Makes no sense to me, but how many federal laws or regulations make sense to you??

[alan]

Re imported SEMI-AUTOMATIC RIFLES, in particular the Roumanian "AK-47" also known as WASR caliber 7.62 x 39 mm

1. I've seen these rifles with two different stock configurations for sale. One is the conventional butt stock and separate pistol grip. The other is the so-called "Dragunov" style or "thumbhole stock", where the pistol grip is intergal with the butt stock. This assembly is sometimes known as "the bureaucrat's special".

2. Now then, all manner of "replacement" or "aftermarket stocks and pistol grips" are available from various outlets, I assume some of domestic manufacture, while others would be imported. It appears that there are no legal problems with offering such items for sale, especially given that they are widely advertised.

3. The rub, I've been told by serveral dealers comes in the case where one installed one of these "aftermarket" or "replacement butt stocks with separate pistol grip" on one of the above mentioned rifles, their action amounting to a FELONY VIOLATION, serious business that.

4. O.K., it seems that this is what the law and or regulations stipulate, but what VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE IS SERVED BY SUCH STIPULATION, PROVISION OR REQUIREMENT, none that comes to the mind of the writer, but then could I be missing some salient point here?

5. What to do now? The following comes to mind. Contacting your congressional representative and senators, politely commenting on this anomoly, and explaining the fact that no valid public purpose is served by possibly making FELONS out of perfectly law abiding citizens, as a result of their replacing or changing a piece of wood or plastic on a rifle, especially when such change has nothing to do with the operation or the functioning of said rifle. Neither stock assembly is of folding or "telescoping" type, so what earthly difference does it make, especially when these rifles have been imported BOTH WAYS, and are currently so offered for sale.

6. The existing law and or the regulations, in this regard, really need to be changed, that is made rational, for neither the law, nor the regulations, as they exist, are rational. That situation should be addressed, meaning changed, and the sooner, the better.

 

[Mark Tyson]

None of these cosmetic gun bans are intended to make sense. Their purpose is to get the public used to more and more bans in preparation for ultimate total gun confiscation. It also wins political points for the people pushing the ban.

I believe you're right - it's illegal to put a pistol grip on an imported gun covered under the 89 ban that originally came with a thumbhole stock. I could be wrong, though. Again, it makes no sense and was never intended to.

 

[Jim March]

Some wit took an AK and grafted on an entirely new wooden stock...a complete toilet seat. Basically made a "butthole stock". Sent it in to the Cal-DOJ and asked whether or not that was a legal configuration...plus the pic got posted all over the 'net.

Anybody know where to find that?

 

[tcdrennen]

Since the term "assault weapon" is a legal fiction invented by law, it can mean whatever they want it to mean. VPC/Brady/etc. use their own definition, based on what they PROPOSE to ban (basically, any semi auto firearm that can accept a >10 round mag will be considered an "assault weapon" under the New Improved AWB.) That's how they come up with the infamous "1 in 5 police officers killed by assault weapons" mantra enshrined in most of the Democrat candidates' calls for More-Better-It'sForThe Children gun bans.

 

[RobW]

Mark hit it! NONE of the more than 20,000 laws concerning guns make sense. They are invented not only to ban guns BUT TO SUBDUE potential outrage over the behaviour of the self declared "aristocracy by the grace of God" (or whatever they worship - a mention of God is politically not correct).

It's just to make the serfs helpless.

More and more I get disgusted by this "politicians"...and not only Democrats!

 

[BryanP]

3. The rub, I've been told by serveral dealers comes in the case where one installed one of these "aftermarket" or "replacement butt stocks with separate pistol grip" on one of the above mentioned rifles, their action amounting to a FELONY VIOLATION, serious business that.

Is this documented somewhere? I thought the only rule was how many US parts vs foreign parts?

 

[labgrade]

I've a Colt HBAR flattop, scoped & dialed in.

It's a post-ban & very accurate. No bayo-mount/flash-hider.

Can't hurt anybody with that? Right?

The PC BS about what is an assault weapon is as rediculous as some congressional yahoo stating, " I can't tell you what porn is, but I'll know it when I see it."

As with "porn;" when you are doing it = it's making love, but when you get to watch somebody else = porn.

Nonsense & stuff.

 

[femoralis]

If the WASR has enough usa made parts, it is legal to add the normal pistol grip. If it is recently made, and can accept hicaps it should have the usa made parts. You may have to use a usa made pistol grip, I am not sure- that is what the SARs use. Older 100% imported guns w/ thumbhole stocks supposedly need some usa made parts to convert to pistol grip. This is a pointless interpretation of the GCA '68.

 

[alan]

Jim March:

Having lived in California, Oakland and Berkley, years back, your comment re the "butthole" stock does not surprise me very much at all.

BryanP:

You might check that catchall, Section 932, I believe of GCA'68, and or call the local ATF office. They should be able to provide information, since they are the enforcement agency.

tcdrennen, RobW & Mark Tyson:

You all are essentially corrrect, re what you characterize as bull????, which is why I keep pounding away at my "congress and senate critters", and respectfully suggest that others do the same. I don't know if it does any good, but doing nothing is, I suspect, the worst of all possibilities.

In a few minutes, I will be copying and pasting the 6 points that started this discussion to my "congress critters", essentially putting on paper, points I made during phone conversations earlier today. I don't see where it can hurt, and it might, maybe help.

 

[greyhound]

That's how they come up with the infamous "1 in 5 police officers killed by assault weapons" mantra enshrined in most of the Democrat candidates' calls for More-Better-It'sForThe Children gun bans.

I've always suspected that what was behind that 1 in 5 statement was standard mag pistols like, say, the Glock 17.

But what they are trying to imply is that there is a constant battle between AK47 armed thugs and the police.

Now, I won't say never (i.e. Hollywood Shootout) but I can't remember locally the the last time I read of roving gangs of AK/AR wielding drug dealers.

Last I heard the most common weapon used in crimes was a six shot .38 Special.

 

[Hkmp5sd]

Is this documented somewhere? I thought the only rule was how many US parts vs foreign parts?

Yep, good old 922(r). The little clause that says it is illegal to assemble a firearm from imported parts that is illegal for importation. This is the reason for the "US parts count" ruling. Change enough parts, the firearm is considered US manufactured and you can add the seperate pistol grip/stock combination and dump the thumbhole.

Now, I won't say never (i.e. Hollywood Shootout) but I can't remember locally the the last time I read of roving gangs of AK/AR wielding drug dealers.

The ones used in the North Hollywood Shootout were fully automatic machineguns, not "semiautomatic" look alikes.

 

[geekWithA.45]

This law makes perfect sense to me:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

All the rest are crap, and the result of the apparent innability to understand the words Right, People, Keep, Bear and Infringed.

 

[Butch]

There should only be one gun law in the U.S. The right of the people to keep and bear arms Shall not be infringed..

Now what about "Shall not" do these idiots not understand. All their gun laws are illegal.

Shall not, is a very clear statement, it means NO.

 

[Harry Tuttle]

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=25089

some Wit has it on this website:
http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/newstock.jpg

 

[alan]

Harry Tuttle:

Marvelous, absolutely marvelous.

I absolutely must send a copy of this, or ar least the links to an acquaintance of mine, who is with the BATF. That aside, he's not such a bad person.

 

[Majic]

Since the term "assault weapon" is a legal fiction invented by law, it can mean whatever they want it to mean.

Assault weapon does have a definition (ie a selective fire firearm), but the people pushing gun bans have twisted the meaning to only serve their purpose.

 

[tcdrennen]

Majic-

Assault RIFLE is legitimate term, a translation of the German Stuerm Gewehr, referring to a small caliber select fire rifle; basically to distinguish it from a Battle Rifle, a higher caliber (.30 caliber or so) select fire rifle.

"Assault Weapon", referring to ANY semi -auto pistol, rifle, sub gun that accepts > 10 round mags and/or has certain cosmetic features, is a TOTALLY MADE UP term, invented by gun banners and defined only in civilian law. It has NO military or technical meaning and thus means exactly what they say it means when they say it.

Which is why I always put quotes around the phrase - "Assault Weapon" is a shorthand/code word for "whatever firearm we don't like and/or don't want you to have." It is thus infinitely expandable depending on the whim of the legislature or the prosecutor.

The great example is former CA AG Vandekamp's first ruling that detachable-mag SKSs were NOT "assault weapons" under the CA ban, then doing a 180 under political pressure and ruling they were - after people who had purchased them and not registered them before the deadline suddenly found themselves felons. The legislature then had to pass another law specifically allowing people to possess and transport them just long enough to turn them in; they were actually charging people who turned them in to the cops in good faith since the law allowed no exceptions.

Keeps the peasants guessing and in fear; the law is whatever they say it is, whenever they say it - the Constitutional prohibition against ex post facto also having no meaning.

 

[Blain]

None of these cosmetic gun bans are intended to make sense. Their purpose is to get the public used to more and more bans in preparation for ultimate total gun confiscation.