PDA

View Full Version : Convictions under 922(r)?


ChuckBooty
06-03-2009, 3:21 PM
Can anyone point to any convictions under 922(r)? There was a discussion in another thread and it got me wondering exactly how ENFORCEABLE that this law really is.

I have not read anywhere that each part HAS to be marked "made in the usa", so how would a DA prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that your gas piston was not made in the USA?

Dr Rockso
06-03-2009, 3:25 PM
I'm almost positive that it's never been used against an individual, only importers, etc. It does seem to be very difficult to enforce against individuals.

CSACANNONEER
06-03-2009, 4:47 PM
the guys at the SKS forums say they never heard of any convictions.
The issue is about manufacturing not possession.

TRUE! POSSESSION IS NOT ILLEGAL! Only manufacturing!

CAL.BAR
06-03-2009, 5:04 PM
922r is a big deal over on HKPRO, and no one there has ever heard of a prosecution. It was meant to go after large scale manufacturing, not "garage conversions" like we normally do.

paul0660
06-03-2009, 5:11 PM
At worst, it is an add on to other violations. At best, it is way for after market guys to sell parts and for forum "experts" to get their panties in a bunch.

garandguy10
06-03-2009, 5:44 PM
922r really only applies to the manufacture or assembly of firearms and not to possesion, it can not be a enforceable "add on" charge if you are in simple possession of a 922r non compliant weapon. If you do not admit to manufacture or assembly, it would be really hard to gain a conviction on it.

However it would be a add on charge to more serious offences just so that they can plea bargain you down to something else. So long as you are not in the business of manufacturing large quantities of firearms it really is not something that they can convict you of, so long as you remain silent and not admit to building up a non 922r compliant firearm.

In other words, if you bought a 922r non compliant firearm, and you are not a dealer or FFL manufacturer, do not lose sleep over it.
If you are manufacturing non 922r compliant firearms, you should lose sleep over it.

And that I was told verbally by the head of the BATF technical branch many years ago. I am not a attorney and this advice is worth exactly what you paid for it.

motorhead
06-03-2009, 6:46 PM
no one i've ever spoke to or on any of the boards i belong to has any firsthand knowledge of a 922(r) arrest. there are rumors of it being used as an additional charge to someone arrested on a firearms violation. it would require seizure of the weapon as l.e. does not have the right to disassemble your firearm in normal contact situations. you are not required to answer any questions regarding parts you assembled it with.
we only follow it 'cause we love tapco so much and want them to prosper.:43:

WatchMan
06-03-2009, 9:04 PM
Some folks really freak out about this on the Benelli forum as well - it's one of those recurring threads like a bad nightmare. With that said, no one has ever pointed to an arrest involving 922r that I am aware of.

eltee
06-03-2009, 9:19 PM
922r really only applies to the manufacture or assembly of firearms and not to possesion, it can not be a enforceable "add on" charge if you are in simple possession of a 922r non compliant weapon. If you do not admit to manufacture or assembly, it would be really hard to gain a conviction on it.
...
In other words, if you bought a 922r non compliant firearm, and you are not a dealer or FFL manufacturer, do not lose sleep over it.
If you are manufacturing non 922r compliant firearms, you should lose sleep over it.

And that I was told verbally by the head of the BATF technical branch many years ago. I am not a attorney and this advice is worth exactly what you paid for it.


If someone did one of those popular H&K conversions wherein you swap some parts on an SL-8 to make it into a G36 semiauto, according to many on the HK forum you need to add American made parts to stay compliant with 922r. So, if someone does this conversion for his/her personal SL-8, is this considered "manufacturing?"

scobun
06-03-2009, 9:24 PM
If someone did one of those popular H&K conversions wherein you swap some parts on an SL-8 to make it into a G36 semiauto, according to many on the HK forum you need to add American made parts to stay compliant with 922r. So, if someone does this conversion for his/her personal SL-8, is this considered "manufacturing?"

I believe that work you do to a gun you own is legally gunsmithing. To be involved in manufacturing, you actually have to be building the part that the ATF recognizes as a firearm, like a frame or lower.

gose
06-03-2009, 9:39 PM
If someone did one of those popular H&K conversions wherein you swap some parts on an SL-8 to make it into a G36 semiauto, according to many on the HK forum you need to add American made parts to stay compliant with 922r. So, if someone does this conversion for his/her personal SL-8, is this considered "manufacturing?"

The word used in 922(r) is not "manufacture"...

"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..."

Could putting some parts together to build a rifle that is banned from importation be seen as "assembling from parts"?

Gator Monroe
06-03-2009, 9:40 PM
the guys at the SKS forums say they never heard of any convictions.
The issue is about manufacturing not possession.

Which SKS forums ? :eek: If you mean Survivors sks forum then let me know if Galahad (Mod/admin) is fed up with Houston ?

bwiese
06-04-2009, 12:36 AM
The word used in 922(r) is not "manufacture"...

"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..."

Could putting some parts together to build a rifle that is banned from importation be seen as "assembling from parts"?

Yup.

Possession is one thing, assembly another. The former at worst might result in seizure of contraband product - if evidence of the latter could be determined, then problems could occur.

I do not believe, however, any individual has been charged.

Some importers may have had issues however,

ChuckBooty
06-04-2009, 6:43 AM
OK...so if possession of a non compliant rifle is not illegal, what about a transfer of an already assembled non-compliant rifle? And if possession and transfer are not illegal than WHY is the "...is this 922(r) compliant" question always thrown around when someone tries to sell an SKS or AK build? I think that this needs to stop...it's actually FUD at this point.

BW...do you think that this can be added to the FAQ or stickied somewhere? I think all the confusion regarding this needs to stop and people selling their rifles should be left alone.

AaronHorrocks
06-04-2009, 6:52 AM
Don't take the risk. $100 or $200 in parts? vs. How many years in prison?

Let's make an effort to repeal 922(r). All that it does is force people to buy certain U.S. made parts, in place of perfectly good surplus parts. It puts a demand on U.S. manufactures to make parts for a market that was created through legislation. It's wasteful.

ChuckBooty
06-04-2009, 7:39 AM
If possession isn't illegal than nobody is breaking a law. If you're manufacturing these guns then yes...you are breaking the law. But if you buy an SKS from somebody and that SKS isn't compliant then you haven't broken the law and you're under no obligation to change out any parts either. Doesn't seem like a risk to me at all.

ChuckBooty
06-04-2009, 7:47 AM
Here's the analogy: If you are in a hurry and you exceed the speed limit, you have broken the law. But if you're later found to be in possession of the car that you've speed in, you're not breaking any law.

AirflowPimp
06-04-2009, 7:53 AM
OK...so if possession of a non compliant rifle is not illegal, what about a transfer of an already assembled non-compliant rifle? And if possession and transfer are not illegal than WHY is the "...is this 922(r) compliant" question always thrown around when someone tries to sell an SKS or AK build? I think that this needs to stop...it's actually FUD at this point.

BW...do you think that this can be added to the FAQ or stickied somewhere? I think all the confusion regarding this needs to stop and people selling their rifles should be left alone.

Thats what happened in my first for sale thread. Thank you for bringing this up and suggesting it. Hopefully something gets done about it. :thumbsup:

GaryV
06-04-2009, 7:59 AM
If possession isn't illegal than nobody is breaking a law. If you're manufacturing these guns then yes...you are breaking the law. But if you buy an SKS from somebody and that SKS isn't compliant then you haven't broken the law and you're under no obligation to change out any parts either. Doesn't seem like a risk to me at all.

Unless you use imported mags in a gun that does not already have enough 922(r) compliant parts in it. If that's the case, then every time you insert the magazine, you violate 922(r), since the mag counts as three compliance parts.

ChuckBooty
06-04-2009, 8:45 AM
Unless you use imported mags in a gun that does not already have enough 922(r) compliant parts in it. If that's the case, then every time you insert the magazine, you violate 922(r), since the mag counts as three compliance parts.

You have a point (although practically, it's a stretch) but an SKS has a fixed mag.

EDIT: Actually this would only be the case with a Raddlock or BB AK. If you're using detachable magazines then you are not manufacturing the rifle as they're not part of the rifle (EG...the word DETACHABLE). I think that this law is BS and a lot of us spend WAY to much time worrying about it and de facto spreading FUD.

eltee
06-04-2009, 9:14 AM
On the H&K SL8=G36 conversions using G36 mags, they sell US made followers and baseplates since they don't have US made G36 magazines for them. Someone even sells US made followers with a 10-round limiter.

So, since it turns out that "assembling" is the operative word and not "manufacture" I suspect that a person who performs the conversion, even on his/her personal rifle, is guilty of assembling and therefore subject to whatever (if any) punitive action is attached to 922. However, there seems to be no evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, given here that indicates anyone has been jammed up on a 922 violation unless it was a lesser/included offense attached to another violation.

So, if you put together (convert) a gun as described you may be in violation of 922 but there is no known (here) history of enforcement of that violation as a standalone offense. Is that pretty accurate? However, if your gun is seized for some other violation and, upon examination, it is determined to be in violation and the person from whom the gun was seized did the conversion (assembly) then 922 may be an added charge.

On the H&K SL8=G36 conversion, they usually add a US made grip assembly and either a US made stock or a real H&K German or Japanese made stock. They also either modify the standard SL8 bolt (welding on an extra lug) or use a German G36 unit. Some conversions use AR15 (US made) mags whereas others use G36 (German made) mags. On some German mags, US made internal parts are added. Some folks will also add a US made rail forend, etc.

Time for a 922 flowchart?

GaryV
06-04-2009, 10:10 AM
You have a point (although practically, it's a stretch) but an SKS has a fixed mag.

EDIT: Actually this would only be the case with a Raddlock or BB AK. If you're using detachable magazines then you are not manufacturing the rifle as they're not part of the rifle (EG...the word DETACHABLE). I think that this law is BS and a lot of us spend WAY to much time worrying about it and de facto spreading FUD.

Yes, I wasn't talking about the SKS specifically, just any gun covered under 922(r). And read the law again; it doesn't say "manufacture", it says "assemble", so inserting a detachable magazine does count (otherwise including these magazine parts in 922(r) wouldn't make any sense). Remember that this is a federal law and they had no concept of BBs when they wrote it.

I agree that it isn't really something we need to worry about in terms of being prosecuted, but it is very annoying that a lot of perfectly good (and often superior) surplus parts can't be used in combination with each other, or that several parts (like the whole fire-control group) need to be replaced just because you add a pistol grip or change the stock. Plus, while no one is really enforcing it now, this is one more example of how an innocent and completely harmless act has been criminalized and could be used to make our lives more difficult if some politician decided to get ugly on the topic.

adamsreeftank
06-04-2009, 2:44 PM
.."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..."..

Could someone explain what the legal meaning of the word "identical" is? If you build an HK type rifle with an american receiver, or with other "conversion" parts, how could that be considered identical with a banned rifle?

Calguns2000
06-04-2009, 4:24 PM
Keep in mind that 922(r) (that, and "buy American" defense contract policies) is the reason FN, Sig and now HK are making guns domestically, from a certain point of view 922(r) is beneficial to the US firearms industry.

bohoki
06-04-2009, 4:59 PM
Could someone explain what the legal meaning of the word "identical" is? If you build an HK type rifle with an american receiver, or with other "conversion" parts, how could that be considered identical with a banned rifle?

yea identical is a very exact word

they have been running under the if it was to be imported they would deny it in that configuation

but since many styles have not even attempted to import
they are not banned yet

get what i'm saying just because they would deny it doesn't mean they have denied its importation and thus is not banned yet

motorhead
06-04-2009, 5:48 PM
922(r) was an end run around the evil features/non-sporting laws. otherwise all our aks would have to have butthole stocks. it only criminalizes the person who built the rifle. worst case for the buyer is loss of the piece and lots of hassle.

Danield
06-04-2009, 5:54 PM
Thats what happened in my first for sale thread. Thank you for bringing this up and suggesting it. Hopefully something gets done about it. :thumbsup:

Yea, in your thread, YOU assembled an illegal rifle. So, again, get your facts straight.

xrMike
06-04-2009, 6:15 PM
I can imagine that any individual unlucky enough to be the first person charged with a 922(r) violation would also be pushing a whole wheelbarrow full of charges more serious than that...

The 922(r) thing would just be an add-on, and the least of their worries.

motorhead
06-04-2009, 6:28 PM
there was one guy who had a stamp professionally made the said "usa." i won't speculate on it's purpose.

ChuckBooty
06-04-2009, 7:33 PM
Yea, in your thread, YOU assembled an illegal rifle. So, again, get your facts straight.

That may be so...but it has nothing to do with his sale since possession and transfer of non-922(r) compliant rifles is not a crime.

AirflowPimp
06-05-2009, 7:30 AM
Danield...I was referring to two different things. But I can see how you may have misunderstood it.

OK...so if possession of a non compliant rifle is not illegal, what about a transfer of an already assembled non-compliant rifle? And if possession and transfer are not illegal than WHY is the "...is this 922(r) compliant" question always thrown around when someone tries to sell an SKS or AK build? I think that this needs to stop...it's actually FUD at this point.

Thats what happened in my first for sale thread.


BW...do you think that this can be added to the FAQ or stickied somewhere? I think all the confusion regarding this needs to stop and people selling their rifles should be left alone.


Thank you for bringing this up and suggesting it. Hopefully something gets done about it. :thumbsup:


Yea, in your thread, YOU assembled an illegal rifle. So, again, get your facts straight.

That may be so...but it has nothing to do with his sale since possession and transfer of non-922(r) compliant rifles is not a crime.



Danield, I wasn't referring to you in a negative manner. I was simply referring to the fact that the "is this 922r complient?" was brought up in my thread, which if I recall correctly, wasn't even said by you. But the fact is that it did get brought up.

NOTE*** ChuckBooty, the bolded part below applies to this thread. Sorry for the rest of the thread jacking crap.

I was not aware of my gun being non complient. After the question was asked, I called an officer friend of mine and he looked at it and said it was legal and good to go. Later i admitted that i, as well as the cop, was ill-informed. Then another person entered the thread, did some research and actually called the ATF, who said that the actual law reads that it was legal. The only thing that makes it non complient were the case laws regarding the 922 law. Case laws are rulings made by other cases involving the same issue. When a new case is presented to the courts regarding the same issue, they refer to the rulings(based on the interpretations) of the old cases (case law). The problem here is in the cases that are being referred to(case laws), the 922 law was interpreted as something that it is not. Why did this happen? Because the way our crooked, biased, agenda setting, beauracratic legislators who write our laws, leave the door wide open for judges to interpret the laws however they want based on who the defendant will be when the law is supposedly broken.