Question about 922r Compliance....

[nwilliams]

A recent thread got me thinking about this and I figured I'd throw it out there...

I always wondered with all this talk about 922r compliant this and that, has anyone ever heard of the government actually prosecuting someone for not having a gun in compliance? I'd be curious to know if this is a law that authorities really take seriously or just something they came up with to make our lives difficult

I'm not saying people should obey the law of course, I just can't honestly imagine anyone being prosecuted because their gun was one 922r compliant part short. How would they find out to begin with? I can't see the BATF going around inspecting peoples guns and counting the number of US made parts people have in them, or maybe they do I don't know, I'm just curious.

Any thoughts on 922r compliance are welcome

 

[86thecat]

Even though I'm not aware of anyone charged for violating 922r, why would anyone risk it for a few bucks worth of parts? Lets say at the range your cetme, G3, AK etc pops off a couple of bursts because of defective parts or bad trigger job and the local sheriff is there, gun goes to ATF for inspection and even though not full auto they bust you for 922r violation. While it may not make a lot of sense from our perspective 922r does allow us to build firearms that may otherwise be banned.

 

[MAKOwner]

I honestly don't think the ATF's interpretation of 922(r) would really hold up in the court anyway, not as far as we the end user are concerned. The law specifically mentions assembling firearms that would be unimportable, it was meant to prevent companies from bringing in stuff like AK parts kits and just slapping them on a US receiver (lotta good it's done there, big difference the 4-5 other US parts make in that scenario...).

If you're building AKs or FALs or what have you from parts kits, that one thing.

But saying that taking your SKS or low cap AK, after they've been imported and sold to you the end user as complete firearms, and adding a detachable mag or pistol grip stock or something similar amounts to "assembling" a new weapon is a bit of a stretch IMO. That is modifying a previously legally imported firearm, in configurations that are not illegal on US made guns otherwise, that is not assembling weapons IMO...

I think more companies should start putting out more US made parts that aren't even marked. Further make the BS parts count game unenforcable for the ATF...

 

[Hkmp5sd]

I'm not aware of anyone being charged for violating 922(r). Of course, the illegal part of 922(r) is the act of assembling the illegal firearm. Once the firearm has been assembled, it is not illegal to possess it. If ATF can prove somehow your firearm is in violation of 922(r), they classify the firearm as contriband and confiscate it.

 

[nalioth]

The law specifically mentions assembling firearms that would be unimportable

The alphabet gang considers inserting a magazine to be 'assembling'.

 

[Technosavant]

Any discussion on this topic tends to end up coming to the following conclusions:
1) The ATF isn't likely to so around checking the guns brought to the firing range
2) 922r noncompliance is probably not a standalone charge- they'll bring it up if they want to nail you for something (like Capone's tax evasion) or if they are stacking charges (say, if you do one illegal act and then they proceed to nail you to the wall with everything they've got)
3) although the law is a useless pain in the rear, it isn't worth not complying as best as you can.

 

[meef]

I honestly don't think the ATF's interpretation of 922(r) would really hold up in the court anyway, not as far as we the end user are concerned.

You may very well be right, but for the sake of a very small amount of money to ensure otherwise - I'm not willing to gamble with my retirement money and my children's possible inheritance.