Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 24

Thread: 922(r) and SBR

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Richmond, Va
    Posts
    381
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)

    922(r) and SBR

    So for years the prevailing wisdom was the 922(r) did not apply to SBRs. I recently saw on another site an official looking ATF opinion dated July 2009 that seems to state that 922(r) does in fact apply to registered SBRs. Anybody got any definitive info on this?
    As the great warrior poet Ice-Cube once said, "If the day does not require an AK, it is good."

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    NoVA
    Posts
    10,673
    Feedback Score
    16 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by vaglocker View Post
    So for years the prevailing wisdom was the 922(r) did not apply to SBRs. I recently saw on another site an official looking ATF opinion dated July 2009 that seems to state that 922(r) does in fact apply to registered SBRs. Anybody got any definitive info on this?
    Are semi auto SBRs importable?
    FFL/SOT armorer

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Southern VA
    Posts
    891
    Feedback Score
    26 (100%)
    That policy is under review.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    773
    Feedback Score
    14 (100%)
    There is a lot of interest in this now, much of it due to the MKE produced HK94/SP89 pistols that have been recently imported.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    NoVA
    Posts
    10,673
    Feedback Score
    16 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by JSGlock34 View Post
    There is a lot of interest in this now, much of it due to the MKE produced HK94/SP89 pistols that have been recently imported.
    A pistol is importable. I don't think a non-full auto SBR exists which IS importable.
    FFL/SOT armorer

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    773
    Feedback Score
    14 (100%)
    I think the concern comes into play when someone wants to convert one of the MKE pistols into a MP5 configuration by adding a buttstock (thus creating a SBR). At that point the pistol becomes a rifle, and thus there is concern about 922(R) coming into effect.
    Last edited by JSGlock34; 01-15-10 at 22:20.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    New Mexico
    Posts
    905
    Feedback Score
    4 (100%)
    The last ATF letter I read said 922 didnt allpy to any NFA weapon....
    FFL/SOT

    Chuck Norris has to maintain a concealed weapon license in all 50 states in order to legally wear pants.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Richmond, Va
    Posts
    381
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    I got a response from Jim Fuller at Rifle Dynamics. He is credible source as he is a manufacturer of AKM style SBRs. His response is below:

    The ATF has issued a ruling about NFA guns being 922R compliant. With the ATF you never know how they will react, this would mainly apply to SBRs since you can't make "new machine guns" for the public. A lot of US parts available for the standard AK will not work on the krinks. There are parts out there to get it done but not many choices.
    Receiver
    G-2
    Pistol grip
    Handgards from Ironwood or K-var
    There are also short US pistons available
    So it can be done it just adds more cost to the gun.
    __________________
    Jim Fuller
    Rifle Dynamics 07FFL/SOT www.rifledynamics.com
    Suarez International staff Instructor/AK Armorer
    www.ATACTV.com
    As the great warrior poet Ice-Cube once said, "If the day does not require an AK, it is good."

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    NoVA
    Posts
    10,673
    Feedback Score
    16 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by JSGlock34 View Post
    I think the concern comes into play when someone wants to convert one of the MKE pistols into a MP5 configuration by adding a buttstock (thus creating a SBR). At that point the pistol becomes a rifle, and thus there is concern about 922(R) coming into effect.
    If you made the junk MKE pistol into a Title 1 rifle (16" bbl) with a stock I can certainly see how 922(r) would certainly apply.
    If you made it into a registered SBR on an approved Form 1 you've instantly removed it from an importable firearm status hence why 922(r) would no longer apply.
    FFL/SOT armorer

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Southern VA
    Posts
    891
    Feedback Score
    26 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by gotm4 View Post
    If you made it into a registered SBR on an approved Form 1 you've instantly removed it from an importable firearm status hence why 922(r) would no longer apply.
    This has been the longstanding ruling of the ATF. Recently, a letter issued contradicted that. The issue is currently under review.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Richmond, Va
    Posts
    381
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    I believe this is the letter in question:



    As the great warrior poet Ice-Cube once said, "If the day does not require an AK, it is good."

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Southern VA
    Posts
    891
    Feedback Score
    26 (100%)
    That's the one that is causing the problems.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Littleton, CO
    Posts
    3,888
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by gotm4 View Post
    If you made the junk MKE pistol into a Title 1 rifle (16" bbl) with a stock I can certainly see how 922(r) would certainly apply.
    If you made it into a registered SBR on an approved Form 1 you've instantly removed it from an importable firearm status hence why 922(r) would no longer apply.
    OK, OT question Robb, but why do you say the MKE is junk? I haven't seen one in real life yet but everything I have read states that they are good to go.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    NoVA
    Posts
    10,673
    Feedback Score
    16 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by decodeddiesel View Post
    OK, OT question Robb, but why do you say the MKE is junk? I haven't seen one in real life yet but everything I have read states that they are good to go.
    We transferred one a few days back, it looked like ass.
    FFL/SOT armorer

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Littleton, CO
    Posts
    3,888
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by gotm4 View Post
    We transferred one a few days back, it looked like ass.
    Just the finish, or were there other issues?

    Sorry to nag but I'm getting funds put together for one right now and would rather not waste the money if these things are that bad.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    NoVA
    Posts
    10,673
    Feedback Score
    16 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by decodeddiesel View Post
    Just the finish, or were there other issues?

    Sorry to nag but I'm getting funds put together for one right now and would rather not waste the money if these things are that bad.
    Rough metal, just seemed poorly assembled. If it were my money I'd buy a real pre-89 HK.
    FFL/SOT armorer

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Littleton, CO
    Posts
    3,888
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by gotm4 View Post
    Rough metal, just seemed poorly assembled. If it were my money I'd buy a real pre-89 HK.
    Well that's disappointing.

    Back on topic...

    How would this ruling effect the construction of Krinkov type SBRs from imported kits? I see what Robb is saying about changing the status of the weapon, but the whole thing is confusing as hell.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,159
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by kdcgrohl View Post
    This has been the longstanding ruling of the ATF. Recently, a letter issued contradicted that. The issue is currently under review.
    Not the original, but you can see from the date it was "setlled" long ago:


    DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
    Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
    Washington, D.C. 20226

    MAR 22, 1994

    LE:F:FE:RLB
    3312.5

    Mr XXX
    Address
    City, State

    Dear Mr. XXX:

    This refers to your letter of February 28, 1994, in which you
    inquire as to whether the making of certain National Firearm Act
    (NFA) weapons is prohibited by Title 18 United States Code
    (U.S.C.), Chapter 44, Section 922(r). The weapon in question is a
    FN/FAL type firearm having a barrel length of less than 16 inches
    which is assembled from an imported British L1A1 parts kit and a
    domestically manufactured frame or receiver.

    Title 18 U.S.C., Chapter 44, Section 922(r) provides that it shall
    be unlawful for any person to assemble from imported parts any
    semiautomatic rifle or shotgun which is identical to any rifle or
    shotgun prohibited from importation under 18 U.S.C., Chapter 44,
    Section 925(d)(3), as not being particularly suitable for or
    readily adaptable to sporting purposes.

    However, the Bureau has previously determined that the lawful
    making of an NFA weapon would not violate Section 922(r), since the
    section only addresses the assembly of "nonsporting" firearms, and
    not the making of NFA weapons. Therefore, the lawful making of a
    short barreled rifle would not be precluded by Section 922(r)
    .

    If you decide to proceed with your project, it will be necessary
    for you to obtain prior approval by first submitting an ATF Form 1
    (Application To Make and Register a Firearm) and paying the
    appropriate $200 making tax. Additional information relative to
    this procedure may be obtained from the following source:

    Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
    NFA Branch, Room 5300
    650 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
    Washington DC 20026

    We trust that the foregoing was responsive to your inquiry. If we
    may be of any further assistance, please contact us.

    Sincerely yours,
    [signed]
    Edward M. Owen, Jr.
    Chief, Firearms Technology Branch

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Littleton, CO
    Posts
    3,888
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Renegade View Post
    Not the original, but you can see from the date it was "setlled" long ago:...
    Thank you for posting that. I have been looking for it for days.

    It's funny how every single thread I have seen on HKPro, TOS, etc. about the MKE AT-94s has turned into an NFA vs. 922(r) discussion.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    18
    Feedback Score
    0
    I know I will not make any non 922r non compliant SBrs myself.
    But I still give it a few months there will be a new letter stating the opposite of
    what the most recent one.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •