquiry.

newfalguy101, like phantom pointed out the debate started focusing only on whether or not a homebuilder is also a manufacturer. I think we all know the answer to that based off of the definition of a homebuilder (as in for his/her own use and not transferring), but the OP specifically asked how an involuntary transfer (due to death) would take place for said homebuilder. AAllen cleared the mud and I agree with you that some sort of markings would be nice, not only to be able to prove you built it, but to keep track of them individually if you made more than one. You could also make a serial number stand for an insult to gun grabbers, like a guy on here did with a home built silencer. Props to that guy again, btw!

[newfalguy101]

With respect, AAllen is incorrect.

The links/ copy and pasted segments from the ATF REGULATIONS do NOT support the position that a homebuilt gun needs serialized to legally transfer.

As I posted earlier, ATF "suggests" serializing, but does NOT require it.

ATF also says It "should" be marked when transferred, however "should" does NOT equal "MUST".

When the regs REQUIRE something, it is written that way.

Laws in the United states should be read exactly as written, because they mean exactly what they say.

[JTH]

Laws in the United states should be read exactly as written, because they mean exactly what they say.

And yet, "should" is not "must".  According to the courts.

And often, laws are not clear, do not mean what they say, and are not enforced or prosecuted according to what they say, but instead based on what regulation has been created based on that law, even if said regulation does not match the law.  Or based on what the particular law enforcement individual needs the law to say to gain leverage or traction in a given situation, whether it will survive a court case or not.

Whether or not I agree with any particular person in this thread---the safest way to ensure a lack of legal issues is to place some sort of serial marking on said firearm.  Whether that is required is a separate issue.

I realize that I'm not actually answering the original question from the OP (or even later variations of that question) but there seems to be an argument going on in which people are arguing about two different things---one of which is what the strict letter of the law says (which, unfortunately, is KNOWN to be as grey area), and what MAY happen (which, unfortunately, is based upon whether or not some official person wants to give you grief about something).

The difference between "should" and "must" plus the lack of official definition of "manufacturer" (as opposed to "homebuilder") means the the grey area is something that can be used against you.

IMO.

[AAllen]

Thanks JTH, I agree with you.  All of us that have payed attention to gun laws for a period of time have seen lots of convictions where the person did not break the letter of the law, but they did end up breaking what some bureaucrat said the policy is.  What said bureaucrat says is the policy does not even need to match the written policy for there to be a conviction.

[Mali]

As I posted earlier, ATF "suggests" serializing, but does NOT require it.
ATF also says It "should" be marked when transferred, however "should" does NOT equal "MUST".
When the regs REQUIRE something, it is written that way.
Laws in the United states should be read exactly as written, because they mean exactly what they say.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/should

auxiliary verb
1.
simple past tense of shall.
2.
(used to express condition):
Were he to arrive, I should be pleased.
3.
must; ought (used to indicate duty, propriety, or expediency):
You should not do that.
4.
would (used to make a statement less direct or blunt):
I should think you would apologize.

The Government is notorious for vague wording everywhere because it is written by lawyers and the English language is just not concise like you want it to be.  Note that according to the dictionary "Should" actually does equate to "Must".
My experience, and it appears to be the same experience with others in this thread, is that you are better off reading government regs in the most restrictive way to avoid issues of miscommunication and misreads when dealing with them.

I didn't know much about what the OP asked in the first place, but what I have since read is that you are better off with that serial number on the lower, even though the regs don't say you need it, than to leave it off.  Planning for the future means that we sometimes do things just because we expect something that "can't happen" to happen.  That's why we always check that the gun we know is unloaded is truly unloaded before we hand it to someone or clean it.

[Husker_Fan]

The "should" language is in an FAQ, not a regulation or a law. It has no force.

[CitizenClark]

The "should" language is in an FAQ, not a regulation or a law. It has no force.

Correct. This is what the ATF wants people to do, not what it can compel them to do.

[newfalguy101]

Correct. This is what the ATF wants people to do, not what it can compel them to do.

Well, this is a first, a lawyer and I saying the essentially the same thing!!

[Husker_Fan]

Well, this is a first, a lawyer and I saying the essentially the same thing!!

Two lawyers actually. It could be a sign of the apocalypse.