Why the panic over Saiga-12 922r?

[RecycledElectrons 7]

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.

 

After much research, my point has changed to: Calling the 10 part count law 922r is incorrect. It's in 27CFR478.

 

 

 

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.

 

Can you point me to a source? I am not a lawyer.

 

 

 

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).

 

There is A LOT OF CONFUSION over this. I never noticed the disagreement in different sources, until I was searching for multiple sources to quote in this discussion.

 

(I have less than the maximum number of foreign parts in my Saiga-12, so I'm legal, either way.)

 

I see at http://forum.saiga-12.com/index.php?showtopic=31710 that they point me to http://thegunwiki.com/Gunwiki/BuildSaigaVerifyCompliance

 

For a Siaga, they list the foreign parts in a stock Saiga-12 as:

01. Receiver

02. Barrel

03. Mounting block (front trunion)

04. Bolt

05. Bolt carrier

06. Gas piston

07. Trigger

08. Hammer

09. Disconnector

10. Buttstock

11. Forearm, handguard

12. Magazine body

13. Follower

14. Floorplate

plus a

15. Muzzle attachment

makes it 15 foreign parts.

 

But, I was previously pointed to http://jobson.us/922r/, which shows:

01. Receiver

02. Barrel

03. Muzzle Attachment

04. Bolt

05. Bolt Carrier

06. Gas Piston/Puck

07. Trigger

08. Hammer

09. Disconnector

10. Buttstock

11. Forearm/Handguard

12. Magazine Body

13. Magazine Follower

14. Magazine Floorplate

That's only 14 foreign parts!

 

The sources disagree. Is the Saiga-12 subject to a "mounting block" being counted as a foreign part under 27CFR478???

 

 

 

Also, TheGunWiki has a note on "Operating rods (cocking handle)" that says:

"See addendum below; part of the Saiga shotgun may eventually be reclassified."

 

RECLASSIFIED!!! So I have to check back here every so often, I may be reclassified into violating federal law when I insert a magazine?!?!?

 

Is it too hard for the ATF to take an exploded diagram of every gun they approve to be sold in the USA, and to label the 27CFR478 parts? I think that this much confusion should (not will, but should) make 27CFR478 is unconstitutionally vague.

[Zambidis 90]

After much research, my point has changed to: Calling the 10 part count law 922r is incorrect. It's in 27CFR478.

 

Personally I think it is better to say that they are part and parcel. If you have statute A that says you cannot build something then regulation B defines what build means in statute A. Whatever that definition in B is can be thought to be incorporated into A. Every statute is made of words. Words have inherent vagueness. what those words mean is often to be found in another source (comman usage, case, law, another statute, a regulation, etc). It suffices to say that following the ten part rule is required to follow 922r (what I said above). I wouldn't spend much time getting caught up in a semantics fight. Your obligation in order to stay out of the clink is the same.

 

I doubt there has ever been any rule making or adjudications that have defined the parts count on a Saiga shotgun. Is it 14 or 15? Who knows. The fact one can reasonably argue it either way says to me one would be prudent to treat it as 15. To me I think it is easy enough to just setup your gun in a way that gives you some wiggle room. US stock, US FCG, US Mags gets you there. If you want to be really safe or if you run foreign mags then it is easy to add a US Tappet. Its also pretty easy to run a US hand guard and US muzzle device. For me a few extra parts is cheap insurance.

 

I don't see a big crack down coming, if it does I hope they start with all the extended tube benellis one sees. I also think you need to get yourself on the radar before you are likely to have an issue. That said its just so easy and relatively inexpensive to stay well away from the gray areas that there is little reason not to.

[RecycledElectrons 7]

I have noticed the irony ... of my starting this thread asking why the panic, ... then getting very annoyed over the lack of clarity.

 

 

 

After much research, my point has changed to: Calling the 10 part count law 922r is incorrect. It's in 27CFR478.

 

Personally I think it is better to say that they are part and parcel. If you have statute A that says you cannot build something then regulation B defines what build means in statute A. Whatever that definition in B is can be thought to be incorporated into A. Every statute is made of words. Words have inherent vagueness. what those words mean is often to be found in another source (comman usage, case, law, another statute, a regulation, etc). It suffices to say that following the ten part rule is required to follow 922r (what I said above). I wouldn't spend much time getting caught up in a semantics fight. Your obligation in order to stay out of the clink is the same.

 

I doubt there has ever been any rule making or adjudications that have defined the parts count on a Saiga shotgun. Is it 14 or 15? Who knows. The fact one can reasonably argue it either way says to me one would be prudent to treat it as 15. To me I think it is easy enough to just setup your gun in a way that gives you some wiggle room. US stock, US FCG, US Mags gets you there. If you want to be really safe or if you run foreign mags then it is easy to add a US Tappet. Its also pretty easy to run a US hand guard and US muzzle device. For me a few extra parts is cheap insurance.

 

I don't see a big crack down coming, if it does I hope they start with all the extended tube benellis one sees. I also think you need to get yourself on the radar before you are likely to have an issue. That said its just so easy and relatively inexpensive to stay well away from the gray areas that there is little reason not to.

 

You are a good slave. I am not. I refuse to be held to any law that is not clearly written so the average 8th grader can understand it. I will continue to fight until I understand the law, or at least understand what range of interpretations are possible, so I can satisfy them all.

 

The fact that a discussion board full of gun builders can not find and interpret a law means the law is unconstitutionally vague. (Which will mean nothing in court.)

 

I'm tempted to file a FOIA asking what parts are what on a long list of firearms, but that would just stir things up.

Edited November 13, 2010 by RecycledElectrons

[Zambidis 90]

You are a good slave

 

Don't insult me because you don't have a basic working understanding of the law and government. I was trying to be nice and explain things to you but I see no need now not to just laugh at your ignorance.

 

I refuse to be held to any law that is not clearly written so the average 8th grader can understand it.

 

Maybe you just can't read as well as an eight grader. It is pretty clear. What you are actually having a problem with is knowing where to look. Just because you didn't know what the CRF was or that you need to look there doesn't mean something is void for vagueness which is its self not a principle written in any statute but case law interpreting dues process so by your own logic that is void too and you cannot even appeal to it.

[Etek 32]

The BATFE simply cannot prove you 'assembled' a firearm from simple possession.

[Zambidis 90]

Remember "assembling" includes inserting the magazine, which is of course more than just possession but may be less than what some people would think

[RecycledElectrons 7]

You are a good slave

 

Don't insult me because you don't have a basic working understanding of the law and government. I was trying to be nice and explain things to you but I see no need now not to just laugh at your ignorance.

 

I'm sorry that I offended you. I was trying to challenge you to try to understand the law, as written. Slaves follow rules without daring to ask for clarification, hoping their masters will not beat them. Free men demand to know what the laws are, and demand a role in deciding what the rules are. 99% of Americans are good slaves. They will plead guilty to a traffic ticket, without ever knowing what section of what law they are accused of breaking. I have often had it out with a cop, judge, or lawyer. My first demand is to see a written copy of the law. This usually gets me slapped around, but I keep fighting, as free men do.

 

I refuse to be held to any law that is not clearly written so the average 8th grader can understand it.

 

Maybe you just can't read as well as an eight grader. It is pretty clear. What you are actually having a problem with is knowing where to look. Just because you didn't know what the CRF was or that you need to look there doesn't mean something is void for vagueness which is its self not a principle written in any statute but case law interpreting dues process so by your own logic that is void too and you cannot even appeal to it.

 

I still don't know what the CRF is. If you mean the CFR, I've been reading the laws (not web pages that claim to summarize the laws) for decades (since I was a teenager.) I seem to be the only person on Saiga-12.com who can figure out that references to 922r should be references to "27 CFR, part 478, section 478.39."

 

I'd still like to know if the thingy that goes where the front trunnion would be is a part under 27CFR478. Does anyone know?

[Zambidis 90]

I was trying to challenge you to try to understand the law, as written.

 

Seeing as I've been to law school, worked a various legal jobs including in a firm that deals regularly with agency regs (albeit it a different agency and a different subject matter)and for my state legislature I don't think I need your challenge. It is abundantly clear you don't know even the first thing about administrative law. You cannot even use the terminology correctly so don't challenge me to understand things when you clearly do not. Have a good day.

Edited November 16, 2010 by Zambidis

[RecycledElectrons 7]

I was trying to challenge you to try to understand the law, as written.

 

Seeing as I've been to law school, worked a various legal jobs including in a firm that deals regularly with agency regs (albeit it a different agency and a different subject matter)and for my state legislature I don't think I need your challenge. It is abundantly clear you don't know even the first thing about administrative law. You cannot even use the terminology correctly so don't challenge me to understand things when you clearly do not. Have a good day.

 

I am sorry that I offended you. Now that I have re-read your post, I see that I misread it the first time. I appologize.

[unearthlyevil 2]

922r certainly is not that confusing, unnecessary to the law abiding firearm owner maybe, but the law none the less. My estimated cost for a legal mod is roughly around $500.00 to meet the 922r requirements, and at the same time configuring my Saiga 12 in a way that I find to be both functionally and aesthetically pleasing to myself. With all the anti-gun individuals in the world, why fuel their fire and chance unnecessary prosecution. Once several prosecutions take place, precedent rears its ugly head creating trouble for everyone down the road. As law abiding firearm owners we all have an innate responsibility to assure our own compliance with any firearm regulation so that others may enjoy the rights that we have. A HUGE thing to remember is that rights are nothing more than legally dictated privileges that may be revoked with a simple stroke of a pen.