PDA

View Full Version : Unkowingly Purchasing a non-922(r) Compliant Gun


Jpach
02-04-2010, 11:57 AM
Say if one were to have purchased a Benelli M4 from an FFL and they installed a 7rd tube extension on it, which (depending on how one views the ATFs inconsistent letters on the M4 foreign parts count) may violate 922(r).

Lets assume that this person had no idea about 922(r) because he bought it a few years ago and was a noob. Would the purchaser have any legal issues by purchasing and owning said M4 if the FFL put the tube in it prior to releasing it to him/her? IIRC, the issue is the act of not complying with 922(r). Any help/insight into this would be much appreciated.

paul0660
02-04-2010, 12:07 PM
I think it is a grey area because 922r is about assembling non compliant weapons, not possessing them.

The Imported Parts Law (1990)

(178.39 otherwise known as 922(r) 10 Foreign parts law on semiauto Rifles & Shotguns)

Sec. 178.39 Assembly of semiautomatic rifles or shotguns.

(a) No person shall assemble a semiautomatic rifle or any shotgun using more than 10 of the imported parts listed in paragraph (c) of this section if the assembled firearm is prohibited from importation under section 925(d)(3) as not being particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes.

(b) The provisions of this section shall not apply to:

(1) The assembly of such rifle or shotgun for sale or distribution by a licensed manufacturer to the United States or any department or agency thereof or to any State or any department, agency, or political subdivision thereof; or

(2) The assembly of such rifle or shotgun for the purposes of testing or experimentation authorized by the Director under the provisions of Sec. 178.151; or

(3) The repair of any rifle or shotgun which had been imported into or assembled in the United States prior to November 30, 1990, or the replacement of any part of such firearm.

(c) For purposes of this section, the term imported parts are:

(1) Frames, receivers, receiver castings, forgings or stampings
(2) Barrels
(3) Barrel extensions
(4) Mounting blocks (trunions)
(5) Muzzle attachments
(6) Bolts
(7) Bolt carriers
(8) Operating rods
(9) Gas pistons
(10) Trigger housings
(11) Triggers
(12) Hammers
(13) Sears
(14) Disconnectors
(15) Buttstocks
(16) Pistol grips
(17) Forearms, handguards
(18) Magazine bodies
(19) Followers
(20) Floorplates

CHS
02-04-2010, 1:18 PM
No liability.

There was an ATF letter going around recently that stated as much. If you're caught with a non-compliant gun, you have no legal liability as long as you weren't the manufacturer/assembler.

grammaton76
02-04-2010, 1:21 PM
What he said. However, I'll add that for safety's sake you should not alter the configuration of the weapon from its purchased configuration unless you're rendering it 922(r) compliant after you reassemble it.

This doesn't mean you can't take it apart for cleaning - just if you change buttstocks on it or something, you should make sure your new configuration is compliant, as the new configuration is one you would have created.

Jpach
02-04-2010, 4:12 PM
I think it is a grey area because 922r is about assembling non compliant weapons, not possessing them.

Awesome :D. Thanks for the info guys, Im sure whoever my post is about will sleep a bit better knowing that now :p

B Strong
02-04-2010, 6:03 PM
The only 922(r) arrest I've ever heard of was of a dealer that was modifying post-ban rifles into the pre-ban configuration using the original parts.

I've never heard of even an investigation of an individual over 922(r)

turbosbox
02-04-2010, 7:51 PM
I wouldn't want one not legal. Think of this, you are the one possessing the illegal firearm. Now you say "Oh Joe did that not me". The burden of proof would be on you. What do you think Joe will say of they ask him if he did something illegal?
There were some posts on some other improperly configured firearms with that type situation, but no, it wasn't 922-r only.

paul0660
02-04-2010, 8:00 PM
Now you say "Oh Joe did that not me". The burden of proof would be on you.

Actually, the burden of proof is still on them, and they would have to get Joe to testify against you. More likely, the FFL involved in a transfer would be more pertinent witness than Joe, since Joe is going to be CYA.

Not the biggest worry in California, since our guns are well neutered already.

pullnshoot25
02-04-2010, 10:23 PM
Unless you are retarded enough to invite a federal agent to probe and violate your weapon in the name of some stupid inspection, you will be fine. Besides, it is basically for manufacturers/importers, not the regular joe.

Hunt
02-04-2010, 10:34 PM
when I was selling my SKS I did a ton of reading on 922-r I did a *lot* of research and couldn't find any cases where a person in possession of a non compliant firearm was prosecuted. I suspect there may be a gangster that had multiple charges for other crimes may have had a 922-r violation tacked on. The consensus amongst all the collector groups is that 922-r is about stopping manufacturing and almost impossible to prove a violation against some guy in posession. This is just assumption after a few months of reading as I had a questionable SKS for sale someone please point out my errors.

pullnshoot25
02-04-2010, 11:06 PM
when I was selling my SKS I did a ton of reading on 922-r I did a *lot* of research and couldn't find any cases where a person in possession of a non compliant firearm was prosecuted. I suspect there may be a gangster that had multiple charges for other crimes may have had a 922-r violation tacked on. The consensus amongst all the collector groups is that 922-r is about stopping manufacturing and almost impossible to prove a violation against some guy in posession. This is just assumption after a few months of reading as I had a questionable SKS for sale someone please point out my errors.

None found!