[carbine85]

This has probably been asked and answered. I have a Romanian built on a Nodak-Spud USA receiver and a Tapco trigger assembly. If you have a USA made receiver do you still have to meet the 922R parts count given that the receiver is USA?

[fatcat4620]

Yes

[TurtlePhish]

The receiver is only one of 16 parts that apply for 922(r) on an AK.

[rcmodel]

Yes.
Where the receiver was made has nothing to do with much, except you can count it as a compliance part to be complient with the (a) No person shall assemble a semiautomatic rifle or any shotgun using more than 10 of the imported parts listed in paragraph.

27 C.F.R. 478.89 lists 20 parts:
(1) Frames, receivers, receiver castings, forgings or stampings
(2) Barrels
(3) Barrel extensions
(4) Mounting blocks (trunions)
(5) Muzzle attachments
(6) Bolts
(7) Bolt carriers
(8) Operating rods
(9) Gas pistons
(10) Trigger housings
(11) Triggers
(12) Hammers
(13) Sears
(14) Disconnectors
(15) Butt stocks
(16) Pistol grips
(17) Forearms, hand guards
(18) Magazine bodies
(19) Followers
(20) Floorplates

Of these twenty parts, the laws states that you can have NO MORE THAN 10 imported parts on your semi-automatic rifle or shotgun.

rc

[fatcat4620]

Now doesn't 922r only apply to the manufacturer and not the end user? (I know the whole law is supper gray and undefined)

[Z-Michigan]

922(r) applies to the manufacture of a non-compliant firearm. If you change any part on your rifle and make it non-compliant, you could be held to have violated 922(r). Now if you merely possess a rifle that is non-compliant but was assembled by someone else and you haven't changed anything, I don't think you are actually in violation of 922(r), but it's still not a place I would want to be.

[Girodin]

Now doesn't 922r only apply to the manufacturer and not the end user?

The law states:

(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—
(1) the assembly of any such rifle or shotgun for sale or distribution by a licensed manufacturer to the United States or any department or agency thereof or to any State or any department, agency, or political subdivision thereof; or
(2) the assembly of any such rifle or shotgun for the purposes of testing or experimentation authorized by the Attorney General.

You will notice the law is not limited to manufactures, but applies to any person. You will also note it does not use the verb manufacture, unlike many folks discussing the law on the internet. Rather, the verb is assemble.

It applies to anyone who "assembles." What does the word assemble mean? No one can tell you for certain. It is not defined in the statute, nor in the Code of Federal Regulations Title 27, Volume 1, Section 178.39. That said, the plain meaning of the word is "to put together; to put together the parts of." Furthermore given that magazines are countable parts (3 in fact, the body, follower, and base plate) it makes sense to say that inserting a magazine constitutes assembly. The ATF has in the past expressed this opinion.

[Kyle M.]

I'm still confused as to how all these ak variants can be imported with no u.s. parts at all. But if I build one I can have no more than 10 non u.s. parts. Apparently I'm missing something somewhere.

[rcmodel]

They can't be imported.

You can't buy a complete AK-47 made overseas anywhere unless it was imported prior to the passage of the law..

All of the new ones now are assembled in the USA with compliance parts and generally a USA made receiver.

The only exception is the SEIGA line, but they lack the "evil assult rifle" features so are considered "sporting arms" under the law.

rc

[Sam1911]

I'm still confused as to how all these ak variants can be imported with no u.s. parts at all. But if I build one I can have no more than 10 non u.s. parts. Apparently I'm missing something somewhere.
Yes. What you're missing is that these AKs do NOT get imported with no US parts at all.

AKs sold here are either imported a "sporting" variants (like the Saigas) and then are converted here using US parts, or are brought in a parts kits (no receiver or barrel) and built up using US parts.

Or, another possibility is the little Draco pistols, which are entirely made overseas, but handguns are exempt from 922(r). However, these days if you make one into a registered Short Barreled Rifle, you will have to make it 922(r) compliant.

[carbine85]

Ok, that clears it up. To play it safe I think all I need to do is a keep a Tapco or Magpul magazine with it.
Thanks.

[Girodin]

Post #4 needs clarification. It is mostly good info but it casts the net far too wide. I say this because of the following statement.

Of these twenty parts, the laws states that you can have NO MORE THAN 10 imported parts on your semi-automatic rifle or shotgun

That statement is simply incorrect and are much broader than what the law actually is. A rifle being a semi automatic is not what triggers 922(r) or CFR 27, 1, Section 178.39
. Stop and think for just a moment, saiga rifles are semi auto and are imported with 14-15 parts on that list depending on how you want to count. A GSG-5 is a semi auto rifle that is imported with more than ten parts on the list. Why are they imported? Why is there not a legal issue? Again it is because a rifle being semi automatic is not what triggers 922(r) or the Section 178.39.

What is the trigger then? When does 922(r) apply and when does one need to worry about parts counts? Again we simply need to read the law. 922(r) states:

(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

If we then go to 925(d)(3) it reads:


(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


In sum, rifles and shotguns that do not pass the "sporting purposes test" are what cannot be imported under 925. 922 seeks to prevent folks from making an end run around that and importing the parts and assembling them hear. It states you cannot assemble a from parts a gun you couldn't import.

The ATF has passed regulations that apply to assembling rifles and shotguns from imported parts. For that we must go to The Code of Federal Regulations Title 27, Volume 1, Section 178.39

This CRF section does not apply to all semi autos. Rather it states pretty clearly that it only applies to the certain guns, the ones described above. It reads:

(a) No person shall assemble a semiautomatic rifle or any shotgun
using more than 10 of the imported parts listed in paragraph (c) of this
section if the assembled firearm is prohibited from importation under
section 925(d)(3) as not being particularly suitable for or readily
adaptable to sporting purposes.

This section also tells us what constitutes "foreign parts." This is where we derive both that we can only have 10 or fewer "imported parts" and what parts are countable parts. The list is as it appears in post #4.

[Kyle M.]

Yes. What you're missing is that these AKs do NOT get imported with no US parts at all.

AKs sold here are either imported a "sporting" variants (like the Saigas) and then are converted here using US parts, or are brought in a parts kits (no receiver or barrel) and built up using US parts.

Or, another possibility is the little Draco pistols, which are entirely made overseas, but handguns are exempt from 922(r). However, these days if you make one into a registered Short Barreled Rifle, you will have to make it 922(r) compliant.

Ok that makes sense but when did 922r go into effect was it with the awb94? The reason I ask was when I first heard of 922r a couple of years ago I figured that said u.s. parts would be marked u.s. So I got ahold of some friends with mac 90's and wasr's and disassembled them and couldn't find any parts marked as being u.s. parts. So does that mean they were made prior to 922r? My findings on those disassemblies were what led me to believe they were imported and sold with no u.s. parts. I also know that both of those mac90's and the three wasr's I looked at were bought at big box stores(cabelas, bass pro shops, and a dunhams) and not assembled by individuals with no knowledge of 922r. Thanks for any help understanding the joke of legislature known as 922r.

[Girodin]

I'm still confused as to how all these ak variants can be imported with no u.s. parts at all

There are certain AK variants that can be imported. They are guns that do not fall under the sections of the law posted above. There are, for our purposes, basically two broad classes of AKs that could come in with all imported parts. 1) Pistols such as the draco, champion, PAP M92 PV, etc. If you read the code or the regulations posted above they only apply to rifles and shotguns, not pistols. 2) guns that meet the sporting purposes test. I don't want to get into the sporting purposes test too much, but to be overly simplistic the ATF has said that guns with certain features are not "sporting" these are the guns that 925(d)(3), cited above, is referring to. Thus if the gun is sporting then it can be imported and 922(r) etc does not apply to the gun (until you use the parts of that gun along with other parts to assemble a gun that doesn't meet the sporting purpose test).

[rcmodel]

Yes.

922R was part of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 30, 1993, and went into effect on February 28, 1994.

rc

[Kyle M.]

Ok now this all makes sense but it is quite ridiculous, therefore if I go in my lgs to buy an ak I doubt I'm going to tear it apart looking for made in U.S.A. markings. In my mind the only way you'd ever get busted for this is if you built a ak out of 100% imported parts right in front of an ATF agent. Because you could have an ak variant with no u.s. parts and as far as I can tell theres no way to prove it was assembled before or after the awb94.

[Zoogster]

Ok, that clears it up. To play it safe I think all I need to do is a keep a Tapco or Magpul magazine with it.
Thanks.


The problem with using the magazine to just barely get over the compliance number is that means you are commiting a crime when you use someone else's magazine at the range, or even when you use many stock magazines if you have added other non sporting features.
Even putting in say a foreign 5 round mag could be illegal assembly, because of the other non sporting features on the gun. If you just qualified by one part, counting the magazine as 3 parts, even that foreign under 10 round magazine for hunting is not legal to use anymore.
So for example you could make a saiga where using the stock magazine it came with is not legal.




I see people violate 922r all the time.
Some people even post videos online where they are.
For example people will insert magazines with a capacity over 10 rounds in guns imported in a sporterized configuration. The gun is in stock configuration as they purchased it, and the magazine is readily sold and is itself perfectly legal.
They have no idea that inserting that magazine into that rifle is illegal assembly in violation of 922r.

[Kyle M.]

In honesty I really wonder how many owners or sellers know or care. In ohio for instance you can own a magazine with a capacity of over 30 rounds but it's illegal to put in the gun even if empty. I cannot count the number of guns I've seen in ohio gunshops or at gunshows with 50 and 100 round drums especially ar's, ak's, and auto ordnance thompsons. It's as if no one knows and those that do don't care. My lgs recently got a surprise visit from the atf and agents failed to say anything about the ar's on the shelf with beta mags in them.

[Girodin]

Some people even post videos online where they are.

I just choose to believe all those people have swapped out internal parts that are not readily recognizable in said videos, say an op rod, FCG parts, etc. I find that more comforting than to believe that people are willful putting evidence out for all the world to see that they are violating federal law. Clearly government is not too interested right now in conducting 922(r) stings on end users. If they were they would be very very easy to conduct. I see online adds all the time for saigas that appear stock with surefire or similar mags stuck in them. It would simply be a matter of posing as a buyer, asking a handful of questions that any buyer might ask and getting the person to stick a magazine it it.

In my mind the only way you'd ever get busted for this is if you built a ak out of 100% imported parts right in front of an ATF agent.

I can actually of a number of ways violations could be shown. My guess is the government recognizes it would be a waste of resources and have no positive effect. However, that could change tomorrow and they could go after it with vengeance. Trust me, when the Feds prosecute they can throw a shocking amount of time money and effort into it.

Because you could have an ak variant with no u.s. parts and as far as I can tell theres no way to prove it was assembled before or after the awb94.

Many receivers are going to have serial numbers on them. Those serial numbers are going to tell you when it was made. Simple logic would indicate that receivers made after a certain date could not be assembled before that date.

Some receivers, say an 80% receiver one finishes herself, might not have a serial number that could so easily date it. However, if the person paid for it with a credit card there would be a very good record of when its earliest possible existence was. I can think of a number of other ways you could pin a date on a it as well.

In sum, the feds don't seem to be actively pursuing 922(r) cases. However, there is nothing that is truly stopping them from doing so. It is the law, the consequences of a violation would be insanely disproportionate to the cost of assuring compliance. Lastly, unlike so many internet posters who have no experience in criminal prosecutions or the law like to opine, it is very very far from an impossible task to prove beyond a reasonable doubt a violation.

These laws are truly a waste of space in the code book and the CFR but they are still the law. Staying compliant is easy and the thing to do.

[TurtlePhish]

Ok that makes sense but when did 922r go into effect was it with the awb94? The reason I ask was when I first heard of 922r a couple of years ago I figured that said u.s. parts would be marked u.s. So I got ahold of some friends with mac 90's and wasr's and disassembled them and couldn't find any parts marked as being u.s. parts. So does that mean they were made prior to 922r? My findings on those disassemblies were what led me to believe they were imported and sold with no u.s. parts. I also know that both of those mac90's and the three wasr's I looked at were bought at big box stores(cabelas, bass pro shops, and a dunhams) and not assembled by individuals with no knowledge of 922r. Thanks for any help understanding the joke of legislature known as 922r.


There is no requirement that US-made parts be marked with anything identifying them as US-made.

Here we see another example of how ridiculous this law is... :scrutiny:

[Zoogster]

I just choose to believe all those people have swapped out internal parts that are not readily recognizable in said videos


Yeah except half of them someone asks if they converted them and they say no in the comments section.
They often don't know what 'conversion' even means based on the replies.
Replies like "No, I just bought a magazine and it worked". Clearly they think someone is refering to modifying the rifle so it could physically use such magazines.

Let me take 2 minutes to find one, I will look up Saigas since they should be an easy example...

Here we go http://youtu.be/hi0YNE6bGo8

Stock Saiga 308, using high capacity magazine, with high capacity in the title:

In the comments:

Did you do any conversion to your saiga to make it take a high capacity mag?

bcsnider20031 year ago

Response:


No, I purchased the magazines online. They are kind of pricey and unreliable though to be honest.

PileFanning in reply to bcsnider2003(Show the comment)1 year ago

Clearly PileFanning is in violation of 922r, a law he probably does not know exists.


I have seen numerous similar examples.
Someone with a brand new Saiga in stock configuration, often a new rifle they are trying to show off, and they bought some 20-30 round magazines for it.
When asked about a conversion there is a response that clearly shows they have not modified the firearm.


Another law I see violated frequently is vertical forward pistol grips on AR pistols with rails.
People think just because they can go buy those just about anywhere, and that their pistol has a rail, they can just slide it right on. Just like they do on their rifles. They have no idea that cheap unrestricted plastic part turns it into an AOW.

The litmus test of legality to a large percentage of the public is "if they let me buy it at the store then it must be legal to own and use, otherwise they would not have sold it to me".
So they think if they can buy and own the magazine, then it is legal to put it in their legal firearms.

[Zoogster]

In honesty I really wonder how many owners or sellers know or care


Well the enforcement often comes when the person does something else.
The feds go over their possessions with a fine toothed comb and declare they are in violation of dozens of federal statutes.

The other thing they do can be serious, or it can be minor. It can be upsetting the wrong people, taking up a political cause that pisses the wrong people off, or getting into trouble for some other unrelated thing like tax problems, fraud, etc.
Essentially they do something that draws attention, and instead of a couple of charges they get dozens of valid charges, including for many things they didn't even know were crimes. And the charges don't stop at valid ones, they often tack on several others that the person didn't even do as well.
So now the person has a couple dozen charges, half of them valid, half of them false exaggerations, but altogether looking very bad and the valid ones adding credibility to the not so valid ones to outsiders.

[Girodin]

Yeah except half of them someone asks if they converted them and they say no in the comments section.

They just mean they haven't done the pistol grip conversion. They don't mean they haven't swapped out countable parts. ;)

As to the 308, he is saying that the 308 doesn't require conversion to make the rifle physically take the magazines and thus he he did no work in that respect. He is not trying to answer about having swapped the OP rod. He was not asked what he legally did to make it legal just to make the magazine its self work. Or so I choose to believe. :)

Yes you are right though, there are a lot of ignorant and/or stupid people that put out lots of evidence of their law breaking. This is one reason that getting a 922r conviction would not be very difficult. I feel very confident that I could amass an airtight case against someone in a week if I set out to do it.

Another law I see violated frequently is vertical forward pistol grips on AR pistols with rails.

Yeah and that one is much scary. The feds do prosecute SBR, SBS, AOW violations and the penalties are grave.

[Girodin]

they often tack on several others that the person didn't even do as well.

That was neither my experience in working at a prosecutors office nor working for a firm that did fed criminal defense. Charging crimes for which you do not have probable cause is an ethical violation that can subject the prosecutor to professional discipline.

I would be interested for your basis for saying prosecutors "often" tack on charges the person didn't even do. They may initially include charges that are later dropped for myriad of possible reasons. That doesn't necessarily mean A) that the person didn't do those things or B) that there wasn't a good faith reason for bringing the charges.

Now prosecutors very often do start with higher or more charges than they ultimately pursue. Again that is far different than simply charging things there is no basis for.

[M2]

When was the last time an individual was arrested for a 922r violation? Just asking...

[Girodin]

Arrested? or charged? or convicted? Those are three different questions. Arrested I really doubt anyone could tell you as researching it would be difficult. Charged? Again I doubt people really know. When I did a very very brief search for cases, I came across the IN case that was against an owner of a shop and it involved his modification of SKS rifles. I think, with out checking, that I came across that one because there was an appeal on it. However, I have never tried to search all trial level cases. Many of which are not reported in data bases I could easily search.

In sum, I doubt anyone could tell you. However, it is probably not very many. Lastly, the relative lack of convictions is some evidence that government is not actively pursing large scale enforcement, but that doesn't mean they couldn't abruptly change course and go after it full throttle tomorrow, next week, or next year. Moreover, it doesn't mean any given individual wont get the authorities attention some other way and become that rare case where they do prosecute.

[Rob G]

When was the last time an individual was arrested for a 922r violation? Just asking...

It's probably very rare and would most likely not be a primary charge as much as a secondary charge added on after the weapon was seized for some other purpose.

Moreover, it doesn't mean any given individual wont get the authorities attention some other way and become that rare case where they do prosecute.

I think Girodin's statement here is pretty much on point. I don't think anybody will ever check my AK-74 for 922r compliance while I'm at the range, hunting, or wherever. However the day may come when I use it to defend myself and the police decide to take custody of it until the legal end of the situation is resolved. Who's to say that in that situation somebody might not decide that as long as they have it they should look it over and make sure it's 922r compliant?

I'll grant it's a long shot getting caught on that charge but it's so easy to make a rifle easy why not just do it?

Sort of reminds me of the night I ran in to a sobriety checkpoint on a two lane gravel road at 3 AM 20 miles from the nearest town in a rural township with no police force. I'd have bet my firstborn nobody would have ever done one there. But they did. And I was glad as hell I'd stopped after two beers.

[Kurt_D]

Yes.

922R was part of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 30, 1993, and went into effect on February 28, 1994.

rc
I thought it was 1989 when Bush Sr. signed the bill banning import of "non-sporting" rifles and shotguns? and Clinton did the AWB and the ban on Chinese AKs.

It's been said that the ATF can consider you a manufacturer for simply putting the magazine into your rifle. But here's the thing: they have to PROVE you put the "evil" parts on the gun, what's sporting vs non-sporting (a Saiga w/ 5 or 10 rd mag is sporting but w/ 20 or 30 rd it's not, explain that logic), PROVE what 10+ parts are not US made, and have a reason to actually check. Basically unless you're a real deal manufacturer, chances are slim with getting a 922R violation alone; mostly likely it'll be tacked on with other charges that are probably a whole lot worse.

Let's not even get into the muddy waters like the SBR issue where the ATF has responded with both "yes" they are subject to 922R due to being a newly manufactured non-sporting rifle and "no" they are not subject to 922R due to being a title 2 NFA SBR not a title 1 rifle.

[Girodin]

But here's the thing: they have to PROVE you put the "evil" parts on the gun, what's sporting vs non-sporting (a Saiga w/ 5 or 10 rd mag is sporting but w/ 20 or 30 rd it's not, explain that logic), PROVE what 10+ parts are not US made, and have a reason to actually check.

In many instances that would not be that difficult. That point aside here is another thing to remember. They only need probable cause to arrest and you and only need probable cause to charge you. Just be charged will make one's life very miserable and assuming will cost you a lot of money, MUCH more than $100 in parts to make a rifle compliant in the first place.

Having a legal reason to look at the gun is a bigger issue. Although my experience is that a shocking number of people will simply give their consent to searches. It never ceases to amaze me actually.