nalioth 405 Posted July 18, 2007 Report Share Posted July 18, 2007 No one says the law makes sense. We just have to follow it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
SaigaNoobie 66 Posted July 18, 2007 Author Report Share Posted July 18, 2007 The point I'm trying to make is that random people are making random accusations as to what is and what is not 922r compliant. The only ABSOLUTE TRUTH is the law itself. The law says nothing about Long-barreled saigas and Long over all length saigas, which are NOT M-guns, being required to have no more than 10 foreign parts. In fact, since RAAC is Importing a Thumbhole stock version of the Saiga, I'd say this proves my point. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TEXASAK73 13 Posted July 19, 2007 Report Share Posted July 19, 2007 (edited) DO YOU WANT TO BE THE FIRST JACKASS TO BE MADE INTO AN EXAMPLE? MAN JUST FUCKING DO IT! COVER YOUR ASS SO BUBBA DOES NOT GET A FREE SHOT AT THE VIRGIN HERSHEY HOLE. Why must this come up over and over again?Comply or get drilled,those are your options!The cost is not that bad compared to being locked up and labeled as a prison bitch!Has there been an actual 922 case?Shit,do you want to be the first? Comply or just don't post this stupid shit....The "what if" shit is dead so let it lie where it is... Fuck You !!!! I'm out! Edited July 19, 2007 by TEXASAK73 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
BullShark012 1 Posted July 19, 2007 Report Share Posted July 19, 2007 DO YOU WANT TO BE THE FIRST JACKASS TO BE MADE INTO AN EXAMPLE? MAN JUST FUCKING DO IT! COVER YOUR ASS SO BUBBA DOES NOT GET A FREE SHOT AT THE VIRGIN HERSHEY HOLE. Why must this come up over and over again?Comply or get drilled,those are your options!The cost is not that bad compared to being locked up and labeled as a prison bitch!Has there been an actual 922 case?Shit,do you want to be the first? Comply or just don't post this stupid shit....The "what if" shit is dead so let it lie where it is... Fuck You !!!! I'm out! Hey TX, just another point or question? Not to get on your shit list or anything....I just brought home my first Saiga (7.62 16" Sporter) Been taking to the group about converting....but really for me, I only just want to use a 30 rd. mag legally right now. No PG or anything, if I don't have to. So as I pick up my gun tonight...the guy at the shop (near Houston) says...."Texas has no size limit on mags. you can use a 30rd. mag. (even one made by Saiga, which he trided to sell me). Mine came w/ 1, 10 rd. mag., and I bought 1 more tonight just for grins. Thanks, BS012 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
texlurch 0 Posted July 19, 2007 Report Share Posted July 19, 2007 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TEXASAK73 13 Posted July 19, 2007 Report Share Posted July 19, 2007 DO YOU WANT TO BE THE FIRST JACKASS TO BE MADE INTO AN EXAMPLE? MAN JUST FUCKING DO IT! COVER YOUR ASS SO BUBBA DOES NOT GET A FREE SHOT AT THE VIRGIN HERSHEY HOLE. Why must this come up over and over again?Comply or get drilled,those are your options!The cost is not that bad compared to being locked up and labeled as a prison bitch!Has there been an actual 922 case?Shit,do you want to be the first? Comply or just don't post this stupid shit....The "what if" shit is dead so let it lie where it is... Fuck You !!!! I'm out! Hey TX, just another point or question? Not to get on your shit list or anything....I just brought home my first Saiga (7.62 16" Sporter) Been taking to the group about converting....but really for me, I only just want to use a 30 rd. mag legally right now. No PG or anything, if I don't have to. So as I pick up my gun tonight...the guy at the shop (near Houston) says...."Texas has no size limit on mags. you can use a 30rd. mag. (even one made by Saiga, which he trided to sell me). Mine came w/ 1, 10 rd. mag., and I bought 1 more tonight just for grins. Thanks, BS012 No shit list here,I say better to cover your ass than plug it! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Buzz 0 Posted July 19, 2007 Report Share Posted July 19, 2007 (edited) The first 922r violator prosecuted. Used to be a lumberjack. DO YOU WANT TO BE THE FIRST JACKASS TO BE MADE INTO AN EXAMPLE? MAN JUST FUCKING DO IT! COVER YOUR ASS SO BUBBA DOES NOT GET A FREE SHOT AT THE VIRGIN HERSHEY HOLE. Why must this come up over and over again?Comply or get drilled,those are your options!The cost is not that bad compared to being locked up and labeled as a prison bitch!Has there been an actual 922 case?Shit,do you want to be the first? Comply or just don't post this stupid shit....The "what if" shit is dead so let it lie where it is... Fuck You !!!! I'm out! Edited July 19, 2007 by Buzz Quote Link to post Share on other sites
netpackrat 566 Posted July 19, 2007 Report Share Posted July 19, 2007 Texlurch, thanks for posting. It is good that somebody here has an understanding of the regulations. 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. First off, forget about the '94 AWB. It has NOTHING to do with 922r, and never did. It was a totally separate piece of law that was passed in addition to the pre-existing ban on IMPORTED "assault rifles" (aka 922r, 925d, etc.) which was implemented by President George H.W. Bush in 1989 by executive order. The '94 ban came and went, leaving the '89 ban still in place. You will not find a listing of exactly what is or is not an unimportable configuration in the regulation, because they have never been part of the regulation. What the executive order did, was change the way that the federal government ENFORCES those pre-existing regulations and law (922r, 925d, Gun Control Act of 1968, etc.), by declaring a bunch of previously legal rifles to be "not suitable for sporting purposes" and therefore, unimportable. The only place you are going to find any sort of listing of what is importable or not, is in various letters that ATF has sent to dealers, importers, etc trying to explain to them what is legal or not. This takes some digging, and Google is your friend. The other bass-ackwards way of knowing is to just look at what is available to us on the market. If, for example, the ATF would allow a standard Russian semi-auto AK model (pistol grip, etc.) to be imported, it's a safe bet that lots of them would be sold here. So the absence of that is a strong indicator that assembling the same thing in the US from foreign parts is going to run afoul of the ATF. Same with the AKs and things that they DO actually let in. If Century could get away with selling the WASR in converted form WITHOUT swapping in US made parts, they would certainly do so and everybody would save a little money. The fact that every "assault rifle" that is built from a parts kit, or converted from a neutered version, have had perfectly functional parts replaced with US made equivalents, can be taken as prima facie evidence that if you assemble a similar rifle, you also need to play the US parts game. Does it suck? Is it vague and arbitrary? Does it violate your constitutional right to acquire weapons? Of course it does. But the ATF are not nice people. They get off on executing no-knock warrants, shooting people, stomping pets to death, and otherwise ruining lives through the legal process. Their ultimate goal is to reduce the number of gun owners in this country to ZERO, and every time they can convict one of us of a felony, they have gotten a little bit closer to that goal. The fact that no individual gun owner appears to have been prosecuted for this can be taken to mean a couple of things. One, they have bigger fish to fry, a limited budget to work with, and they haven't gotten around to hassling the little guy over this yet. It is probably more worthwhile for them to go after guys with unregistered machine guns, suppressors, explosives, etc. than to try and check people's otherwise legal rifles for the right number of US made parts. Two, it is possible that they aren't pushing it because even they KNOW it is unconstitutionally vague and/or abitrary and capricious, and that actually prosecuting some individual for violation of 922r runs the risk of getting the whole thing struck down in court. If that assumption is true, then they'd rather let Joe Gunowner get away with a technical violation on what would otherwise be a perfectly legal rifle, than to risk opening up the floodgates that would allow those rifles to be imported in quantity again. Personally, I think it is foolish to run the risk when compliance with their stupid BS is so easy in most cases. If you want to become a test case to get this struck down in court, I'll certainly cheer you on from the sidelines, but eventually they will run you out of money to pay your high priced lawyer(s), and you will plead guilty to a felony in exchange for reduced jail time, which means that you can no longer own ANY guns. This is their standard tactic. Now, I'm not a lawyer, just a dumb-ass jet mechanic, but I would rather spend a few bucks on the US parts, and live to fight another day. I think there are a lot of battles worth going to court and risking jail time over, but this is not one of them. And, if you still want to thumb your nose at the feds, reasonably secure in the knowledge that you probably aren't worth bothering with, then more power to you. But for crying out loud, don't post about it on the World Wide Web! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
SaigaNoobie 66 Posted July 19, 2007 Author Report Share Posted July 19, 2007 Wow.... I never said I was going to break the law. I never said I was NOT going to comply with 922r, Hell I even said I'd probably do the parts conversion for safety. The point was to better understand the law, not to yell and scream. Sorry I brought up a topic for discussion. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
netpackrat 566 Posted July 19, 2007 Report Share Posted July 19, 2007 Wow.... I never said I was going to break the law. I never said I was NOT going to comply with 922r, Hell I even said I'd probably do the parts conversion for safety. The point was to better understand the law, not to yell and scream. Sorry I brought up a topic for discussion. Not yelling and screaming. Just trying to correct your misunderstanding, because if incorrect information is allowed to remain posted without challenge, somebody else may come along and get the idea that they don't need to comply with 922r, and possibly get in trouble. Even if that is extremely unlikely. The other thing that you seem to be stuck on, which nobody has really addressed, is how it mentions that machine guns, and rifles with short barrels are not importable. Those sorts of weapons are regulated under the National Firearms Act of 1934, and there is NO NFA weapon that has to comply with 922r. For example, if you pay the $200 tax to build a legal short barreled rifle that is registered with ATF, then you do not have to worry about US parts. 922r only applies to regular semi automatic rifles. The only reason it is mentioned at all is to make it illegal to import new SBRs and machine guns, not to require those weapons to be built with US parts. SBRs and machine guns are considered non sporting regardless of whatever other physical characteristics they may have. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
BobAsh 582 Posted July 19, 2007 Report Share Posted July 19, 2007 " For example, if you pay the $200 tax to build a legal short barreled rifle that is registered with ATF, then you do not have to worry about US parts" For general info, this is because when you SBS/SBR a gun, you become the manufacturer of that gun. It is no longer a "foreign-made" firearm at that point. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
BullShark012 1 Posted July 19, 2007 Report Share Posted July 19, 2007 Thanks! I knew that guy at the gun shop didn't know the federal Law. Just because there's not a Mag size limit in Texas doesn't mean it Applies to an Imported Semi-automatic Rifle like Saiga. Must Convert if I want 30 rd. mags, end of question! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
SaigaNoobie 66 Posted July 19, 2007 Author Report Share Posted July 19, 2007 Ok, good to know about the NFA etc. Does anyone have a link to the US Code that defines what makes a rifle "Un-Sporting"? A list of parts that, when attached, make a gun's main use for non-sporting activities.... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
texlurch 0 Posted July 19, 2007 Report Share Posted July 19, 2007 Ok, good to know about the NFA etc. Does anyone have a link to the US Code that defines what makes a rifle "Un-Sporting"? A list of parts that, when attached, make a gun's main use for non-sporting activities.... The biggest one that they keep coming back to is the large capacity military mag. Anything over 8-10 rds is considered large capacity, i.e. non-sporting. And like was stated above, there is no set list, other than what they reply in all the various letters they have sent out over the years. And that changes day to day, and depending on who you talk to. Best rule of thumb is if you change it from the condition it was imported, you have removed it from it's intended purpose. Common sense here. If the regular AK with its 30 rd mag, pistol grip and folding stock is banned from import, adding those parts to your Saiga puts it into the same class, and therefor falls under 922r. The G3 I built is banned from import, so I had to use the proper number of US parts. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TEXASAK73 13 Posted July 19, 2007 Report Share Posted July 19, 2007 Way too much tequila last night....My apologies! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
SaigaNoobie 66 Posted July 19, 2007 Author Report Share Posted July 19, 2007 Way too much tequila last night....My apologies! HAHAHA I was wondering... It seemed like all of a sudden I struck a sensitive nerve and BLAMO! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Tokageko 8 Posted July 20, 2007 Report Share Posted July 20, 2007 Seems like you guys have this pretty well sorted out. Normally I would have been all over this topic - and probably piss off a few people. lol There are a few loose ends I'd like to tie up though. The length of a 16" barrel AKM from the back of the receiver to the muzzle isn't that much under 26". Weld an AK 74 style flash-hider to the muzzle and you should be good to go. Replacing sporting furniture with sporting furniture doesn't put a gun into an unimportable configuaration. That's part of why BRG3 makes the superb furniture that he does. It's two compliance parts for people who like the "sporting" stock, but want to use high capacity magazines (which will probably have to be US made to cover the "10 parts rule"). As BRG3, and several others, mentioned: probable cause is part of the issue. Police need probable cause for any unwarranted search, unless the property owner agrees to the search. So, under most circumstances, there's no reason to worry about any of your guns being inspected unless you're doing something stupid with them. (Not talking about any particular person.) Buying US parts may be more expensive, but it supports our domestic firearms industry. You help our economy by using US parts in your conversion. You also convince makers to take bigger risks and make more parts. The bigger the market looks to be, the less reluctant people will be to put parts into production. It also builds an interest in new accessories. You can see where I'm going with this. .... and for the last time: POPE JOHN PAUL II'S SOCKS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH 922® COMPLIANCE.* *Dear gods I hope someone gets that joke/refference... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
netpackrat 566 Posted July 20, 2007 Report Share Posted July 20, 2007 The length of a 16" barrel AKM from the back of the receiver to the muzzle isn't that much under 26". Weld an AK 74 style flash-hider to the muzzle and you should be good to go. Rifles with an overall length of less than 26" are NFA items, but only if they are too short in a fireable configuration. Taking the buttstock off a standard rifle does not count as being in a fireable configuration, so a standard length AK with a fixed stock is okay. Where it gets sticky, is when you put a folding stock on, especially one that is flush with the rear trunnion when folded, like some side folders (AMD-65 stock for example), and underfolders, if the muzzle device is removed. Since the gun is readily fireable with the stock folded, and no disassembly is required to get to that point, some believe that such a rifle needs to be 26" or longer, even with the stock folded. With the muzzle device installed, an AK with a standard length barrel and a folding stock should be good to go. Where there seems to be some disagreement, is on whether the muzzle device has to be permanently attached. Common sense would seem to dictate no, because there are lots of commercially built AKs on the market without permanently attached muzzle brakes or flash hiders, and the ATF doesn't seem to have a problem with that. On the other hand, who is to say that if you are unfortunate enough to have ATF take an interest in you, that they will not "lose" your muzzle device. It may not stick in court, but again, they are counting on wearing you down and forcing you to accept a plea bargain (or turn informant on your buddies) anyway. I built an AK folder using a standard Romy parts kit with an AMD-65 folding stock and trunnion. Without the flash hider, it would have been just under 26" with the stock folded, so to be on the safe side I made several tack welds between the front sight block and the flash hider using my TIG machine. So now I just don't have to worry about it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Tokageko 8 Posted July 20, 2007 Report Share Posted July 20, 2007 I did write that with Underfolders and Flush fitting side folders in mind. To my knowledge, a permanently attached "muzzle device" counts for barrel length. I'm basing this on the batch of 17.7" barreled Saiga 12's that came into the country a while ago. They didn't have to be shipped back to Russia. They did have to go back to the importer and have extensions (choke tubes IIRC) welded to their muzzles. Same reasoning is supported by the existence of the "AMD-65 922® compliance flash hider". I think that's basically a long way of asking: So we agree then? lol ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On an unrelated note, this site has a few good examples of ATF rulings: http://home.att.net/~j.p.george/ This one is a bunch of letters: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/user/wbardwel...falist/law.html Just some fun reading if you ever get bored out of your mind. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
BobAsh 582 Posted July 20, 2007 Report Share Posted July 20, 2007 Sport stocks....pope's socks....I don't get it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
netpackrat 566 Posted July 22, 2007 Report Share Posted July 22, 2007 No, I didn't need to weld the flash hider on for barrel length, because I used a standard length barrel. I welded the flash hider on, to make it more difficult for anybody to come along later, and claim that my rifle is less than 26" overall by removing the flash hider. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
LESchwartz 9 Posted July 22, 2007 Report Share Posted July 22, 2007 Does anyone have a link to the US Code that defines what makes a rifle "Un-Sporting"? A list of parts that, when attached, make a gun's main use for non-sporting activities.... ATF gets to decide what is "non-sporting" -- Here's the links you ask for: 1) Full text of ATF's 1989 study (the semi-auto AK declared non-sporting): http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/user/wbardw...1989_report.txt. 2) Full text of ATF's 1998 study (hi-cap mags declared non-sporting): http://www.atf.gov/firearms/assault/pdf/complete.pdf. 3) ATF Brochure on this subject (lighter reading): http://www.simonov.net/Files/assembly.zip. 4) My SKS FAQ page on this subject (SKS oriented, but many more links): http://www.victorinc.com/SKS-FAQ.html#_Toc167103928. Check my FAQ page. . . it has the answer to just about every one of your questions . . . I'm out of town on business, so read the FAQ and I'll try to fill in any gaps as I have available time. Larry Quote Link to post Share on other sites
LESchwartz 9 Posted July 22, 2007 Report Share Posted July 22, 2007 First off, forget about the '94 AWB. It has NOTHING to do with 922r, and never did. It was a totally separate piece of law that was passed in addition to the pre-existing ban on IMPORTED "assault rifles" (aka 922r, 925d, etc.) which was implemented by President George H.W. Bush in 1989 by executive order. The '94 ban came and went, leaving the '89 ban still in place. You will not find a listing of exactly what is or is not an unimportable configuration in the regulation, because they have never been part of the regulation. What the executive order did, was change the way that the federal government ENFORCES those pre-existing regulations and law (922r, 925d, Gun Control Act of 1968, etc.), by declaring a bunch of previously legal rifles to be "not suitable for sporting purposes" and therefore, unimportable. <snip> +1 to your whole post . . . I couldn't have said it any better. Larry Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Tokageko 8 Posted July 22, 2007 Report Share Posted July 22, 2007 Sorry to have misunderstood, Netpackrat. I originally missed the fact that you had used a full-length barrel. I understand what you're saying about "jackasses" trying to prove something by removing a muzzle-device. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Buzz 0 Posted July 30, 2007 Report Share Posted July 30, 2007 Just a comment about reading the law. There are sources for reading the United States Code online, probably Findlaw.com would have it. But sometimes it isn't as simple as reading the Code itself. Sometimes particular aspects or terms within the law have been defined through caselaw and aren't apparent to the reader unless they are reading an annotated version with applicable cases noted. Other laws may be applicable or supercede the application of any section to a particular application. It is tricky at best. If we are trying to comply with the law, as I know that we all are, the best route is to play it safe and remain undoubtably within the law rather than playing it close to the edge. While my opinion has been different in the past, a certain situation came to my attention this past weekend that leads me to believe that the BATFE is also very interested in the little guy. In fact, I would now say that to ignore full compliance with 922r or any Federal firearms law would be the height of stupidity, and that blatant public violation only invites enforcement and the impostion of further restrictions. Discussing it and understanding it is quite another matter and is only to our benefit. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
LESchwartz 9 Posted July 30, 2007 Report Share Posted July 30, 2007 While my opinion has been different in the past, a certain situation came to my attention this past weekend that leads me to believe that the BATFE is also very interested in the little guy. In fact, I would now say that to ignore full compliance with 922r or any Federal firearms law would be the height of stupidity, and that blatant public violation only invites enforcement and the impostion of further restrictions. Care to elaborate? Larry Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Willie D 2 Posted July 31, 2007 Report Share Posted July 31, 2007 I think it could be used against someone they wanted to nail but couldn't get any dirt on. They are obviously aware of the law and its loopholes but if they aren't gonna arrest Killimall (who's every auction would be evidence against himself) or use it to pile on charges for Chai Vang, the hunter who went berserkin WI, they DON"T CARE WHAT YOU DO AT THE RANGE! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Vermiform 26 Posted August 1, 2007 Report Share Posted August 1, 2007 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
joelrod47 373 Posted August 1, 2007 Report Share Posted August 1, 2007 ? ............me neither, Bob............ C'mon guys, educate the unwashed masses........the pope's socks and 922r????? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
SaigaNoobie 66 Posted August 1, 2007 Author Report Share Posted August 1, 2007 I just read up on Chai Vang.... That's an awful story. What a Bastard. 20 shots out of his 7.62x39 Saiga.... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.