View Full Version : Does Making An "SBR" from Imported "Pistol" Trump 922r?
I know if you take an imported rifle and make it an SBR on a Form1 you need to change out 5 or 6 parts with items made in the US to be 922r compliant. But what if the host is an imported pistol that never had a stock, handguard, muzzle device etc? Does SBR in this case trump 922r and if not how many US made parts would you need seeing as how it never had a stock, handguard, etc.
Many thought it would, however with the Cz scorpion evo the ATF said it must be 922r compliant to sbr
I wasn't sure if the ATF said CZ had to or if they decided to do it on their own just to be safe. And since it never had a stock, muzzle device or handguards I wonder how many parts would need to be changed out. I would think mag base plates and FGC parts would be all you would need.
Many thought it would, however with the Cz scorpion evo the ATF said it must be 922r compliant to sbr
Disagree. IMO when you SBR you are 'manufacturing a rifle' and I don't know about you but I don't make rifles when I leave the country. Any rifles I make are made right here in the good ol' US of A which supersedes anyway 922(r) BS. To me, it seems they got caught in their own BS hoops and this one benefits us for once.
All that being said, this topic should NOT be discussed openly as it's a gray area and IMO gray areas are legal since all things 2A related are legal unless expressly controlled. The more posts/conversations like this occur on these gray area items or letters are written for clarification the more freedoms we lose with the stroke of a pen or a few keystrokes. Use common sense and don't ask permission for this validates their tyranny and grants more power where there's already too much.
First off, "5 or 6 parts" may or may not be correct.
Section 18 usc 922r has a very specific list of 20 parts which count. They are the only ones that count. Different rifles have differing numbers of these parts. Therefore, there are differing numbers of parts to be changed.
Also, "making the rifle in the good old USA" has jack to do with it, as the same law also states that it is illegal to make a rifle here with imported parts that cannot be legally imported.
So, taking an imported handgun, and adding a stock is making a rifle from imported parts. So, unless the stock is a us part, and the rifle only needed 1 us part to qualify, it is still a banned item.
Being under the purview of the nfa does not change the fact that it is a rifle.
Sent from my SGP612 using Tapatalk
This was decided in a ruling letter back in 2008~2009 that these things have to be import ban compliant.
KalashniKEV
08-27-15, 12:27
Well, looking at the case law...
Oh, wait... there is none.
If the "manufacturer" still remains the OEM, then there would be no reason to engrave... since you aren't manufacturing... and that would go against what "guidance" they have issued in the past.
As Jer said- they can't say, "in all instances, the most restrictive interpretations apply" when those interpretations are contradictory.
Basically, you just don't want to be the test case to un**** it all.
Also, "making the rifle in the good old USA" has jack to do with it, as the same law also states that it is illegal to make a rifle here with imported parts that cannot be legally imported.
+1
Also, consider that sec922(r) states that "It shall be unlawful for any person to assemble from imported parts any semiautomatic rifle or any shotgun which is identical to any rifle or shotgun prohibited from importation under section 925 (d)(3) of this chapter as not being particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes except that this subsection shall not apply to—" Note that the word "assemble" is used which is not the same as "manufacture" or "make". When you have a Form 1 approved, you are the "maker", but someone else can actually "assemble" the firearm. Some NFA gunsmiths have letters from the ATF stating that sec922(r) doesn't apply, so they don't use US parts to make it compliant. Now to the OP's question, if you read the part in quotes above it's clear that sec922(r) only applies to the assembly of firearms that have been deemed as "not being particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes". SBR's are not importable under the NFA in the first place (except military and law enforcement), so they don't even fall in to the category of having to be subject to the sporting purposes test. Of course the letter of the law sometimes doesn't seem to get in the way of the ATF when it comes to the letters they write.
There is no case law for a few reasons.
One, there is no specific punishment listed. Also, only assembling the prohibited firearm is illegal. So, while it is illegal to assemble a firearm from imported parts that cannot be imported whole, it is not illegal to possess said firearm, sell said firearm, or buy said firearm. And, there is no punishment for assembling said firearm.
It's a "tack on" charge.
But, that does not mean you want to be the test case.
Everyone seems to forget a very important factor here. Batfe is one of the few government agencies that gets to write rulings as they go along, and they carry the full weight of law. This may be wrong and unconstitutional, but it is what it is. Write your congressman. This is the world we live in.
If you slap a stock on an imported pistol, atf says you "assembled" a rifle from it. Their lawyer gets paid more than yours. You lose.
I'm not saying we need to live in fear. What I am saying is that you choose your battles carefully.
You do what you want. I like going home to my house every day. Bubba can get his happiness solo.
Sent from my C6916 using Tapatalk
only assembling the prohibited firearm is illegal. So, while it is illegal to assemble a firearm from imported parts that cannot be imported whole, it is not illegal to possess said firearm, sell said firearm, or buy said firearm. And, there is no punishment for assembling said firearm.
The punishment may not be listed, but assembly of a non-importable rifle is a felony. The courts usually figure out the punishment.
Batfe is one of the few government agencies that gets to write rulings as they go along, and they carry the full weight of law. This may be wrong and unconstitutional, but it is what it is. Write your congressman. This is the world we live in.
BATF is not alone by any stretch of the imagination. At my work we deal with the BATF, DEA, DOT, EEOC, FDA, DHS, IRS (including Obamacare regulations), FAA, DOL and a few others. They're all pumping out massive amounts of new regulations based on new interpretations of the same laws, some which have been around for over thirty years. Then when they enforce, they don't always go by the regulations they've created (or even know them). The result is that the officers are often telling you things to do that they are not empowered by law to do in any way shape manner or form. If you want to fight anything, your option is to have them shut down your business and fight them in court for years. You'll go broke and even if you do win, you're out of business. We have turned in to a regulation nation.
I was only speaking of atf when saying no punishment is listed, which was to mean they decided it was a crime, but not what the punishment was. Therefore, there is no baseline to go by.
As far as agencies that can regulate "on the fly" I didnt say atf was alone. I didn't know there were that many, but then fedgov is constantly expanding its own power, while we sit back and take it.
And, if anybody is reading my post to say that I recommend doing something illegal anyway, they are reading it wrong. I was responding to a post where someone else said that in their opinion they could do what they wanted, since they were doing it in the USA.
While do believe many laws are onerous and should be stricken, the answer is not to simply ignore them.
Sent from my C6916 using Tapatalk
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.