The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old July 12, 2013, 08:03 AM   #1
grizz223
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 19, 2013
Location: Fl
Posts: 195
922r compliance

Does anyone know of anyone ever being charged with a violation of 922r? I am curious as I am a deputy sheriff and have never seen this charge brought by anyone. Now I know this is a federal charge but I have spoken with BATFE agents and none of them have ever seen anyone charged with this and according to a least one agent I spoke with there is no penalty on the books for this charge. I am trying to settle a bet with another deputy so if you can help thanks.
__________________
NRA Life member. Deputy Sheriff.
grizz223 is offline  
Old July 12, 2013, 08:47 AM   #2
Webleymkv
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 9,922
I'm guessing that any 922(r) charges you might find would most likely be in addition to other charges. It would take a pretty close examination of a firearm, fieldstripping at the least, to distinguish between a 922(r) compliant weapon and a non-compliant weapon. About the only way that I can see the authorities going to that much trouble would be if the weapon were already siezed for something else to begin with.

Also, it seems to me that a 922(r) violation would be fairly difficult to prove. While most so-marketed compliance parts are marked "made in USA" or something to that effect, original foreign-made parts are often completely unmarked. It seems to me that it would be very difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that an unmarked part is not U.S.-made.

Finally, I very highly doubt that all that many LEO's are out looking for 922(r) violations in the first place. Outisde of gun enthusiasts, 922(r) is a fairly obscure law and I'd be willing to bet that a good number of LEO's aren't even aware of its existence. Not only that, but it's a rather silly law too and, even among LEO's who are aware of it, I'd be willing to bet that only the most rabidly anti-gun cops can't find more serious crimes to worry about.
__________________
Smith, and Wesson, and Me. -H. Callahan
Well waddaya know, one buwwet weft! -E. Fudd
All bad precedents begin as justifiable measures. -J. Caesar
Webleymkv is offline  
Old July 12, 2013, 12:02 PM   #3
csmsss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 2,986
Might turn out to be an issue if you ever decide to transfer the firearm, particularly if you sell/trade it back to an FFL.
csmsss is offline  
Old July 12, 2013, 12:07 PM   #4
Webleymkv
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 9,922
Quote:
Might turn out to be an issue if you ever decide to transfer the firearm, particularly if you sell/trade it back to an FFL.
Possibly, but you'd be surprised how many FFL's have guns which aren't 922(r) compliant sitting on their racks without even knowing it. I cannot count the number of times I've seen SKS's with pistol grips stocks and no other compliance parts sitting in the used gun rack. I would venture to guess that the majority of people who violate 922(r) do so unknowingly.
__________________
Smith, and Wesson, and Me. -H. Callahan
Well waddaya know, one buwwet weft! -E. Fudd
All bad precedents begin as justifiable measures. -J. Caesar
Webleymkv is offline  
Old July 12, 2013, 12:30 PM   #5
csmsss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 2,986
Quote:
Possibly, but you'd be surprised how many FFL's have guns which aren't 922(r) compliant sitting on their racks without even knowing it. I cannot count the number of times I've seen SKS's with pistol grips stocks and no other compliance parts sitting in the used gun rack. I would venture to guess that the majority of people who violate 922(r) do so unknowingly.
I wouldn't doubt that for a minute.

What frightens me is that an activist BATFE/DoJ might just decide to take an interest in such firearms.
csmsss is offline  
Old July 14, 2013, 08:59 AM   #6
bikerbill
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 19, 2007
Location: Lago Vista TX
Posts: 2,363
Sorry to plead ignorance ... what's 922r?
__________________
"If all guns were built with mechanisms that kept them from firing when held sideways, we could end gang violence." humorist Frank Fleming
bikerbill is offline  
Old July 14, 2013, 09:01 AM   #7
Herr Walther
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2001
Location: A Place Worse than California
Posts: 782
The seven required US made parts when building an imported rifle from a kit.

These parts can vary and you do have a choice, as limited as it is, as to what you wish to use in your build. It will also vary with the rifle being built.
__________________
"It was people who upheld their duties to their office, the constitution, and the public by opposing Hitler who were called traitors"
-------------------------------------
"...a historian asked what had happened to the German people for them to accept a criminal government. Unfortunately, nothing needed to happen. In nations across the world people accept government crime."
-------------------------------------
"In democracies as well as dictatorships, subordinates illegally obey their rulers. Subordinates who remain true to their oaths of office by opposing their rulers are rare."
Herr Walther is offline  
Old July 14, 2013, 03:44 PM   #8
Webleymkv
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 9,922
Quote:
Sorry to plead ignorance ... what's 922r?
I gave a very detailed explanation of 922(r) in another thread recently. Rather than repost all of it, here is a link:

http://thefiringline.com/forums/show...76#post5578176
__________________
Smith, and Wesson, and Me. -H. Callahan
Well waddaya know, one buwwet weft! -E. Fudd
All bad precedents begin as justifiable measures. -J. Caesar
Webleymkv is offline  
Old July 15, 2013, 02:02 PM   #9
tulsamal
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 25, 2004
Location: Vinita, OK
Posts: 2,467
Quote:
The seven required US made parts when building an imported rifle from a kit.
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....

Gregg
tulsamal is offline  
Old July 15, 2013, 02:07 PM   #10
csmsss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 2,986
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....
It really does make you mindful of the rampant silliness of the arbitrary distinctions made between imported and domestic firearms, especially after the imported firearms have already entered the domestic market (or secondary market). Seems to me that once a firearm of foreign manufacture has "entered the trade", as it were, that there should be no distinction made as to its point of origin.
csmsss is offline  
Old July 16, 2013, 07:26 AM   #11
Webleymkv
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 9,922
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.
__________________
Smith, and Wesson, and Me. -H. Callahan
Well waddaya know, one buwwet weft! -E. Fudd
All bad precedents begin as justifiable measures. -J. Caesar
Webleymkv is offline  
Old July 19, 2013, 11:41 AM   #12
230grjhp
Junior Member
 
Join Date: July 18, 2013
Posts: 3
So does threading a Saiga 7.62 and attaching a slant brake trigger 922r compliance?
230grjhp is offline  
Old July 19, 2013, 01:08 PM   #13
Webleymkv
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 9,922
Quote:
So does threading a Saiga 7.62 and attaching a slant brake trigger 922r compliance?
Assuming you mean an not-otherwise modified Saiga, it depends on whether or not the ATF would consider a slant brake to be a "flash suppressor". If they do view it as such, then yes 922(r) would come into play.
__________________
Smith, and Wesson, and Me. -H. Callahan
Well waddaya know, one buwwet weft! -E. Fudd
All bad precedents begin as justifiable measures. -J. Caesar
Webleymkv is offline  
Old July 19, 2013, 03:42 PM   #14
230grjhp
Junior Member
 
Join Date: July 18, 2013
Posts: 3
But really though a Tapco slant brake is just that...a muzzle brake. So even the very nature of a Tapco slant brake is open to interpretation? Just trying to clarify before I get the threading done to my Saiga. I just wanna keep things legal. And I don't want to do anything else. I just want a muzzle brake.
230grjhp is offline  
Old July 20, 2013, 06:28 AM   #15
Webleymkv
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 9,922
Quote:
But really though a Tapco slant brake is just that...a muzzle brake. So even the very nature of a Tapco slant brake is open to interpretation? Just trying to clarify before I get the threading done to my Saiga. I just wanna keep things legal. And I don't want to do anything else. I just want a muzzle brake.
Were the interpretation up to me, I'd agree with you since the slant brake does very little, if anything, to hide muzzle flash, but then again if it were up to me 922(r) and 925(d)(3) wouldn't even exist as I think they're rather silly laws to begin with. Unfortunately, the interpretation is not up to you or me but rather to the ATF which is known for overly broad and nonsensical interpretations. The best advice I can give you is to contact the ATF and see what they say. Other than that, the safest option would be to simply assume that a muzzle brake does trigger 922(r) and swap out four other compliance parts before installing one. If you don't want to do a pistol grip conversion, the use of U.S.-made magazines like SGM Tactical and one other part such as handguards or a gas piston would be enough to make you compliant.
__________________
Smith, and Wesson, and Me. -H. Callahan
Well waddaya know, one buwwet weft! -E. Fudd
All bad precedents begin as justifiable measures. -J. Caesar
Webleymkv is offline  
Old July 20, 2013, 08:27 AM   #16
230grjhp
Junior Member
 
Join Date: July 18, 2013
Posts: 3
Excellent. Thanks for the info.
230grjhp is offline  
Old July 22, 2013, 11:55 AM   #17
johnwilliamson062
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Posts: 6,817
There is only one way to know for sure. Ask ATFE in writing and request a reply in writing. Even that isn't really for sure as sometimes they change their mind, but I think it is very unlikely you would face prison time with such a letter on hand.
__________________
$0 of an NRA membership goes to legislative action or court battles. Not a dime. Only money contributed to the NRA-ILA or NRA-PVF. You could just donate to the Second Amendment Foundation
First Shotgun Thread First Rifle Thread First Pistol Thread
johnwilliamson062 is offline  
Old July 22, 2013, 02:14 PM   #18
FrankenMauser
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 25, 2008
Location: 1B ID
Posts: 6,839
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.)
__________________
"Such is the strange way that man works -- first he virtually destroys a species and then does everything in his power to restore it."
FrankenMauser is offline  
Old July 23, 2013, 09:10 AM   #19
johnwilliamson062
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Posts: 6,817
Quote:
(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.)
I'm not going to say you are wrong, but I am going to say I have never seen an opinion letter from ATFE to support your statement. I think I would have if there was one floating around as this is probably the most common 922R violation seen.

If you have such a letter available I would greatly appreciate a link.
__________________
$0 of an NRA membership goes to legislative action or court battles. Not a dime. Only money contributed to the NRA-ILA or NRA-PVF. You could just donate to the Second Amendment Foundation
First Shotgun Thread First Rifle Thread First Pistol Thread
johnwilliamson062 is offline  
Old July 23, 2013, 09:44 AM   #20
thallub
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 2,107
Quote:
If you have such a letter available I would greatly appreciate a link.
http://www.sksboards.com/smf/index.php?topic=58205.0
thallub is offline  
Old July 23, 2013, 08:07 PM   #21
johnwilliamson062
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Posts: 6,817
I don't see where that covers PG stocks, but it does answer some other interesting questions for sure.
__________________
$0 of an NRA membership goes to legislative action or court battles. Not a dime. Only money contributed to the NRA-ILA or NRA-PVF. You could just donate to the Second Amendment Foundation
First Shotgun Thread First Rifle Thread First Pistol Thread
johnwilliamson062 is offline  
Old July 24, 2013, 01:46 AM   #22
FrankenMauser
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 25, 2008
Location: 1B ID
Posts: 6,839
Quote:
If you have such a letter available I would greatly appreciate a link.
I've seen several, and may even have one saved on one of my other computers (regarding the ATI Fiberforce 'dragunov' stock, in particular).
If I get a chance, I'll see if I can dig one up.
__________________
"Such is the strange way that man works -- first he virtually destroys a species and then does everything in his power to restore it."
FrankenMauser is offline  
Old July 25, 2013, 03:04 PM   #23
johnwilliamson062
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Posts: 6,817
The ATI Fiberforce Dragunov is an interesting stock design and I would argue is not what one thinks of when talking about pistol grips. Without the bottom rail connecting the bottom of the PG to the butt plate I would be swayed, but with that piece the stock appears more like a thumbhole stock that a real PG. I know, I know, it is only aesthetics, but that is what most gun laws are based on.
__________________
$0 of an NRA membership goes to legislative action or court battles. Not a dime. Only money contributed to the NRA-ILA or NRA-PVF. You could just donate to the Second Amendment Foundation
First Shotgun Thread First Rifle Thread First Pistol Thread
johnwilliamson062 is offline  
Old July 25, 2013, 04:56 PM   #24
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,486
Quote:
Originally Posted by Webleymkv
The problem is that the ATF would probably go on the assumption that whoever posesses the non-compliant firearm is the builder.
Unfortunately, I suspect you are correct that the BATFE would take this view, but it won't stand up in court if the law doesn't spell it out. The federal law prohibiting altering serial numbers, for example, specifically states (IIRC) that the person who is found in possession of a firearm with an altered or removed serial number is presumed to be the person who performed the nefarious deed. (Or maybe that's in my state's gun laws?)

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankenMauser
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.
Do you have a link to the law or regulation where they say that? I've never heard or read this before.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old July 25, 2013, 08:27 PM   #25
Webleymkv
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 9,922
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Webleymkv
The problem is that the ATF would probably go on the assumption that whoever posesses the non-compliant firearm is the builder.

Unfortunately, I suspect you are correct that the BATFE would take this view, but it won't stand up in court if the law doesn't spell it out.
It might not stand up in court eventually, but it could very well take months to years of your life and tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars to get you there.
__________________
Smith, and Wesson, and Me. -H. Callahan
Well waddaya know, one buwwet weft! -E. Fudd
All bad precedents begin as justifiable measures. -J. Caesar
Webleymkv is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:35 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.12882 seconds with 7 queries