PDA

View Full Version : 922(r) question..


NapaPlinker
02-19-2011, 6:48 PM
If i put a wood stock, gas port cover, and fore end on my converted Saiga would they have to be made in the us?

arsilva32
02-19-2011, 6:59 PM
this could help a little:http://gunwiki.net/Gunwiki/BuildSaigaVerifyCompliance



this should help

bigthaiboy
02-19-2011, 8:40 PM
If i put a wood stock, gas port cover, and fore end on my converted Saiga would they have to be made in the us?

No, as long as your imported parts count does not go above 10, which means you still have to replace (or remove) 4 imported parts with US, so if you replace your FCG and your gas piston, you can remain 922(r) compliant even with an imported stock fitted.

NapaPlinker
02-19-2011, 8:59 PM
I want to get a bulgarian stock set and refinish it would I be able to legally just put it on? If its not stamped whose to say were its from really?

bigthaiboy
02-20-2011, 1:00 AM
I want to get a bulgarian stock set and refinish it would I be able to legally just put it on? If its not stamped whose to say were its from really?

We've already given you the answer about the stock. Many US made 922(r) parts are not marked "USA", and often, don't even bear a manufacturer's mark, but they are significantly different from the original in their materials and manufacture that it doesn't take a one-eyed drunk to spot the difference, so I am sure the BATF's tech dept. with their vast resources, shouldn't take long to spot the difference either.

If the Feds really, really wanted to nail someone, and were willing to throw enough time and energy at it, they might be able to make a convincing case in court, but to get to that point there would need to be a pressing political purpose driving the issue. Given essentially unlimited time and energy, could the ATF Tech Branch "prove" that certain parts were "beyond a reasonable doubt" foreign-made? Very possibly. With enough wood and metallurgical comparison testing, foreign-sourced samples, etc, it might be possible. Are they going to waste that much time and money on some random guy with a home-built AK-clone shooting at the local range? Highly unlikely. Even so, for your own peace of mind, wouldn't it make sense to stay legal?

NapaPlinker
02-20-2011, 5:13 PM
Thats what im tryin got do.. So i guess ill just look for a wood stock set made in the us.

bigthaiboy
02-20-2011, 7:13 PM
Thats what im tryin got do.. So i guess ill just look for a wood stock set made in the us.

Or you can legally use your refinished bulgarian wood furniture, if you replace the FCG and gas piston, as I explained in post #3.

NapaPlinker
02-22-2011, 2:05 PM
Or you can legally use your refinished bulgarian wood furniture, if you replace the FCG and gas piston, as I explained in post #3.

Wouldnt my FCG already be US made if my saiga was converted by Arsenal?

bigthaiboy
02-22-2011, 2:32 PM
Wouldnt my FCG already be US made if my saiga was converted by Arsenal?

Yes. This changes things a little because you forgot to mention it was an Arsenal conversion. The rifle has already been manufactured as 922(r) compliant. Any changes you make after that is OK, since you were not the person / company that manufactured it out of it's sporting configuration.

If you buy a gun, and it is legal when you buy it, a law cannot be passed in the USA to make it illegal; it's forbidden in the Constitution. You cannot make a law that makes people criminals retroactively.

Arisaka
02-22-2011, 2:53 PM
If you buy a gun, and it is legal when you buy it, a law cannot be passed in the USA to make it illegal; it's forbidden in the Constitution. You cannot make a law that makes people criminals retroactively.

How would they get away with convicting someone for possession of an unregistered AW that was legally purchased prior to the ban but not registered? Smells like ex post facto to me.....:confused:

CSACANNONEER
02-22-2011, 3:02 PM
922(r) uses the term "assemble" not
"manufacture". So, be careful. Also, I asked an ATF supervisor about this at SHOT and, he told me to read and follow the exact letter of the law. Be also said that he has testified on a 922(r) case against a private party before.

MrPlink
02-22-2011, 3:13 PM
also said that he has testified on a 922(r) case against a private party before.

Id be shocked if that was the sole violation that would bring someone to court

Arisaka
02-22-2011, 3:17 PM
922(r) uses the term "assemble" not
"manufacture". So, be careful. Also, I asked an ATF supervisor about this at SHOT and, he told me to read and follow the exact letter of the law. Be also said that he has testified on a 922(r) case against a private party before.

Now I'm worried.... Do you have any examples of some potential pitfalls?

bigthaiboy
02-22-2011, 3:18 PM
How would they get away with convicting someone for possession of an unregistered AW that was legally purchased prior to the ban but not registered? Smells like ex post facto to me.....:confused:

Because what I am talking about and what you are talking about are not relevant to one another. You are talking about a law which required owners to register their AWs within a set registration period. Any AW after that date could not be registered and would be illegal. This is not relevant comparison to the 922(r) discussion, which is a federal law that's been around for 20 years, and we are applying it to the OP's Arsenal Inc rifle which was purchased within the last few years. We are talking about a federal law mandating responsibility of the manufacturer to make a firearm compliant, prior to transferring it to the end user, not about State level bans and registration.

Arisaka
02-22-2011, 3:20 PM
Because what I am talking about and what you are talking about are not relevant to one another. You are talking about a law which required owners to register their AWs within a set registration period. Any AW after that date could not be registered and would be illegal. This is not relevant comparison to the 922(r) discussion, which is a federal law that's been around for 20 years, and we are applying it to the OP's Arsenal Inc rifle which was purchased within the last few years. We are talking about the burden of responsibility of the manufacturer to make a firearm compliant, prior transferring it to the end user, not about State level bans and registration.

Sorry, carry on.

bigthaiboy
02-22-2011, 3:28 PM
922(r) uses the term "assemble" not
"manufacture". So, be careful. Also, I asked an ATF supervisor about this at SHOT and, he told me to read and follow the exact letter of the law. Be also said that he has testified on a 922(r) case against a private party before.

922(r) violations has been used to prosecute individuals who are already under investigation by the Feds, and is used as a tacked on charged as a back up to the main more serious charges. The ATF has yet to prosecute an individual purely for a 922(r) violation on it's own when no other charges have been brought.

CSACANNONEER
02-23-2011, 5:21 AM
922(r) violations has been used to prosecute individuals who are already under investigation by the Feds, and is used as a tacked on charged as a back up to the main more serious charges. The ATF has yet to prosecute an individual purely for a 922(r) violation on it's own when no other charges have been brought.

The agent did not go into details but, both disarmed marksmand and kej Jack were present and part of the conversation.

GM4spd
02-23-2011, 5:32 AM
Id be shocked if that was the sole violation that would bring someone to court

I'm wondering the same thing---I've have looked for years for an ACTUAL
case of an individual being prosecuted for a 922r violation. I'm not sure
I would take an ATF agents word for anything,either. Pete