[AOW saiga?]

Tony, have you ever considered doing AOW saigas at all? Or would making the receivers be too much of a pain in the ass?

 

I've always thought that a saiga pistol with a 5 rounder would make a neat car gun.

[Saiga 12 saves the day]

I would be leery of doing CNS shots or using something as splashy as 12 gauge buck on a rabid animal.

 

Rabies is a really fucked up disease and it can kill you even in these modern times.

[when it inevitable turns into a destructive device]

Yeah I didnt bother to shepardize staples. I'm not really surprised. Lack of SCOTUS attention to 2nd amedment issues has let the lower courts run wild. Constant hammering by prosecutors and a steady supply of unsympathetic criminal defendants is like the tide eating away at a shoreline. If you dont reinforce it eventually it all washes out to sea.

 

It's very frustrating how things like firearms laws, tax laws and drug laws have just become a prosecutor's toolbox for "getting bad people" in place of doing good work gathering evidence of real crimes.

[when it inevitable turns into a destructive device]

Calm down. How the hell will they get such laws passed? 94 ban was crippled from the outset and half of congress lost their jobs after that one. No way they pass an even harsher ban with a far more pro-gun congress than we had in 94.

[when it inevitable turns into a destructive device]

JUSTICE THOMAS delivered the opinion of the Court.

 

The National Firearms Act makes it unlawful for any person to

possess a machinegun that is not properly registered with the

Federal Government. Petitioner contends that, to convict him under

the Act, the Government should have been required to prove beyond

a reasonable doubt that he knew the weapon he possessed had the

characteristics that brought it within the statutory definition of

a machinegun. We agree and accordingly reverse the judgment of the

Court of Appeals.

Since 1994, the government has to prove that you knew that your weapon has the characteristics that make it regulated.

 

Here is the reasoning:

Notwithstanding these distinctions, the Government urges that

Freed's logic applies because guns, no less than grenades, are

highly dangerous devices that should alert their owners to the

probability of regulation. But the gap between Freed and this case

is too wide to bridge. In glossing over the distinction between

grenades and guns, the Government ignores the particular care we

have taken to avoid construing a statute to dispense with mens rea

where doing so would "criminal-

 

ize a broad range of apparently innocent conduct." Liparota, 471

U. S., at 426. In Liparota, we considered a statute that made

unlawful the unauthorized acquisition or possession of food stamps.

We determined that the statute required proof that the defendant

knew his possession of food stamps was unauthorized, largely

because dispensing with such a mens rea requirement would have

resulted in reading the statute to outlaw a number of apparently

innocent acts. Ibid. Our conclusion that the statute should not

be treated as defining a public welfare offense rested on the

common sense distinction that a "food stamp can hardly be compared

to a hand grenade." Id., at 433.

 

Neither, in our view, can all guns be compared to hand

grenades. Although the contrast is certainly not as stark as that

presented in Liparota, the fact remains that there is a long

tradition of widespread lawful gun ownership by private individuals

in this country. Such a tradition did not apply to the possession

of hand grenades in Freed or to the selling of dangerous drugs that

we considered in Balint. See also International Minerals, 402 U.

S., at 563-565; Balint, 258 U. S., at 254. In fact, in Freed we

construed sec. 5861(d) under the assumption that "one would hardly

be surprised to learn that possession of hand grenades is not an

innocent act." Freed, supra, at 609. Here, the Government

essentially suggests that we should interpret the section under the

altogether different assumption that "one would hardly be surprised

to learn that owning a gun is not an innocent act." That

proposition is simply not supported by common experience. Guns in

general are not "deleterious devices or products or obnoxious waste

materials," International Minerals, supra, at 565, that put their

owners on notice that they stand "in responsible relation to a

public danger."

[when it inevitable turns into a destructive device]

Youre confusing "willfully" with "knowingly"- willfully requires knowledge of the illegality, knowingly requires knowledge of the characteristics which set it outisde the law.

 

For example-

Willfully: evading the 10k cash deposit reporting requirement is only illegal if you do so with the intent of breaking the law. You have to know about the law, know what you are doing violates the law and do so anyway.

 

Knowingly: possession of a short barreled shotgun only requires that you be aware that the shotgun be below 18 inches, not that you know the legal requirement is 18. Having a 17 inch shotgun might well be ok if you never bothered to measure it. But if it was 12 inches long, that is so far below 18 that it becomes prima facie evidence of knowledge.

 

NFA possession requires that the weapon be unregistered and that you know you possess it. For example, if you have a machine gun that is a machine gun only under ATF rules (an open bolt semiauto pistol you made yourself) but doesnt actually function as a machine gun, proving that you knowingly possessed a machine gun will be more difficult than if the machine gun actually functioned as a machine gun. See US v Staples 511 U.S. 600 (1994) for a great illustration of a conviction being overturned because the ATF didnt show he KNEW he possessed a machine gun. *sorry, screwed up my cite for staples, I cited to the lower court decision which got overturned by the SCOTUS, creating the knowingly rule

 

Unsporting shotgun DDs are even harder to prove knowingness because they are a subclass of weapons that are otherwise entirely lawful to possess. They only become unlawful after a special finding of the ATF which no ordinary person would be expected to be privy to. So prosecuting someone for possessing such a previously legal weapon would be very tricky. I suspect that the ATF would be hesitant to prosecute someone and have the entire subsection overturned on vagueness and notice Due Process grounds. It is very difficult for someone who is not extremely saavy of firearms law to be aware of these things. The effect of the statute is mostly in killing the supply side of teh market rather than actually eliminating weapons already possessed.

[when it inevitable turns into a destructive device]

They accepted DD registrations on the 1994 shotguns for over 10 years. And they will still accept them if you have a good excuse for not having been contacted about their change in status. Possession of NFA contraband has a "knowingly" element, so a Title 1 firearm that gets reclassified doesnt automatically put you in jail- you have to have been informed that it is now a Title 2 weapon so you decide not to register it and commit the crime.

 

They arent going to reclassify the saiga unless we get an antigun administration.

 

And even then, it will be difficult to prove that we knew we possessed a weapon with the characteristics that made it illegal. What would happen is that they would go to each of the 3-4 importers that imported the shotguns and then follow the guns out to the FFLs and then start contacting private parties who got the shotguns. The problem is that lots of people bought them from private parties, or people bought them and then died (bequeathing an ostensibly legal shotgun to their heirs) or bought them and changed address without telling anyone. In short, the ATF wont be able to find most of the saigas to inform people "send us the serial number of your shotgun so we can add you to the NFA registry." There wouldnt be a 200 dollar transfer tax (no transfer involved), only registration.

[M203 on a Saiga-12]

Why a dual stage/dual charge propellant? Doesnt the caseless stuff basically let you pick an appropriate size nozzle for whatever burn rate of propellant you use? The pressure would get bled off through the nozzle as the powder burned. You wouldnt even need the barrel beyond the first few inches since the projectile can direct the propulsive force that would otherwise need to get trapped in the barrel. It would basically be like a goldilocks round halfway between a firecracker and an RPG. I know we did miniature rocket rounds back in the 60s- I think it was called gyrojet, so I know it is technically feasible.

 

And yeah I realize that all these things are now considered "destructive devices" but of course you could make a rocket propelled signalling device and it would be perfectly legal.

[M203 on a Saiga-12]

That would pretty much be my number one worry of playing with explosive projectiles.

[M203 on a Saiga-12]

Yeah, obviously one would have to be very careful in designing grenade ammo. It is the sort of item prone to failing in a very dramatic fashion.

 

I would have been more concerned about getting it downrange without exploding and then making it explode reliably even on glancing hits.

 

Didnt the soviets experiment with using caseless grenade rounds? Hold the charge inside the projectile itself. It wouldn't have the low charge density problem and it would end up front heavy once it left the barrel, which would enhance stability.

[How does ATF look at fabricated/retro fit parts?]

You are misunderstanding my post.

 

-origin of raw materials is irrelevant. US firearms are made with foreign raw materials all the time. You think when Ruger orders 10,000 steel billets from a warehouse they check to make sure they are all US steel? You think US steel manufacturers ensure that they only use US iron ore?

 

-if you "make" a 922® part in this country, it is a US made 922® part, regardless of where the raw material came from. As long as the raw materials ceased to be a 922® part at some point prior to being "made" it isnt an imported part. Sawing out the thumbhole in a chinese stock isnt a making- it was already a stock before it entered the country and it never ceased being a stock at any time.

 

-place at which a "part" was made is irrelevant unless it is a 922® part. You can put a US made PG on a foreign gun and the 922® parts inside are still foreign.

 

Any ATF ruling contrary to this conflicts with a reasonable construction of the statute. Unless the statute specially defined "import" or "make," they have to use ordinary english uses of the words. Something doesnt become "imported" the second it uses one bit of raw material from outside the country. That sounds very much like the definition of "interstate commerce" and is not a standard way of reading statutes.

[How does ATF look at fabricated/retro fit parts?]

Ok, I found one case, where a guy sued after having his FFL application turned down for previously committing various violations, one of which was putting non-sporting features (a bayonet) on an SKS, which consists entirely of unequivocably imported parts.

 

Trader Vic's Ltd v. O'Neill, 169 F. Supp. 2d 957 (O'Neill was sued in his capacity as sec of treasury in 2001)

[How does ATF look at fabricated/retro fit parts?]

That's such bullshit. A huge portion of the steel in this country comes from china and japan right now. The origin of the raw material is irrelevant. The "making" of the part is the important step- at what point did it become the part it is now? If you use part of a russian trigger to make a new, different trigger, you have made a US part- you unmade the foreign part and then used the pieces to make a new US part.

 

The only time this doesnt hold true is if you:

-take a foreign part and modify it in such a way that it doesnt make transition from "non-part" to "part" in the US- refinishing a foreign stock for example.

-split up a foreign part and use it to reassemble a new domestic part if ATF regs count the part as multiple separate parts- for example a magazine isnt domestically or foreign made- the floorpate, body and follower are domestic or foreign themselves. You could replace the floorplate and follower with US parts and it would become 2/3rds domestic.

 

Unfortunately, my rant is just an unprovable opinion since no one has ever had to defend against a 922® related charge in court (that I can find). There is zero caselaw relating to this question. Actually, I'll check lexisnexis, hold on.

[M203 on a Saiga-12]

If you can find them is the catch. You can't.

 

IMO your best bet would be to become an SOT and start manufacturing your own.

 

Manufacturing and storing explosives brings you into an interesting area of the law, doubly so if you screw up. Strict liability is a huge bitch to deal with. Lets put it this way- if someone breaks into your shop and decides to torch it to cover his tracks- you get to foot the bill for all your neighbors that get hit by the grenades as they cook off.

[M203 on a Saiga-12]

2 words: barrel length.

 

18 22 caliber pellets is still less mass then 12 pellets of 00 buck. Not to mention the saiga can fire 10 of them in rapid succession.

 

I'm not trying to talk you out of it. There's no reason to not own silly toys, but you should realize what youre getting into- this has zero usefulness as a weapon. ESPECIALLY mounted to a saiga 12. I'd even go so far as to argue that a saiga 12 with HE shells would be better in many ways than a 40mm weapon.

[M203 on a Saiga-12]

So the XM922 is a 40mm too?

Yeah, that's the whole point of it. It lets you use your 40mm toy as a weapon because without ammo it is basically a big paperweight. There is a reason you never see guys using anything but practice rounds, because thats basically all you can get for them.

 

And all of those beehive type shells suck because they have less power and mass than a 12 gauge shell while weighing and costing more than ordinary 12 ga ammo.

 

9 x 22 caliber projectiles < 12 x 33 caliber projectiles.

 

If 40mm HE rounds ever become available to civilians again, I will be the first person to get a GL, but until then, it is pointless IMO.

[Cobra's AKS-12 Conversion Details]

I like that vented upper half.

[Sister Thread to Picture Posts]

Yeah, its the korsak laser. Who is making that bracket to adapt to the AK style lower foreends? I really want to go to a galil style forend like micah has.

[M203 on a Saiga-12]

40mm is a large-bore destructive device.

 

Individual grenades (or any exploding weapon or round) are DDs themselves as well. You also need special permits for storing the rounds. So you need licensing and proper storage facilities for the grenades and 200 dollars a grenade in transfer fees. Its really lame.

 

You have to remember that anyone storing or using explosives is subject to strict liability in civil cases- there basically isnt any defense if someone can show that your explosives harmed them or their property. It comes from decades of lawsuits against companies that were sloppy in using and storing dangerous materials. Obviously they would also be subject to criminal penalties for any misuse that destroys property or people. My argument is that these two legal factors are strong enough that we can allow people to own grenades without paying 200 dollars a pop and undergoing a separate background check for each one.

[M203 on a Saiga-12]

I heard the 40mm buckshot rounds really sucked because the velocity was very low to keep the recoil manageable.

 

The main problem with owning the M203 is that the ammo is nearly impossible to get. If you could get rid of the stupid ammo restrictions, it would be trivial to make or purchase 12ga HE rounds. It would be 1/4 of the payload of the 40mm stuff, but you could shoot far more of it with a far greater range and accuracy.

[Picture Post, Lets see your Saiga 12!]

Oh yeah, here is my room broom.

 

How do you guys make those AK style handguards? I really like them a lot more than the stock saiga foreend, which IMO looks like ass.

[Whats the deal with the AGP feed lips]

I made a long post with pictures but apparently AGP already knows that the feed lips suck and they are sending out replacements. When? I dont know.

[Oleg may have 8 rounders if anyones interested]

Personally I'm not too keen on the chicom style drums from an economic standpoint. The drums were neat but I'm not sure you would have people lined up around the block for them. There are still plenty of ruskie drums and rpk banana mags floating around.

 

If you could make a modular design so that it could be fitted with one of two magwell designs during production, you could sell one line to the AK crowd and another to the AR crowd. I think a reliable AK-style drum for the AR would be neat.

 

Also, I liked the 45 ACP uzi mags because there is pent up demand for them, but it might be too late with the grease gun lowers already floating around.

[Oleg may have 8 rounders if anyones interested]

Those russian guys who were squeezing the marketplace are gonna be hard up for customers thanks to AGP. Competition is so awesome.

 

Pretty amazing how long it took to go to market once it was obvious there was huge demnd for these mags. I wanted to manufacture saiga mags in 2004 but I realized early on that I didnt have the money or time.

 

This raises another question- now that AGP knows how to make magazines, a any chance of more magazine related ventures? Chinese style AK drums? Any patents on those have surely expired by now.

 

Olympic arms would probably pay solid money for a steady supply of 45 caliber Uzi magazines. Right now the only way to have a 45 caliber AR is to buy a special lower or pay 100 bucks for a 10 round uzi mag that fits the AR magwell and then weld on a catch for the mag release. If you could make a semiaffordable polymer version of that, I think a lot of people would buy them.

[AGP 10 rd MAG pics/reviews? PLEASE POST HERE]

Meh, I have law school finals and then I am going up to see my parents in NY where all my guns are illegal anyway. Wish I could go hunting.