30 round mag, stock rifle = illegal right

[RDSWriter 5]

MORE CONFUSION TO ADD TO THE MIX.

 

FYI Everyone... Just found another monkey wrench on this topic. Keep in mind that this letter was written prior to the April 6, 1998 ruling regarding non-importability. So, I am guessing that this information:

(1) definitely applies to any import prior to April 6, 1998 for receivers that could originally use LCMMs.

(2) may or may not apply to firearms after April 6, 1998

 

Legality of using a high capacity magazine in an imported semi-auto rifle

 

As for imports after 1998... who knows? I'm guessing that if a firearm was not designed to use a LCMM then it is illegal to modify a LCMM and use it in the firearm or vice versa without getting the import parts count to 10 or less. Using high capacity magazines that are and never were LCMMs may still be okay for firearms imported after April 6, 1998... but who knows?

 

I stand by my statement of just putting enough parts in the firearm to make it 922r exempt... just for the sanity of not having to d#ck with these laws.

Edited March 3, 2005 by RDSWriter

[RDSWriter 5]

Edited March 3, 2005 by RDSWriter

[Caspian 32]

Both magazines are for Grease guns and both still work in a grease gun.

 

That's incorrect. the bottom has been permenantly modified so that it is basically a rectangular piece of steel with a baseplate. It will no longer function independantly in a greasegun.

 

Bottom line is that the Tech branch has exhibited double talk in letters which have NO legal binding.

 

Go ahead and write the Tech Branch. We'd love to turn in our 8 rounders and be stuck with 5 rounders.

 

Caspian

[RDSWriter 5]

Both magazines are for Grease guns and both still work in a grease gun.

 

That's incorrect. the bottom has been permenantly modified so that it is basically a rectangular piece of steel with a baseplate. It will no longer function independantly in a greasegun.

 

Caspian

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

This is incorrect - 100% of all the parts of the mag, whether the bottom or top, can only be used in a firearm for which BOTH previous mags were originally designed. There is no difference between to this concept and the concept of cutting the two grease gun mags in half, swapping the upper half and then rewelding the two back together to form two 30 round magazines. Same mags, same gun, same use... but you are creating one mag iinstead of two. Hell, depending on how you cut the mags you could winid up with one 50 round magazine and one 10 round magazine versus two 30 round mags. Or you could wind up with one 49 round mag and one 11 round mag - You still wind up with two hicaps or one hi cap from two hi caps that can ONLY be used in the original firearm for which they were designed. All pieces in any combination of ways can only fit the same firearm for which they were designed.

 

My main point in all of this is trying to understand their logic because - at the end of the day - their interpretations drive CRF rulings. The ATF (unfortunately) have been extended this authority by Congress, The Presidents and our courts.

 

Why even bother reading any of these letters if it doesn't matter what the ATF says in writing. Consider importers, they have to submit sampes for evaluation. The decisions by the Tech Branch are not published in the CRF, but the ATFs written response will dictate whether or not the firearms are considered 'sporting.' So their interpretations and letters - in effect - have the defacto rule of law. So letters DO extend authority to engage in importation and other activities... like the letters we're currently discussing.

 

So since your take on letters is that they have NO legal binding authority- if an company imports approved firearm designs (based on an ATF determination communicated through a letter to the importer), these firearms can be seized once they enter the US and the importer prosecuted for illegally importing contraband material into the US? Right?

Edited March 3, 2005 by RDSWriter

[Caspian 32]

We're going to have to agree to disagree. Our exercise in interreptation demonstrates the problem with the vague laws and associated letters. It's obvious that there are different ways to read the info contained in the letters.

 

With regards to the orginal question, i believe we both agree that to use military mags you must add compliance parts.

 

Regards,

Caspian

[Caspian 32]

addressing your concern on importers and their reliance on letters, read the following: FALs

 

Firearms imported under previous rulings are grandfathered. It's like the ruling they made on open bolt semiautomatic firearms. They won't prosecute or seize the firearms. They will make future ownership illegal.

 

Caspian

[RDSWriter 5]

Agreed - for military mags you must convert.

 

Personally I don't see why most people don't change enough parts to exempt their rifles from 922r. The only one I haven't 'converted' is a woody 308.. only because no high caps exist (yet). Once these become available from Daewoo and I buy some, I'll need to have a US hammer already installed. (Four parts for a Saiga rifle without a PG right?)

 

But do I really need the hammer?

 

The 308 scenario is why I am so interested in knowing how the ATF views inserting hi capacity magazines (that are most likely not LCMMs) into post 04/98 imported rifles. Are you compliant (in this specific example) without reducing the part count to less than 10... who knows right now?