PDA

View Full Version : Legal question?


jbsmwd
May 11, 2009, 03:06
So what's the story if you buy a used L1A1 from a gun store and only find 3 ( Hammer and Sear for sure, Hand guard not so sure) parts plus reciever. How do I prove, if I have too, that my used Rifle that I bought is compliant

No markings on the pistion, charge handle, bolt carrier, PG, or buttstock. The hammer and sear have a "C" on them and so does the hand guard with an 80 as well. Should I change it or leave the way it is and just get mag floor plates to play it safe?

ARMALITE FAN
May 11, 2009, 09:15
This has to be one of the dumbest laws ever written. Lets start off by removig the emotional component caused to gun owners replacing perfectly good,historically correct and in most cases superior parts.


For a law to be a good one it has to meet a requirements.
1. It should help society as a whole more often than not.
2. Written so that it is enforcable by definition thats simple and to the point

I'm not going to list any more as it doesn't meet these two basic reasons.


I would say jury nulification faster than Obama spends money. on the first one alone.

There is no requiremnet for the parts to be marked. There is no requirement for a statement when you sell a rifle that it meets a certian number of required parts.


Ther is a reason NO ONE has ever been charged let alone convicted of a violation of 922


Proof is the burden of the prosecuter.

The last FAL I traded for came with a statement, list of parts replaced and reciepts. None of these parts are marked. How could a prosecuter or I prove these are US made parts, even with this above average documentation?

keiser
May 11, 2009, 13:18
Personally, I don't think the law can be applied to anyone but the manufacturer. If I was on a jury for a case of missing parts, I would never convict if the person bought it without those parts. Governments control of my private property ends at the manufacturer's door.

Unfortunately, most of the sheep believe government can and should control everything you own, your thoughts, and your possible actions. Due to the level of stupidity of potential jurists, it would be best to comply.

BUFF
May 12, 2009, 04:16
Yes, it is a stupid law, but it is a law nonetheless. One can't count on sympathetic jurors. Not to mention the cost of going to trial.

The cost of the needed U.S.-made parts is less than my lawyer charges for one hour's work.

I think the the penalties for being caught are way higher than the cost of compliance.

jbsmwd: Not all U.S.-made parts are marked. If you could post pix of the parts you wonder about, esp. the furniture, we might be able to figure the source.

gatsby
May 12, 2009, 19:39
Sounds to me thought that, in a place like the Demokratik Peoples Republik of Kalifornistan that if the feller at the range next to you 'doesn't like the look' of your military rifle, all he has to do is 'anonymously' report it to the local police, and that very night you'll be awaken to SWAT diving through the windows after several flash-bangs go off...

jbsmwd
May 12, 2009, 20:55
Good thing I don't live in the D.P.R.K.

N4KVE
May 12, 2009, 22:57
Please read the sticky in the RKBA & LEGAL section about the letter from the ATF regarding this subject. Basically they say if DSA makes a FAL it needs to have the correct # of US parts. However if I go to a gunshow & buy a FAL that the seller took in on trade just 10 minutes before, it doesn't have to have any US parts. 922 refers to assembly, not ownership. GARY N4KVE