PDA

View Full Version : Sport Conversion Kit Legality


thmpr
03-10-2006, 3:19 PM
All,
I want to share a conversation I had with DOJ and by no means have I claimed to be a lawyer or providing legal advice on this topic. This is how I interpreted the law after reading the AW classification and professionally discussing my understanding of the fixed and AW legality to DOJ. They could not argue with the facts I stated to them in regards to the fixed magazine and AW definition found in the AW identification guide book.

Based on the legality of the lowers, we all know that it is perfectly legal to purchase the lower because it is does not fall in any of the AW CLASSIFICATION CATEGORY.

For the Fixed MAG legality, it is perfectly legal to use a non-listed lower with a fixed mag kit for the following.
1) It is not an AW because it does not fall in any of the AW categories.
2) It meets 12776.1 definition
3) Magazine, fixed - A magazine which remains affixed to the firearm during loading. Frequently a fixed magazine is charged (loaded) from a clip (en bloc or stripper) of cartridges inserted through the open breech into the magazine.
4) 10 rounds capacity magazine
5) It must require tool(s) to be used for removal/replacement, and the magazine cannot be removable/replaceable in normal course of rifle operation. A bullet is considered a tool.

In summary, they could not afgue of the facts that was stated. They also stated that it would be a good idea to have the required definition, laws, and letters by the DOJ concerning the off list lower and fixed mag legality. Lastly, there is no law that states we need to submit a sample to DOJ for approval. Only if you are planning to sale a handgun which this is required. :D


Hope this helps and clarifies the legality of the SCK.

6172crew
03-10-2006, 3:30 PM
Get that in writing?

Dont get me wrong this is great news but I dont trust what the DOJ says over the phone and have told many of us they dont like the nut/bolt convertion kits and plan on using a user for an example.

Again this was over the phone and I dont trust what was said.

grammaton76
03-10-2006, 3:42 PM
This is correct, that there is no law which says we need a letter.

HOWEVER, a lot of what we do is not merely to conform with the law, but to reduce the likelihood of some uninformed LEO trying to haul us in.

If you still have the callback number of the person you spoke with on the phone, it would be absolutely spectacular if they'd put it in writing that a kit which requires a tool for removal does indeed render an unlisted AR lower to be in compliance.

If so, a lot of us (myself included) will more than happily resume bringing our fixed-mag rifles to the range. I've personally ceased to bring my fixed-mag rifle due to the news about DOJ looking for a test case, but I do bring my 22LR rifle. That of course is even MORE politically incorrect, but it's not possible to "trip and manufacture an assault weapon" with it.

artherd
03-10-2006, 3:55 PM
Get that in writing?
Dont get me wrong this is great news but I dont trust what the DOJ says over the phone and have told many of us they dont like the nut/bolt convertion kits and plan on using a user for an example.
DOJ, I've got one:
Benjamin P Cannon
1083 Vine St #215
Healdsburg, CA. 95448.

Better yet, contact my attorney, I think you know him...


PS: It would be nice to have that conversation in writing. You probally won't get anything without sending in an exampiar though. Frankly I can understand their position there. If they rule on 'a nut' from affar, what's to distinguish between a wing/butterfly nut and a nylock 10mm nut? No, in order to be unambigious, they need an example.

artherd
03-10-2006, 3:57 PM
If you still have the callback number of the person you spoke with on the phone, it would be absolutely spectacular if they'd put it in writing that a kit which requires a tool for removal does indeed render an unlisted AR lower to be in compliance.
Well shoot, we have that much already.

DOJ is just trying to make noise and scare you into staying home. They'd have poped someone already if they thought they had a chance in hell of winning and not being subject to a huge civil suit as well.

thmpr
03-10-2006, 4:01 PM
Well shoot, we have that much already.

DOJ is just trying to make noise and scare you into staying home. They'd have poped someone already if they thought they had a chance in hell of winning and not being subject to a huge civil suit as well.


I spoke to Rene and she stated that DOJ only enforces the law not create them. Thats the exact words she used. She was very friendly and knew her laws very well. She recommended to have the docs with you at all time when possessing the non-listed rifle. There were other information discussed that made me smile...I will leave it at that!

thmpr
03-10-2006, 4:11 PM
DOJ, I've got one:
Benjamin P Cannon
1083 Vine St #215
Healdsburg, CA. 95448.

Better yet, contact my attorney, I think you know him...


PS: It would be nice to have that conversation in writing. You probally won't get anything without sending in an exampiar though. Frankly I can understand their position there. If they rule on 'a nut' from affar, what's to distinguish between a wing/butterfly nut and a nylock 10mm nut? No, in order to be unambigious, they need an example.


Echo your comments!!!