ATF 922

[trackmagic]

So recently I have been thinking of getting into MP5s (and a cz scorpion since i learned about them). Both of which I want to SBR. With American ARs I have never had to consider 922, but with imported weapons I am concerned about it.

The way I understand 922 is it would be illegal to make a gun in a configuration that would be illegal to import. To me the illegal configuration would be select fire guns. It is not illegal to import a SBR and sell as an SBR is it?

If that is the case then I do not see why I would need to consider 922 on either of these guns. While researching them I notice a lot of people talking about 922 so it has me worried.

[PatrioticDisorder]

Most recent opinion on the rule BATFE stated 922r MUST be complied with even in SBR/SBS. I do believe long ago there was a different opinion. Keep in mind 922r is mostly for manufacturers and I've never even heard of anyone being prosecuted for a 922r violation. That said, comply with 922r and avoid any issues.

[JoshNC]

It seems that if lawfully imported as a complete pistol and the registrant simply registers the firearm as a SBR and adds a stock, that 922(r) does not apply. Amazingly the 2010 letter specifically asks this question and ATF does not directly answer the question.

The 1994 letter:

http://i57.tinypic.com/8x5yqb.jpg



The 2006 letter:

http://i62.tinypic.com/jsdi1l.jpg
http://i58.tinypic.com/mkdqf8.jpg



The 2010 letter:

http://i62.tinypic.com/35ltbop.jpg
http://i62.tinypic.com/2vcbxqq.jpg
http://i61.tinypic.com/vu7lv.jpg

[trackmagic]

Hey Josh, Thanks, that is very informative.

From what I gather from the letters:
In 1994 they say that making an NFA item does not violate 922r because 922r does not apply to NFA items.

In 2006 & 2010 they claim that you can make an SBR from an imported firearm as long as you do it by shortening the barrel. In other words, adding a stock would be a violation of 922r.

I can get an MP5 with a long barrel and shorten it, but it sounds like the CZ Scorpion SBR would be a violation according to the most recent rulings.

[JoshNC]

Hey Josh, Thanks, that is very informative.

From what I gather from the letters:
In 1994 they say that making an NFA item does not violate 922r because 922r does not apply to NFA items.

In 2006 & 2010 they claim that you can make an SBR from an imported firearm as long as you do it by shortening the barrel. In other words, adding a stock would be a violation of 922r.



I believe the 2006 and 2010 letters are saying:

Firearms imported as "sporters" with thumbhole stocks, plain muzzles, 10-round mags: 922(r) does not apply if simply shortening the barrel. If adding a threaded muzzle, standard pistol grip, collapsing/folding stock, etc and shortening the barrel then 922(r) does apply.

Firearms assembled from imported parts (ie parts kit builds): 922(r) applies to SBRs.

Pistols turned into SBRs: 922(r) does not apply.



I can get an MP5 with a long barrel and shorten it, but it sounds like the CZ Scorpion SBR would be a violation according to the most recent rulings.

If you mean an imported mp5 clone that accepts a 10-round only mag, per the 2010 letter you can shorten the barrel but if you "de-sporterize" it, 922(r) will apply. You can shorten the barrel and leave everything else as is without 922(r) applying. The moment you mod it to accept standard capacity mags, thread the muzzle, or add a collapsible stock, 922(r) now applies.

The 2010 letter also suggests (annoyingly without actually specifically answering the question) that when a pistol is registered as a SBR, simply adding a stock does not result in 922(r) applying.

All of this is ridiculous, as 922(r) and 925(d)3 are import regs for title-1 firearms. I personally believe that the 1994 letter is correct; once under the purview of NFA, 922(r) and 925(d)3 no longer apply.

These really highlight the fact that the 68 "sporting clause" needs to go away. It is totally unconstitutional and is the cause of all this headache. Also worth mentioning is that these letters are not official rulings and are simply opinion letters that only hold legal status (ie "get out of jail card") for the letter's recipient.

[Jer]

I believe the 2006 and 2010 letters are saying:

Firearms imported as "sporters" with thumbhole stocks, plain muzzles, 10-round mags: 922(r) does not apply if simply shortening the barrel. If adding a threaded muzzle, standard pistol grip, collapsing/folding stock, etc and shortening the barrel then 922(r) does apply.

Firearms assembled from imported parts (ie parts kit builds): 922(r) applies to SBRs.

Pistols turned into SBRs: 922(r) does not apply.




If you mean an imported mp5 clone that accepts a 10-round only mag, per the 2010 letter you can shorten the barrel but if you "de-sporterize" it, 922(r) will apply. You can shorten the barrel and leave everything else as is without 922(r) applying. The moment you mod it to accept standard capacity mags, thread the muzzle, or add a collapsible stock, 922(r) now applies.

The 2010 letter also suggests (annoyingly without actually specifically answering the question) that when a pistol is registered as a SBR, simply adding a stock does not result in 922(r) applying.

All of this is ridiculous, as 922(r) and 925(d)3 are import regs for title-1 firearms. I personally believe that the 1994 letter is correct; once under the purview of NFA, 922(r) and 925(d)3 no longer apply.

These really highlight the fact that the 68 "sporting clause" needs to go away. It is totally unconstitutional and is the cause of all this headache. Also worth mentioning is that these letters are not official rulings and are simply opinion letters that only hold legal status (ie "get out of jail card") for the letter's recipient.

I agree with most all of this and treat a SBR'd firearm as a rifle I manufactured since that's how the ATF wants to see it. If that's how they designate it themselves they can't pick and choose the parts of the definition that they want to have applied. You want me to manufacturer a firearm? Great. I live in the US. Colorado to be exact. So if I just manufactured my own firearm how in the HELL do any import laws apply to this firearm? Nope. Not me. Listen, I'll jump through all the hoops that are laid out in front of me but this is just silly. If I have to take all the bad with 'manufacturing' my own firearm then I get what few good things come with it too. If I buy a pistol and SBR it then I can add whatever parts I want to it.. import, domestic, other country... whatever. I manufactured it in Colorado.

That being said: STOP REQUESTING CONFIRMATION FROM THE DAMN BATFE!

Have none of you realized that every time someone who fancies themselves smart and decides to get something in writing determining what is right and what is wrong we lose more freedoms? Personally, I'll just stick with how I interpret the law at it's spirit and if I'm ever charged... well, I guess the court will determine once and for all what it ACTUALLY says. Until then, I can only adhere to so much BS before I feel like it's time to push back a little bit. I'm tired of asking what I can do in gray areas and feel like the 2A makes all gray areas legal. It's the NFA that's trying to restrict them so why are we asking them permission for things we don't understand anyway?

[JoshNC]

Jer, I agree re: the importance of individuals stopping with the letter writing.