If you dont beleive me do a little research make some calls and you will see it is in fact Legal.
We usually like to wait for someone to publish an official leter/ruling (something like Sam Cade posted) here. Really, hearing you say it is legal holds the same weight to us as those other guys saying it is illegal, except there HAVE been official letters stating that fact and there are many more of them than there are of you. Not meant as confrontational, but just saying that to us, you're just another guy "from the internet"
The ATF rep agreed with me on the fact that these should even be classifed as pistols because i would like to see the guy that voluntarily holds up a fully loaded ak with one hand and is serious.
What would you prefer them to be classified as? SBRs? That's the only other option if they aren't pistols, they're too short to be anything else; and then there would be a $200 tax and a good bit more paperwork with it. How many companies would be making AK rifles with really short gas systems if each required a tax stamp? Not nearly as many as there are now. Title 1 firearms are much easier to transfer and market than Title 2.
He told me some of these laws date back to the 30's and have to go through congress to change so dont expect anything to change soon
That would be the National Firearms Act of 1934. That's a whole nother thread in and of itself, but in summary it basically provides the ground rules for regulated and non-regulated (or "less regulated") firearms in the US. It sets up the division between Title 1 (normal rifles, shotguns and pistols) and Title 2 (MGs, SBRs, SBS, Destructive Devices, AOWs etc.)
Its some interesting reading. If you want the full version, its under Title 18 US Code, Section 922. There's also a bit of interesting politics behind it. For example, the original draft of the NFA included Pistols in he registered category (just as with MGs) and the SBR/SBS was introduced so that people couldn't legally cut down rifle or shotgun and have something approaching the functionality of a pistol. In the end, pistols were dropped from the legislation, but the SBR/SBS laws were kept for some reason.
And its not that we think you're lying or that the ATF agent is lying, its that we don't have proof that would be admissible in court. Are you willing to bet 10 years in Fed. prison and $250,000 and the ability to possess ANY firearm in the future on what someone said to you over the phone (or the internet even)? Were you recording that call?
[He] said that it wasnt that long ago the law said no to these grips.
The
Law didn't say that, the ATF's own
interpretation of the law said that. Which means they can change their own view on something and then prosecute people for not being in compliance should they ever want to
.
Also, individual ATF agents have been known to have been "mistaken" or recant their comments on legality in the past which leaves the people relying on their "expertise" out in the cold as far as legal defenses go. They've even been known to change their official positions multiple times through different letters. You're free to take a guy's word for it, but please understand that some of us are not willing to bet the rest of our lives on what some guy on a web forum said.
Also, if Congress starts playing with NFA/GCA laws again, I think they'll probably change it to the point of the original intent of the tax of "there's no way a normal person could afford that!" The $200 is written into the code, so it has been that expensive since 1934. Anybody want to guess what that would be today when adjusted for inflation? Personally I'd just rather stick with what we have, or start strictly repealing stuff. If you go in line by line and start changing stuff, you'll have a lot more hoops to jump through than you do now.
