Does anyone know of anyone ever being charged with a violation of 922r? I am curious as I am a deputy sheriff and have never seen this charge brought by anyone. Now I know this is a federal charge but I have spoken with BATFE agents and none of them have ever seen anyone charged with this and according to a least one agent I spoke with there is no penalty on the books for this charge. I am trying to settle a bet with another deputy so if you can help thanks.
922r compliance
- Thread starter grizz223
- Start date
I'm guessing that any 922(r) charges you might find would most likely be in addition to other charges. It would take a pretty close examination of a firearm, fieldstripping at the least, to distinguish between a 922(r) compliant weapon and a non-compliant weapon. About the only way that I can see the authorities going to that much trouble would be if the weapon were already siezed for something else to begin with.
Also, it seems to me that a 922(r) violation would be fairly difficult to prove. While most so-marketed compliance parts are marked "made in USA" or something to that effect, original foreign-made parts are often completely unmarked. It seems to me that it would be very difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that an unmarked part is not U.S.-made.
Finally, I very highly doubt that all that many LEO's are out looking for 922(r) violations in the first place. Outisde of gun enthusiasts, 922(r) is a fairly obscure law and I'd be willing to bet that a good number of LEO's aren't even aware of its existence. Not only that, but it's a rather silly law too and, even among LEO's who are aware of it, I'd be willing to bet that only the most rabidly anti-gun cops can't find more serious crimes to worry about.
Also, it seems to me that a 922(r) violation would be fairly difficult to prove. While most so-marketed compliance parts are marked "made in USA" or something to that effect, original foreign-made parts are often completely unmarked. It seems to me that it would be very difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that an unmarked part is not U.S.-made.
Finally, I very highly doubt that all that many LEO's are out looking for 922(r) violations in the first place. Outisde of gun enthusiasts, 922(r) is a fairly obscure law and I'd be willing to bet that a good number of LEO's aren't even aware of its existence. Not only that, but it's a rather silly law too and, even among LEO's who are aware of it, I'd be willing to bet that only the most rabidly anti-gun cops can't find more serious crimes to worry about.
Possibly, but you'd be surprised how many FFL's have guns which aren't 922(r) compliant sitting on their racks without even knowing it. I cannot count the number of times I've seen SKS's with pistol grips stocks and no other compliance parts sitting in the used gun rack. I would venture to guess that the majority of people who violate 922(r) do so unknowingly.
Herr Walther
New member
The seven required US made parts when building an imported rifle from a kit.
These parts can vary and you do have a choice, as limited as it is, as to what you wish to use in your build. It will also vary with the rifle being built.
These parts can vary and you do have a choice, as limited as it is, as to what you wish to use in your build. It will also vary with the rifle being built.
I gave a very detailed explanation of 922(r) in another thread recently. Rather than repost all of it, here is a link:
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5578176#post5578176
It's interesting that even your quick summary of the law uses the phrase "when building." That's the way the law is written. I've argued before that it applies to the person who builds it but that's all it says.
So if Fred Flintstone down the road builds a non-compliant FAL, then sells it to a gun store, and then I buy it and bring it home... I can't see how I am the person subject to the law. I didn't build it. The receiver was purchased by somebody else. Etc.
I just find it hard to believe that somebody could be "guilty of breaking the law" when all they did was buy what they thought was a legal product. A product that was represented as being legal. Which appears to all general inspection to be legal. Maybe the guy who built it knew better. Maybe not. But how does that apply to the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th person down the chain? I can see a "good cop/bad cop" situation where it is used a threat to get cooperation but it is really, really hard for me to see how it gets past a judge in a courtroom....
Gregg
It really does make you mindful of the rampant silliness of the arbitrary distinctions made between imported and domestic firearms, especially after the imported firearms have already entered the domestic market (or secondary market). Seems to me that once a firearm of foreign manufacture has "entered the trade", as it were, that there should be no distinction made as to its point of origin.
The problem is that the ATF would probably go on the assumption that whoever posesses the non-compliant firearm is the builder. Now, if the gun was built from the ground-up with a parts kit or something of that nature, you may be able to prove thatyou were not the original builder, but if the gun was originally imported and sold in a configuration that did not run afoul of 925(d)(3), a Saiga or Mak 90 seem like good examples, then how is anyone to know whether you or a previous owner added the non-compliant parts? Now obviously the burden of proof is on the prosecution, but you may have a long, painful, and expensive road to travel before you're acquitted.
Really though, I doubt it would even go that far. As I said before, I think a large part of the reason that we've been unable to find any 922(r) convictions is because it would be so difficult to prove. For example, my dad has a Mak 90 which, when purchased from a LGS, had a pistol grip and regular AK stock (these originally came with thumbhole stocks in order to circumvent AWB's). Because we suspected that it was an illegal conversion, Dad swapped out enough parts to be sure it was 922(r) compliant (handguards, pistol grip, buttstock, trigger, hammer, and disconnector). However, because none of the replaced parts had markings to identify their country of origin, we had no way of knowing for sure that the rifle wasn't compliant to begin with, Dad's conversion was a precautionary measure. As such, I can't really see how the ATF would have been able to prove that the rifle was non-compliant to begin with, much less that my dad was the one who made it so.
But really though a Tapco slant brake is just that...a muzzle brake. So even the very nature of a Tapco slant brake is open to interpretation? Just trying to clarify before I get the threading done to my Saiga. I just wanna keep things legal. And I don't want to do anything else. I just want a muzzle brake.
Were the interpretation up to me, I'd agree with you since the slant brake does very little, if anything, to hide muzzle flash, but then again if it were up to me 922(r) and 925(d)(3) wouldn't even exist as I think they're rather silly laws to begin with. Unfortunately, the interpretation is not up to you or me but rather to the ATF which is known for overly broad and nonsensical interpretations. The best advice I can give you is to contact the ATF and see what they say. Other than that, the safest option would be to simply assume that a muzzle brake does trigger 922(r) and swap out four other compliance parts before installing one. If you don't want to do a pistol grip conversion, the use of U.S.-made magazines like SGM Tactical and one other part such as handguards or a gas piston would be enough to make you compliant.
johnwilliamson062
Moderator
There is only one way to know for sure. Ask ATFE in writing and request a reply in writing. Even that isn't really for sure as sometimes they change their mind, but I think it is very unlikely you would face prison time with such a letter on hand.
FrankenMauser
New member
tulsamal said:
You're either overlooking a key piece of firearm regulation, or unaware of it.
The ATF considers "building" or "assembling" to be any time the firearm is assembled (even if the parts have not changed). According to their interpretation of the definitions, that includes simply field-stripping and reassembling, changing slings, adding scope bases/mounts, etc.
You might as well consider yourself the "builder" of a firearm, if you so much as touch it.
-The Tapco slant brake fits right into the above idiocy, and does 'trigger' 922(r). It's a change to the firearm, and therefore a "new build".
You may, however, be able to get a letter from the ATF, stating that they don't care about a trivial violation like that. (They've done the same for SKSs that are not 922(r) compliant, but are in pistol-grip stocks - so long as you also remove the bayonet.)
johnwilliamson062
Moderator
I'm not going to say you are wrong, but I am going to say I have never seen an opinion letter from ATFE to support your statement. I think I would have if there was one floating around as this is probably the most common 922R violation seen.
If you have such a letter available I would greatly appreciate a link.