Why 922r Compliance?

[SaigaNoobie 66]

Edited July 16, 2007 by SaigaNoobie

[reoiv 1]

I made this same argument on the SKS boards but since that is a military surplus weapon I think 925d covers it.

 

Since the Saiga isn't banned from import and is recognized as sporting to begin with I don't see why we need to follow 922r other than covering your ass.

 

Which is why I do it.

[SaigaNoobie 66]

But 925(d)(3) does NOT cover Military surplus rifles as they are excluded from the definition of a "Firearm" as imposed by 5845(a).

 

They must not consider SKS to be military surplus weapons. I'll look up the definition of Mil surp according to the U.S.C.

 

922r Applies to all of the following as i understand it:

 

Saiga 16" barrel rifles with folding stocks (since their minimum total length with stock folded would be less than 26")

 

Saiga Shotguns with barrels less than 18" or total length of less than 26".

 

and any Saiga that was converted to full auto.

 

Anyone can conjecture that Gun_A is not 922r compliant based solely on a parts count, but that's not what the law states. The law states that you must be 922r compliant IF the firearm is defined as such in 5845(a). Which any saiga over 26" minimum length WITH a 16" rifle or 18" Shotgun barrel is in compliance. (folding/telescopic stock must be measured in folded or shortest setting. I say this because they could argue that not 100% of the time is it 922r compliant and bust your ass.). There is a grey area about chokes being part of the barrel so I'd measure barrel length w/o a choke or flash suppressor to cover yourself.... Plus if it's a detachable piece, they could once again claim that it's not ALWAYS 922r compliant.

 

NOW, they COULD argue that a muzzle brake, being that it re-directs the gasses and therefore most of the sound sideways or backwards away from the target and thereby lessens the sound towards the target, is classified as a silencer under the definition that any object that reduces the report of a firearm is a Silencer and therefore falls under the definition of a firearm in 5845(a). But, as far as i can tell, a flash hider does not suppress or redirect sound, just dissipates the flame.

Edited July 17, 2007 by SaigaNoobie

[netpackrat 566]

You are confusing two different sets of law. The National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) covers things like machineguns, short barrelled rifles, short barrelled shotguns, supressors, etc. An NFA weapon (say, a short barrelled rifle) specifically does NOT have to comply with 922r or other bans on "ugly" guns. All NFA weapons are registered with the federal government, and must have a $200 tax paid to the ATF when they are created or transferred from one individual to another (with a few exceptions). The term "firearm" with respect to NFA means anything regulated under NFA, but outside of NFA more standard definitions apply.

 

922r is a different piece of law altogether, and only applies to imported semi-automatic rifles. Furthermore, if you shorten the barrel on a regular semi-auto rifle, and register it with ATF as an SBR, it no longer has to comply with 922r. Whether the converted Saiga is covered by 922r is more difficult to say, since it covers any rifle that would be illegal to import, and you will not find that list anywhere in law or regulation. The best you can do is try to get ahold of letters and other publications by the ATF which should list some of the unimportable weapons or configurations. The safe bet is that your converted Saiga DOES have to comply with the parts count limitations in 922r, because most/all AK variants other than "sporting" versions like the Saiga and WASR (which are converted by Century after importation) are not currently importable.

[SaigaNoobie 66]

I think you're confusing laws. No where in 922r or in the material and laws mentioned in 922r or it's subsidiary laws does it mention NFA act of 1934. I followed the law breakdown.

 

922r states that you cannot assemble a semi-automatic rifle or shotgun with more than 10 foreign parts IF (and here's the kicker) "the assembled firearm is prohibited from importation under section 925(d)(3)"....

 

If we inspect 925(d)(3) we find that it states that the Secretary shall NOT authorize a firearm to be imported if it falls under "the definition of a firearm in section 5845(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 AND is [not] generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes, excluding surplus military firearms."

 

Now to inspect 5845(a). Rifles NOT authorized to be imported: Rifles less than 26" total length or barrels of less than 16" OR a machinegun. Mil Surp are excluded from 5845(a) definitions.

 

The capitalized AND in 925(d)(3) is important as it requires the firearm to comply with Both clauses and not just one. So don't tell me that they must define saigas as not "generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes..." because even if this were the case, they don't fall under the 5845(a) definition.

 

Pistol grips, Thumbhole stocks, flash suppressors, muzzle brakes, and other "Evil" attributes were only mentioned in the Assault weapon ban of 1994 which is over. Most AK/AK variants are still illegal for import because of the shorter than 16" barrel or shorter than 26" total length due to folding stocks and due to the fact that most, if not ALL of them have a full-auto setting which makes them a machinegun.

Edited July 16, 2007 by SaigaNoobie

[loki0629 55]

Well....if it were me, I would ask myself two questions:

1) What would it cost me to be compliant for CYA purposes?

2) What would it cost me to be wrong in that I HAD to be 922R compliant but was not?

 

 

Personally, the cost in parts and labor outweighs the costs of lawyers and lengthy court battles.

 

I know you're just probably trying to get some clarification and you'll probably find that there are legal arguments for whatever position you choose to take. But ultimately, it's going to come down to whether you even want to fight this fight in the first place as opposed to getting additional parts and installing them on your weapon. That of course is worst case scenario.

 

However, I am glad that you've gone through the trouble of researching this and from my point of view your points are valid and logical.

 

Just my two cents.

[SaigaNoobie 66]

Thanks GunnyR.

 

Yes, the safe bet is to just have no more than 10 foreign parts in any gun to avoid ever having the issue come up... But then again, alot of things we do as Firearm owners is not the "Safest Bet". Just owning a gun increases the likely hood of accidental shootings in your house, but it also infinitely increases the chances of you defending your house from attack. I want to follow the Law, but I'm not going to do something superfluous to the law... Personally I'd really like to see the law that disproves my theory. I WANT to be wrong, otherwise it means hundreds of people who've looked at the law before me are wrong, and that doesn't seem right since I'm so new to guns, I must be overlooking something. I WANT to be wrong, because that means that the ATF letters i've seen are actual truth and not just a way of brow-beating the population into complying with a law they don't necessarily have to comply with. I WANT to be wrong, and I want YOU to prove it! Please, show me a law, a code, anything that's on the books! PLEASE, I've been searching for a reason I might be wrong but can't find one.

 

Oh and about the first question you stated "What would it cost me to be compliant for CYA purposes" The answer is simple. Liberty. If I'm restricting myself more than the law requires, I'm giving up a portion of my Liberty, and I won't do that even if it might save me a court battle in the future.

 

EDIT: After a bit of thought, this might sound extreme, but just like the 94' Assault Weapon Ban, I'd rather have the ability to buy one, than the Perceived "safety" gained from the weapons not legally being on the street. Honestly, do any numbers show that that ban actually HELPED the gun-crime? (Besides "Facts" made up by the Brady people?)

Edited July 16, 2007 by SaigaNoobie

[loki0629 55]

Yeah, I know what you mean about liberty. I live in NJ and we are all expected to pretty much lay down and die rather than defend ourselves. So that being the case, I place no particular reliance on my guns for self defense, especially when I am away from home. I'll use whatever means I have on hand to defend myself and my loved ones.

Hopefully it would be as something more effective than a bullet shield made out of meat.

Again I understand where you're coming from but until I change my current environment (lookout PA) I have to function within limitations or basically, with certain liberties already lost.

 

You're preaching to the choir in regards to gun bans and their effectiveness. Cars kill more people per year than guns and no one is contemplating a ban on them. That's because any rational person can see that for the most part, car accidents are caused by the people operating the machinery. Somehow that logic flies out the window when it comes to guns. "Sane" people can't seem to come cope with the fact that guns only have one purpose and that is to kill. Well...according to my world view there are certainly some people that need to be killed as quickly and efficiently as possible. Cho is the most recent example that comes to mind. But somehow thinking that way almost puts me in the same category of psychotic sociopath. Maybe I'll just write "Chicken Soup for the Mass Murder's Soul" and all will be well.

 

So back to the topic of the thread. I'm not stating that you DO have to be 922R compliant because the law says so. All I'm saying is that if you can live with the consequences of your decision then you really don't need anyone to prove that you do in fact have to be compliant.

 

P.S.

I've trained more than a fair share of Marines and one thing I always told them is that there is no such thing as an "accidental" shooting. If that weapon goes off then it was because of intent or negligence. Period.

[Hunter78 1]

Why shouldn't you be confused. The law doesnt make since to begin with. The ATF doesn't fully understand it.

 

I say that the best bet is to cover your ass and use the required US made parts since you need parts anyway. Although the chance of getting convicted of 922 violation is very very small It's just not worth the risk to only save a few bucks anyway.

 

I know of no one convicted of a 922 violation. Actually I don't think they could get you unless all the parts are stamed Made in China or Russia or something, OR you were dumb enough to admit that they are not US parts. How in the hell can they prove it anyway? I have never seen in the law where it says the parts have to be marked made in the US. I know alot of companies do mark there parts, but its probably to make us feel better. If I'm wrong please show me. I think the only way they would try is if you were guilty of something else that they couldn't prove. Kind of like Al Capone getting it for tax evasion.

[SaigaNoobie 66]

The way I read it I AM complying with the 922r because the Saiga .308 is exempt from the 10 parts count when assembled based upon the definitions provided in 5845(a) as a sub-reference of 925(d)(3) which in turn is what determines whether you need 10 or fewer Foreign Parts.

 

I would NEVER ever ever ever contimplate NOT complying with 922r, I just believe the law states that I AM complying without having a parts count unless I'm assembling a gun that would not be legal for import (I.E. a rifle with a shorter than 16" barrel or one that measures less than 26" or less in it's shortest configuration.) But the 20" .308 Saiga without a folding stock, complies with these two conditions and is therefore not an assembly of a gun that would be illegal for importation. Also, BEFORE the repeal of the 94' AW ban, putting a High-Cap mag in a gun, or installing a brake/FH or Pistol grip, would have put said gun into a configuration illegal for importation, but now that that ban is up, there is nothing stopping importers from bringing in NON-Machinegun weapons with 16"+ barrels and 26"+ Total length Semi-Auto Rifles with pistol-grips and Flash-hiders. And they are doing so as seen in the new .308 v. 21 with thumbhole-pistol grip stock.

 

ALSO, since putting a magazine in a gun is an assembly as defined by the ATF's highschool dropout interpretation, would not "Assemble" also constitute field stripping and re-assembly, since one could argue that putting an entire gun together is MORE of an assembly action than putting a magazine in it? If so, once you take apart a saiga, if the law does indeed only state that you must have no more than 10 foreign parts, aren't you committing a crime by putting it back together and thereby "assembling" a rifle that is not 922r compliant (That is, if you believe in 922r being a parts count law only)

 

I'd never want to be accused of a 922r violation, but then again, I think that if I were, I'd be able to set the record straight, even if I had to take it to the supreme court. I'd risk incarceration to fight the ATF on their misinterpretation of this law, rather than taking a quiet plea-bargain. I think I'll Join the NRA as a Lifetime member before I modify my gun though, just to make sure I have the giant on my side.

Edited July 16, 2007 by SaigaNoobie

[Buzz 0]

I've dealt with the BATFE. Based on my experiences and having dealt with agents I feel very confident that Saiga owners aren't anywhere near their radar screens or of any concern to them in any way, shape, or form. These guys have much biggger concerns than some guy failing to swap a few parts. Opinion letters are worthless and often conflicting and utter nonsense. Rob a bank with a Saiga and they may well count parts and throw a 922r violation on for good measure, but don't worry, that dark sedan parked out front of your house isn't out to get you. You may as well go and sew the warning tags back on your matresses.

 

CYA is one thing, but assessing the risk is another. But, if CYA is your thing, and as an attorney I am well versed in it, then go to it. And that's not even addressing he strong likelihood that 922r is a non-issue.

 

That's just my opinion that I'm sure is in the distinct minority.

[SaigaNoobie 66]

Buzz,

 

I'm no attorney but I'm glad someone on these boards is, would you mind following the cookie-crumb trail from 922r through it's sublimental 925(d)(3) and 5845(a). I just want to see what conclusions you come to.

[Buzz 0]

Buzz,

 

I'm no attorney but I'm glad someone on these boards is, would you mind following the cookie-crumb trail from 922r through it's sublimental 925(d)(3) and 5845(a). I just want to see what conclusions you come to.

 

Unfortunately, I can't. I've said too much already. I have personal opinions as a shooter to the degree that BATFE is interested in 922r as to the average Joe based on life experiences, but once I start to offer an opinion as to interpretations of the law itself I am arguably practicing law and offering a legal opinion upon which I may have malpractice liablility. Sorry.

[SaigaNoobie 66]

Well I'm glad I'm not an attorney then so I may offer an opinion on the interpretation of the law as a citizen under said law.

[Buzz 0]

Well I'm glad I'm not an attorney then so I may offer an opinion on the interpretation of the law as a citizen under said law.

 

Yes, you are fortunate that you need not worry about being sued for offering that opinion.

[BattleRifleG3 16]

One other thing to consider, something having everything to do with why peopel on forums have the position that they do.

 

If you indicate that you've broken a law or disregard them online, that's different from doing it in private without hurting anyone. If you post about your violation and act like it doesn't matter, law enforcement will have no choice but to take action, even if they don't really care.

 

Choosing what to investigate is something any LE officer and agency can do. Ignoring a violation that's posted in the open isn't something any LE agency can do.

[SaigaNoobie 66]

I don't even own a Saiga, so if they'd like to investigate my Mosin Nagant's Parts count, they may go right ahead. Also, I never stated that I was ignoring the law or circumventing it, nor would I ever consider breaking it. All I'm saying is that I don't see anywhere in the law it states that a 16"+ barreled rifle on a 26"+ total length body would require a no more than 10 foreign parts count.

 

If the law says you must STOP at a red light, then you Have to STOP, but it doesn't mean you have to put the car in park and turn it off as well and step outside of the vehicle to prove you've stopped.

 

The law says that you need a no more than 10 foreign parts count if your gun is classified as unimportable by the definition of a firearm in 5845(a) of the IRC of 1986. And 5845(a) only mentions short barreled and short overall length rifles and shotguns, as well as machineguns, and silencers as being unimportable.

 

LET ME SET THIS STRAIGHT: ALWAYS FOLLOW THE LAW TO THE FULL EXTENT OF THE LAW.

 

Anyone who believes that any of my posts are about breaking the law is mistaken, they are simply an open discussion of the interpretation of a law, please point out where in my posts you believe I am condoning breaking the law and I'll consider re-wording those parts so as to not be misinterpreted to read as such.

[BobAsh 582]

I understand the spirit of your post SN, and I feel that it's a valid discussion.

 

Most guys are going to continue to convert because it's legally the safest thing to do, plus there are performance-enhancing features. Unless you're just trying to save money, though, it's hard to argue the "belt & suspenders" approach.

[SaigaNoobie 66]

It is merely a discussion of amateur opinions based upon the interpretation of the law. And I understand that the "safest" thing to do is to continue to convert parts to US made. Personally I'd probably do the same thing, I just want to know why everyone makes the argument that you are REQUIRED To have no more than 10 parts on every saiga you customize by law.... Money isn't the issue, it's only a couple of bucks, the issue is restricting myself more than necessary through a law that exists in my own mind only. I'm fully willing to comply with the full extent of the law, but I am less eager to Give more of myself than the law requires.

[Koliadko 207]

It is merely a discussion of amateur opinions based upon the interpretation of the law. And I understand that the "safest" thing to do is to continue to convert parts to US made. Personally I'd probably do the same thing, I just want to know why everyone makes the argument that you are REQUIRED To have no more than 10 parts on every saiga you customize by law.... Money isn't the issue, it's only a couple of bucks, the issue is restricting myself more than necessary through a law that exists in my own mind only. I'm fully willing to comply with the full extent of the law, but I am less eager to Give more of myself than the law requires.

 

 

You're dealing with the government. Best of luck getting a straight answer.

[BobAsh 582]

Well, I do understand your objection to it "on Principle".

 

Personally speaking, I would choose other battles.

[SaigaNoobie 66]

You are a very wise and intuitive poster BobAsh.

 

Yes, there are other battles out there to choose from, and most are more important.

 

It is the principle of the thing that makes me discuss this. Even though they don't like it, we still live in a country with Freedom of Speech.

[devildog1122 0]

SaigaNoobie, your point is well taken. And I think this why you see many local gunshops selling firearms that are not compliance with the 922r. I would think the onwer would be smart enough to know the law. I don't think the owner wants an ATF agent walk in the store and point out to him that he is in violation of section 922r. To be on the safe side, I converted all my Saigas to be compliance with 922r. Please don't get upset with me, I'm just giving my observation.

[Buzz 0]

One other thing to consider, something having everything to do with why peopel on forums have the position that they do.

 

If you indicate that you've broken a law or disregard them online, that's different from doing it in private without hurting anyone. If you post about your violation and act like it doesn't matter, law enforcement will have no choice but to take action, even if they don't really care.

 

Choosing what to investigate is something any LE officer and agency can do. Ignoring a violation that's posted in the open isn't something any LE agency can do.

 

That is an excellent point. As BobAsh points out, it is just easier to legally convert. While I think the law is silly my Saigas are all legal and will continue to be legal despite any opinion that the risk is low.

[SaigaNoobie 66]

SaigaNoobie, your point is well taken. And I think this why you see many local gunshops selling firearms that are not compliance with the 922r. I would think the onwer would be smart enough to know the law. I don't think the owner wants an ATF agent walk in the store and point out to him that he is in violation of section 922r. To be on the safe side, I converted all my Saigas to be compliance with 922r. Please don't get upset with me, I'm just giving my observation.

 

I'd never get upset with anyone for having an opinion and your observations are well taken.

 

I think some of the posts on this topic are a tiny bit misguided though. I'm talking about being compliant with 922r without a parts count. I would never ever suggest anyone NOT comply with 922r, but the way it reads, you can comply with 922r and not have the 10 parts count. That's the point I'm making.

 

Stock Saiga .308 20" barrel.

 

New non folding stock, Flash hider, High cap mag, scope mount, scope. None of these make the gun not compliant with 922r. Shortening the overall length or the barrel will unless you do a parts count.

[SaigaNoobie 66]

If you were to take the stock plastic furniture off, and replace it with identical wooden furniture, would you be in or out of 922r compliance?

 

Russian Made wood? Yes or No 922r

 

US Made wood? Yes or No 922r

[nalioth 405]

If you were to take the stock plastic furniture off, and replace it with identical wooden furniture, would you be in or out of 922r compliance?

 

Russian Made wood? Yes or No 922r

 

US Made wood? Yes or No 922r

If you are replacing it with exactly the same configuration furniture, no 922r mods are necessary.

[SaigaNoobie 66]

So you'd agree that if the stock looked even slightly different, you'd be modding the rifle and therfore would have to do a parts conversion?

 

(That is, if you must do a parts count for ANY mod, which I don't believe the law states)

 

So If I were to make custom furniture for my Saiga from a block of wood, non-folding, and I didn't change any of the metal parts or add a "Pistol" grip, I'd have an illegal gun?

[nalioth 405]

So you'd agree that if the stock looked even slightly different, you'd be modding the rifle and therfore would have to do a parts conversion?

 

(That is, if you must do a parts count for ANY mod, which I don't believe the law states)

 

So If I were to make custom furniture for my Saiga from a block of wood, non-folding, and I didn't change any of the metal parts or add a "Pistol" grip, I'd have an illegal gun?

No, I said 'same configuration', not 'visually identical'. If you want to make your own wood buttstock, go for it.

 

Look at some of battlerifleG3s pix here on the forum.

[SaigaNoobie 66]

Ok, so if changing the stock doesn't cause the Rifle to be non-922r compliant, even though you've modified it and it contains MORE than 10 foreign parts, what's so special about the other "mods" that puts them in a different classification of modification than that of a stock? There is no more AW ban and therefore no classification of FH/M-Brakes/Pistol-grips/ etc. as "EVIL" or Unimportable. If you look up the place where the 94 ban used to be, there is nothingness. 1 piece is 1 piece.

 

What makes a Pistol grip and trigger group movement Un-importable?

Edited July 18, 2007 by SaigaNoobie