|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
October 15, 2009, 12:19 AM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 1, 2009
Posts: 135
|
Explanation of 922r compliance. Lawyers?
Let me preface this by saying that I understand what 922r compliance means. I know that the foreign parts count must be 10 or less, etc. etc.
I don't want to know WHAT 922r compliance is, but WHY it applies (to guns like AK's and converted Saiga's). In reading through 922r, and following the citations from statute to statute, I do not see why an AK-47 or a converted Saiga are subject to 922r. Is there anyone out there who truly understands it that can explain this to me? Lawyers maybe? Thanks. |
October 15, 2009, 12:47 AM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 4, 2009
Location: Oregon
Posts: 1,890
|
Why? Probably in order to make guns more expensive.
__________________
"My momma, she done told me, there's heart and then there's hate If one of 'em's inside of you, the other one, it aint." |
October 15, 2009, 08:44 AM | #3 | |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Quote:
1) a semiautomatic rifle or shotgun 2) identical to any rifle or shotgun prohibited from importation under 925(d)(3) as not being particularly suitable or readily adaptable to sporting purposes. If a rifle meets those two tests, it is subject to 922(r) and can not be assembled from imported parts unless you are Uncle Sam or doing it for his use. So in short, it applies because the ATF has determined those particular firearms are "not readily adaptable to sporting purposes" - never mind of course that rifles just like them (the AR15) are some of the most widely used rifles in rifle sporting competitions of all kinds. |
|
October 15, 2009, 09:02 AM | #4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 1, 2009
Posts: 135
|
I went to section 925(d)(3) and I don't see why AK's and converted Saiga's fall the scope of prohibited weapon under that statute.
|
October 15, 2009, 11:03 AM | #5 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 29, 2007
Location: St. Louis, MO area
Posts: 4,040
|
Because they are considered "nonsporting."
The ATF has what they consider "nonsporting," and in short, it is things like a pistol grip (as opposed to a thumbhole or traditional rifle stock), detachable box magazines, night sights, bayonet lugs, and that kind of thing. A semiautomatic rifle with a pistol grip stock is usually going to be considered nonsporting. |
October 15, 2009, 11:16 AM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 1, 2009
Posts: 135
|
Can you point me in the direction of the legal base for that? I'm not challenging you, I'm curious to read it.
|
October 15, 2009, 01:52 PM | #7 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: May 29, 2007
Location: St. Louis, MO area
Posts: 4,040
|
Here is the whole of the infamous "922r" from this page, which has the entirety of 18 USC Chapter 44, Section 922.
Quote:
Quote:
In practice, that's pretty well been delegated to the BATFE, who has defined it in terms I mentioned above. An imported bolt action rifle, fine. An imported semiauto with a traditional rifle stock, no big deal. One with a detachable box magazine and a pistol grip config as found on AR and AK variants, problem. There's other items as well. Firearms which are considered "curios and relics" by the ATF are exempt from 922r, which is pretty much the only way we've been getting the Yugoslavian SKS imported, and that's why modifications to that model are particularly dicey in a legal sense. |
||
October 15, 2009, 03:10 PM | #8 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 1, 2009
Posts: 135
|
That's not the text of 925(d)(3)
|
October 15, 2009, 04:08 PM | #9 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 29, 2007
Location: St. Louis, MO area
Posts: 4,040
|
OK, here's Section 925, the entirety of section (d), from here:
Quote:
|
|
October 15, 2009, 05:06 PM | #10 |
Junior member
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Posts: 9,995
|
THe reason is simple. Like all manufactured goods the US manufacturers pay so much in labor they can not possibly compete with foreign manufacturers.
SO, the domestic gunmakers let a nice piece of feel good legislation pass through as it was against their interest to stop it. In all fairness allowing our domestic small arms manufacturers to collapse is probably a security issue also. |
October 15, 2009, 05:06 PM | #11 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 28, 2009
Posts: 399
|
I wouldn't underestimate the degree to which protectionism influences this stuff. Domestic rifle manufacturers don't want to compete with dirt cheap weapons from somewhere in eastern Europe or Asia, made out of surplussed AK parts and so forth, but it's difficult to ban imports without a good reason. Hence you've got parts counts, Norinco bans, etcetera.
|
October 15, 2009, 05:45 PM | #12 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 1, 2009
Posts: 135
|
Technosavant,
925(d)(3) references that statute of the Internal Revenue Code. That statute again does not speak to AK's or converted Saigas. So, as you properly noted, this issue turns on "commonly recognized for sporting purposes." Where can I find some verbiage from the ATF that specifies what they do and do not consider sporting purposes. Was there a memo, declaration, regulation, etc. that you could point me to so I can understand this a little bit better? |
October 15, 2009, 06:15 PM | #13 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 15, 2001
Location: Winter Haven, Florida
Posts: 4,303
|
Quote:
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE ATF WORKING GROUP ON THE IMPORTABILITY OF CERTAIN SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLES
__________________
NRA Certified Instructor: Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, Home Safety, Personal Protection, Range Safety Officer NRA Life Member |
|
October 15, 2009, 06:57 PM | #14 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 1, 2009
Posts: 135
|
Thank you. Now I have a new question. All of these laws speak to the importation of these guns. Do these laws speak to possession anywhere? Even if the rifles can't be imported based on not being a sporting rifle, is there language that outlaws possessing them?
|
October 15, 2009, 07:02 PM | #15 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 15, 2001
Location: Winter Haven, Florida
Posts: 4,303
|
Quote:
__________________
NRA Certified Instructor: Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, Home Safety, Personal Protection, Range Safety Officer NRA Life Member |
|
October 15, 2009, 08:41 PM | #16 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 29, 2007
Location: St. Louis, MO area
Posts: 4,040
|
Like Hkmp5sd said, if you have one, they're likely to assume you assembled it that way. You may not have, but when it comes to things like this, the ATF tends to put the burden of proof on you to prove you didn't (rather than on them to prove you DID).
You then get into the whole enforceability (how do they know, is this a priority, etc.) issue. Conventional wisdom is that this is the sort of thing they'd use if you already did something wrong and they were just using every charge that could stick or if they REALLY wanted to nail you for something, anything (see Al Capone and tax evasion). My usual 922r explanation generally ends with "It's stupid, arbitrary, pointless, useless, and doesn't do a single thing to reduce crime, but it's the law, and God help you if you break it and get busted." |
|
|