Yugo 59/66 vs SKS legality?

[CSACANNONEER]

It can be a long road to finding all the 'facts' on Yugo 59/66 rifles. According to the page at the link, they are indeed 'SKS' rifles, and are also C&R status:

http://www.victorinc.com/SKS-FAQ.html

Others say they are C&R status, but not actually an 'SKS'. Others say the are not C&R, but are genuine 'SKS'.

From what I can gather an SKS is a Type 56 Simonov rifle, and a Yugo version is called a Type 59/66.

Some sites say you can leave the bayonet on, others say it must be removed, others say you can remove bayonet but must leave the bayonet lug in place. This is in reference to both C&R and Title 18 US Code.

Some say that it's C&R 'as issued' only, others say it's C&R even if grenade launcher is removed & muzzle brake installed, others say removal of grenade launcher & installation of muzzle brake takes it out of C&R status.

Other info can be found here: http://www.yooperj.com/SKS.htm.BAK

You are confusing California laws and definitions with Federal laws and definitions as well as a little FUD thrown in for good measure. This is a bit confusing to start with so, read, read, read and then read some threads here from '04-present and it then should be clear as mud. Anyway, after you read a while, don't be afraid to ask questions.

[bugman]

Would someone please enlighten me about the questions I have?

Sorry to ask a few more questions on this issue. I just want to make sure I understand the legality of the Yugo SKS 59/66. I get confused because i see ads in GB and other places that mention that this are C&R eligible.

Question 1: Bottom line, this is not eligible to be shipped directly to California C&R licensee, right?

Question 2: Looking at various threads including this one makes me think it is the manufacture date or the GL feature that removes it from the C&R eligibility. Which is the real reason? Why are they listing it C&R on ads at auction sites then if it is due to manufacture date?

Question 3: If I ever want to buy one, the rifle has to go through FFL transfer and the GL muzzle device needs to be removed before coming into Cali. Right or wrong?

Sorry folks, I just want to make sure I know all the facts. I have SKS on my list of things to get as soon as I get some breathing room in the financial issues. I would rather ask stupid questions than get in legal trouble. I have been working all night so I am a bit slow in absorbing all the comments/explanations i have read regarding the legality of this rifle when I did a search here.

[EBR Works]

Question 1: Bottom line, this is not eligible to be shipped directly to California C&R licensee, right? Correct, since no 59/66 rifles are 50+ years old, they must go to an FFL.

Question 2: Looking at various threads including this one makes me think it is the manufacture date or the GL feature that removes it from the C&R eligibility. Which is the real reason? Why are they listing it C&R on ads at auction sites then if it is due to manufacture date? Most other states do not regulate the grenade launcher as a DD, whereas Cali does. Most other states do not enforce a 50+ YO age limit in addition to the firearm's inclusion on the Fed C&R list, Cali does.

Question 3: If I ever want to buy one, the rifle has to go through FFL transfer and the GL muzzle device needs to be removed before coming into Cali. Right or wrong? Correct

[bugman]

Thanks impactco! The explanations cleared most of my questions. It is hard to wade through the many conflicting opinions and FUD.

[bwiese]

I am puzzled as to why folks think one is "more grey" than the other: both contexts involve similar-appearing rifles with different make/model combinations.

The now-commonly-recognized protection of Harrott in relation to off-list ARs and AKs indeed extends to Yugo M59s & M59/66s.

The "Yugo SKS" colloquially refers to the Zastava Arms Co. Model 59 or Model 59/66, just like "AR" can refer to a Stag 15 or CMMG-15.

Even the DOJ BoF refers to the Yugo carbine by that make & model identifier - in their warning about M59/66s being destructive devices if they have the stock grenade launcher. [Even detaching the grenade launcher from an M59/66 still leaves you with a prohibited device, so it should be removed or permanently disabled before the firearm crossed into CA.]

Thus, a Yugo M59(/66) is not an "SKS". It is thus not an "SKS with detachable magazine" if such a device were configured on the M59(/66).

However, 18 USC 922(r) (with 27 CFR 478.39 supporting regulations) regulates "non-sporting rifles" foreign parts content. The M59/66 would need to play the "10 or less key foreign parts game" if a detachable magazine were added.

Reality also intercedes:
1. The SKS is a damned good rifle as-is.
2. The only detachable mags I know of are from Tapco (Crapco).
3. Why muck up a good thing?

[Spirit 1]

You are confusing California laws and definitions with Federal laws and definitions as well as a little FUD thrown in for good measure. This is a bit confusing to start with so, read, read, read and then read some threads here from '04-present and it then should be clear as mud. Anyway, after you read a while, don't be afraid to ask questions.

Read my original post & questions. I'm not the one confusing anything with anything! I'm the one trying to wade through the confusion. Never restricted my post to only Cali interpretation or only Fed interpretation.

The reason for this thread is because it's confusing, I thought at least that part was obvious? Been reading for over 9 months on these guns and only recently saw the first reference that they "....are not SKS...", with other contradictory info found at the links I posted.

As for spreading FUD, what? Just accurately telling what I've seen posted in various forums and informational websites. I've read every thread on this forum and about 4 other forums dealing with SKS or 59/66 rifles. I then asked a question, and shared what I've seen elsewhere, with links.

Came here looking for answers, not a fight or insults or accusations, thanks.

[CSACANNONEER]

Read my original post & questions. I'm not the one confusing anything with anything! I'm the one trying to wade through the confusion. Never restricted my post to only Cali interpretation or only Fed interpretation.

The reason for this thread is because it's confusing, I thought at least that part was obvious? Been reading for over 9 months on these guns and only recently saw the first reference that they "....are not SKS...", with other contradictory info found at the links I posted.

As for spreading FUD, what? Just accurately telling what I've seen posted in various forums and informational websites. I've read every thread on this forum and about 4 other forums dealing with SKS or 59/66 rifles. I then asked a question, and shared what I've seen elsewhere, with links.

Came here looking for answers, not a fight or insults or accusations, thanks.

First, I sure didn't mean to offend you! Second, I didn't say that you were spreading FUD. I just said that you had heard some FUD like the issue of bayonets. Years ago, Bayos were part of the Federal AW ban. That has since sunsetted and bayos are a non issue for Ca. AW laws. Also, although Yugos are recognized as C&R on a Federal level (and altering them might take them out of this statues), it's a moot point. California only recognizes C&Rs over 50 years old. Since the 59/66's are not dated (or at least I haven't seen one with a date), it's impossible to tell when each gun was manufactured. So, there's no way to prove that a particular gun is over 50 years old. Again, I'm sorry if I offended you and I agree that there is a lot of bad info out there, as well as, info that doesn't really apply to California (right now).

[Noobert]

Only because it's not considered an SKS and only if it has no other evil features that would make it illegal.

However, you'd have had to already have the magazines here legally to be compliant with CA law.

It's similar to the issue with the BWK-92: it looks like a MAK-90, has Norinco stamped on the side but nowhere on the receiver does it say anything that is listed on the CA ban lists...

Lucky for us the people who make gun control laws know absolutely nothing about guns...

"Lucky for us the people who make gun control laws know absolutely nothing about guns... " Awesome quote right here

[Spirit 1]

First, I sure didn't mean to offend you! Second, I didn't say that you were spreading FUD. I just said that you had heard some FUD like the issue of bayonets. Years ago, Bayos were part of the Federal AW ban. That has since sunsetted and bayos are a non issue for Ca. AW laws. Also, although Yugos are recognized as C&R on a Federal level (and altering them might take them out of this statues), it's a moot point. California only recognizes C&Rs over 50 years old. Since the 59/66's are not dated (or at least I haven't seen one with a date), it's impossible to tell when each gun was manufactured. So, there's no way to prove that a particular gun is over 50 years old. Again, I'm sorry if I offended you and I agree that there is a lot of bad info out there, as well as, info that doesn't really apply to California (right now).

Thanks for the explanation! I apologize to you for getting ready to slap leather: my misunderstanding! Hard to read emotions in words.

I think what's worst of all is coming across suposedly
'Expert' or 'Authoritative' websites that have entirely incorrect information on key issues, FUD masters for sure. Doesn't help anybody...

And thanks for the further info! That DOES help.

[Dr Rockso]

'Expert' or 'Authoritative' websites that have entirely incorrect information on key issues, FUD masters for sure. Doesn't help anybody...

I don't think that the information on those other sites is 'entirely incorrect' so much as being dated or inapplicable to this specific question. Gun laws are really freaking complicated since there are so many different areas (state, federal, importation, manufacturing, etc). Also they can change a lot due to a simple re-interpretation of an existing law or an addition to the relevant body of case law.

[Spirit 1]

I don't think that the information on those other sites is 'entirely incorrect' so much as being dated or inapplicable to this specific question. Gun laws are really freaking complicated since there are so many different areas (state, federal, importation, manufacturing, etc). Also they can change a lot due to a simple re-interpretation of an existing law or an addition to the relevant body of case law.

The way I wrote may be confusing. I didn't mean that the information on the websites was entirely incorrect, but that some information that deals with key issues is entirely incorrect. Those are some fine websites, lots of work poured into them by caring gun guys, but some mistakes slipped through.

And yeah, a large parcentage of posts in this forum are dedicated to unraveling a legal mumbo-jumbo that simply defies description or full understanding!

Clearly obvious the guys who wrote the laws don't undertand them, neither did the guys & gals that voted them through. The DOJ that enforces then seems to interpret a lot as they go along, so....????