PDA

View Full Version : Legal: Don't cry for me Argentina. Is this legal?


cliffy109
February 26, 2003, 11:03
After extensive searches through the FAQ and reading just about everything I can about the various bans and how they affect us, I have come up with more questions and a few observations. First, let's review the various laws:

1. The 89/90 import ban which is enforced by the infamous 922(r). This bans the import of firearms with specific features such as bayonet lugs, flash hiders folding stocks and others. If you wish to build a rifle with those features, you must have no more than 10 specific imported parts. This is what EMDII calls EFPs or Evil Foreign Parts. So, if this were the only law we had to worry about, we could take an Imbel kit and assemble it with the requisite number of US parts to keep it from being considered "imported" by the BATmen but still use things such as folding stocks and flash hiders. Careful reading of several BATF and NRA letters in this FAQ make that pretty clear: http://www.falfiles.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=22088&highlight=Legal%2A

2. The 1994 AWB bans ownership of "assault weapons" which is defined as a semi-automatic firearm with more than two of the following features: protruding pistol grip, detachable magazine, folding or telescoping stock, bayonet lug and flash hider. Guns built prior to 9/94 were exempted. Now, in order to be exempted, one had to demonstrate that the gun was an "AW" prior to 9/94. In the case of the AR15, this is pretty easy because they are all domestically built and a call to the manufacturer will tell you how the gun was shipped and when. The waters get pretty muddy when getting records form importers.

Now, what if somebody bought an SAR4800 back in 1991 and added a flash hider to it prior to 9/94? Well, they may have run afoul of 922, unless they added enough US made parts so that the total EFP didn't exceed 10. That SAR4800 would then be considered in compliance with both 922 and the AWB as long as the owner could prove the date of modfication. As an exempted gun under the AWB, the owner could add a folding stock or a bayonet lug, as long as he was mindful of the EFPs.

Are you with me so far? Good.

Now, let's look at the bastard stepchild of the FAL world. The gun with such questionable lineage that it seems most people will not touch one with a 10 foot pole. That is the Argentine guns shipped by SAC of Latta SC. Again, from reading about these guns in the FAQ, it seems these were imported in two parts and were joined together and sold in the early 90's. How this was done without somebody being arrested is a mystery. They have more than their share of EFPs and have more than enough parts to qualify as an AW.

Here comes the funny part: What if a person took one of these rifles and added enough parts to comply with 922? Let's say the owner added US built charging handle, gas piston, pistol grip, forend and H/T/S? The gun would now have only 10 EFPs but would retain the flash hider. It now would comply with 922. Since it was in the country in an AW configuration prior to 9/94, it would also be exempt from the AWB. That means one could add a folding stock as well.

Am I out of my mind here? Is there something I am missing? How can one go about getting a letter from the BATmen about this? I would love to do this but wouldn't risk it without a legal opinion from the ATF (or whatever the hell they call themselves now). Are there any other bastard type rifle configurations like this around?

EMDII
February 26, 2003, 14:37
My head hurts!
:eek:

Well, let's continue. Have we 'created' new AWs, or have we restored an exempt rifle?

I believe the Law says something about 'grandfathered'. Ergo, the AW had to exist as having met the definition of an AW. What say ye, oh band of Merry Men:?

cliffy109
February 26, 2003, 14:40
That's the rub isn't it? The SAC Argies were "assault weapons" prior to the 1994 ban because of the presence of the flash hider. From everything I have seen, they were not and are not 922 compliant. So, the question becomes, if you make it 922 compliant, can it continue to be an assault rifle?

pbrstreetgangl1a1
February 26, 2003, 15:27
Small Arms Review- Vol. 2 No. 9 and Vol. 3 No. 2.
Legal side
James Bardwell

Q: I have an MAK90 ("sporting", semi-auto, Chinese made, AK style rifle) which a gunsmith installed a folding stock and pistol grip on for me back in 1991. This was before the assault weapons ban of l994. I know the folding stock is one of the "evil" assault weapon features, but it was installed prior to the ban so would it be pre-ban? When Bush banned the import of regular AK's by executive order in 1989(?), was
there any law against adding a pistol grip and folding or regular stock to an MAK90? Didn't it only become illegal to add these features after the 1994 ban? Thanks for your help.

A: There was indeed a time after the administratively imposed ban on importing "unsporting" semi-automatic rifles, imposed by the Bush administration in March, 1989, when it was lawful to reconfigure imported rifles into an unimportable configuration. In other words, it was OK to take the thumbhole stock off the imported AK. style rifle, and put a shoulder stock or folding stock and a separate pistol grip on, as well as to add a bayonet lug, a flash hider or whatever else might have been removed from the gun. On November 30, 1990, in response to a commercial manufacturer assembling AK style rifles out of imported parts using U.S. made receivers. Congress passed, and President Bush signed into law, 18 U.S.C. section 922(r). In relevant part this law prohibits assembling any semi-automatic rifles or shotguns out of imported parts, if the firearm so assembled was identical to one found to be not importable as an unsporting firearm. ATF regulations (27 CFR 178.39) implementing the law state that any semi-automatic rifle with more than 10 imported parts off a list of possible parts in the regulation constitutes a firearm subject to section 922(r). For a more extensive discussion, see the Legal Side column in Small Arms Review, Volume I, Issue II. Rifles assembled into an unsporting configuration before section 922(r) took effect are legal to possess, and if they otherwise meet the definition of a semi-automatic assault weapon, would also be grandfathered semi-automatic asassault weapons pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 922(v)(2).

However, in your case, the folding stock and pistol grip were added in 1991, after section 922(r) was enacted. Arguably, the firearm was assembled in violation of section 922(r), since it is likely that the firearm was not importable with the folding stock, and was apparently made entirely out of imported parts. The hard part about this law is that ATF refuses to publish regulations identifying what is "sporting", and thus acceptable for import, and what is not. There are serious due process problems with a law making it a crime to assemble a rifle into a certain style or configuration, when the government will not also tell people what that style or configuration is. Indeed, what is importable seems to be a changing standard, as ATF has revised the unpublished criteria for what is importable several times since 1989. See the discussion in the Legal Side 1990 column in Small Arms Review, Volume 1, Issuie 11, and Volume 1, Issue 6. I think a criminal prosecution for a violation of section 922(r) would be complicated by the lack of published notice of what is prohibited. In any case, section 922(r) does not prohibit possessing a rifle so assembled, it just prohibits the assembly.(however, a non 922r compliant rifle is still contraband and subject to siezure. -pbr.) You indicate that your rifle has both a pistol grip and a folding stock. These two
features would quality your rifle as a semiautomatic assault rifle, as it is a semi-automatic rifle which takes a detachable magazine, and which has a folding stock and a pistol grip which protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon. A rifle assembled as a semi-automatic assault weapon before the prohibition on such firearms was enacted, on September13, 1994, is grandfathered pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 922(v)(2). That section only grandfathers weapons "lawfully possessed" on the date the law went into effect. While your rifle may have been unlawfully assembled, I am aware of no prohibition on possessing that rifle, and
thus I think it would be a grandfathered semi-automatic assault weapon.

Q: In Vol. 2 No. 9 The Legal Side addressed an interesting question involving 18 U.S.C. sections 922(r) and (v) in reference to a MAK-90. As you pointed out assembling a semi-automatic weapon from "imported parts" that is not "importable" is a violation of 18 U.S.C. section 922(r). I have a follow up question. Is there a statute of limitations on such an act of assembly - could the gunsmith in question be prosecuted some eight years later? In a related matter concerning 18 U.S.C. section 922(v). I have heard that a receiver and parts needed to complete a semi-automatic assault weapon that was possessed prior to the enactment of this section is grandfathered. How would this apply to a MAK-90. Thank you for addressing is matter and for your fine publication.

A: The statute of limitations on violtions of 18 U.S.C. section 922(r) is 5 years. The general statute of lmitations found at 18 U.S.C. section 3282 is the one applicable to prosecution of criminal violations of the Gun Control Act. If the assembly was done more than 5 years ago then the time for prosecution has run out.
As to the status of parts kits, ATF has decided that, “semi-automatic assault weapons in knockdown (disassembled) condition consisting of a receiver and all parts needed to assemble a complete semi-
automatic assault weapons are subject to regulation if the parts are segregated or packaged together and held by a person as the parts for the assembly of a particular firearm. " See the answer to question 02, page. III, "Federal Firearms Regulations Reference Guide, " ATF P 5300.4 (10-95), commonly called the ATF
"Yellow Book. " An updated guide to federal firearms laws should be out very soon, and will replace this one, which has a yellow cover.

Thus an MAK-90, a "sporting" thumbhole stocked, Chinese made AK style semi-auto rifle, which was possessed as an unassembled set of parts necessary to assemble it as a semi-automatic assault weapon could be grandfathered under 18 U.S. C. section 922(v)(2), without any violation of section 922(r). However, while it might be a grandfathered semi-auto assault weapon, it could still not be assembled without violating section 922(r). Indeed, it couldn't now even be assembled into the configuration it was in when it was imported - semi-auto rifles which take a so-called large capacity military magazine have been declared to be unsporting, although they were sporting at the time the MAK-90 was imported. It could be assembled if enough parts on the rifle were replaced with U.S. made parts so that ATF considered it to be United States made and not imported. It could also be assembled if registered as a short barreled rifle; short
barreled rifles are not subject to section 922(r), although they are subject to section 922(v), which the rifle in question would be exempted from, as a grandfathered firearm. See the Legal Side column Volume I, Issue II, for a more extensive discussion of how to avoid section 922(r) by replacing imported parts with United States made parts, and for information on the unsporting nature of imported semi-auto rifles which take large capacity military magazines.

sorry, had to do some work. came back and edited.
credit should go to ekie. exerpted from an ak.net thread. my highlights.

in my comment above i misspoke. i had meant to type:
"however, a non 922r compliant rifle may still be contraband and subject to siezure. -pbr."

i do not wish to portray myself as any kind of authority on this issue. meerly a seeker of knowledge.
:bow: :bow:

cliffy109
February 26, 2003, 15:40
Holy Crap! I think I found the answer in all of that but it still isn't as clear as I would want.

"However, in your case, the folding stock and pistol grip were added in 1991, after section 922(r) was enacted. Arguably, the firearm was assembled in violation of section 922(r), since it is likely that the firearm was not importable with the folding stock, and was apparently made entirely out of imported parts. "

"It could be assembled if enough parts on the rifle were replaced with U.S. made parts so that ATF considered it to be United States made and not imported."

Where did you find all of this? The second question refrences more details on working around 922 in Volume I, Issue II. I would really appreciate it if you could tell me a link for this stuff.

Did I open a can of worms?

pbrstreetgangl1a1
February 26, 2003, 18:14
the "volume 1, issue 2" stuff is just the u.s. parts list we are already familiar with.

my understanding:

*a weapon assembled in violation of 922r, prior to sept 13, 1994, with "assault weapon" features; and then subsequently put into compliance of 922r- is a grand fathered assault weapon.
also, time as run out for a 922r prosecution.*

i am not a lawyer. we will not know for sure 'till some unfortunate goes to court.

flight 556
February 26, 2003, 19:04
As I ask you in the for sale forum, how much is the fmap? That way we can tell you if the rifle is worth it. Simple answer to your question, just add the US parts and be done with it. It is not a preban and will only become that way if the AW ban sunsets. If the imported parts are 10 or less, the point is moot.

cliffy109
February 27, 2003, 20:00
Flight556,

That really isn't the point. the guy wanted $1400 which I think is a bit much for something that needs $150 worth of parts to be 522 compliant. The basis for my question was that it seems that this type of rifle is a real odd ball because it is post 89/90 ban but pre 94 ban. I can think of no other imported rifle that matches this description and it presents the possibility of being able to add a para stock legally. Taht seems to be the same opinion as pbrstreetgangl1a1 has expressed but, as he said, he isn't a lawyer and neither am I.

How does one get a legal opinion from the ATF? Also, these refrences to volumes and number, what are they refrencing? Volume 1 of what?

BTW, thanks to those who have weighed in on this.

pbrstreetgangl1a1
February 28, 2003, 11:39
cliffy109- these refrences to volumes and number, what are they refrencing? Volume 1 of what?

small arms review. great mag get a subscription.


How does one get a legal opinion from the ATF?

a. see them in court.
b. write them a letter asking a specific question.
..1.you may not like their answer.(one can go gray waiting for a response)
..2.a judge or jury may not agree with them.

i may not be an attorney, but fwiw, James Bardwell esq. -the writer of that article- is.
it was published in a major gun publication.

Pa. Patriot
March 01, 2003, 11:19
Not real pertinent to your Q but -

Originally posted by cliffy109
...
2. The 1994 AWB bans ownership of "assault weapons" which is defined as a semi-automatic firearm with more than two of the following features: protruding pistol grip, detachable magazine, folding or telescoping stock, bayonet lug and flash hider. Guns built prior to 9/94 were exempted.


Not exactly.

Semi auto with the ability to accept a detachable high cap magazine
Plus more than one of the features from the list.....

Big difference.

cliffy109
March 01, 2003, 11:21
Originally posted by Pa. Patriot
Not real pertinent to your Q but -




Not exactly.

Semi auto with the ability to accept a detachable high cap magazine
Plus more than one of the features from the list.....

Big difference.

<sigh> Big difference yes, but not germaine to this discussion.

Ekie
March 12, 2003, 20:09
Yeah cliffy109, you a purdy darn close to what the law says. One thing though, in order for a rifle to be grandfathered under 18 USC section 922(v)(2) there is no requirement that said rifle needed to be assembled in compliance with 18 USC section 922(r). James Bardwell covers this topic better then I can, see above post by pbrstreetgangl1a1 of James addressing this very question. Just substitute the word FMAP for MAK90.

D. Lehrman

You know more about these particular FMAPs then I do, but I could of swore some where in circulation prior to 09-14-94. I keep my old SGNs so could look it up?

Blag
March 13, 2003, 06:03
Originally posted by cliffy109
1. The 89/90 import ban which is enforced by the infamous 922(r). ...

The import ban is actually 925(d)(3).

922(r) prohibits domestic assembly, from imported parts, of a rifle identical to one banned from import by 925(d)(3). The obvious purpose there, is to avoid having people simply take a rifle apart for import, then put it back together again.

The "10 parts" rule is not a law of Congress, but rather an executive regulation used to distinguish which rifles are imported, and which are domestic manufacture, for administrative purposes. The 10 parts rule is much broader than 922(r) since it applies to domestic manufacture in general.

2. The 1994 AWB bans ownership of "assault weapons" which is defined as ... Guns built prior to 9/94 were exempted. ...

<B>Some</B> guns were exempted. An exempt gun is any "semiautomatic assault weapon otherwise lawfully possessed under Federal law" on the date of enactment.

Now, in order to be exempted, one had to demonstrate that the gun was an "AW" prior to 9/94.

AND that it was lawfully possessed. It would be interesting to hear an argument that an illegal rifle is lawfully possessed.

... the Argentine guns shipped by SAC of Latta SC. ... these were imported in two parts and were joined together and sold in the early 90's.

The reassembly was unlawful under 922(r).

What if a person took one of these rifles and added enough parts to comply with 922?

Again, the "parts count" rule is regulatory, not statutory.

The reassembly of the rifle was in violation of 922. Compliance with an executive regulation does not negate non-compliance with statutory laws of Congress.

By analogy, a stolen car does not become legal just because you adjust it to pass an EPA emissions test.

The idea involved here is to play off regulations against statutes, for one's own benefit. Rotsa ruck. I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that the courts generally take a very dim view of that sort of thing.

Faced with a conflict between regulation and statute, the courts will side with the statute every time, and at that point you're hosed.

The mere fact that the rifle was assembled in violation of 922(r) is enough to make it contraband. Paint it any color you want, the authorities could still take it. The rifle has a bad case of "original sin."

The proper approach to handling the imported <B>parts</B> - the two halves of the rifle - would have been to take either half of the rifle, not both halves together, and build a new, domestic-made rifle in compliance with all the existing laws, adding U.S. parts as necessary. Then it could have been a lawfully possessed assault weapon, or actually two weapons, and they could have both been grandfathered under the AW ban.

The schmucks who just reassembled the rifles not only missed out on having a legal preban, they missed out on having TWO legal prebans - one from each half of the original. Idiots.

Ekie
March 13, 2003, 08:14
Hey Blag,

"The "10 parts" rule is not a law of Congress, but rather an executive regulation used to distinguish which rifles are imported, and which are domestic manufacture, for administrative purposes. The 10 parts rule is much broader than 922(r) since it applies to domestic manufacture in general."

The "10 parts" is 18 USC section 922(r), or more precisely, it's implementing regulations found in 27 CFR Part 178.39. 18 USC section 922(r) was passed by a Democrat Congress and was veto proof. There is no mythical Bush Executive Order (EO) on firearms, I call this urban legend EO 10-10-321 and then the number.

"The mere fact that the rifle was assembled in violation of 922(r) is enough to make it contraband. Paint it any color you want, the authorities could still take it. The rifle has a bad case of "original sin."

In court, contraband is something in which possession is prohibited in United States Code, possessing a rifle built in violation of 18 USC section 922(r) is not illegal, cuz there is nothing in USC that says so. Now, in a thread on the Internet it might just be a original sin violation, not sure about that though.

Tell you what, go back to pbrstreetgangl1a1 post and read what James Bardwell has to say about this very subject. Have you guys not read it, to long to read or what?

Ekie
March 13, 2003, 08:16
Here is a short legal guide, hope it helps:

Very short run down on Federal firearms law, regulation, rulings, etc governing semiautomatic rifles (not covering machine guns, AOWs, or destructive devices).

1934 NFA

No longer can have a barrel shorter then 16" measured from the bolt face to the muzzle, or full auto without paying tax. Rather then ban such weapons it was easier to simply tax them.

1968 Gun Control Act (GCA), specifically 18 U.S.C. section 925(d)(3)

This is a BIG one, but very little of it deals with semiautomatic rifles specifically, compared to the vast size of this thing. Congress delegates authority to the Secretary of the Treasury powers to govern imports of firearms thru policy, found in 18 U.S.C. section 925(d)(3). Specifically, the Secretary is given the ability to restrict firearms that he considers nonsporting. No criteria is set for what sporting is, and no guidelines are set saying that any established criteria be made public. There was also a provision that barrels and receivers for unsporting firearms were not importable. The original idea here was to limit the availability of cheap imported hand guns for the economically challenged (i.e. problematic African Americans)

1989 policy change, commonly known as the 89 Bush Ban

The Bush administration directs the Secretary to find that low and behold there are unsporting firearms being imported right under our noses. This was not a new law, regulation, ruling or executive order as is commonly reported. At this point Form 6's (import permits for firearms) are denied for our ugly guns, under 18 U.S.C. section 925(d)(3). No criteria is released stating what is good and what is bad other then a huge "report" put out by the ATF which consisted of a bunch of mumbo jumbo, and later a list of specific models in letter format, neither of which was ever put out as regulation or ruling by the ATF. Remember this is not a law banning anything it is simply a government policy shift where by permits are denied for imports, so calling it the 89 ban is a misnomer, the 89 import restriction would be a better name for it. This was a rather odd situation. Permits were approved for some of our rifles but with strings attached on the importer saying that they would only be sold to law enforcement or other favored Americans like Government employees. Again the idea here was to limit the circulation of cheap and effective firearms among undesirables, such as the economically challenged.

Colt’s Firearms Division does a ooops

At the same time Colt's stopped selling AR-15 rifles to the general public. It was still legal to possess, transfer, and manufacture but Colt's would not sell (one of those brilliant Colt’s marketing decisions). Colt's went belly up and came back as Colt’s Manufacturing and resumed sales to the public with a kinder and gentler version called the Sporter in 1991. Colt’s continued to sell AR-15 marked rifles such as the Colt’s AR-15A2 Government Carbine, or 6520, but Colt’s made a serious effort to restrict their transfer to non favored Americans.

Capitalism responds

The patent to the AR-15 had long run out, and after Colt's got weird about sales Bushmaster, PWA, SGW, Eagle, etc all jump in to take up the slack.

Volmer ended up getting caught in a scam where a Nation Guard officer filled out the paper work to get "post 89" AUG's from GSI who was importing them. Then Volmer would buy the rifles and sell them to the general public because it was simply not illegal for us to possess these unsporting firearms. If I remember right Volmer got off, and the officer ended up in trouble for filing fraudulent paper work. No one got into trouble for mere possession of these weapons, cause it would be another five years before possession was addressed or the definition of semiautomatic assault weapons is defined. In short unsporting rifles were legal to own but Form 6 approval could not he had without strings attached.

B-West begins importing Chinese Type 56 parts kits into the US and assembling them on locally made receivers, thus putting the semiautomatic Kalashnikov back on the US market. They end up getting shut down, something about the actual manufacturer of the receiver not having a proper Federal manufacturing licence, in other words they did not have their ducks in a row.

Importers find that they can get Form 6 approval for really ugly looking butt hole mutant rifles, cause some how these rifles are sporting and thus importable. There is still no published criteria for what is sporting. Seems that any rifle is okay as long as it has a butt hole stock, and nothing more then a muzzle nut on the end. Many rifles are brought in with simple tack welds holding these on and some with nothing at all. Bayonet lugs seem to be bad too but, again some rifles are brought in with them.
Rather then simply building and selling semiautomatic rifles in their original configuration as B-West did some importers would offer the parts along with the mutant rifles. Springfield had such an offer for their SAR-4800 (a IMBEL manufactured FAL) and was called a "compact accurizing package" this included a folding stock. The end user would install it himself, this was legal to do because there was no law, regulation, ruling, or case law that said you could not.

1990 18 U.S.C. section 922(r)
Congress reacts to all this funny business by passing a new bill that Bush signs into law. It states that it is illegal to assemble a un importable firearm from imported parts, or more specificattly makes it illegal to build any firearm prohibited from importation under 18 U.S.C. section 9235(d)(3). There is still no criteria listed for what is unsporting and thus importable in law, regulation, ruling, etc. Remember guys, wording is important in law, it only makes the act of assembly illegal, possession, and transfer are not covered here. There was much argument about what was meant by imported parts. One could read the law as did the NRA to mean that as long as there was one non-imported part on a rifle it could not be construed to be made of imported parts. The ATF went as far as to tell Kokalis that mere insertion of a 30 round mag into a MAK-90 was worth some jail time. So anyway were still free to possess and transfer newly converted rifles, such as say a SAR-4800 with a "compact accurizing package" installed, the illegal act was the actual assembly.

Well since this law is so vague ATF writes regulation (178.39) that spells out the 10 parts rule in 1993 that spells out what imported parts means. It states that only 10 imported parts are allowed in a unsporting imported firearm. The odd part is that the Federal Firearms Regulation Guide that is circulated by the ATF is put out in 1990 and is to late to include this in it. This new law and regulation shows up in the 1995 Guide. During the interim many rifles are built at home from imported parts without concern to parts count.

The biggest obstacle for enforcing this law (note there are no known 922(r) prosecutions even thought the law is now 12 years old) is that it prohibits the assembly of a certain firearms that don’t pass the sporting clause found in 18 U.S.C. section 925(d)(3) but such a firearm is not defined in law, regulation, or ruling, and may well never be defined in such manor, because it is much more fun to change the rules as you go along. So how can you prosecute someone for building a rifle that is prohibited in 925(d)(3) when there is no description or definition of these firearms in law, regulation, or ruling?

1994 Policy change, Chinese fun is over

Chinese ugly guns no longer approved for import effective 05-27-94.

1994 Crime Bill; 18 U.S.C. section 922(v)

Contained within the crime bill is a restriction of possession, transfer and manufacture of "semiautomatic assault rifles" to law enforcement only. At this point the evil semiauto rifle is defined by Federal Law. In short it is a semiauto rifle that accepts a detachable mag and has more then one of the following really disgusting (evil is the usual used buzz word) features (abbreviated version):

bayonet mount
grenade launcher
flash hider or a barrel with threads designed to accept a flash hider
folding or collapsing stock
pistol grip beneath the action (ATF says this includes butt hole stocks)

There is contained within this law only two good things. First it expires after ten years. Second it does not apply to semiautomatic assault rifles legally possessed on Sept 13th, 1994 (grandfathered).

Keep in mind that in order for a rifle to be grandfathered there is only one requirement, that it was legally possessed on 09-14-94. There are many other made up requirements heard at gun shows, the Internet, strange ATF letters, etc, that will tell you that there is more then just this one requirement. Some examples of made up requirements not found in law, regulation, or ruling include:

the rifle needs to have been assembled in compliance with 18 U.S.C. section 922(r)

the rifle must have been an semiautomatic assault rifle on 09-14-94 and every day there after

an imported rifle needs to be "pre-89", or "pre-Bush ban" to be grandfathered

you must have a note from your mother in the butt trap stating that this rifle is compliant

a Bushmaster will loose it’s grandfathered status if not waxed on the first on every month

etc, etc, yadda, yadda, ding dong......................

1995 domestic production fires back up

Domestic production starts up again with new neutered semiautos such as the Colt's Match Target, and the Oly PCR.
1996 Policy change, Russian's cut off at the pass
A list is published stating only a certain firearms will be approved for import into the US. Only the ones named are allowed (will post if any one care what they are).

1997 Policy change, the screws tighten on imports, Clinton brings on the big guns

Clinton thru his puppet the Secretary takes action with the authority given to them in the 1968 GCA to further restrict the import of our cool guns on Nov 14, 1997. Sounds familiar huh? At this point no Form 6's are approved, as in for our stuff, ya know those butt hole mutants we had gotten the last 8 years. Sometime after April 6th, 1998 imports are again allowed. Again the Secretary is not required to tell us what is good and what is bad. Again he does not. There was confusion on what was importable. FEG, CUGIR, and Maadi managed to get some low cap Kalashnikovs in that BOMBED big time. General confusion reigns for awhile.

1998/1999 Capitalism responds with their own Y2K plan

Due to our demand for cool imported rifles not being met by the mutants being brought in a new game plan is put into effect on a massive scale just in time for Y2K. Being that you can not get a approved Form 6 for a rifle that you can talk anyone into buying, we now see US parts being added. Now with a imported parts count of 10 or less you can build what ever you want as long as it is not a semiauto assault rifle. DSA, Century, Hesse, and Enterprise all jump in selling these rifles to the public.

2000 ATF releases guidelines for what a unsporting imported rifle is

A little late huh, and on top of that it is found in the "information" section, and is not law, regulation, ruling or what ever, and as such is subject to change in the event of a political shift.

2000 dying gasp power grab by the Clintanestas

Last minute move by the Clinton's Secretary just in time for the Democratic Convention a new policy is enacted effecting approval of Form 6's. Effective on August 17th, 2000 import permits for barrels and receiver of unsporting rifles are no longer approved. This move was set up back in 1968.

2001 Administration change act one

Form 6 approval is speeded up. Approval is granted for pistols we have not seen in awhile.

2001 administrative change act two

ATF announces that barrels and receivers for un sporting rifles can be brought in if they are for replacement and not for a new rifle, and the importer paper work says such. The end user (as in you and me) is free to build a new rifle with it though. So the parts kits again pour in.

2002 administrative change act three

To be announced?

I did not cover the policy governing the importation of US service rifles such as the M1 Garand, these have changed many times and I must admit that I do not know the current rules other then you can’t bring any in, which is all you need to know.

Blag
March 13, 2003, 13:17
Originally posted by Ekie
...The "10 parts" is 18 USC section 922(r), ...

Not true. As I stated, the 10 parts requirement is an executive regulation.

...or more precisely, it's implementing regulations found in 27 CFR Part 178.39.

And suddenly you agree with me. Make up your mind.

CFR is the Code of Federal Regulations. It is not laws passed by Congress, it is executive branch regulations.

There is no mythical Bush Executive Order (EO) on firearms, ...

I haven't the slightest idea what you're babbling about.

Or, perhaps - I'll take a guess - are you confusing my reference to the executive branch of government with a reference to the Executive himself?

In court, contraband is something in which possession is prohibited in United States Code, ...

922 states that the rifle is unlawful. 922 is United States Code, the laws of Congress.

When a prohibited rifle is imported in pieces, then simply reassembled, that is a clear violation of the law, with no parts count required.

Go ahead and run your argument by me, in detail, about lawful possession, under U.S. law, of an object which is unlawful under U.S. law. Do you have any precedents on that? How would you argue that in court?

Tell you what, go back to pbrstreetgangl1a1 post ...

Tell you what, go back to my post, and try again. I know my post was a little long.
:p

Ekie
March 13, 2003, 15:37
Ah, okay, I follow you on executive regulations.

"Go ahead and run your argument by me, in detail, about lawful possession, under U.S. law, of an object which is unlawful under U.S. law. Do you have any precedents on that? How would you argue that in court?"

Well no it don't work like that. It works like this, in order for it to be illegal to own something, there must be a law that says such. So the burden is on you to find a law that says possession of a rifle assembled in violation of 18 USC section 922(r) is illegal. If there was such a law you could point it out to us, then we would know that such a rifle could not be grandfathered under 18 USC section 922(v)(2) because it must have been legally owned. Good luck to you, hehehe.

BTW before going on the wild goose chase looking for a non existant law, you might go back and read what James Bardwell has to say about this legal issue, matter of fact pbrstreetgangl1a1 has posted it above.

Come on guys, is James Bardwell’s statements to hard to read, or to long, or you guys just freaking lazy or what the heck? I mean gee whiz 18 USC section 922(r) is 12 years old and you guys are still have not noticed that it has the word assembly in it, but not possession or transfer. Lets get up to speed. Sorry, bit of a rant, but this after a decade or so this is getting really old.

For those to lazy to read the whole thing, here the good part:

“In any case, section 922(r) does not prohibit possessing a rifle so assembled, it just prohibits the assembly.”

Xenophon
March 13, 2003, 15:54
THIS is 922(l)

(l) Except as provided in section 925(d) of this chapter, it shall be unlawful for any person knowingly to import or bring into the United States or any possession thereof any firearm or ammunition; and it shall be unlawful for any person knowingly
to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been imported or brought into the United States or any possession thereof in violation of the provisions of this chapter.

Since 'this chapter' includes 922(r), I believe we have a checkmate. Violation IMO.

And here are the penalties:
§ 924. Penalties
(a)(1) Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, subsection (b), (c), or (f) of this section, or in section 929, whoever -

(C) knowingly imports or brings into the United States or any possession thereof any firearm or ammunition in violation of section 922(l); or
(D) willfully violates any other provision of this chapter,
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

Ekie
March 13, 2003, 17:04
(l) Except as provided in section 925(d) of this chapter, it shall be unlawful for any person knowingly to import or bring into the United States or any possession thereof any firearm or ammunition; and it shall be unlawful for any person knowingly
to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been imported or brought into the United States or any possession thereof in violation of the provisions of this chapter.

So which provision of this chapter would be violated in possession of a rifle assembled in violation of 922(r), hmm, or in other words what is the charge?

Ekie
March 13, 2003, 17:14
BTW, would think I would not have to say this, but looks like I need to. You see, in this here country, that being the good ole USA, in order for it to be illegal to possess an object, there must be a law that says so. Ya follow me here (big hand puppets), when there is a law that says you can not own something, we call it illegal, you all catching on here, am typing slow. So lets say we want to make possession of widgets illegal, well we are going to need a law, so you would write a bill that says something like "possession of widgets is prohibited" and then make it law. Ah it is all becoming more clear, no?

So, now this is the part where you guys that misunderstand 18 U.S.C. section 922(r) point us out to the law that say possession of a firearm assembled in violation of 18 U.S.C. section 922(r) is prohibited. Or better yet show me the word possession in 18 U.S.C. section 922(r). That is what a judge is going to want to see. James Bardwell would like to see that too, as would I, must be invisible ink in our copies. Who knows, maybe you guys know U.S.C. better then Bardwell, MOHAHAHAHAHA.

hippy
March 13, 2003, 21:33
this question came up in another thread. "Can I legally take my 1991 AR-15 clone, which orginally had no flash suppressor and no bayo lug, and add pre ban features legally." There seems to be a concensus that you can configure a rifle as pre ban, if it was an AW prior to the ban. But people use this argument to say you can't add a FH, or telescoping stock etc. to an ar that didn't meed the features test to qualify as an AW and thus be grandfathered. It occurs to me that you are neglecting that the AR and FAL and their respective 'clones' were listed as AW in the ban regardless of any qualifying features. They made that special list of a dozen or so rifles that were just inherently evil without any of the features of an assault rifle. I believe the BATF would be upset if you took your 1991 Ruger 10/22 and put a folding stock, flash hider and bayonet on it because the 10/22 and it's 'clones' were not among the super evil rifles listed by feinstein and her friends as AW. The AR seems like a more solid case than an FAL to me though, because it could have been assembled legally with a flash suppressor and so on originally with no problems, however your FAL had to be neutered to get in the country. Of course, if you had replaced the 7 parts with US then, couldn't you then have added the FH, bayonnet and para stock if you wanted (assuming you did this pre sep 94)? Who really knows, maybe the BATF, but probably not. I would argue that you could because you own an FAL, or rather LAR (also named specifically as banned in the 94AW ban) type rifle that was manufactured prior to the ban. Maybe you need to find a pre-ban gas piston, butt stock, PG, handguards and HTS. Then you could argue that it would have been possible to assemble the rifle legally with the parts you used pre-94. Basically, argue that assemblage does not equal manufacturing.

Ekie
March 13, 2003, 23:12
Hippy, well you got a very good point indeed, the problem with your logic is that is does not extend to the Courts, which is were it matters. Rather then typing out another long post I will just quote Bardwell:

"The definition of "semiautomatic assault weapon" is the heart
of the law. It is also sure to be in court, as it has language
that has already been voided in previous challenges to other
assault weapon ban laws. In the 6th circuit court of appeals
decision in Springfield Armory v. Columbus, 29 F.3d 250 (6th Cir.
1994), that court struck down a ban on listed guns very similar to
this, as well as a ban on "copies" as being vague. That court
suggested a criteria test, also in this law, would pass muster
under the standards they were applying. The Colorado Supreme court
decision in Robertson v. Denver, 874 P.2d 325 (Colo. 1994), a
challenge to the city of Denver assault weapon ordinance, also
struck down one of the "assault pistol" criteria here, guns derived
from automatic weapons, as being too vague. The court said it was
unreasonable to expect gun owners to know or research the design
history of their guns. The court in the Columbus case agreed with
that logic, and also struck down a similar clause of the Columbus
ordinance. Both this law, and the Denver and first Columbus
ordinances are based, more or less, on the California Roberti-Roos
assault weapons law.

Additionally, some of the "listed" guns either aren't semi-
autos (e.g., the "Steyr AUG" is a machine gun, the semi-auto is the AUG-SA), or aren't the names of guns sufficient to identify them.
For example, the "Colt AR-15"; no such gun was ever made by Colt,
the only gun ever made whose name was "AR-15" that I have been able
to track down was the first prototype M-16 machine guns made by the
ArmaLite division of Fairchild. Some M-16 machine guns were marked
"AR-15 Model 614"; early Colt made semi-auto rifles are marked" AR-
15 Model SP1". No Colt gun was ever called just "AR-15", to my
knowledge. The "Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat
Kalashnikovs (all models)" clause is gibberish. All of these
either don't ban anything, or are too vague to be enforceable.
BATF apparently agrees, they have approved the sale of, as non
"semiautomatic assault weapons", AR type rifles, including ones
made by Colt, that have only one bad feature, a pistol grip. They
have approved the sale of a SWD M11/9 gun, called the PM11/9, which
is the same as the banned gun except it has an unthreaded barrel,
and a 10 round magazine. It also has a different way of latching
the mag than the M11/9. Likewise Intratec has gotten approval for
a version of the TEC-22 called the "Sport 22", that doesn't have a
threaded barrel, and comes with a 10 round magazine. Intratec has
also gotten approval for the AB10, a pistol that is essentially the
TEC-DC9M, except that it has no threads. The DC9 type, with its
barrel shroud, is apparently successfully banned. I am unsure why
the slide on most pistols (except perhaps the Beretta 84, 85 and 92
and similar copies) is not a "shroud". But what do I know. AK and
AKM copies, mutilated so as to not appear to be of the
semiautomatic assault weapon type (see the discussion of 922(r),
above) were also imported after 9/13/94. As were sporterized
copies of the HK91, from Greece and Portugal. Inclusion on the
list, even when the model actually exists, is meaningless, as
banning "copies" is unconstitutionally vague, according to the 6th
circuit in the Columbus case, and one need only change it a bit,
and change the actual name, and it is off the list."

www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/semi_auto_faq.txt"

Ekie
March 13, 2003, 23:16
For those of you that have a hard time following along, here is the good part:

"Inclusion on the list, even when the model actually exists, is meaningless, as banning "copies" is unconstitutionally vague, according to the 6th circuit in the Columbus case, and one need only change it a bit, and change the actual name, and it is off the list"

Blag
March 13, 2003, 23:35
Originally posted by Ekie
Well no it don't work like that.

Yes, it does work like that. The law expressly states the rifle is illegal.

So, let's hear your argument for lawful possession of an illegal item. All you're doing is running away from the question.

And if you would actually read what pbr posted - I know it's rather long and may exceed your attention span, but give it a try anyway - you would notice his editorial comment that the rifle is contraband.

You are trying to pretend a federal law doesn't mean anything. You should know better than that.

Blag
March 13, 2003, 23:57
Originally posted by Warrior-Poet
THIS is 922(l)
(l) Except as provided in section 925(d) of this chapter, it shall be unlawful for any person knowingly to import or bring into the United States or any possession thereof any firearm or ammunition; and it shall be unlawful for any person knowingly to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been imported or brought into the United States or any possession thereof in violation of the provisions of this chapter.

The emphasis you added is incorrect. In the phrase "the United States or any possession thereof" the "possession thereof" part means something like Guam. It means territorial possessions of the U.S.

"Unlawful for any person knowingly to receive" is the relevant part, for this discussion.

And 922(l) is quite interesting, thanks for mentioning it. It makes ignorance an excuse. The informed buyer is breaking the law; the ignorant buyer is not.

So for anybody anticipating the purchase of one of those SAC FALs, the best advice is probably -- stop reading this thread, and pretend you never heard of the issue! If you don't know about the SAC FALs then you can legally receive them, at least under 922(l).
:cool:

Blag
March 14, 2003, 00:13
Originally posted by Ekie
BTW, would think I would not have to say this, but looks like I need to. You see, in this here country, that being the good ole USA, in order for it to be illegal to possess an object, there must be a law that says so. ...

You're mixed up again. Where the law says it's illegal to possess an object, the person himself becomes liable for fine or imprisonment for his act of possession. Compare laws about marijuana possession - the person is subject to arrest, etc.

But where only the object is illegal, the person himself is not subject to fine or imprisonment, however, the object is subject to confiscation. It's the difference between possession being criminal, and possession merely being denied.

Ekie
March 14, 2003, 00:25
“Yes, it does work like that. The law expressly states the rifle is illegal.”

Yes, assemble, not possess, the word possess is not in 18 USC section 922(r).

”So, let's hear your argument for lawful possession of an illegal item.”

That is not the argument, need I restate it? The argument is that it is legal to own things unless the law says other wise, and the law as in 18 USC section 922(r) does not cover possession.

“All you're doing is running away from the question.”

Before we can address the question, you need to produce the law that states possession is illegal. It will be required by the judge. So why for you no produce (kid in the back has hand up anxiously, “ask me, ask me”), because it no exist.

”And if you would actually read what pbr posted - I know it's rather long and may exceed your attention span, but give it a try anyway - you would notice his editorial comment that the rifle is contraband.”

Yeah, I caught that, if you take a closer look, you will see that his editorial comment is contrary to what James Bardwell said. Hand puppets here, James says:

“section 922(r) does not prohibit possessing a rifle so assembled, it just prohibits the assembly.”

Pbr says:

“(however, a non 922r compliant rifle is still contraband and subject to siezure. -pbr.)”

Now, one is correct and the other is not. I am going with James Bardwell on this, cuz his stance reflects the wording of 18 USC section 922(r) while yours and pbr’s does not.

”You are trying to pretend a federal law doesn't mean anything. You should know better than that.”

Huh, well, how about we just read it, it says:

“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..”

Note that the law does not cover possession. Hmm, how about that?

That is the best hand puppets I done got guys, if you can not follow along with what the laws says, and what myself and James Bardwell have wrote about it, then I can only conclude that your are either slow, or you want to believe something other then the truth. I use to believe that the misunderstanding involving USC in reference to firearms laws was only due to ignorance.

Ekie
March 14, 2003, 00:35
"You're mixed up again. Where the law says it's illegal to possess an object, the person himself becomes liable for fine or imprisonment for his act of possession. Compare laws about marijuana possession - the person is subject to arrest, etc.

But where only the object is illegal, the person himself is not subject to fine or imprisonment, however, the object is subject to confiscation. It's the difference between possession being criminal, and possession merely being denied."

Nice angle, but 922(r) does not say the rifle is illegal. It only states that the act of assembly is illegal. Once again, here is what it actually says:

“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..”

Hmm, don't say nothing about illegal objects either does it?

You got a secret copy of this law don't you, cuz you are not reading the same one I am. Must be in the Pharisee's guide to gun compliance. Since you are not going to produce it, I will write it myself, is this close:

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, and low to him that is found to possess such a defiled rifle, for he shall be judged accursed and be stoned..

Blag
March 14, 2003, 01:08
Originally posted by hippy
this question came up in another thread. "Can I legally take my 1991 AR-15 clone, which orginally had no flash suppressor and no bayo lug, and add pre ban features legally." There seems to be a concensus that you can configure a rifle as pre ban, if it was an AW prior to the ban. But people use this argument to say you can't add a FH, or telescoping stock etc. to an ar that didn't meed the features test to qualify as an AW and thus be grandfathered. ...

It is correct that the law does not apply the features test to the named firearms, or to "copies or duplicates" thereof. If a rifle was <I>known as</I> a "Colt AR-15," for example, at the time of the law's passage, it is expressly a semiautomatic assault weapon, and no features test applies.

The same would be true of any rifle which is a <I>known</I> copy or duplicate of a listed rifle.

You would need evidence that the rifle was so known. The evidence could be manufacturer's brochures, gun catalog listings, magazine or newspaper articles, etc. from 1994 or earlier.

The Congressional debates before the law's passage could also be evidence, if the bill's advocates defended the list of names, and used the names on the list. This would be the best evidence that certain rifles were "known as" such-and-such by Congress.

With good evidence that the rifle was "known as" one of those on the list, or was a known "copy or duplicate," the features description becomes irrelevant, and features may be added or removed as one pleases. Changing the features would not make any difference to rifle's legal status. The rifle would still be a preban assault weapon, under the law, whether it has a bayonet or not, etc.

A person would need good evidence for "known as." That's the key thing.

Blag
March 14, 2003, 01:46
Originally posted by Ekie
...That is not the argument, need I restate it? ...

Yes, that is the argument. You're claiming lawful possession of an unlawful item.

...you need to produce the law that states possession is illegal.

You still don't understand the point. Illegal possession would mean the person would be subject to fine or imprisonment. I've already told you that.

An illegal object can be confiscated. The person can be denied possession, but not (otherwise) penalized for that possession.

You're confused between mere possession, and illegal possession. Those are two different things.

... if you take a closer look, you will see that his [pbr's] editorial comment is contrary to what James Bardwell said.

No, it isn't. You don't understand the subject.

Now, one is correct and the other is not.

You're incorrect, the remarks are not contradictory.

“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), ...

And if you would actually read 925(d)(3) you would find the following-

"(d) The Secretary shall authorize a firearm or ammunition to be imported or brought into the United States ... if the firearm or ammunition -
... (3) is of a type ... generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes, ..., except in any case where the Secretary has not authorized the importation of the firearm pursuant to this paragraph, it shall be unlawful to import any frame, receiver, or barrel of such firearm which would be prohibited if assembled."

If a firearm is not authorized to be imported, but nevertheless it was, then it is not legal for it to be in the United States. Items that are imported illegally are contraband and are subject to seizure.

You are trying to argue that the laws of Congress are meaningless, and you are badly mistaken.

if you can not follow along with what the laws says, and what myself and James Bardwell have wrote about it,

You and Bardwell?!? And you put yourself first?!?

:rofl:

For you to mention yourself and Bardwell together in that way is ridiculous. How silly are you trying to make yourself look?

What Bardwell "have wrote" makes some sense; what you "have wrote" doesn't. You don't even know what we're talking about.

But thanks for the puppet show and the comic relief.

Blag
March 14, 2003, 01:52
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ekie
... but 922(r) does not say the rifle is illegal. [QUOTE]

922(r) is not the whole law. ;)

Ekie
March 14, 2003, 02:04
“Yes, that is the argument. You're claiming lawful possession of an unlawful item.”

Where does it say the item is unlawfull, hmm?

“You still don't understand the point. Illegal possession would mean the person would be subject to fine or imprisonment. I've already told you that.”

Yep

”An illegal object can be confiscated. The person can be denied possession, but not (otherwise) penalized for that possession.”

Illegal object huh, where you find that? Don’t see that in law.

”You're confused between mere possession, and illegal possession. Those are two different things.”

So, what is your point?

“You're incorrect, the remarks are not contradictory.”

If you disregard what 18 USC section 922(r) says you would be dead on.

“If a firearm is not authorized to be imported, but nevertheless it was, then it is not legal for it to be in the United States. Items that are imported illegally are contraband and are subject to seizure.”

Dead nut dead on the money, quoted law to back it up and all. Very good Blag, to bad it is not germane.

”You are trying to argue that the laws of Congress are meaningless, and you are badly mistaken.”

I argue the law says what it means, you argue the law means something not stated.

“You and Bardwell?!? And you put yourself first?!?”

Hey, I am not the one arguing against what the law and Bardwell says.

”For you to mention yourself and Bardwell together in that way is ridiculous. How silly are you trying to make yourself look?”

Hey, I am not the one arguing against what the law and Bardwell says.


”What Bardwell "have wrote" makes some sense; what you "have wrote" doesn't. You don't even know what we're talking about.”

I am talking about 922(r), what you talking about?

”But thanks for the puppet show and the comic relief.”

Yeah, well you ain’t seen nothing yet. Well, I must admit, took me awhile to ID you as an Assault Weapon Pharisee, and I am the expert on them. Rather then debate your imaginary version of 922(r) here in a perfectly good thread on actual USC I will post up a new thread in the legal section about made up laws such as the one you are promoting here.

Ekie
March 14, 2003, 02:16
For more info on made up gun law go here:

http://www.falfiles.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=69021

Like Blag says "922(r) is not the whole law", or don't forget that made up stuff.

Blag
March 14, 2003, 04:33
Originally posted by Ekie
Where does it say the item is unlawfull, hmm?

In the law. I showed you. Or at least, I believe I presented it so a literate person of normal intelligence could understand.

You're continuing to try to argue that the laws have no meaning. You're not going to get anywhere with that.

An item that's unlawfully imported is subject to seizure. To claim otherwise is to claim that the import laws have no meaning. Likewise for an item that's unlawfully assembled.

The person found to be in possession at the time <I>may or may not</I> be subject to penalties. If he is in unlawful possession, he will be. If he is in mere possession, he will not.

Riddle me this - and please try to follow along - if a case of illegal import (or assembly) is brought concerning one of the SAC FALs, the rifle is evidence. Right? The authorities will find the rifle, wherever it is, take it, and introduce it into evidence in the case.

Is the person found to be in possession of the rifle going to be allowed to keep it because his possession is not unlawful? Are the officers going to come back empty-handed, and say, "yeah, we found the rifle, but we couldn't bring it back for evidence, because it wasn't unlawful for the guy to possess it."

You know better than that.

Ekie
March 14, 2003, 09:24
"In the law. I showed you. Or at least, I believe I presented it so a literate person of normal intelligence could understand.

You're continuing to try to argue that the laws have no meaning. You're not going to get anywhere with that.

An item that's unlawfully imported is subject to seizure. To claim otherwise is to claim that the import laws have no meaning. Likewise for an item that's unlawfully assembled.

The person found to be in possession at the time may or may not be subject to penalties. If he is in unlawful possession, he will be. If he is in mere possession, he will not."

Oh you going back to this one:

"If a firearm is not authorized to be imported, but nevertheless it was, then it is not legal for it to be in the United States. Items that are imported illegally are contraband and are subject to seizure."

Sure, that is correct, but we are not talking about illegally imported rifles, like I said, well reasoned, but not germane, off topic a bit, the import of rifles is a different subject.

"Riddle me this - and please try to follow along - if a case of illegal import (or assembly) is brought concerning one of the SAC FALs, the rifle is evidence. "

Good question, I will keep it on topic and stick with 18 USC section 922(r) which deals with act of assembly. Sure, a rifle assembled in violation of 18 USC section 922(r) could be considered "evidence". Thing is, possessing a firearm that is "evidence" is not a crime under USC.

"Right? The authorities will find the rifle, wherever it is, take it, and introduce it into evidence in the case."

In theory but you are taking great leaps of faith in that the DOJ prosecutor could make a case solid enough to take to court. For example name one court case which involved a 18 USC section 922(r) violation. You know why there has not been one in the last 12 years?

"Is the person found to be in possession of the rifle going to be allowed to keep it because his possession is not unlawful? Are the officers going to come back empty-handed, and say, "yeah, we found the rifle, but we couldn't bring it back for evidence, because it wasn't unlawful for the guy to possess it."

You know better than that."

That is what the ATF will tell the local cops yes. I can site a example if interested. In the case of ATF officers they will (don't) not take such a example of possession to the DOJ, but may well bully the possessor as is common.

If your concern is in owning rifles that the cops will be pleased with you possessing then, well my recommendation is to get another hobby, like collecting Remchesters, or just stay away from firearms all together.

Ekie
March 14, 2003, 09:40
Great Dean, was trying to explain that 18 USC section 922(r) only covers assembly and not possession and transfer and even went so far as to copy and paste the law and quotes from James Bardwell then you come along and point out that 922(r) is nonsensical and unenforceable in court! Which is of course correct, but just added another twist. Now how confused is everyone going to get?

Ekie
March 14, 2003, 11:14
Alright Cliffy, went back and did some research on your specific example of the SAC FMAP imports. There were 3,000 barreled receivers brought in and 1,000 bare receivers imported. Looks like D. Lehrman is correct in regards to the barreled receiver, I can't find a ad in Shot Gun News were DSA was selling these prior to September of 94. DSA did sell stripped receivers prior to September of 1994.

Now, in order to be "grandfathered" under 18 USC section 922(v) these or any other rifle needs to meet the following guide line found in 18 USC section 922(v)(2):

2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession or transfer of any semiautomatic assault weapon otherwise lawfully possessed under Federal law on the date of the enactment of this subsection.

So, looks to me like the barreled receivers are not grandfathered under 18 USC section 922(v) in that they were not even semiautomatic assault weapons on the date of the enactment of this subsection. The receivers sold as stripped receivers prior to enactment of 18 USC section 922(v) are more difficult to figure out.

Blag
March 14, 2003, 15:32
Originally posted by Ekie
Oh you going back to this one:

Would you mind taking a bit more time to edit, to make the posts readable? Proper grammar once in a while would help, too. This discussion can continue as long as we have the patience for it, so no need to hurry.

Your remark above is not a response to my statements you quoted, as far as I can tell. There's no need to include quotes you're not responding to.

Sure, that is correct, but we are not talking about illegally imported rifles, ...

If you want to quibble about rifles vs. receivers or barrels, that's cute. But if they confiscate your receiver and barrel you ain't got no more rifle, do you? (I'm trying to keep up with your grammatical innovations.)

According to the material posted earlier on the thread, the SAC FALs were imported as separate upper and lower halves, on condition they be used as parts and not be reassembled. Reassembly reproduces the very rifle that was prohibited from import, and that violates the law.

Sure, a rifle assembled in violation of 18 USC section 922(r) could be considered "evidence". Thing is, possessing a firearm that is "evidence" is not a crime under USC.

Right, but just because having it is not a crime, that doesn't mean you get to keep it.

you are taking great leaps of faith in that the DOJ prosecutor could make a case solid enough to take to court.

Of course there would be some court action involved in any actual finding of illegality in a particular case. That's a given.

But we're not speculating here about what some court might do in some case or how some unknown prosecutor might handle something. We're talking about what's lawful or unlawful according to what the law says.

I can site a example if interested.

So can I. I can even cite an example grammatically.

The MKS M14A situation. (Okay, that remark wasn't grammatical, it was a sentence fragment; but moving right along...)

I am NOT commenting on the merits of the MKS case, I am simply pointing to it as an example where the possessor of a rifle had it taken from him, but he was not arrested. His possession was not unlawful, but the rifle was deemed unlawful, and it was taken.

Actually, it was two rifles, taken from a member of this forum. Link...

http://www.falfiles.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=19561

Once again, I am not citing this example on its merits, since I consider it very dubious. I am citing it only as an example where the rifle was confiscated, the person denied ownership of it, even tho the person's possession of it was not "unlawful" - i.e. there was no criminal penalty attached to the possession.

When Congress makes possession unlawful, it means they attach a criminal penalty to possession. But they can also make some item illegal without making possession of it unlawful. When they do that, the item can be taken, and the person denied ownership of it, even tho the person can't be arrested, etc.

If your concern is in owning rifles that the cops will be pleased with you possessing

Here again, I haven't the sightest idea what you're babbling about. You seem to spend quite a bit of time talking to yourself.

cliffy109
March 14, 2003, 16:15
This is a fascinating dabate. I'm glad I started it. I'm also glad I finally found and SAR-48 so I don't have to figure out who is right and who is wrong. I do have one final question. Didn't those SAC rifles get released by the BATF? If so, doesn't that mean they were legal at the time? If they were legal at the time, then are they not now grandfathered with the evil features of the flash hider?

Ekie
March 14, 2003, 16:16
"Would you mind taking a bit more time to edit, to make the posts readable? Proper grammar once in a while would help, too. This discussion can continue as long as we have the patience for it, so no need to hurry."

Hehe, I have a request myself, would you stick with actual USC and quote it, and only USC that deals with the subject?

"Your remark above is not a response to my statements you quoted, as far as I can tell. There's no need to include quotes you're not responding to."

There is no need to quote USC that does not involve the issue, so think you could refrain a bit?

"If you want to quibble about rifles vs. receivers or barrels, that's cute. But if they confiscate your receiver and barrel you ain't got no more rifle, do you? (I'm trying to keep up with your grammatical innovations.)"

Well, I do appreciate the great effort on your part.

"According to the material posted earlier on the thread, the SAC FALs were imported as separate upper and lower halves, on condition they be used as parts and not be reassembled. Reassembly reproduces the very rifle that was prohibited from import, and that violates the law."

Outstanding! That is very good, and correct, the assembly of such would violate 18 USC section 922(r). Next time you say violates the law, you might say which.

"Right, but just because having it is not a crime, that doesn't mean you get to keep it."

Why not, quote law, regulation, ruling, caselaw, letter from ATF something for Pete's sake, I won't even require proper grammar!

"Of course there would be some court action involved in any actual finding of illegality in a particular case. That's a given."

That is incorrect, site one example.

"But we're not speculating here about what some court might do in some case or how some unknown prosecutor might handle something. We're talking about what's lawful or unlawful according to what the law says."

Is that so, then why you reference to the courts?

"The MKS M14A situation."

Does not involve 922(r), it involves 922(o), nice try just the same. And yes, possession of a MK-S receiver is prohibited under 18 USC section 922(o) because contained in the provision is the word "possession" and prohibit (in the same sentance I might add). Note that 922(r) does not include "possession".

"When Congress makes possession unlawful, it means they attach a criminal penalty to possession. But they can also make some item illegal without making possession of it unlawful. When they do that, the item can be taken, and the person denied ownership of it, even tho the person can't be arrested, etc."

Name one example of this in 18 USC section 922. Qoute from USC please.

"Here again, I haven't the sightest idea what you're babbling about. You seem to spend quite a bit of time talking to yourself."

Trying to read your mind. You are not concerned with complying with USC, it is something else. So, I guessed it wrong?

Blag
March 14, 2003, 17:39
Originally posted by Ekie
Hehe, I have a request myself, would you stick with actual USC and quote it, and only USC that deals with the subject?

Good, you did use proper grammer and did respond to something I wrote. That's progress.

There is no need to quote USC that does not involve the issue,

Go ahead and provide any example where I have done so.

Well, I do appreciate the great effort on your part.

You're certainly welcome. I wish I could say you were making a great effort, but I have yet to see that.

Next time you say violates the law, you might say which.

You know perfectly well what we're talking about. Stop pretending to be dense.

Why not, quote law, regulation, ruling, caselaw, letter from ATF something for Pete's sake, I won't even require proper grammar!

You're just stonewalling. The reason you're doing that is you know I'm right.

Blag: "Of course there would be some court action involved in any actual finding of illegality in a particular case. That's a given."

That is incorrect, site one example.

Marbury vs. Madison. C'mon now, you know very well how the U.S. system works. Cases are decided by the courts.

... Is that so, then why you reference to the courts?

I stated at the time why I referred to the courts in earlier posts.

On your objection to my remark in my preceding post, I will point out to you that you <I>agreed</I> with me there, "in theory" you said, but then you went on to speculate about the ability of some unknown prosecutor. You changed the subject, from law to prosecutorial ability, and that was what I objected to.

"The MKS M14A situation."

Does not involve 922(r),

I didn't say it did. I told you explicitly why I offered that example. It is an actual instance where the possessor of a rifle had it confiscated, the receiver that is, but he was not arrested. No criminal penalty followed from his possession, but nevertheless he was denied ownership.

But if you don't like that example, provide one on your own behalf, or at least provide some argument on your own behalf instead of just complaining.

At the risk of mentioning the courts again, out of concern that you won't have a clue why I'm doing so, let's say for the sake of argument that the assembler of a SAC FAL is arrested, the rifle placed in evidence, and he's convicted. What do you think is going to happen to the rifle?

Trying to read your mind.

You'd do better by simply making a sincere effort to read what I write.

Ekie
March 14, 2003, 17:48
Hey Blag, why not, quote law, regulation, ruling, caselaw, letter from ATF something for Pete's sake, I won't even require proper grammar!

The reason you have not is because there is none, and without that there is nothing to discuss, because this thread is about legal issues.

Ekie
March 14, 2003, 20:38
“Good, you did use proper grammer and did respond to something I wrote. That's progress.”

Staying on topic I see.

“Go ahead and provide any example where I have done so.”

Let see, you copy and pasted ONE law, so gee wonder which I am talking about, hmmm?

“You're certainly welcome. I wish I could say you were making a great effort, but I have yet to see that.”

Well, I have not been busy making stuff up like you. Given free reign I can come up with some funny stuff too. Heck, talk about effort, I was the one that wrote that letter to James Bardwell, just to help guys like you out, but all this effort for not, ya still don't get it do you? Hehe, so how was my grammer in the letter I wrote Bardwell? BTW, I wrote the follow up question, not the first one. Oh yeah, and speaking of effort, I was the one that wrote that legal guide on the first page of this thread, again, a effort to help you guys out.

“You know perfectly well what we're talking about. Stop pretending to be dense.”

And you know I know, cuz I then sited it, was suggesting that you could have done that yourself. Pointing out a pattern here, that of you saying thus and so is illegal but no reference to law, regulation, ruling, caselaw, letter from ATF, note from mother, link to the Bushmaster web site, and example, just plain something.

“You're just stonewalling. The reason you're doing that is you know I'm right.”

I ask you to find your position in law, and that is stonewalling, well gee, the way to get past this here “stonewall” is to produce the law, so do it, and do it now! What is holding you back! You say a rifle assembled in violation of 18 USC section 922(r) is illegal and contraband, I say that is some kinda of funky concept that is not found in 18 USC section 922 and I ask that you produce this law, you will not and I am stonewalling! But you can not, cuz it does not exist, but you will continue to spin and spin and spin and change the subject to grammer and marijuiana and illegal machine guns, and illegal imports, and only God knows what it next, but we do know it will not be a law, regulation, ruling, letter from ATF, caselaw, court example, that deals with a rifle assembled in violation of 18 USC section 922(r).

“Marbury vs. Madison. C'mon now, you know very well how the U.S. system works. Cases are decided by the courts.”

Off topic, not an 18 USC section 922(r) case, not a 18 USC section 922 anything case.

“I didn't say it did. I told you explicitly why I offered that example. It is an actual instance where the possessor of a rifle had it confiscated, the receiver that is, but he was not arrested. No criminal penalty followed from his possession, but nevertheless he was denied ownership.”

But you fail to mention that possession of a MKS receiver in your example is prohibited under 18 USC section 922(o). That is because 922(o) prohibits possession. Guess what Blag, 922(r) does not prohibit possession. Do ya see the difference here bud, huh, well do ya! If it is tough for you try this, read r and then read o, note o has the word possession in it, and then note that r does not. Hey, how bout that, well gee whiz, wonder why that it, hmm, maybe because one don’t cover possession while the other does, well gosh darn, imagine that.

“But if you don't like that example, provide one on your own behalf, or at least provide some argument on your own behalf instead of just complaining.”

My best example if 18 USC section 922(r), that also happens to be the topic. Please note the absence of the word possession, it reads:

“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), ...”

“You'd do better by simply making a sincere effort to read what I write.”

I have, and many of your quotes will be included in a new and expanded version of AWPs made up law numba 2. Might make it an honorary numba 2(a) with full credit to yourself of course.

So in short, where is this law that says a rifle assembled in violation of 18 USC section 922(r) is illegal? The only one I know of is Bush Executive Order 10-10-321 and then the number, but that one is mythical.

Ekie
March 14, 2003, 21:13
Ah man, this is some funny stuff. Anybody else getting a kick out of this one?

Can't help myself, so Blag, where is this law that says a rifle assembled in violation of 922(r) is illegal, huh, come on, caugh it up bud, don't keep it to yourself, we are waiting (sound of foot tapping in background). Gee whiz man, 18 USC section 922 is not that big, can't be that hard to find, I mean you could read the whole darn thing in a couple of hours, not like it is long like the Bible or tax law or something.