922(r) boogeyman

[Chatterbox]

From what I understand, in nearly 20 years, there has been one prosecution under that law, and that one was of a FFL/manufacturer. It appears to me that for all intents and purposes, this is something that BATF does not prosecute for on it's own. Does it really make sense for the gun owner community to spend what usually amounts to 10-20% of gun cost to protect themselves from something much less likely then being struck by lightning .. indoors?

[fd15k]

good question

[69Mach1]

Let me ask you this. Why do you think there is a multi-million dollar cottage industry for 922r compliance parts? Because the law has teeth, and even though it's a stupid law, most Americans are law abiding. I agree with you and even BATF has said that possesion of a non-compliant rifle isn't illegal, to a point.

[Dr Rockso]

Personally I don't think 922(r) was ever intended to apply to individuals, but technically speaking it seems to. If it weren't for Tapco I don't think anybody would pay attention to it.

[Rascal]

For a law abiding citizen? YES!
It's the law, I don't like it, but I follow it.

[SJgunguy24]

From what I understand, in nearly 20 years, there has been one prosecution under that law, and that one was of a FFL/manufacturer. It appears to me that for all intents and purposes, this is something that BATF does not prosecute for on it's own. Does it really make sense for the gun owner community to spend what usually amounts to 10-20% of gun cost to protect themselves from something much less likely then being struck by lightning .. indoors?

Are you willing to bet 10 years of your life?
Yes, be my guest and see if uncle Sam plays fair.

No, then buy or make what you need to stay legal.

[Chatterbox]

Are you willing to bet 10 years of your life?
Yes, be my guest and see if uncle Sam plays fair.

No, then buy or make what you need to stay legal.

Are you willing to bet your life your coffemaker is not going to electrocute you when you turn it on each morning?

[SJgunguy24]

Are you willing to bet your life your coffemaker is not going to electrocute you when you turn it on each morning?

First off, I don't drink coffee, second I take every precaution to make things me or my family are involved in as safe as possible.
Not for me, but so I can be around to watch my kids grow up.
I'll have GFCI on every outlet near water, I make sure we use seatbelts.
Make sure my son knows how to use a firearm safely, and so will my daughter when the time is right.

What you do is your business, but unfortunately when dealing with the issues of firearms, the anti's are looking for any reason to take our*(note OUR) right to keep and bear arms. And by having the attitude that just because the law is stupid and makes no sense your not going to comply. That decision affects all of us. It the same as somebody backing out a P50 mag lock. What one person does SHOULDN'T matter but it DOES.

Maybe i'm being Jonny Do Gooder, but dammit. I want my kids to be able to open up the safe to see a gun, not have to go to a fricken museum to see one.

[chefdude]

First off, I don't drink coffee, second I take every precaution to make things me or my family are involved in as safe as possible.
Not for me, but so I can be around to watch my kids grow up.
I'll have GFCI on every outlet near water, I make sure we use seatbelts.
Make sure my son knows how to use a firearm safely, and so will my daughter when the time is right.

What you do is your business, but unfortunately when dealing with the issues of firearms, the anti's are looking for any reason to take our*(note OUR) right to keep and bear arms. And by having the attitude that just because the law is stupid and makes no sense your not going to comply. That decision affects all of us. It the same as somebody backing out a P50 mag lock. What one person does SHOULDN'T matter but it DOES.

Maybe i'm being Jonny Do Gooder, but dammit. I want my kids to be able to open up the safe to see a gun, not have to go to a fricken museum to see one.

+1 to that

[sorensen440]

Its a small price to pay to be in compliance

[bwiese]

Are you willing to bet your life your coffemaker is not going to electrocute you when you turn it on each morning?

You sound like the Reno gunshow vendor I warned back in 2003 about configuring rifles to not violate the Fed AWB - he said "nobody cares about flash hiders vs muzzle brakes, they ain't bustin' for that."

By the end of 2004, that same guy had plead out to multiple felonies - for a law that had already expired in Sept 04. Talk about jumpin' the gun!

Other folks said they wouldn't comply with CAs AW ban and didn't register. They thought they'd never be busted because they'd just keep it in their house. And yet I get the crying phone calls from 'em after felony charges are filed.

So no, you should not construct a rifle with all foreign parts that cannot be imported as such.

922(r) compliance parts are cheap. If you're too cheap to risk $50 or whatever for a bunch of lawyers' fees, you're not passing the Big IQ test. And if $50 or $100 is too much money for your safety, you probably need to be spending less time on guns and more time working on improving your employment situation so that that amount becomes negligible.

[wash]

The thing I hate about 922(r) is that my DSA HTS won't reset in my mostly Argentine Para FAL.

It's a single shot until I figure that out and I can't go back to the original parts that work without violating 922(r).

[CHS]

Personally I don't think 922(r) was ever intended to apply to individuals, but technically speaking it seems to. If it weren't for Tapco I don't think anybody would pay attention to it.

I don't think so either and I'd love it for someone a little better in the know to comment.

If the law is supposed to apply to manufacturers, aren't manufacturers (at least to the BATFE) pretty well defined by the law as licensed manufacturers and never applies to individuals "building" guns?

[B Strong]

From what I understand, in nearly 20 years, there has been one prosecution under that law, and that one was of a FFL/manufacturer. It appears to me that for all intents and purposes, this is something that BATF does not prosecute for on it's own. Does it really make sense for the gun owner community to spend what usually amounts to 10-20% of gun cost to protect themselves from something much less likely then being struck by lightning .. indoors?

Yes, it makes perfect sense to spend a little money up front to ensure that you don't have to spend much more on attorney's fees down the road.

[bwiese]

Does it really make sense for the gun owner community to spend what usually amounts to 10-20% of gun cost to protect themselves from something much less likely then being struck by lightning .. indoors?

Noted CA gun lawyer Don Kilmer told me that 75+% of all the AW cases he knew of were "domestic" - i.e, in the home. That doesn't even mean 'domestic violence' - there's a ton of exigency reasons that LEOs can enter your home.

While that's CA AW cases, other related technical gun violations would also be lumpable into that category.