PDA

View Full Version : ATF rules that 922(r) only applies to new guns?


berg
11-02-2009, 9:28 AM
I saw this posted on another forum. The letter appears to say that if someone owns a firearm that doesn't have enough US made parts, they are only in trouble if they are the one who modified it (and it can be proven by the ATF).

So if someone bought a sporterized SKS (say a Yugo m59/66) as long as it didn't have any evil grenade launcher or detachable mag over 10 rounds, there's no problem.

Same for a converted Saiga that didn't use any US parts? Am I reading this right?

redcliff
11-02-2009, 10:28 AM
About time. I've argued the same thing before that once the firearm passes to a subsequent owner 922r is moot.

922r needs to be repealed and should of died with the federal awb.

Mitch
11-02-2009, 10:28 AM
Don't confuse 922(r) with California law. That detachable magazine would turn your SKS into an "assault weapon" here.

The letter seems pretty straightforward to me. The only thing that's not mentioned, but might be relevant, is that 922(r) only applies to firearms imported since 1989, though of course it's anyone's guess how you verify the importation date.

They are a bit disingenuous when they insist everyone is "innocent until proven guilty." In this country, anyone accused of drug crimes, pedophilia and firearms crimes can suffer serious consequences whether they are guilty or not. Best to stay on the safe side.

leelaw
11-02-2009, 10:32 AM
922(r) has always applied to whomever made the alterations to the rifle, or who built a new firearm on imported parts (ie: FAL kits)

1064chubbs
11-02-2009, 10:45 AM
Don't confuse 922(r) with California law. That detachable magazine would turn your SKS into an "assault weapon" here.

An SKS yes but a Yugo m59/66 as given in the example is NOT an "SKS" so it can have 10rd detachable mags.

Mitch
11-02-2009, 10:56 AM
An SKS yes but a Yugo m59/66 as given in the example is NOT an "SKS" so it can have 10rd detachable mags.

Yeah, that's what I hear. Good luck with that, your court defense should only cost the mid five figures.

SKSer
11-02-2009, 11:57 AM
ive wondered the "determination of origin of the part too" like lets say I hand make furniture for an AK with U.S. bought wood there will be no markings on there unless I put them, so how can they prove that my wood is imported?

Matt@EntrepriseArms
11-02-2009, 12:47 PM
922(r) has always applied to whomever made the alterations to the rifle, or who built a new firearm on imported parts (ie: FAL kits)

During our last ATF inspection a few months ago, I brought this question up to the inspector.

Specifically, I wanted to know if a person brought or shipped in a FAL kit to be assembled on our receiver or a receiver provided by them, did it need to have the required amount of U.S. parts on it before we released it back to the customer? Also, who did the responsibility fall upon in that scenario?

He said that the responsibility fell upon the owner of the firearm, and we could assemble the rifle with the parts he provided to us and we could release the firearm to that owner even thought it didn't have the required number of U.S. parts. He further stated that it was up to the owner to ensure his rifle was compliant when it was in his possession.

I can see some finger pointing going on later down the road there.

The inspector told me that the only time we need to have the 922r compliance parts on rifles is the completely built rifles we offer for sale, not "gunsmithing builds."

Sarkoon
11-02-2009, 12:48 PM
Does this mean we can legally put a magazine extension on a Benelli M4 now?

Mitch
11-02-2009, 1:10 PM
Does this mean we can legally put a magazine extension on a Benelli M4 now?

Did you read the letter?

The letter and the thread is about accepting a non-922(r) compliant firearm from someone else. 922(r) specifically outlaws assembling a non-compliant firearm.

Sarkoon
11-02-2009, 1:18 PM
Did you read the letter?

The letter and the thread is about accepting a non-922(r) compliant firearm from someone else. 922(r) specifically outlaws assembling a non-compliant firearm.

Ah, got it, thanks. So now we can legally purchase a Benelli M4 that had a magazine extension installed by someone else prior to purchase.

1064chubbs
11-02-2009, 1:25 PM
Yeah, that's what I hear. Good luck with that, your court defense should only cost the mid five figures.

Thats what they were saying when OLL's first started:rolleyes:

Ding126
11-02-2009, 1:44 PM
After 10+years of owning a rifle in question. I don't know if I did any modifications or if I purchased it that way. All I know is the rifle was used..

So its up to me to make sure it complies w/ 922r ? ( thats how I read the ATF letter )

Mitch
11-02-2009, 1:45 PM
Thats what they were saying when OLL's first started:rolleyes:

Yes, they were, and that's why the OLL movement was started by a person who is independently wealthy and who could afford the legal bills necessary to prove his case in court, if it came to that. Fortunately it never did.

He also had the law pretty much uncontroversially on his side.

With regard to the Yugo SKS, you are going to have a more difficult time arguing your SKS isn't really an SKS after the DA produces a sheaf of weekly flyers from Turner's Outdoorsman advertising the "Yugo SKS Model 59/66 for $180" accompanied by a photograph of a carbine that looks exactly like Exhibit A (your confiscated SKS). And they probably aren't the only retailer out there using the same language.

I've been away from Calguns for some time, but back in the day I couldn't find anyone who dared post a photograph of his own SKS with a detachable magazine. Perhaps there are a few out there now I don't know about.

Mitch
11-02-2009, 1:46 PM
So its up to me to make sure it complies w/ 922r ? ( thats how I read the ATF letter )

Are we reading the same letters here?

Ding126
11-02-2009, 1:55 PM
I mis read ( my bad )

berg
11-02-2009, 3:34 PM
After 10+years of owning a rifle in question. I don't know if I did any modifications or if I purchased it that way. All I know is the rifle was used..

So its up to me to make sure it complies w/ 922r ? ( thats how I read the ATF letter )

In the second part of the letter the ATF states that the burden of proof is on the government. So if you did or did not make any modifications, etc, it would be up to the ATF to prove that you did it, not you having to prove to them you didn't do it.

Dr. Peter Venkman
11-02-2009, 3:58 PM
In the second part of the letter the ATF states that the burden of proof is on the government. So if you did or did not make any modifications, etc, it would be up to the ATF to prove that you did it, not you having to prove to them you didn't do it.

Doesn't change the fact that you'll be sitting in jail waiting for them to prove it.