Recent ATF letter

[nalioth 405]

Here is a recent ATF letter. Remember that ATF letters are only "binding" (if you want to use that word) for the original writer, but this one should give insight into "how they are thinking" (at least how they were thinking April 29, 2009). This was obtained from some poor soul on another forum, cuz me knot litterret enuf 2 rite ledders.

 

The question(s):

 

 

 

and the response:

 

 

[elvis christ 451]

Interesting. So I can have a gun in violation of 922r, as long as I don't assemble it? That's absurd.

[Twinsen 86]

Interesting. So I can have a gun in violation of 922r, as long as I don't assemble it? That's absurd.

 

Freedom isn't absurd. A person can be punished if they didn't know they broke the law.

IE: You can't say you didn't know what the speed limit is. You can't say you didn't know it was illegal to punch somebody in the face.

 

However, they should not be punished if they couldn't know that they were doing something illegal at all.

IE: You can't put somebody in jail for stopping an undercover cop from shooting somebody. Also seems you can't get in trouble for buying something illegally configured that by no method of examination on Earth could the illegality be determined. Good on ATF!

Edited May 18, 2009 by Twinsen

[elvis christ 451]

That's kinda what I was thinking. You always hear 'ignorance of the law is no excuse' I just assumed that an agency like the ATF would probably follow that sort of mentality.

[Azrial 1,091]

I really wish that every yahoo in the country would quit writing these letters to the BATF! They are a regulatory agency, and that it what they do, regulate! The more of these letters they get, the more chance that the next one will cause a newly problematic regulation for us all. This is something that we hams learned with the FCC!

[nalioth 405]

I really wish that every yahoo in the country would quit writing these letters to the BATF! They are a regulatory agency, and that it what they do, regulate! The more of these letters they get, the more chance that the next one will cause a newly problematic regulation for us all. This is something that we hams learned with the FCC!

Well, the original thread where I got this from had a guy who sounds like a bean counter and wants everything 'cut and dried' for him.

 

I also wish folks would not write to them for these "clarifications".

 

 

Then again, as I mentioned in the OP, these letters only affect the writers (because you can write the same letter in a month and will most likely get different answers)

[BobAsh 582]

I noticed they skipped the magazine issue completely.

[Azrial 1,091]

...Then again, as I mentioned in the OP, these letters only affect the writers (because you can write the same letter in a month and will most likely get different answers)

You are quite correct, and more problematically, they reverse themselves on their own letters even with the same original questioner. A good example of this would be the letters from SWD about the open bolt Cobray MAC-10. First it had been rendered too difficult to convert, per the BATF, then they revered what they said in that earlier letter, now saying that it was too easy to convert.

 

And the gun and the company was dead after relaying on that letter to make their business plan. The letters are next to useless.

 

PLEASE FOLKS, do not send off for them!

[Folkien 0]

I noticed they skipped the magazine issue completely.

 

Eh, the "as long as none of the original parts are substituted with replacement or additional parts" line would indicate that any swap of magazine is considered assembly, compliant or not. Of course, this has held to be true in most of our minds for several years now.

 

If everyone is gonna keep writing them letters, someone might as well get to asking the question "When are you guys gonna start prosecuting people on Gunbroker and similar sites with suspiciously constructed weapons?" Or even better, "When are you guys gonna reduce the compliance parts count to zero and come grab everything reassembled with a pistol grip?"

[aresv 49]

Interesting. So I can have a gun in violation of 922r, as long as I don't assemble it? That's absurd.

 

Apparently so... as long as you never detail strip it. Putting it back together might constitute "assembly".

 

I picked up post Bush-ban Norinco in exactly that way: not 922® compliant. Payed my money, took it home and made sure to swap out parts before using it.

[Gunfixr 76]

...Then again, as I mentioned in the OP, these letters only affect the writers (because you can write the same letter in a month and will most likely get different answers)

........ A good example of this would be the letters from SWD about the open bolt Cobray MAC-10. First it had been rendered too difficult to convert, per the BATF, then they revered what they said in that earlier letter, now saying that it was too easy to convert.

 

I contacted ATF about making a couple open bolt semiautos from subgun kits myself. The short answer was "no". The long answer was that it would most probably be considered an AOW. The only other way would be to send a sample version to Firearms Tech for inspection. It would be inspected, and, if approved, only then could it be made and only exactly as the sample.

[Reverendfranz 160]

I contacted ATF about making a couple open bolt semiautos from subgun kits myself. The short answer was "no". The long answer was that it would most probably be considered an AOW. The only other way would be to send a sample version to Firearms Tech for inspection. It would be inspected, and, if approved, only then could it be made and only exactly as the sample.

 

Interesting, i didnt know they were accepting any open bolt designs, though im not sure how it would be classified as an AOW, either, unless it had a smoothbore. Still, doesnt sound like it would be worth the manufacturing tax, for what would be usually be a simple and inexpensive design.

[Gunfixr 76]

Yeah, the general gist was it would be a no-go, but it might be possible.

 

It was going to be a big PITA for just 2 guns. I'm just redesigning it. I only got 2 kits, and will unlikely ever get any more. I was just looking for an easy way out.

 

Fat chance.

[Malikovski 0]

Man, looks like I am a poor soul, a bean counter, and a yahoo just for writing a letter to ask clarification on some murky points of law. Pretty tough crowd over here at the Saiga forums!

 

I found their reply quite interesting. Too bad they didn't directly address the magazine issue, even though I had specifically asked.

 

Their reply to my letter about the Benelli M4 was not so good...they kept referring to it having a detachable magazine, which it doesn't have.

[nalioth 405]

Man, looks like I am a poor soul, a bean counter, and a yahoo just for writing a letter to ask clarification on some murky points of law. Pretty tough crowd over here at the Saiga forums!

 

I found their reply quite interesting. Too bad they didn't directly address the magazine issue, even though I had specifically asked.

 

Their reply to my letter about the Benelli M4 was not so good...they kept referring to it having a detachable magazine, which it doesn't have.

The ATF has been caught reversing (and reversing it's reversals) more than once.

 

The law is the law is the law.

 

When you write the revenuers, they render their "opinion du jour" of the actual US Code.

 

 

If you REALLY want hard answers, you'd pay a lawyer for his time and let him read the law and render it into laymans terms for you.

[BobAsh 582]

Eh, the "as long as none of the original parts are substituted with replacement or additional parts" line would indicate that any swap of magazine is considered assembly, compliant or not.

 

Yeah, reading it again I believe you're correct.

[BobAsh 582]

Pretty tough crowd over here at the Saiga forums!

 

lol it's a pretty tough crowd at any forum though, right?

 

Welcome.

[Malikovski 0]

Pretty tough crowd over here at the Saiga forums!

 

lol it's a pretty tough crowd at any forum though, right?

 

Welcome.

 

Tends to be.

 

Thanks for the welcome. I've lurked around here from time to time. Actually didn't realize I have never posted before until I saw the "1" on that one.

 

Finally picked up a Saiga 12, so will probably be spending a little more time around here until I get it set up just right.

[bkbville 0]

The ATF has been caught reversing (and reversing it's reversals) more than once.

 

The law is the law is the law.

 

When you write the revenuers, they render their "opinion du jour" of the actual US Code.

 

If you REALLY want hard answers, you'd pay a lawyer for his time and let him read the law and render it into laymans terms for you.

 

A lawyer can not give you hard answers; a court perhaps, but never a lawyer.

 

These statutes are not difficult to understand by the layman. These questions are asked of the ATF because the poorly written laws are full of ambiguity that leave many blanks in applying the law. A lawyer can only fill in the blanks where case-law exists, or refer themselves to the ATF.

 

Q. When is the law not the law?

A. When Congress has relegated its authority to a regulatory agency.

 

It may be "opinion du jour" but it is the only opinion that counts until the issue gets to court, and the law itself pretty much assures that by relegating the authority to answer questions on these issues to the BATF.

 

This extra-constitutional situation has been created by having too large a central government controlling (trying to control) too many things outside their constitutional responsibilities.

[ChileRelleno 7,071]

This extra-constitutional situation has been created by having too large a central government controlling (trying to control) too many things outside their constitutional responsibilities.

^^ This ^^ Sic Semper Tyrannis

[Saiga 12 0]

Here is a recent ATF letter. Remember that ATF letters are only "binding" (if you want to use that word) for the original writer, but this one should give insight into "how they are thinking" (at least how they were thinking April 29, 2009). This was obtained from some poor soul on another forum, cuz me knot litterret enuf 2 rite ledders.

 

The question(s):

 

 

 

and the response:

 

 

 

 

 

So does this line "as long as none of the original parts are substituted with replacement or additional parts" from the letter mean that if a person replaces a russian part with an American part, he is manufacturing, or assembling a firearm! W.T.F.! Does this mean that it is illegal to convert a Saiga 12 over with American parts?!

[nalioth 405]

So does this line "as long as none of the original parts are substituted with replacement or additional parts" from the letter mean that if a person replaces a russian part with an American part, he is manufacturing, or assembling a firearm! W.T.F.! Does this mean that it is illegal to convert a Saiga 12 over with American parts?!

No.

 

It means it's illegal to assemble an unimportable long gun w/o conforming to the 922r.

 

Same as it's meant for years.

[Saiga 12 0]

So does this line "as long as none of the original parts are substituted with replacement or additional parts" from the letter mean that if a person replaces a russian part with an American part, he is manufacturing, or assembling a firearm! W.T.F.! Does this mean that it is illegal to convert a Saiga 12 over with American parts?!

No.

 

It means it's illegal to assemble an unimportable long gun w/o conforming to the 922r.

 

Same as it's meant for years.

 

Thank you! shooooooe! thought I wasn't allowed to convert. Sorry about the double post, I will delete it.

[WardenWolf 6]

Effectively, it means that the purchaser of a non-compliant firearm is not at risk of prosecution. Although such a letter is not binding for other people unless they also ask and receive the same answer.

Edited June 10, 2009 by Mike the Wolf