Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
RecycledElectrons

Why the panic over Saiga-12 922r?

Recommended Posts

I've seen an unbelievable amount of worry over 922r on Saiga Shotguns.

 

I will ignore the constitutionality, and take the urban legends from this board as truth.

 

A Saiga-12 with a threaded muzzle has 14 parts, all foreign as it comes from the factory.

 

The mag counts as 3 parts. I'll assume you buy all us-made high-cap mags. (I'm ignoring the fact that the term "high-cap" has no definition for shotgun mags.)

 

So, if you want a pistol grip, you replace the buttstock and add a pistol grip, and you're down to 10 foreign parts. You are legal.

 

Alternately, you replace the nut over the threads with a US made choke or flash hider, and you are legal.

 

All you have to do is replace one part with a US made part (e.g., pistol grip or muzzle nut) and you are legal with US made mags on a Saiga shotgun.

 

Some people like the fancy trigger group modifications, and foreign mags. Cool. If you want to pick your nose with a tele-operated robotic arm, you are welcome to. I'll use my index finger.

 

RecycledElectrons

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

922r is the law!!!! Dumb law, but it's a law!!!!

Just like speed limits, building permits and the requirement to have a driver's license to operate a vehicle are the law. So yeah parts counts matter, you never know when something will happen that will cause the authorities to look at you. Last thing you need is for them to pile up a bunch of un-related charges because you where one part short of being legal.

 

Just follow the law and you don't have to worry about a trip to club fed where Buba and the rest of the gang in there takes turns helping you do the colan stretch standing. :cryss:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if you want a pistol grip other than the piece of shit intrafuse setup, you have to move the trigger group. If you're already going to do so, why not spend $30 on a product made by tapco that doesn't suck, and replace the FCG? That way, if you decide to use that factory 5-round magazine your weapon came with, you aren't violating federal law.

 

Asinine as it is, 922r is part of a federal law, not an urban legend. Your tone is unnecessarily rude and your ignorance evident.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alternately, you replace the nut over the threads with a US made choke or flash hider, and you are legal.

 

I don't think the thread protector on the muzzle is counted as a "muzzle device" as indicated in 922R. Could be wrong, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I train several dozen ATF agents a year (most have been agents for at least 10 years) and have talked 922r with almost all of them. Some claim 922r died with the lifting of the "Assault Rifle" ban.....Regardless, every single one of them have told me that there is absolutely no reason they or anyone else they know would ever consider stopping someone at a range to break a firearm down to check compliance. The only time it would be an issue is if you were already under investigation for something and they wanted to nail you on federal charges. Saying that, the law is the law and I see no reason not to do it legally. While ATF might not get involved on their own, there is always the possibility that some well meaning but un-informed police officer might question the legality of a firearm and call in ATF for advice....at that point they may have to investigate. If you are "clean", the ATF guys I know would probably tell you to fix it. If you are a known law enforcement problem, they might nail you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Asinine as it is, 922r is part of a federal law, not an urban legend. Your tone is unnecessarily rude and your ignorance evident.

 

Is that a bit hash? I didn't get that from his post. I got that there seems to be alot of worry over 922r when it is a simple fix, meaning you really don't have to do too much to be compliant. But thats what I got out of it.

Anyway at what point are you in violation? When you put a US mag in the gun, or put another part on the gun that is under 922r regulations? Or are they being sold in violation coming w/ 14 parts? I find that hard to believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway at what point are you in violation? When you put a US mag in the gun, or put another part on the gun that is under 922r regulations?

 

When you take it out of the "sporting" configuration that it's imported in.

 

Or are they being sold in violation coming w/ 14 parts? I find that hard to believe.

 

They are imported in a "sporting" configuration. Only when you take it out of that configuration, is when you need the foreign parts count at 10 or less.

 

So no, they're not in violation by coming in with 14 foreign counted 922 parts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All you have to do is swap the muzzle protector (if you count it) and piston puck and you can use mags over 5 rounds. Its actually very simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
....Some people like the fancy trigger group modifications, and foreign mags. Cool. If you want to pick your nose with a tele-operated robotic arm, you are welcome to. I'll use my index finger....

Well, if you call a crisp, smooth, short trigger pull 'fancy', that's all fine and good I guess. I (and many others here) consider it a much better FCG that puts the imported wishbone linkage FCG to shame.

 

And I agree; your post is very condescending. You act as if people are stupid to want to be sure they are in compliance with federal law.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, to be honest, being scared into compliance of a non-enforced, arguably stupid law is not really American in spirit,

it's more like feudal England.

 

"My dear Petranella, while you are sorting the beans today, please take every sixth for the first 100 beans, then every

seventh, for taxes to his Lord Barack, then destroy any beans past a five hundred count. No, I do not know why, but it

is the LAW and we must comply, even though no one will ever check or know."

 

Now, if you've got to buy aftermarket parts, might as well get American ones. No problem there. However, I have a friend

with a Benelli M4. He bought it used, with the factory fake tube extension. He got a Benelli factory 2 round extension,

and I guess that puts him in 922r violation, however, he can argue he bought it that way, since 922r says thou shalt not

assemble. Point is, with that awesome a gun, you don't put shit aftermarket parts on it. It would be like putting a Grant steering

wheel on a Ferrari.

 

It's part of the American ethos, part of being independent and self reliant, to challenge stupid laws. If you just bend to the government's

every whim, why do you even own a gun? You'll just turn them in when they demand it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However, I have a friend

with a Benelli M4. He bought it used, with the factory fake tube extension. He got a Benelli factory 2 round extension,

and I guess that puts him in 922r violation, however, he can argue he bought it that way, since 922r says thou shalt not

assemble.

 

Yep, that would follow the same 922r compliance issue. I read about an Los Angelos, CA LEO posting something in regards to this sometime back on the Benelli website.

An ATF agent warned LA officers about taking department M4 shotguns that their department offered to sell them once the weapons were retired. Keep in mind the extension tubes were already installed and they were simply taking private possesion of the guns. They could not have been thought of as potentially comiting a felony but rather simply owning uncompliant shotguns.

Why in the hell would the ATF care about career LEOs privately owning 922r uncompliant guns? Considering all the chinese 870 copies being extended lately I am really surprised this has not made a bigger splash on the radar. And for anyone that wants to argue technicalities, the law reads "No person shall assemble a semiautomatic rifle or any shotgun using more than 10 of the imported parts." Any shotgun includes pump action ones. If importers could import higher capacity shotguns, they would, but they can't because high capacity ready has been banned as a feature for rifles and any shotguns. Like has been said before, they have bigger fish to fry, but if enough people violate the law at some point it goes on their radar and then they can't keep ignoring this. I guess it will take one well notarized arrest and prosecution and then everyone and his brother will finally stop argueing that it might not be illegal to do what the law says not to do. I don't even think winning a major supreme court case on this issue will make things better. The 10 parts rule could be repealed

from the GCA and then Congress could rewrite a new amendment to the GCA that would require any semiauto rifle or any shotgun to have zero imported parts if not importable. This would shut down conversions of saigas and assemblies of parts kits altogether. Since the topic would even be open to discussion in session, this might inspire a new presidential executive order banning semiauto rifles altogether and this part would not need any new law to pass just a simple presidential order to the treasury. This is sort of why encouraging others to violate the law will not help anyone but most likely raise the issue among the regulators which will pass the torch to the law writers and its like rolling dice in Washington with gun rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I train several dozen ATF agents a year (most have been agents for at least 10 years) and have talked 922r with almost all of them. Some claim 922r died with the lifting of the "Assault Rifle" ban....

 

I suppose the same ones could just as easily say the 1986 machine gun ban died off with the expired assualt weapon ban. I don't expect government employees to know every law and regulation but you would think they would at least check up the chain of command before giving legal advice on a very specific law among thousands of other Federal gun law regulations. Even the agents that are verteran specialists in NFA rules, often have no idea of actual import regulations. I wouldn't expect a general field agent to know anything way out of the scope of his duties.

Its not like I would ask a U.S. marine to cite every hague accord or geneva convention international law agreement regulation that the US military bothers to cooperate with. I would wager that even most JAG attorneys could not reference most any given specific regulation. When I go to the DMV, I consider myself lucky to even get a person that knows enough to fill out a license renewal program on his or her screen without needing to check with a supervisor for any specific item.

Edited by my762buzz
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Buzz, there's something called ex post facto, after the fact, laws.

 

If you buy a gun, and it is legal when you buy it, a law cannot be passed in the USA to

make it illegal; it's forbidden in the Constitution. You cannot make a law that makes people

criminals retroactively.

 

I see no point in actively breaking the 922r statute and bragging about it, since that will

get you in trouble. On the other hand, I see no reason to be a wet-pantied girl about it and be overly

worried, especially if one does not frequent ranges and such where LEO and the like are.

 

Hopefully, shit like this can get shut down in the next administration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Buzz, there's something called ex post facto, after the fact, laws.

 

If you buy a gun, and it is legal when you buy it, a law cannot be passed in the USA to

make it illegal; it's forbidden in the Constitution. You cannot make a law that makes people

criminals retroactively.

 

 

The problem is not with what is sold in original form. The issue is the government's definition of "assembly" and how it applies to modifications of a gun.

The words "to assemble" according to the atf dept of justice legal opinions implies that parts of a gun are put together and this even includes a magazine insertion because

believe it or not the magazine counts as 3 official parts. So if you buy a legal to purchase product, it is in of itself legal, but to make changes that include new parts that were not

part of the original rifle then presents the possibility of being classified as "re-assembled" as a different product which is no longer covered under the ex post defacto definition.

This is where the 10 parts rule applies hence "...not assemble.....with more than 10 foreign parts..." No one is saying that a new executive order or law will retroactively ban existing guns

but can affect all future guns and any "new assemblies" from existing owned guns or parts.

 

In reference to the LEO Benelli M4 issue previously mentioned, it does not make them criminals in any way to purchase the dept shotguns. The issue that was called to attention was unoncompliance of the weapon itself. The threat was probably more like confiscation of the weapon rather than any criminal prosecution. The cost of trying to legally fight a confiscation

into a reversal is more than the weapon would be worth to most anyone and said action probably would not go anywhere.

 

 

Another way the government got around the ex post facto concept or essentially violated it themselves was with the NFA law over 70 years ago. If you owned a pre NFA law short barrel rifle, machine gun, or whatever, they didn't make it illegal to own on the Federal level. Instead, they required you to register the NFA defined weapon or otherwise lack of compliance made you a criminal. Yep, a weapon bought legally and owned legally was made illegal to own without complying with the new law. I would say that the new law(NFA) in this case did criminalize the owner retroactively. Perhaps we should also debate whether or not it is really necessary to follow all those silly short barrel and full auto laws that were essentially ex post facto from the start and therefore invalid even today.

Edited by my762buzz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Since the topic would even be open to discussion in session, this might inspire a new presidential executive order banning semiauto rifles altogether and this part would not need any new law to pass just a simple presidential order to the treasury."

 

You pretty much DID say that, and that is to what I was responding.

 

To wit, one CAN ban the manufacture and sale of guns, but not the possession of pre-ban ones, and avoid running afoul of

that part of the Constitution. (However, it would run afoul of the second amendment)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Since the topic would even be open to discussion in session, this might inspire a new presidential executive order banning semiauto rifles altogether and this part would not need any new law to pass just a simple presidential order to the treasury."

 

You pretty much DID say that, and that is to what I was responding.

 

To wit, one CAN ban the manufacture and sale of guns, but not the possession of pre-ban ones, and avoid running afoul of

that part of the Constitution. (However, it would run afoul of the second amendment)

 

OK

Yes, banning import of. I would imagine that no one wants to be part of the cause of new gun laws or executive orders that will

strip more gun rights or gun access.

 

 

Anyhow, this topic is just way to depressing to spend any more energy staying involved in trying to help others understand the pitfalls of ignoring gun regulations in the hope of avoiding any possible trouble they might find themselves in ahead. I hope it helps but it gets real old having to constantly

rehash the same old facts and concepts. If anyone wants to ignore the advice, that is your business and I could care less.

Edited by my762buzz
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Complying with federal law just seems like common sense to me. My biggest worry is not a field check or anything like that. It's what if I have to lethally defend myself or family? You will be investigated, and it doesn't even have to be my S-12, it could be my 1911 or something else. Bad guys are generally scum and their families are poor and looking to make a quick buck. So who do they cal? the A.C.L.U. What kind of lawyers do they have? Very tricky liberal ones that specialize on pissing on the working class and constitution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
922r is the law!!!! Dumb law, but it's a law!!!!

Just like speed limits, building permits and the requirement to have a driver's license to operate a vehicle are the law. So yeah parts counts matter, you never know when something will happen that will cause the authorities to look at you. Last thing you need is for them to pile up a bunch of un-related charges because you where one part short of being legal.

 

Just follow the law and you don't have to worry about a trip to club fed where Buba and the rest of the gang in there takes turns helping you do the colan stretch standing. :cryss:

 

I did not say I was breaking the "law." I did say that compliance was easy.

 

What you are saying is like continually screaming at someone about the speed limits, when the person you are screaming at is doing 18 MPH in a school zone, where the speed limit is 20 MPH.

 

I was very clear in my post that I was following 922R. My question was: since it's so easy to follow, why all the technical garbage that makes it seem intimidating?

 

Now, I will sin by getting into intimidating looking nonsense about something that seems very easy with a Saiga-12.

 

 

 

Asinine as it is, 922r is part of a federal law, not an urban legend. Your tone is unnecessarily rude and your ignorance evident.

 

Please show me where in federal law the list of parts is.

 

I see at http://frwebgate3.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/TEXTgate.cgi?WAISdocID=ydzF4i/0/1/0&WAISaction=retrieve that 18USC922( r ) says :

 

"( r ) It shall be unlawful for any person to assemble from imported

parts any semiautomatic rifle or any shotgun which is identical to any

rifle or shotgun prohibited from importation under section 925(d)(3) of

this chapter as not being particularly suitable for or readily adaptable

to sporting purposes except that this subsection shall not apply to--

(1) the assembly of any such rifle or shotgun for sale or

distribution by a licensed manufacturer to the United States or any

department or agency thereof or to any State or any department,

agency, or political subdivision thereof; or

(2) the assembly of any such rifle or shotgun for the purposes

of testing or experimentation authorized by the Attorney General."

 

 

 

18USC925(d)(3) is at: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/44/925

 

"(3) is of a type that does not fall within the definition of a

firearm as defined in section 5845(a) of the Internal Revenue

Code of 1986 and is generally recognized as particularly suitable

for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes, excluding surplus

military firearms, except in any case where the Attorney General

has not authorized the importation of the firearm pursuant to

this paragraph, it shall be unlawful to import any frame,

receiver, or barrel of such firearm which would be prohibited if

assembled; or"

 

 

 

Section 5845(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is available at: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00005845----000-.html

 

"For the purpose of this chapter—

(a) Firearm

The term “firearm” means

(1) a shotgun having a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length;

(2) a weapon made from a shotgun if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length;

(3) a rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length;

(4) a weapon made from a rifle if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length;

(5) any other weapon, as defined in subsection (e);

(6) a machinegun;

(7) any silencer (as defined in section 921 of title 18, United States Code); and

(8) a destructive device. The term “firearm” shall not include an antique firearm or any device (other than a machinegun or destructive device) which, although designed as a weapon, the Secretary finds by reason of the date of its manufacture, value, design, and other characteristics is primarily a collector’s item and is not likely to be used as a weapon. "

 

 

 

I hope all of this is up to date. The @#$% federal government refuses to PUBLISH their own laws.

 

 

 

The details of how the above legalese is enforced are not in the law. The claim that 10 or less foreign parts being legal is merely a rumor. The claim of what "parts" count is a legend. Why isn't a screw holding an action to a stock a "part?" Why isn't a gun with ONE US-made part legal? Why isn't a gun with ONE foreign-made part illegal?

 

 

 

And for anyone that wants to argue technicalities, the law reads "No person shall assemble a semiautomatic rifle or any shotgun using more than 10 of the imported parts." Any shotgun includes pump action ones.

 

Can you cite that?

Edited by RecycledElectrons

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My original sentence that seems to have outraged so many people was:

 

I will ignore the constitutionality, and take the urban legends from this board as truth.

 

I'm sorry to make so many people angry. I thought it was commonly accepted that the law was not to "assemble from imported parts" but that the interpretation was only from an ATF letter, which is not much of a defense in court if the ATF decides to harass you.

 

And for anyone that wants to argue technicalities, the law reads "No person shall assemble a semiautomatic rifle or any shotgun using more than 10 of the imported parts." Any shotgun includes pump action ones.

 

Can you cite that?

 

There you go. After going through this same topic for 15 years and seeing various government legal positions laid out, nothing has really changed and it gets old and tiresome to argue

over the same thing that has been well established several times over. I guess we might as well argue the earth might not be round or man never landed on the moon.

 

http://www.law.corne...22----000-.html

® It shall be unlawful for any person to assemble from imported parts any semiautomatic rifle or any shotgun which is identical to any rifle or shotgun prohibited from importation under section 925 (d)(3) of this chapter as not being particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes except that this subsection shall not apply to—

(1) the assembly of any such rifle or shotgun for sale or distribution by a licensed manufacturer to the United States or any department or agency thereof or to any State or any department, agency, or political subdivision thereof; or

(2) the assembly of any such rifle or shotgun for the purposes of testing or experimentation authorized by the Attorney General.

 

I was asking you to cite the 10 part rule. Yes, federal law says you can not "assemble from imported parts," but the 10 or less foreign parts rule came from an ATF letter, many years ago.

 

The ATF is known for not following their own rules. I can not cite the case off the top of my head, but I heard rumors of a case where the ATF prosecuted someone for doing something that was legal according to an ATF letter he downloaded off the web.

 

 

 

So, back to my original point ... Accepting the 10 part rule as gospel, the second you put a Saiga-12 into non-sporting configuration with a flash hider or new stock, it's legal with US Made mags. That doesn't seem to hard to me.

 

Maybe I'm just dense, but I spent several hours fretting over 922r before realizing how easy it was.

 

RecycledElectrons

 

Sec. 178.39 Assembly of semiautomatic rifles or shotguns.

 

(a) No person shall assemble a semiautomatic rifle or any shotgun using more than 10 of the imported parts listed in paragraph © of this section if the assembled firearm is prohibited from importation under section 925(d)(3) as not being particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes.

 

(B) The provisions of this section shall not apply to:

 

(1) The assembly of such rifle or shotgun for sale or distribution by a licensed manufacturer to the United States or any department or agency thereof or to any State or any department, agency, or political subdivision thereof; or

 

(2) The assembly of such rifle or shotgun for the purposes of testing or experimentation authorized by the Director under the provisions of Sec. 178.151; or

 

(3) The repair of any rifle or shotgun which had been imported into or assembled in the United States prior to November 30, 1990, or the replacement of any part of such firearm.

 

© For purposes of this section, the term imported parts are:

 

(1) Frames, receivers, receiver castings, forgings or stampings

(2) Barrels

(3) Barrel extensions

(4) Mounting blocks (trunions)

(5) Muzzle attachments

(6) Bolts

(7) Bolt carriers

(8) Operating rods

(9) Gas pistons

(10) Trigger housings

(11) Triggers

(12) Hammers

(13) Sears

(14) Disconnectors

(15) Buttstocks

(16) Pistol grips

(17) Forearms, handguards

(18) Magazine bodies

(19) Followers

(20) Floorplates

 

 

 

Is this clear now that it is written and not just some urban legend????????????????

 

http://www.922r.com/

 

 

 

 

Edited by leadsled

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it also states this in importation tax stamps. buried in some treasury department PDF, but its there. that tax stamp also defines configurations that are not legally importable, such as pistol gripped semi auto shotguns, or shotguns holding in excess of 5 rounds, rifles in excess of ten, blah blah.

 

so it isnt just a law, its also a tax revenue regulation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sec. 178.39 Assembly of semiautomatic rifles or shotguns.

 

(a) No person shall assemble a semiautomatic rifle or any shotgun using more than 10 of the imported parts listed in paragraph ( c ) of this section if the assembled firearm is prohibited from importation under section 925(d)(3) as not being particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes.

 

( B ) The provisions of this section shall not apply to:

 

(1) The assembly of such rifle or shotgun for sale or distribution by a licensed manufacturer to the United States or any department or agency thereof or to any State or any department, agency, or political subdivision thereof; or

 

(2) The assembly of such rifle or shotgun for the purposes of testing or experimentation authorized by the Director under the provisions of Sec. 178.151; or

 

(3) The repair of any rifle or shotgun which had been imported into or assembled in the United States prior to November 30, 1990, or the replacement of any part of such firearm.

 

( c ) For purposes of this section, the term imported parts are:

 

(1) Frames, receivers, receiver castings, forgings or stampings

(2) Barrels

(3) Barrel extensions

(4) Mounting blocks (trunions)

(5) Muzzle attachments

(6) Bolts

(7) Bolt carriers

(8) Operating rods

(9) Gas pistons

(10) Trigger housings

(11) Triggers

(12) Hammers

(13) Sears

(14) Disconnectors

(15) Buttstocks

(16) Pistol grips

(17) Forearms, handguards

(18) Magazine bodies

(19) Followers

(20) Floorplates

 

First, thanks for clarifying.

 

As I see it, the claim that section 922r (of any law) contains the 10 parts rule is an incorrect urban legend.

 

The actual citation may have been 27CFR178.39. That's Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 178.39. (The problem is that I also need a "part" to cite the current CFR.) For example, Title 27 CFR, Part 1 (or 2, or 199,) Section 178.39.

 

At http://thegunwiki.com/JustTheLaw/RefFedCFR178_39 it says:

Code of Federal Regulations Title 27, Volume 1, Section 178.39, as mirrored from http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2002/aprqtr/27cfr178.39.htm on 2/26/2010"

Which means that is a copy of the CFR as was in 2002, as it appeared in a government archive that was accessed in 2010.

 

I don't seem to be able to find a 27CFR178 in the current version of Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations, which is here: http://www.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/cfrassemble.cgi?title=201027

 

It seems it is now CFR27, Part 478 Section 478.39. (Section 478, not 178.)

http://frwebgate1.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/TEXTgate.cgi?WAISdocID=uIbkjo/0/1/0&WAISaction=retrieve

 

[Title 27, Volume 3]

[Revised as of April 1, 2010]

From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access

[CITE: 27CFR478.39]

 

[Page 36-37]

 

TITLE 27--ALCOHOL, TOBACCO PRODUCTS, AND FIREARMS

 

CHAPTER II--BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS, AND EXPLOSIVES,

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

 

PART 478_COMMERCE IN FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION--Table of Contents

 

Subpart C_Administrative and Miscellaneous Provisions

 

Sec. 478.39 Assembly of semiautomatic rifles or shotguns.

 

(a) No person shall assemble a semiautomatic rifle or any shotgun

using more than 10 of the imported parts listed in paragraph ( c ) of this

section if the assembled firearm is prohibited from importation under

section 925(d)(3) as not being particularly suitable for or readily

adaptable to sporting purposes.

( B ) The provisions of this section shall not apply to:

(1) The assembly of such rifle or shotgun for sale or distribution

by a licensed manufacturer to the United States or any department or

agency thereof or to any State or any department, agency, or political

subdivision thereof; or

(2) The assembly of such rifle or shotgun for the purposes of

testing or experimentation authorized by the Director under the

provisions of Sec. 478.151; or

(3) The repair of any rifle or shotgun which had been imported into

or assembled in the United States prior to November 30, 1990, or the

replacement of any part of such firearm.

( c ) For purposes of this section, the term imported parts are:

(1) Frames, receivers, receiver castings, forgings or stampings

(2) Barrels

(3) Barrel extensions

(4) Mounting blocks (trunions)

(5) Muzzle attachments

(6) Bolts

(7) Bolt carriers

 

[[Page 37]]

 

(8) Operating rods

(9) Gas pistons

(10) Trigger housings

(11) Triggers

(12) Hammers

(13) Sears

(14) Disconnectors

(15) Buttstocks

(16) Pistol grips

(17) Forearms, handguards

(18) Magazine bodies

(19) Followers

(20) Floorplates

 

[T.D. ATF-346, 58 FR 40589, July 29, 1993]

 

Thanks!

Edited by RecycledElectrons
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Regardless, every single one of them have told me that there is absolutely no reason they or anyone else they know would ever consider stopping someone at a range to break a firearm down to check compliance. The only time it would be an issue is if you were already under investigation for something and they wanted to nail you on federal charges.

 

One thing to remember about administrative agencies is that they can make drastic changes in course almost over night. If tomorrow there was some event to trigger it or someone sitting behind the right desk just got an itch to do it they could start placing a lot more emphasis on enforcement. Will they probably not but there is nothing stopping them.

 

To the OP,

 

You may want to do some back ground reading on how agencies work, how they relate to their organic statutes, how rule making works, and how agency interpretations work. You seem to be conflating things or simply not understanding where things came from and the force of law that they carry.

 

As I see it, the claim that section 922r (of any law) contains the 10 parts rule is an incorrect urban legend.

 

If all you are trying to say is that the 10 parts rule is not written explicitly into the text of the statute then you are correct. It is a regulation that relates to that statute. The statute says you cannot assemble. The regulations defines assembling. So 922r really does contain rule in the sense that if you do not abide by it you are in fact violating 922r. The definition of assemble just is not expressly written out there, but the word assemble which stands for its definition is in the statute.

 

 

The ATF is known for not following their own rules. I can not cite the case off the top of my head, but I heard rumors of a case where the ATF prosecuted someone for doing something that was legal according to an ATF letter he downloaded off the web

 

Again you need to bone up on agency law. An ATF letter is typically going to be an interpretation. Interpretive letters are NOT binding law. Agency interpretations of rules are not binding law. To download some old letter and then think you can really rely on it is a demonstration of ignorance. That gent getting prosecuted is also in no way the agency violating their own "rules". You need to familiarize yourself with the differences between, statutes, rules, and interpretations.

 

Alternately, you replace the nut over the threads with a US made choke or flash hider, [in conjunction with a US mag] and you are legal.

 

So, back to my original point ... Accepting the 10 part rule as gospel, the second you put a Saiga-12 into non-sporting configuration with a flash hider or new stock, it's legal with US Made mags. That doesn't seem to hard to me.

 

Are you trying to say you can add a US mag and a US flash hider and be compliant?

 

That is not the case. If you don't have the factory mag you are down to either 11 or 12 countable parts depending on how you want to count the thread protector. If you then add a US flash hider you are at 11 parts either way you count the thread protector. 11 parts is not compliant. Remember what you really need to do for compliance is subtract foreign parts not add US parts per se (although subtracting foreign parts from a practical stand point typically means replacing them with US parts).

 

* edit for typos

Edited by Zambidis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

922r is the law!!!! Dumb law, but it's a law!!!!

Just like speed limits, building permits and the requirement to have a driver's license to operate a vehicle are the law. So yeah parts counts matter, you never know when something will happen that will cause the authorities to look at you. Last thing you need is for them to pile up a bunch of un-related charges because you where one part short of being legal.

 

Just follow the law and you don't have to worry about a trip to club fed where Buba and the rest of the gang in there takes turns helping you do the colan stretch standing. :cryss:

ya know its funny, but not on of the 1,300 I/Ms we have housed here, are in for failure to comply with 922r. :lolol:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ya know its funny, but not on of the 1,300 I/Ms we have housed here, are in for failure to comply with 922r.

 

A few moths back I very briefly and quickly searched lexis nexis and was able to find one case where the defendant was convicted of a 922r violation it involved some SKSs IIRC. So it can happen.

 

To me the potential costs even after accounting for the very low odds of prosecution outweigh the relative ease and low cost of compliance. Your going to pay a lawyer more to look up the statute and regs and give them a careful reading then it costs to make a gun compliant in most cases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why the panic over Saiga-12 922r?

 

Because some of us actually like the idea of using the mil-spec Russian 8 round mags, you know... The best & most reliable mags out there for the gun.

 

And if we should be forced to actually use the gun for SD, we don't want a leftist, overzealous D.A. to seek 5 years federal time for federal firearms charges when we would have otherwise been off scott-free due to the fact that we acted in self defense.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the most likely way an issue would come up would be something else gets you one the radar of the authorities then they start looking at everything more closely. One member here had his rifle confiscated and was charged on a separate offense. I could see it becoming an issue in a case like that if the gun was non compliant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×