Quote:
|
Originally Posted by tulsamal
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....
|
You're either overlooking a key piece of firearm regulation, or unaware of it.
The ATF considers "building" or "assembling" to be any time the firearm is assembled (even if the parts have not changed). According to their interpretation of the definitions, that includes simply field-stripping and reassembling, changing slings, adding scope bases/mounts, etc.
You might as well consider yourself the "builder" of a firearm, if you so much as touch it.
-The Tapco slant brake fits right into the above idiocy, and does 'trigger' 922(r). It's a change to the firearm, and therefore a "new build".
You may, however, be able to get a letter from the ATF, stating that they don't care about a trivial violation like that. (They've done the same for SKSs that are not 922(r) compliant, but are in pistol-grip stocks - so long as you also remove the bayonet.)