Quote:
It's interesting that even your quick summary of the law uses the phrase "when building." That's the way the law is written. I've argued before that it applies to the person who builds it but that's all it says.
So if Fred Flintstone down the road builds a non-compliant FAL, then sells it to a gun store, and then I buy it and bring it home... I can't see how I am the person subject to the law. I didn't build it. The receiver was purchased by somebody else. Etc.
I just find it hard to believe that somebody could be "guilty of breaking the law" when all they did was buy what they thought was a legal product. A product that was represented as being legal. Which appears to all general inspection to be legal. Maybe the guy who built it knew better. Maybe not. But how does that apply to the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th person down the chain? I can see a "good cop/bad cop" situation where it is used a threat to get cooperation but it is really, really hard for me to see how it gets past a judge in a courtroom....
|
The problem is that the ATF would probably go on the assumption that whoever posesses the non-compliant firearm is the builder. Now, if the gun was built from the ground-up with a parts kit or something of that nature, you may be able to prove thatyou were not the original builder, but if the gun was originally imported and sold in a configuration that did not run afoul of 925(d)(3), a Saiga or Mak 90 seem like good examples, then how is anyone to know whether you or a previous owner added the non-compliant parts? Now obviously the burden of proof is on the prosecution, but you may have a long, painful, and expensive road to travel before you're acquitted.
Really though, I doubt it would even go that far. As I said before, I think a large part of the reason that we've been unable to find any 922(r) convictions is because it would be so difficult to prove. For example, my dad has a Mak 90 which, when purchased from a LGS, had a pistol grip and regular AK stock (these originally came with thumbhole stocks in order to circumvent AWB's). Because we suspected that it was an illegal conversion, Dad swapped out enough parts to be sure it was 922(r) compliant (handguards, pistol grip, buttstock, trigger, hammer, and disconnector). However, because none of the replaced parts had markings to identify their country of origin, we had no way of knowing for sure that the rifle wasn't compliant to begin with, Dad's conversion was a precautionary measure. As such, I can't really see how the ATF would have been able to prove that the rifle was non-compliant to begin with, much less that my dad was the one who made it so.