BobAsh 582 Posted August 1, 2007 Report Share Posted August 1, 2007 "I defer to Tokageko, he is the man........ " Although she's one of the cooler people around here, she's not a guy. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Vermiform 26 Posted August 2, 2007 Report Share Posted August 2, 2007 I got all hot and bothered one day about some non-existnt possible 922R problems with a new InterOrdinance rifle. Indy gave me a much needed "Reality Body Check". Sometimes my brain gets stuck and I need someone to hit my reset button. http://forum.saiga-12.com/index.php?showtopic=14473&hl= Quote Link to post Share on other sites
fossten 1 Posted August 4, 2007 Report Share Posted August 4, 2007 Okay, now I have a question. My understanding of the discussion is that 922R mandates that if I use a high cap mag, I must put 10 US made parts on this rifle. I have also read posts where guys said "Hey, just put a new butt, pistol grip, and trigger group in and you're good to go. But I can count. Buttstock, pistol grip, trigger guard, and even throwing in a handguard add up to only 6, so what am I supposed to do to get the other 4? Do I have to put a muzzle brake, a US made sight block, and two other as yet unnamed parts on this rifle to make it compliant? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
dinzag 31 Posted August 4, 2007 Report Share Posted August 4, 2007 Okay, now I have a question. My understanding of the discussion is that 922R mandates that if I use a high cap mag, I must put 10 US made parts on this rifle. I have also read posts where guys said "Hey, just put a new butt, pistol grip, and trigger group in and you're good to go. But I can count. Buttstock, pistol grip, trigger guard, and even throwing in a handguard add up to only 6, so what am I supposed to do to get the other 4? Do I have to put a muzzle brake, a US made sight block, and two other as yet unnamed parts on this rifle to make it compliant? 10 imported parts max... Not 10 U.S. parts needed. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
dinzag 31 Posted August 4, 2007 Report Share Posted August 4, 2007 This is now stickied on top of the Tech Section... Saiga Shotgun & Rifle Parts Count Quote Link to post Share on other sites
RDSWriter 5 Posted August 4, 2007 Report Share Posted August 4, 2007 FYI - For clarification of FEDERAL LAW you measure the overall length of a rifle with a folding stock, with the stock EXTENDED... provided that the stock is not readily detachable, and the weapon is meant to be fired from the shoulder. Most states have the same definition; some do not. NOTE: some states require that you measure with the stock folded per STATE LAW. So as always, know your state laws. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
uzitiger 193 Posted August 4, 2007 Report Share Posted August 4, 2007 The most obscene thing about the 1968 law is that it was copied from the 1938 Nazi gun control act, This was done by the corrupt Thomas Dodd former senator from Connecticut who had the Library of Congress translate his own copy of that law. Now his son wants to be president and continue the Nazi law tradition his father started. The sporting clause in that law is pure Nazi and not [art of the US Constitution. It's shocking that someone who prosecuted Nazis would plagiarize one of their laws in the United States which fought to destroy Nazism. Dodd must have been one sick bastard to do this to the American people. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
texlurch 0 Posted August 4, 2007 Report Share Posted August 4, 2007 The 1968 NFA act was concerning full auto and SBR rifles.. 922r came quite a bit later. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
G O B 3,516 Posted August 4, 2007 Report Share Posted August 4, 2007 922r is an "add on" offense. If you piss off Barney Fife and he can't make a case on anything else...... you still get it in the end. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
LESchwartz 9 Posted August 5, 2007 Report Share Posted August 5, 2007 The 1968 NFA act was concerning full auto and SBR rifles.. 922r came quite a bit later. 1934 - NFA (National Firearms Act) dealt with full auto and SBR. 1968 - GCA (Gun Control Act) the big one, also includes the basis of the "import bans". 1986 - No more Full autos can be manufactured or imported. 1986? - Import ban on "street sweeper" shotguns. 1989 - Import ban on semi auto AK's, etc. 1991 - 922® rules. 1998 - Import ban on rifles using high cap mags. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
netpackrat 566 Posted August 7, 2007 Report Share Posted August 7, 2007 FYI - For clarification of FEDERAL LAW you measure the overall length of a rifle with a folding stock, with the stock EXTENDED... provided that the stock is not readily detachable, and the weapon is meant to be fired from the shoulder. I've seen this opinion in several forums, and until somebody can post some actual proof that ATF only measures with the stock extended, I will continue to err on the side of caution, and believe they measure with the stock folded, if the weapon is fireable in that configuration. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Tokageko 8 Posted August 13, 2007 Report Share Posted August 13, 2007 Props to you guys for keeping this thing going. You might just break the record I set with my thread on reasons Open Carry is better than concealed. lol Honestly, I have no idea if that set any record. I also wanted to say to Bob that it's ok, I can be "the man" on occasion. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
xberet 0 Posted August 24, 2007 Report Share Posted August 24, 2007 IMHO pushing the limits of anything the BATFE has control over is risking trouble that you don't need. We can speculate all we want about what they may or may not do and right now the answer may be that non 922r compliance is generally a non-issue. But I can guarantee that someone in one of the zillion or so "Homeland Security" agencies monitors the gun forums and being gov. folks, they keep files full of all the strange wonderful things we talk about. Seems to me that some of the "neener-neener-booboo, I'll do what I want" posts, although rare, could come back to haunt us. Most of the posts I've seen here are not only intelligent but they provide information that encourages, enables and promotes compliance with applicable laws. Yes, you could fight it out with the BATFE over the meaning of this or that word but if you're like me about 15 minutes into the fight there wouldn't be enough money left in your pocket to make your one allowed phone call. Compliance is actually simple AND it gives an excuse to work on a rifle, which is NEVER a bad thing. I have no problem with the perception that BATFE is smarter than me and is therefore capable of regulating what I can and can't do with my firearms, it's their job. I've also been married a couple of times so I'm used to keeping my mouth shut to stay out of trouble. At this point I still have my guns and THAT's the fight I'll worry about when it comes, not whether I have to buy a US made handguard to keep things quiet and calm. But that's just me.... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
fossten 1 Posted August 24, 2007 Report Share Posted August 24, 2007 (edited) It's not that BATFE is smarter than you. It's that they have unlimited funds and firepower with which to make your life a living hell individually, if you so much as look at them cross-eyed. But they know good and well that if they pissed off a few million serious gun owners, they wouldn't stand a chance. That's why they pick off isolated cases one at a time. Imagine if several thousand gun owners reacted with violence every time a BATFE jackbooted ski masked thug squad arrested some Joe Schmo and stomped his cat to death because he didn't fill out some yellow form correctly or on time. Things would change in a hurry. Edited August 24, 2007 by fossten Quote Link to post Share on other sites
buckandaquarterquarterstaff 5 Posted August 24, 2007 Report Share Posted August 24, 2007 It's not that BATFE is smarter than you. It's that they have unlimited funds and firepower with which to make your life a living hell individually, if you so much as look at them cross-eyed. But they know good and well that if they pissed off a few million serious gun owners, they wouldn't stand a chance. That's why they pick off isolated cases one at a time. Imagine if several thousand gun owners reacted with violence every time a BATFE jackbooted ski masked thug squad arrested some Joe Schmo and stomped his cat to death because he didn't fill out some yellow form correctly or on time. Things would change in a hurry. How refreshing! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ak308101 0 Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 do the US made parts HAVE to be marked "US/US made", to comply? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Azrial 1,091 Posted June 21, 2009 Report Share Posted June 21, 2009 do the US made parts HAVE to be marked "US/US made", to comply? No, now lets let this thread rest in peace. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
netpackrat 566 Posted June 21, 2009 Report Share Posted June 21, 2009 No, now lets let this thread rest in peace. It's . Quote Link to post Share on other sites
fxhart 14 Posted June 22, 2009 Report Share Posted June 22, 2009 I'm going to guess that he actually used the search... or did a lot of reading. It's understandable that he would post to this thread. Of course if he didn't search and just asked he would have gotten the standard 'This forum has a search feature, try it'. Damned if you do... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
royke 0 Posted June 25, 2009 Report Share Posted June 25, 2009 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. Suppose someone has a stock Saiga rifle which is not modified to accept a LCMM (Large Capacity Military Magazine) and puts a 20 round US made Surefire Mag made specificly for the Saiga and which will not fit the military type AK rifles....Will this bring the completely as imported Saiga under 922? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Darth AkSarBen 20 Posted June 25, 2009 Report Share Posted June 25, 2009 Waas over at On Target the other day and saw a Ruger Mini-14 Tactical with 20 rd that they had for sale that came standard with a collapsible AND fold up stock and had to have a pistol purchase permit because the overall length when the stock folded to the side, made it a semi auto pistol. It only has a 16" barrel, and when folded and it can shoot from that position, it's pretty short. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
VincentYGB 0 Posted June 26, 2009 Report Share Posted June 26, 2009 Anything over 8-10 rds is considered large capacity, i.e. non-sporting. Yeah, but if I'm out "sporting" (hunting?) a 30 round mag in my AK triples the chances I might actually hit something I aim at. ...and gives me a sporting chance. 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.