johnwilliamson062
Moderator
I don't see where that covers PG stocks, but it does answer some other interesting questions for sure.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
922r compliance
- Thread starter grizz223
- Start date
FrankenMauser
New member
I've seen several, and may even have one saved on one of my other computers (regarding the ATI Fiberforce 'dragunov' stock, in particular).If you have such a letter available I would greatly appreciate a link.
If I get a chance, I'll see if I can dig one up.
johnwilliamson062
Moderator
The ATI Fiberforce Dragunov is an interesting stock design and I would argue is not what one thinks of when talking about pistol grips. Without the bottom rail connecting the bottom of the PG to the butt plate I would be swayed, but with that piece the stock appears more like a thumbhole stock that a real PG. I know, I know, it is only aesthetics, but that is what most gun laws are based on.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
Unfortunately, I suspect you are correct that the BATFE would take this view, but it won't stand up in court if the law doesn't spell it out. The federal law prohibiting altering serial numbers, for example, specifically states (IIRC) that the person who is found in possession of a firearm with an altered or removed serial number is presumed to be the person who performed the nefarious deed. (Or maybe that's in my state's gun laws?)Webleymkv said:The problem is that the ATF would probably go on the assumption that whoever posesses the non-compliant firearm is the builder.
Do you have a link to the law or regulation where they say that? I've never heard or read this before.FrankenMauser 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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Webleymkv
The problem is that the ATF would probably go on the assumption that whoever posesses the non-compliant firearm is the builder.
Unfortunately, I suspect you are correct that the BATFE would take this view, but it won't stand up in court if the law doesn't spell it out.
It might not stand up in court eventually, but it could very well take months to years of your life and tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars to get you there.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
^^^ Agreed.
I have a dozen or so FAL's and AK's which I built and all of them were built compliant with 922r with excruciating thought and planning.
I do expect to some day log on here and read about a team of BATFE agents walking through a big gun show loading up shopping carts with non-compliant rifles. They wouldn't have to waste any effort charging anybody - just round up the "contraband" and send the message.
I am sure they would look at this sort of thing as low hanging fruit. Anybody who won't put up $50 to $100 in US made parts to build a rifle probably wouldn't come up with a few thousand dollars for a lawyer to get his rifle back.
As small as the risk might be I balance the small cost of the US made parts against the permanent burn I would feel to see some agent walk away with a $1,000 - $1,800 rifle which I owned. And that is assuming they don't even arrest me over it which would be a life altering experience.
All that over a $100 dollars or so? I don't even see a reason to consider not doing it.
I do expect to some day log on here and read about a team of BATFE agents walking through a big gun show loading up shopping carts with non-compliant rifles. They wouldn't have to waste any effort charging anybody - just round up the "contraband" and send the message.
I am sure they would look at this sort of thing as low hanging fruit. Anybody who won't put up $50 to $100 in US made parts to build a rifle probably wouldn't come up with a few thousand dollars for a lawyer to get his rifle back.
As small as the risk might be I balance the small cost of the US made parts against the permanent burn I would feel to see some agent walk away with a $1,000 - $1,800 rifle which I owned. And that is assuming they don't even arrest me over it which would be a life altering experience.
All that over a $100 dollars or so? I don't even see a reason to consider not doing it.
I do expect to some day log on here and read about a team of BATFE agents walking through a big gun show loading up shopping carts with non-compliant rifles. They wouldn't have to waste any effort charging anybody - just round up the "contraband" and send the message.
I have a difficult time seeing that happen because a non-compliant rifle can be very difficult to distinguish from a compliant one. For example, I did a 922(r) conversion on my Saiga .223 that allows me to use either U.S.-made or imported magazines by installing a Tapco buttstock, pistol grip, and G2 trigger group. However, even when the rifle is field stripped, no markings distinguishing those parts as U.S.-made is clearly visible. Unless the ATF is willing to detail strip each and every "assault weapon" that they come across at a given gun show on the spot (highly unlikely), it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for them to distinguish between compliant guns and "contraband."
Therefore, if they were to start loading up a shopping cart in the manner you suggest, they would almost certainly wind up confiscating legal rifles along with illegal ones. This in turn would raise some very serious 4th Amendment issues and would be almost guaranteed to get organizations like the NRA and SAF and possibly even non-2A groups like the ACLU, along with all of their heavy-hitting lawyers, involved.
Such would be the political firestorm (particularly with the already tarnished reputation of the ATF) that the backlash, both legislatively and judicially, could easily threaten the ATF, the gun control movement, and 922(r) itself. After all, such behavior would vindicate those who have warned about confiscation and be rather discrediting to gun control advocates that called us kooks.
All that being said, I agree that the relatively small cost involved with complying with 922(r) does not outweigh the risk involved with ignoring it. What I could see happening is someone caught up in a questionable and politically charged shooting such as the recent events in Florida wind up getting placed under the microscope and charged with 922(r) violations. When enough political pressure to convict someone is applied, I don't think it's all that far-fetched to imagine a prosecutor and police department that would go through everything with a fine-toothed comb and throw at the defendant anything that they think might stick.
johnwilliamson062
Moderator
Where are you making a compliant rifle for that amount? Let alone the labor involved.$50 to $100
"I have a difficult time seeing that happen because a non-compliant rifle can be very difficult to distinguish from a compliant one."
My guess is that they would ask the owners to show which parts are US made and count them up. If the owner could not explain which parts he had replaced - or particularly didn't even understand which parts he should/could have replaced then it would be a reasonable bet that it is not compliant.
This would be a win for the ATF. Imagine the headlines "ATF confiscates hundreds of illegal assault weapons at gun show". Nobody on this forum would be happy about it - I definitely wouldn't be - but the average American would just read "illegal assault weapons" with "gun show" and most would just nod their heads. Lots of them would cheer.
The ATF labs could examine the guns afterwards and determine which guns had 11 or more imported parts (from the list of 20), confiscate those, and then contact the owners who were in compliance to return those guns. But they would get their PR win - in the eyes of the average MSNBC viewer - and the effort would be minimal.
My guess is that they would ask the owners to show which parts are US made and count them up. If the owner could not explain which parts he had replaced - or particularly didn't even understand which parts he should/could have replaced then it would be a reasonable bet that it is not compliant.
This would be a win for the ATF. Imagine the headlines "ATF confiscates hundreds of illegal assault weapons at gun show". Nobody on this forum would be happy about it - I definitely wouldn't be - but the average American would just read "illegal assault weapons" with "gun show" and most would just nod their heads. Lots of them would cheer.
The ATF labs could examine the guns afterwards and determine which guns had 11 or more imported parts (from the list of 20), confiscate those, and then contact the owners who were in compliance to return those guns. But they would get their PR win - in the eyes of the average MSNBC viewer - and the effort would be minimal.
johnwilliamson062
Moderator
I don't think it is reasonable that that meets state burden of proof though. I also don't think that is going to do anything at all for the many guns that were changed and then sold over and over again.If the owner could not explain which parts he had replaced - or particularly didn't even understand which parts he should/could have replaced then it would be a reasonable bet that it is not compliant.
The reality is this law was passed to prevent commercial importation and modification. Any sort of raid on gun shows or such is going to cause lots more problems than convictions.
It is a dumb law. I think NSSF lobbied in favor of it. Well, at least gave it a rubber stamp. Great boon for them. Headache for the rest of us.
That assumes that the ATF has the time, money, and manpower to do that. They really don't.The ATF labs could examine the guns afterwards and determine which guns had 11 or more imported parts (from the list of 20), confiscate those, and then contact the owners who were in compliance to return those guns.
Quote:
The ATF labs could examine the guns afterwards and determine which guns had 11 or more imported parts (from the list of 20), confiscate those, and then contact the owners who were in compliance to return those guns.
That assumes that the ATF has the time, money, and manpower to do that. They really don't.
And those limited resources would be stretched even further by the inevitable flood of lawsuits and political backlash resulting from the 4A violations entailed. Given the amount of grief the ATF has already gotten over Fast & Furious (not to mention the other scandals involving the justice department), the last thing they need to go doing is kicking the tiger in the rear lest congress finally give them the teeth in the form of severe budget cuts.