922(r) Parts Count Info from ATF - 14 Parts!

[Full Clip]

Very interesting the way that the "op rod" is discounted in almost a "Soviet"-style ignoring of its existence...

[Raven_Thunder]

I take it there is no way to remain compliant and have the wood furniture on it?

[Doggieman]

While I admire everybodys' attention to detail, I can't imagine that your weapon's legality will ever come down to something as small as what you're discussing.  I'm a lawyer, and I recently did some research on 922r, and the ONLY mention of it in ALL of Federal and State case law, as pertaining to some legal punishment, is when in 1993 the ATF was upheld in its decision to refuse to renew a FFL license because the seller (Trader Vic's) had, among other more serious things, installed bayos on imported SKSs and sold them.

Furthermore, the intent of 922r was not to bug the average joe here who wants to bubba his weapon, but to prevent importers from getting around firearm bans by importing illegal firearms unassembled and then assembling and selling them.

Therefore, if you're just a guy who wants to mod his SKS, 922r will not apply to you.  Nobody is going to spy your monte carlo stock and demand you strip your weapon so that they can check to see if "Made in USA" is stamped on the necessary parts.  All the hoopla is just a ploy to get you buy more junk from gun accessory shops.

Save your cash and your worry.  This is all "de minimis."

[Full Clip]

Doggle,
You're probably right, though I wouldn't want to be the guy the Feds decide to prosecute should they want to prove a 922r case some day, or add it to some other minor infraction...

[cvasqu03]

...All the hoopla is just a ploy to get you buy more junk from gun accessory shops.

Save your cash and your worry.  This is all "de minimis."

While I generally agree with what you're saying, I sincerely doubt the government has a vested interest in keeping Tapco in business. 

[LESchwartz]

Furthermore, the intent of 922r was not to bug the average joe here who wants to bubba his weapon, but to prevent importers from getting around firearm bans by importing illegal firearms unassembled and then assembling and selling them.

Therefore, if you're just a guy who wants to mod his SKS, 922r will not apply to you.  Nobody is going to spy your monte carlo stock and demand you strip your weapon so that they can check to see if "Made in USA" is stamped on the necessary parts.  All the hoopla is just a ploy to get you buy more junk from gun accessory shops.

Save your cash and your worry.  This is all "de minimis."

I know that the chances of actually getting charged with some sort of infraction are astronomically small.  But the political winds seem to be shifting, so it's best to keep on the correct side of the law in this matter.  I view "compliance parts" as if they were one of those cheap "legal insurance" plans -- after all my total cost for compliance parts is less that an hour of your time.

Larry

[Oldone1]

While I admire everybodys' attention to detail, I can't imagine that your weapon's legality will ever come down to something as small as what you're discussing.  I'm a lawyer, and I recently did some research on 922r, and the ONLY mention of it in ALL of Federal and State case law, as pertaining to some legal punishment, is when in 1993 the ATF was upheld in its decision to refuse to renew a FFL license because the seller (Trader Vic's) had, among other more serious things, installed bayos on imported SKSs and sold them.

Furthermore, the intent of 922r was not to bug the average joe here who wants to bubba his weapon, but to prevent importers from getting around firearm bans by importing illegal firearms unassembled and then assembling and selling them.

Therefore, if you're just a guy who wants to mod his SKS, 922r will not apply to you.  Nobody is going to spy your monte carlo stock and demand you strip your weapon so that they can check to see if "Made in USA" is stamped on the necessary parts.  All the hoopla is just a ploy to get you buy more junk from gun accessory shops.

Save your cash and your worry.  This is all "de minimis."

+1
but it can and will come into play if ya don't keep your nose clean.

[galahad]

While I admire everybodys' attention to detail, I can't imagine that your weapon's legality will ever come down to something as small as what you're discussing.  I'm a lawyer, and I recently did some research on 922r, and the ONLY mention of it in ALL of Federal and State case law, as pertaining to some legal punishment, is when in 1993 the ATF was upheld in its decision to refuse to renew a FFL license because the seller (Trader Vic's) had, among other more serious things, installed bayos on imported SKSs and sold them.

  Of course everyone knows that 922r is bad legislation and bad law.  But that doesn't make it unenforceable, nor does it mean that the BATFE won't hop aboard when they have an agenda, like, "Let's close down that dealer, he's an AH."  While it's true that not even the BATFE is out there looking for 922r violations if an arrest is made for, say, armed robbery, there is absolutely nothing to prevent the govt. from adding on another charge, then, as is typical, plea bargaining away some of the charges.

Furthermore, the intent of 922r was not to bug the average joe here who wants to bubba his weapon, but to prevent importers from getting around firearm bans by importing illegal firearms unassembled and then assembling and selling them.

When I read the law, which I acknowledge isn't too often, the only place that "intent" can be relevant is if it's actually documented in the legislation.  A good example of this is here in California where our "Dangerous Weapons" laws says, specifically, "It is the intent of the Legislature that courts exercise broad discretion in fashioning appropriate relief under this paragraph in cases in which relief is warranted."  I see no such statement of intent that relates in any way to 922r and would be interested in your source.

Therefore, if you're just a guy who wants to mod his SKS, 922r will not apply to you.

So let me get this right.  You, as an attorney, are advising this board, and every member, that the law does not apply to us.  Again, I would be very interested in your source and the basis for this advice.  From my perspective you are actively advising people to violate and/or ignore federal law.  Is that correct?

Nobody is going to spy your monte carlo stock and demand you strip your weapon so that they can check to see if "Made in USA" is stamped on the necessary parts.  All the hoopla is just a ploy to get you buy more junk from gun accessory shops.

Save your cash and your worry.  This is all "de minimis."

  It very well may be.  And in fact, based on the number of firearms in the country, and based on the number of laws on the books, I'd suspect that virtually all "gun control" laws are de minimis.  I've never heard of an arrest and conviction of not only a 922r violation but of virtually any other gun control violation that wasn't associated with and tied to a REAL crime of some sort or another.   So you do what you want, advise people whatever you want, after all it's their call whether or not to heed your advice.  I for one intend to adhere to the (federal) law, period. 

[Doggieman]

...All the hoopla is just a ploy to get you buy more junk from gun accessory shops.

Save your cash and your worry.  This is all "de minimis."

While I generally agree with what you're saying, I sincerely doubt the government has a vested interest in keeping Tapco in business. 

I was referring to all the hoopla regarding adding US-made parts to a gun, not the "hoopla" of 922r itself.  For example, if you search for "922r compliance" on Google you will get maybe one hit from BATF, two hits from people posting letters to/from BATF, and a zillion hits from companies selling (IMHO needless) "922r kits."

[Doggieman]

When I read the law, which I acknowledge isn't too often, the only place that "intent" can be relevant is if it's actually documented in the legislation.  A good example of this is here in California where our "Dangerous Weapons" laws says, specifically, "It is the intent of the Legislature that courts exercise broad discretion in fashioning appropriate relief under this paragraph in cases in which relief is warranted."  I see no such statement of intent that relates in any way to 922r and would be interested in your source.

A little learning is a dangerous thing   Look, 80% of what modern courts do is read "legislative intent" into contested statutes.  There need be no specific statement of intent mentioned in the statute itself, nor is any statement of intent in a statute binding on courts, though it may be very persuasive.  The court itself defines the intent and scope of a law.  As for my source, US v Lopez, a federal court opinion affirmed by the US supreme court:

"Section 2204 of P.L. 101-647 added section 922(r) making it "unlawful for any person to assemble from imported parts" any rifle or shotgun "identical" to any "prohibited from importation under section 925(d)(3)." House Report 101-68(I), supra, reflects that this amendment "is to prevent the circumvention of the importation restrictions by persons who would simply import the firearms in a disassembled form and then reassemble them in the United States." Id. at 107, 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 6511."  United States v. Lopez, 2 F.3d 1342, 1359 (5th Cir. 1993) aff'd by 514 U.S. 549 (1994) (striking down the Gun-Free School Zone act as falling outside the commerce clause).

Clearly the court is saying that the intent of the legislature re 922r is aimed at importers and distributors, not Joe Bubba.  And it uses a House Report as evidence of this.

So let me get this right.  You, as an attorney, are advising this board, and every member, that the law does not apply to us.  Again, I would be very interested in your source and the basis for this advice. 

Supra.  See below for whether this is "legal advice."

From my perspective you are actively advising people to violate and/or ignore federal law.  Is that correct?

I am suggesting that the law probably does not apply to the average Bubba.  A court may agree or disagree.  One of the main jobs of an attorney is to try to figure out what side a court will come down on.  This is my personal opinion based upon legal research I did for someone else and should not be construed as advice.

I am not registered in every state and because of that cannot give advice to random people over the internet, especially those who have not contacted me personally for such advice.  The above is my personal opinion outside my legal capacity only, it is not legal advice.

Get the picture?  Do what you want.  Oh, and you're welcome for the information.  

[galahad]

When I read the law, which I acknowledge isn't too often, the only place that "intent" can be relevant is if it's actually documented in the legislation.  A good example of this is here in California where our "Dangerous Weapons" laws says, specifically, "It is the intent of the Legislature that courts exercise broad discretion in fashioning appropriate relief under this paragraph in cases in which relief is warranted."  I see no such statement of intent that relates in any way to 922r and would be interested in your source.

A little learning is a dangerous thing   Look, 80% of what modern courts do is read "legislative intent" into contested statutes.  There need be no specific statement of intent mentioned in the statute itself, nor is any statement of intent in a statute binding on courts, though it may be very persuasive.  The court itself defines the intent and scope of a law.  As for my source, US v Lopez, a federal court opinion affirmed by the US supreme court:

"Section 2204 of P.L. 101-647 added section 922(r) making it "unlawful for any person to assemble from imported parts" any rifle or shotgun "identical" to any "prohibited from importation under section 925(d)(3)." House Report 101-68(I), supra, reflects that this amendment "is to prevent the circumvention of the importation restrictions by persons who would simply import the firearms in a disassembled form and then reassemble them in the United States." Id. at 107, 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 6511."  United States v. Lopez, 2 F.3d 1342, 1359 (5th Cir. 1993) aff'd by 514 U.S. 549 (1994) (striking down the Gun-Free School Zone act as falling outside the commerce clause).

Clearly the court is saying that the intent of the legislature re 922r is aimed at importers and distributors, not Joe Bubba.  And it uses a House Report as evidence of this.

Clearly?????  When it says SPECIFICALLY "any person"????????  I'm also interested in your "modern courts" position.  You are now saying that judges advise juries to try to determine the "intent" of the law rather than order them to "follow the law" when reaching their verdict.  While I wouldn't argue the position that judges, and appellate courts are continually legislating from the bench, that neither makes it right nor Constitutional. 

So let me get this right.  You, as an attorney, are advising this board, and every member, that the law does not apply to us.  Again, I would be very interested in your source and the basis for this advice. 

Supra.  See below for whether this is "legal advice."

From my perspective you are actively advising people to violate and/or ignore federal law.  Is that correct?

I am suggesting that the law probably does not apply to the average Bubba.  A court may agree or disagree.  One of the main jobs of an attorney is to try to figure out what side a court will come down on.  This is my personal opinion based upon legal research I did for someone else and should not be construed as advice.

The law "probably does not apply" and "any person" are obviously contradictory.  I'd like to know how you come to the conclusion that "any person" doesn't include you, me, and Joe down the street.

I am not registered in every state and because of that cannot give advice to random people over the internet, especially those who have not contacted me personally for such advice.  The above is my personal opinion as a non-lawyer only, it is not legal advice.

Then I would strongly suggest that you cease and desist from saying "I am a lawyer and my opinion is....."  We laymen somehow get the idea that you are giving legal advice when you are a member of the bar and discussing legal issues.

Get the picture?  Do what you want.  Oh, and you're welcome for the information.   

What information?  You have just said that your source is a court decision that, in fact, confirms that 922r does apply to every person.  The rest of your comments are, according to the above, NOT to be taken as advice as they are opinions and not factual information.

Just out of curiosity, what state bar are you a member of and do you have a ticket for the SCOTUS?

[Full Clip]

For those of you keeping score...
Point: Galahad

[Raven_Thunder]

(r) It shall be unlawful for any person to assemble from imported parts any semiautomatic rifle or any shotgun which is identical to any rifle or shotgun prohibited from importation under section 925 (d)(3) of this chapter as not being particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes except that this subsection shall not apply to—

How does Section 925 (d)(3) fit into all of this?

Section 925 (d)(3):

(d) The Attorney General shall authorize a firearm or ammunition to be imported or brought into the United States or any possession thereof if the firearm or ammunition—

(3) is of a type that does not fall within the definition of a firearm as defined in section 5845(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and is generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes, excluding surplus military firearms, except in any case where the Attorney General has not authorized the importation of the firearm pursuant to this paragraph, it shall be unlawful to import any frame, receiver, or barrel of such firearm which would be prohibited if assembled; or

[galahad]

Section 925 (d)  is pretty typical of our current government.  What it does is in a backhanded way make us citizens get permission from the Federal Government before we can import a firearm.  But it does it in a sneaky way, by requiring the AG to authorize something it grants the AG power to decide what he can refuse to authorize.  What it might as well say is "Before importing any firearm you have to get permission from the AG....."  It's all about power.

The result of these pieces of legislation is, in fact, the 10 or less game.  That entire scenario is in play because some parts and pieces of virtually every firearm "made in the USA" contains foreign made parts.  On many the wood itself is imported.  So, because the legislation is so poorly written, the BATFE came up with the [paraphrased] "If there are less than ten imported parts then the firearm is not imported."  From that position they then had to define what a "part" is. 

Bottom line is that it's so convoluted that no normal person can understand it, and, in fact, very, very few law enforcement people understand it, and that includes the BATFE technical branch where contradictory opinions are often rendered.

[OldGunGuy]

I think I will just keep mine stock at the risk of doing anything accidentally and getting dinged for it. I think we all agree that most of these laws are foolish its still the law so it gets my respect.