922(r) and SBR

[vaglocker]

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?

[Robb Jensen]

Originally Posted by vaglocker

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?

[kdcgrohl]

That policy is under review.

[JSGlock34]

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.

[Robb Jensen]

Originally Posted by JSGlock34

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.

[JSGlock34]

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.

[99HMC4]

The last ATF letter I read said 922 didnt allpy to any NFA weapon....

[vaglocker]

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

[Robb Jensen]

Originally Posted by JSGlock34

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.

[kdcgrohl]

Originally Posted by gotm4

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.

[vaglocker]

I believe this is the letter in question:

[kdcgrohl]

That's the one that is causing the problems.

[decodeddiesel]

Originally Posted by gotm4

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.

[Robb Jensen]

Originally Posted by decodeddiesel

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.

[decodeddiesel]

Originally Posted by gotm4

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.

[Robb Jensen]

Originally Posted by decodeddiesel

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.

[decodeddiesel]

Originally Posted by gotm4

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.

[Renegade]

Originally Posted by kdcgrohl

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

[decodeddiesel]

Originally Posted by Renegade

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.

[HirosStorageUnit]

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.