I've noticed a trend on other gun boards: People saying they're going to ignore 922(r). There are lots of reasons folks give for not following 922(r). Here are the major lines of thought:
1) 922(r) only applies to manufacturers and importers: The wording of 922(r) says that "no person shall": It could have said "no licensee shall", "no importer shall", etc. But it doesn't. It says "no person shall" -- and ATF clearly thinks they have authority over folks without a license. 922(r) prosecutions are pretty much nil, but that could change quickly. Thus you ignore these particulars at you're own risk.
2) I didn't "assemble" the firearm, I only changed XYZ: ATF has a pretty strict interpretation of what constitutes assembly. Basically they think it means any change to the configuration of the firearm. This means you need to exercise care and due diligence when upgrading parts.
3) "Suitable for ... sporting purposes": ATF has done official studies to determine exactly what is and what isn't suitable for sporting purposes. For example, bayonets aren't. A lot of the logic in these studies is circular: "Since the [now defunct] 1994 AWB contained magazine limits, no sporting rifle can use a high capacity magazine." Bottom line: ATF gets to tell you what they think is and isn't "sporting". Ignore them at your own risk.
4) 922(r) is not enforced. It's a Federal law, and your local LEO won't be looking to bust you. And while they are rare, a 922(r) violations have been prosecuted at least once. However, that could change quickly. However, I could imagine that the next level of gun control would be to run every rifle the Feds confiscate through a 922(r) compliance check. US-made parts are cheap insurance, just use them.
5) "Shall not be infringed": Lots of folks say that the Second Amendment trumps 922(r). If that's how you feel, then do as you please. But remember that you may have to fight for your Second Amendment rights in Federal court, at a potential cost of tens of thousands of dollars. And there's no guarantee of winning, since the SCOTUS has already determined that .GOV can restrict your "rights". For example, if your religion includes human sacrifice, polygamy, or child molestation, don't expect to use the First Amendment as a shield. Likewise, don't expect your First Amendment rights to protect you in cases of threats, so-called "fighting words", obscenity, child pornography, and the like.
Regardless of what you think of the law, it is the law. Threads condoning the violation of the law are not allowed here.
Larry
