Guns for Beginners: 922(r) Compliance and You

Scorpion_SBR_Left

What you see above is my CZ Scorpion Evo SBR. It’s a paperweight. Look closely and you’ll notice the trigger pack has been removed from the rifle entirely, and there’s no Scorpion magazine in sight. Removing these parts was necessary to assemble it as a rifle while also complying with 18 U.S.C. § 922(r) of the 1968 Gun Control Act. What on earth does that mean? Glad you asked. . .

First, I’m not a lawyer. Although I am married to one and I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express once, please don’t bank on the following as legal advice. I believe it to be true and accurate, albeit simplifying subsections upon subsections of U.S. Code into a bottom line “how does this affect me?” summary, but I’m hereby absolving myself of responsibility…CYA…etc etc.

Semi-automatic rifles and all shotguns are only approved for importation into the U.S. if they meet certain criteria required for being “suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes” [18 U.S.C. § 925(d)(3)]. Ridiculous, arbitrary, and subjective or not, it has been the state of affairs since 1968. It is for this reason — lack of approval, either due to denial or simply the long wait as the gears of government grind on — that companies like CZ may choose to first import a pistol variant of what is usually a carbine (Scorpion, 805 BREN).

In section 922(r) and further detailed in section 27 C.F.R. § 478.39, “no person shall assemble a semiautomatic rifle or any shotgun” if the end product is a firearm that would otherwise be banned from importation under 925(d)(3) or under further restrictions added in ~1989 that defined certain specific features (detachable mag, pistol grip, folding/telescoping stock, flash suppressor, and more) as “nonsporting.” For instance, configuring my CZ Scorpion into an SBR turns it into a semi-automatic rifle, and since the Scorpion Evo is not approved for importation in this form, configuring it as such would be a violation of the Gun Control Act.

Yes, the lead photo is that very Scorpion configured as an SBR. No, I’m not breaking the law. Section 27 C.F.R. § 478.39 effectively stipulates that the firearm is only considered imported, or only considered the same as the otherwise-banned foreign version, if it has “more than 10” of the following 20 imported parts on it [from 478.39(c)].

(1) Frames, receivers, receiver castings, forgings, or castings.
(2) Barrels.
(3) Barrel extensions.
(4) Mounting blocks (trunnions).
(5) Muzzle attachments.
(6) Bolts.
(7) Bolt carriers.
(8) Operating rods.
(9) Gas pistons.
(10) Trigger housings.
(11) Triggers.
(12) Hammers.
(13) Sears.
(14) Disconnectors.
(15) Buttstocks.
(16) Pistol grips.
(17) Forearms, handguards.
(18) Magazine bodies.
(19) Followers.
(20) Floor plates.

In bold are the ones that I believe the BATFE says apply to the CZ Scorpion Evo in rifle form (includes SBR). [Edit: Confirmed. CZ-USA has since posted the following chart on its Facebook page:]

scorpion 922r chart

That focus on parts origin is basically the positive in all of this, if there is one, as folks like me or dealers/importers can build/sell/import the gun they want as long as no more than 10 of these 20 parts were imported. Removing an imported part — for example, simply taking the muzzle attachment off the Scorpion — knocks your parts count down by one. To be clear, it has nothing to do with adding U.S.-made parts; a common misconception. It isn’t a domestic-to-imported ratio, it’s just a straight imported parts count.

Of course, removing the grip or the fire control group doesn’t leave a usable rifle behind, so the only option is replacing them with domestically-manufactured parts. For an importer of, for instance, a foreign-made AK-47, it must be imported with only 10 of these parts and missing any others, whether they’re necessary to the firearm’s operation or not. The remainder needed to make the rifle functional, while maintaining 922(r) compliance, will be U.S.-made.

And this brings us full circle to my Scorpion SBR paperweight. In order to configure it as an SBR, I had to drop the parts count from 15 (in pistol form it had 15 since there’s no imported stock on it) down to 10 or less. The muzzle device was removed in exchange for a U.S.-made suppressor mount from Liberty Suppressors for my Mystic, the trigger pack was removed (contains trigger, hammer, sear, disconnector), and the magazines have been banished (contains body, follower, floor plate). As the ACE M4 SOCOM stock is made in the U.S. and isn’t replacing a foreign one, it has no effect on the parts count. This brings my Scorpion’s current 922(r) parts count all the way down to 7.

It’s a paperweight until enough U.S.-made parts are available. Likely candidates for the aftermarket or for CZ-USA itself to swoop in and save me are magazines (3 parts), fire control groups (4 parts), pistol grips (1 part), and muzzle devices (1 part, although this one can be removed without any need to replace it with another). As I’m at 7 right now, I could actually add 3 foreign parts back onto the gun — the magazine could have been in the photo after all. The actual factory folding stock would be a great choice to add, of course (not that the M4 SOCOM, possibly the strongest AR stock on the market, isn’t freaking sweet! Review on it coming soon enough).

submachine_gun_CZ_scorpion_evo_3_A1_action

Click for wallpaper size

 

comments

  1. avatar Publius says:

    I get being paranoid, but you realize that 922(r) is in reality only for businesses importing guns and no one will ever come up to your house / approach you at the range to inspect your gun for 922(r) compliance, right?

    1. avatar John L. says:

      In usual practice it might be applied only businesses importing; in reality it applies to everyone.

      Even if “they” never come to your house to spot-check, getting involved in a nasty traffic stop on the way to/from the range could lead to this being an issue. The point is, unforeseen things happen.

      Simpler to violate the law, perhaps; safer not to.

      1. avatar Nick says:

        Yes and no. The law says assemble, not possess. Unless they can prove you assembled it (the gotcha is the form 1) you can’t be convicted. That said, it may not stop them from trying, and that gets expensive fast.

        1. avatar Jeremy S says:

          I don’t think any individual (non-FFL/importer) has ever been prosecuted for only a 922(r) violation. Apparently it has been tacked onto other charges.

          Regardless, it is the law and it applies to all of us. It also applies to building a gun “from scratch” that is import-restricted — for example building an AK-pattern rifle from a blank receiver or even an “80%” receiver. You need to watch your parts count.

          What you do in the privacy of your own home is up to you. I wouldn’t suggest posting photos of a non-compliant rifle on TTAG, for instance.

        2. avatar Neminem says:

          They couldn’t prove you assembled it … but they could prove from the object it had been “assembled” or “imported” and so is contraband subject to civil seizure and forfeiture. No one has a right to possess contraband, whether the possession itself is criminal or not.

          Having said that — the regulation and the statute is arbitrary — and should be challenged. While Congress has commerce power to favor domestic manufactures by limiting imports if they choose to, the whole “sporting purposes” test is wholly arbitrary and irrational — and flies in the face of the Second Amendment’s basis in individual and collective self-defense and should be struck down.

        3. avatar Jeremy S says:

          I don’t think it has really been challenged or, if it was, the challenge didn’t stand since it only affects the importation of foreign firearms. We even banned all Chinese firearm imports some years ago. No such restrictions exist on what can be manufactured in the U.S.. For some reason, it isn’t seen as a violation of 2A, etc, because of this.

          And in the case of filing a Form 1, which is permission to assemble an SBR, the gov’t sure as hell knows you are the assembler. You just paid $200 to get permission to do so. If it has more than 10 foreign parts and is a firearm subject to 922(r) in the first place, you’re definitely culpable.

        4. avatar Anon in CT says:

          Of course he “assembled” it – before he added that stock it was just an innocent little pistol.

    2. avatar JS says:

      Yeah it’s my (albeit very unfamiliar) understanding that this only has to do with transactions. IE he couldn’t sell it or buy it in a non conforming state. I wouldn’t ever risk messing with unregistered NFA stuff, but I’m totally not worried about 922r stuff.

      $100 says Jeremy shot it before removing these components for the photoshoot. Shhhhh

      1. avatar Jeremy S says:

        No, the language here is pretty clear. It’s just assembling.

        I like to follow the law. However, were I to fudge on this I damn sure wouldn’t post photos or video of it online, and doubly sure not on a the largest firearms-related blog in the world (TTAG).

        Unfortunately, just because the ATF approved my Form 1 to turn the Scorpion here into an SBR despite the U.S.-made parts not being available to do so legally, that isn’t tacit approval that 922(r) doesn’t apply in this case. In fact, the ATF specifically informed CZ-USA that it does apply to individuals wanting to SBR their Scorpions…

    3. avatar Dracon1201 says:

      THIS +1,000,000

      It would be so incredibly hard to inspect that nobody would bother!

    4. avatar Heartland Patriot says:

      Of course the chances of them “coming to your house” are almost non-existent. That hasn’t stopped the BATFE from prosecuting people and sending them to Federal prison to be beaten and raped on a repeated basis for 10 years because the charge was added after something else happened. For instance, you get traffic stopped while headed to the range. The local PD makes up an excuse to search your car. They see your “evil gun” and though they let you go, they put in a call to the BATFE, an agency that constantly needs to justify its existence. They will arrest you, take you in front of a rubber stamp judge and 10 years in Club Fed for you. Or maybe some overzealous range official turns you in when they see your gun. It has happened, even if it doesn’t make the news.

    5. avatar Fed Up says:

      Two words for anybody who uses the word “Paranoid” in a discussion of federal gun laws/regs: David Olofson.

      https://gunowners.org/olofson04182011.htm

    6. avatar Don from CT says:

      $100 to anyone who can find a single instance of the arrest and prosecution of any otherwise law abiding no licensee.

      Don

  2. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

    Either way you’re going to need an NFA stamp, aren’t you?

    1. avatar Jeremy S says:

      For an SBR. But 922(r) also applies to non-NFA items. Any semi-auto rifle, and any shotgun (that would have been banned from import due to nonsporting issues). Want to build an AK from the ground up? Buy an empty receiver and buy all of the parts to build the rifle one-by-one? You need to watch your foreign parts count to stay 922(r) compliant. There are parts available for purchase in the U.S. that would allow you to build a totally foreign-made AK, I do believe. It would be illegal to do so. Gotta keep track of foreign parts and not exceed 10 in this case. OR… you purchase an imported AK-47 from your LGS or whatever. You decide you want to swap out the trigger or the pistol grip or the muzzle brake, etc etc. Well, if there are already 10 foreign parts on it you need to make sure you aren’t replacing a domestic one with another foreign one. There would be plenty of other instances where it at least technically applies as well…

      1. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

        And I’m guessing that non compliance could get you 7 years in a federal penitentiary?

      2. avatar BATF = Ban All The Firearms says:

        Today brings news from ( The War on Guns ) .com that atf may be considering a BAN on existing pistol grip shotguns. The history of the atf is shady at best. In 1935 the Federal Alcohol Admin. was found unconstitutional. Then Puerto Rico Trust Number 62 was created.
        This is the TRUE name of the agency. See 27 USCA sec. 201 . If any jurisdiction exists at all, it is only in pursuit of taxes on an IMPORTED firearm. Per U.S. vs. DJ Vollmer & Co. the agency has ZERO jurisdiction after the first sale of said import. Class Action Anyone ?

      3. avatar Dave mc says:

        You realize that 922(r) does not apply to nfa items. I’m assuming you form 1’d this bad boy. That makes you the manufacturer. But as an aside nfa predates GCA 1968. And is the highest law of the land. Go ahead, call atf. Write a letter even, once it’s tax stamped you can assemble it anyway you want.

        1. avatar Jeremy S says:

          Dave, you’re simply incorrect on this one. Without even getting into too many of the many reasons why, in this case the ATF specifically stated that 922(r) does apply to Scorpion Evo pistols that are converted to SBRs by trusts or individuals via a Form 1. Becoming the manufacturer does not absolve you of the fact that it’s an imported firearm made from imported parts and it’s identical to a banned-from-importation foreign firearm. I may have manufactured it into an SBR, but all of the parts are still imported and that’s all that matters under this law. The GCA came after the NFA, like you said, and there is NO mention in 922(r) or any of the related sections of the GCA law that NFA items are exempt. When it clearly states all semi-automatic rifles and all shotguns, it means it. An NFA short barreled rifle is still a rifle. 922(r) applies when it applies (meaning, when the gun is similar to a foreign one that was banned for importation due to being ‘nonsporting’).

          I realize there is debate on this. I believe anyone saying 922(r) doesn’t apply to NFA items is wrong. The ATF specifically says it applies, and the law itself says nothing to contradict the ATF’s opinion. People who think it doesn’t apply do so because they feel you being the “manufacturer” of the SBR magically makes all of the parts U.S.-made or otherwise not imported. I don’t see that. Additionally, I realize the ATF has never seemed interested in prosecuting individuals for 922(r) violations of any sort, whether related to NFA or non-NFA guns. I’m not very concerned about it personally, however, I damn sure wouldn’t post photos of a non-compliant firearm on a public forum. And whether they prosecute anyone or not isn’t relevant to what the law is.

        2. avatar Juanito ''Johnnie'' Ibañez says:

          Jeremy S wrote on April 10, 2015 at 23:35 hours:

          “Without even getting into too many of the many reasons why, in this case the ATF specifically stated that 922(r) does apply to Scorpion Evo pistols that are converted to SBRs by trusts or individuals via a Form 1.”

          Of course, the BATFE _never_ lies about _anything_!!!

  3. avatar Chris says:

    Wow, the way that law is structured sure sounds like “Common Sense” to me!

    Sucks to have to jump through so many hoops, hopefully you get it up and running soon. Looking forward to the review.

  4. avatar TITAN308 says:

    ATF has conflicting views on if 922r applies to SBR’s.

    1. avatar Nick says:

      Indeed so, and I currently wait (as does CZ) on a response from ATF regarding this very issue. As we all know, a classification/clarification letter from FATD only applies to the recipient so I did my own letter for CYA if they ever change their mind on the decision if they first decide 922r doesn’t apply to NFA.

      That said, I’ve read the statutes, and as far as I can tell, NFA items are included under 922r. I say this because it bans import of all “non-sporting” guns, which includes ALL NFA stuff. Ergo, since you can’t inport NFA stuff, you can’t legally assemble a semi-auto rifle from imported parts into NFA form and skirt the law.

      1. avatar Jeremy S says:

        They don’t have conflicting views here. It will apply to some firearms and not others, whether they’re NFA firearms or not. It’s a gun-by-gun law, which is why sometimes they’re okay and sometimes they aren’t. That doesn’t present any conflicts at all.

        Nick, I meant to e-mail you this morning as soon as this went live but am just getting to my computer now. The ATF specifically told CZ-USA that 922(r) compliance does apply to individuals who are turning their Scorpion Evo 3s into SBRs.

  5. avatar ValleyForge77 says:

    Oh man, this is exactly why I love TTAG. I have a buddy who just bought one of these – specifically to SBR it, and he has no idea about this, I’m guessing. Thanks for the post, man! I will definitely pass on. For me personally, while it looks bad ass and all, holding his (pistol) in my hand last week, the grip angle just tweaks my wrists too much, and especially would do so if it had a stock on it. I like the more upright BCM Mod 1 for shorties. I’m also already kinda into the Sub2K for my PCC’s. Love how light and portable they are, and how they use the ubiquitous Glock (brand glock) mags, especially in the 33 round flavor. Total bummer you are in paperweight hades man, but thanks for sharing. “Even if it saves one life” – right? You may have just done so. You’d have to think CZ USA or some other 3rd party will see this niche and jump on it. Definite opportunity there.

  6. avatar Jeff says:

    Nobody cares about 922r.

    1. avatar Jeremy S says:

      I agree with you. Still the law though.

      1. avatar Juanito ''Johnnie'' Ibañez says:

        Keep repeating this to your Congresscritters over and Over and OVER AGAIN:

        “..shall NOT be infringed”!

        …or we run a Pro 2nd Amendment candidate against you….

    2. avatar Dan A says:

      Yep.

      If I made a list of all the things that worry me, Violating 922r would be hovering right around Eating Gluten.

  7. avatar Accur81 says:

    What a mess. Laws should be simple, but that wouldn’t give power to the dirty lawyers of the world.

    1. avatar Juanito ''Johnnie'' Ibañez says:

      “Did you really think we want those laws observed?” said Dr. Ferris. “We want them to be broken. You’d better get it straight that it’s not a bunch of boy scouts you’re up against… We’re after power and we mean it… There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that’s the system, Mr. Reardon, that’s the game, and once you understand it, you’ll be much easier to deal with.”
      –Ayn Rand, ‘Atlas Shrugged’, 1957

  8. avatar LarryinTX says:

    Lord, but this is stupid. There is no, could be no, justification for such a bizarre collection of nonsense laws, regulations, and interpretations, which together accomplish exactly nothing, either positive or negative. People who do this, like Jeremy, need to annotate every ridiculous infringement on their rights, someday someone will listen, and we need to have the ammo available.

    I mean, after all is said and done, ask yourself: WHAT WAS THE POINT?

  9. avatar Sian says:

    Thing about 922(r) though, nobody in the history of the law has been charged with it, absent other very serious violations. 922(r) is a rider statue, one they stack when they catch you with a 17.75″ shotgun barrel or an unregistered machinegun.

    I honestly stopped worrying about 922(r) years ago.

    1. avatar Jeremy S says:

      Agreed. Mentioned above that I believe, discounting FFLs/importers, that no individual has been charged with only a 922(r) violation. It is always a tack-on charge to add to other charges. That said, it’s still the law and we should all be aware of it. Additionally, it’s easy to talk the talk, but why don’t you post some photos of a rifle of yours that violates 922(r) in the comments here? 😉

      1. avatar Sian says:

        All I’ve got that’s an applicable import is my Saiga12. I think it’s noncompliant if I use one of the 5rd izhmash mags. I’m certainly not afraid to take a picture of it like that.
        http://i.imgur.com/YUUrNgN.jpg

        1. avatar Jeremy S says:

          Dude, that’s dirty. Love the bullpup shotty 🙂

          …btw if that’s a 5-round mag, I’m Michael Bloomberg…

        2. avatar Sian says:

          FINE. http://i.imgur.com/kMdU1PL.jpg
          Last pic is about 4 years old. This is the current state of the beast.

  10. avatar Mack Bolan says:

    I don’t think 922(r) compliance is really a beginners gun topic.

    1. avatar Jeremy S says:

      Originally the title said Guns for “Beginners:” 922(r) Compliance and You 😉

    2. avatar Accur81 says:

      Unfortunately, the law is just too complex for a dumb cop like me to enforce. I’d probably just have to let someone go on a suspected violation, because a mistake could cause me to have a sustained complaint in my personnel file, and could open my department to a lawsuit. Best to play it safe.

      1. avatar SteveInCO says:

        Perhaps we should just make sure any future gun control that passes is too complicated for “dumb cops” to understand.

        Unfortunately, the ones who are, in fact, dumb (present company excepted, needless to say) are too dumb to know they are dumb, and will think they know what they are doing as they arrest some poor guy on a violation.

    3. avatar WarsawPactHeat says:

      I think it is important for beginners to understand. For instance, beginners are the ones changing out their SKS magazine without making further 922(r) compliant modifications and not realizing the implications. Like all have mentioned, the chance of being charged with a violation is extremely miniscule, but ignorance of the law is still no excuse in their eyes.

  11. avatar Chris says:

    Have googled in vain to try to find a definitive answer on addding a magazine tube extension to my Benelli Supernova Tactical while remaining 922-r compliant.
    The law is too confusing, and there are too many conflicting opinions out there for me to be willing to risk just adding an extension as I hear so many people do.

    Should probably just buy an M4 and a kit to maintain compliance, but that’s a little more expensive 🙂

    1. avatar Jeremy S says:

      It’s pretty confusing because there are multiple sections of law that all come together to create policy that ultimately is basically under 922(r) as the final check. For a shotgun to be imported, it either has to meet the “sporting purposes” definition, which specifically prohibits magazines that can hold more than 5 rounds (among other things), or it has to have no more than 10 imported parts from that list of 20 on it. My take would be that you can add a U.S.-made magazine tube extension IF the rest of the gun has less than 10 parts from the list of 20 in this post on it. You see, the gun could be totally legal for import with more than 10 because it was approved under sporting purposes laws. No “nonsporting” features on it and having nearly all of these 922(r) 20 can happen together. SO… if you add a tube extension to a gun with more than 10 you’ve violated 922(r). If you add a domestic tube extension to a gun with 10 you’re fine. If you add an imported extension to a gun with 9 or less you’re fine.

      …just a guess, here, combining multiple segments of law. (see: http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/01/robert-farago/download-here-atf-study-on-the-importability-of-certain-shotguns/)

      1. avatar Patrick Wider says:

        Jeremy – Doesn’t the law passed 18 November 2011 now allow me to extend the magazine on my Benelli M4 shotgun since the “sporting purposes” importation rule for shotguns is now null and void?

        See: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2811063/posts and:

        http://www.ammoland.com/2011/11/little-noticed-provision-kills-atf-shotgun-ban-plans/#axzz3WwjyaRD2

        1. avatar Jeremy S says:

          Nothing changed about the sporting purposes rule for importation. That law prevented the ATF from enacting stricter regulations. So it prevented a change for the worse, but made no changes for the better (made no changes at all, in fact. Just prevented one).

  12. avatar Roger says:

    So what do these byzantine rules actually accomplish?

    By the way, what in hell is going on in that picture?

    1. avatar doesky2 says:

      By the way, what in hell is going on in that picture?

      Maybe a still from the the movie….Saving Ryan’s Privates

      1. avatar doesky2 says:

        Oooops…I should have watched that clip the whole way through before posting.
        The had to ruin it by going San Fran at the end.

  13. avatar Bob says:

    I think we should replace the word “comply” with “avoid state aggression” because that’s what is really going on. Any gun law is an act of aggression by the people who call themselves government.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      ^ This!!!!!

      I also use the term “criminalize” often. For example, rather than saying, “It is illegal to have a 15-round magazine in California.”, I say, “California criminalizes possession of a 15-round magazine.”

      While these differences are subtle, I believe they are important to frame the conflict properly.

  14. avatar JasonM says:

    I don’t think many people get the fact that Jeremy, like every other Scorpion owner whose form 1 has cleared, is ignoring 922r compliance when he goes out shooting. He’s just not dumb enough to post evidence of a felony violation.

    It’s a smart move. I plan to pop out my trigger group (the magazine is already out) as soon as the ATF approves my form 1. And I definitely won’t be admitting to popping it back in.

  15. avatar David says:

    I always thought 922 R was BS. Especially, since in many cases it is impossible to trace/know the identity of of every (most) part on a gun However . . .

    This takes things to another level:

    “(1) Frames, receivers, receiver castings, forgings, or castings.”

    Of course you have the frame! If the frame/receiver counts as a part then it should really be 9.

    1. avatar Sian says:

      That’s a good point. if you replace the frame/receiver it’s no longer an imported firearm at all, so really that shouldn’t even count.

      1. avatar Jeremy S says:

        Agreed, but the law is not only about importing but also about assembling a gun that’s identical to a foreign one that’s banned. If you use a U.S.-made AK-47 receiver and you build it into a rifle, doing so with more than 10 imported parts from that list is a violation of 922(r). The receiver wouldn’t count as one, obviously, but everything else still counts since the end product is an AK-47 variant, which is banned for importation due to the sporting purposes crap. It isn’t about whether the “firearm” was imported, it’s about whether it has more than 10 imported parts on it IF it has also been ruled as “nonsporting.”

        …and just to kind of head off any replies along the lines of “but AKs aren’t banned for import, we have tons of them coming in from Russia, etc etc” I’ll note that those imported ones are coming into the country with 10 or less imported parts (from the list of 20) on them, and the rest of the parts necessary to make for a complete rifle are U.S.-made parts being added by the importer.

        1. avatar Juanito ''Johnnie'' Ibañez says:

          “…IF it has also been ruled (by BATF FTB) as “nonsporting”.”

          Of course, with the advent of ‘Three Gun Matches,’ _all_ shotguns, in _all_ configurations, are now “sporting arms.”

          Same with all foreign-manufactured sidearms & long arms.

          Hint, Hint, Hint (to NSSF, et al.). 😉

  16. avatar Ralph says:

    Semi-automatic rifles and all shotguns are only approved for importation into the U.S. if they meet certain criteria required for being “suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes”

    And by ATF fiat, 3Gun is not a sport. No, really. It’s not a sport, because to recognize it as such would open up the floodgates. Under the same ATF interpretation, plinking is not a sport either, and 3Gun is treated the same as plinking.

    1. avatar Jeremy S says:

      It’s an atrocity. Also “readily adaptable” is entirely ignored, obviously. Any firearm is readily adaptable to hunting, which is what they’re going to consider the ultimate “sporting” use. The law also uses the term “identical” in part of the text but the rest of it and the application of it takes huge liberties on that.

    2. avatar Juanito ''Johnnie'' Ibañez says:

      I’d _love_ to see the BATF-ers try to defend that position to an Inspector General and/or a federal court jury.

      sport noun

      “an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment.”
      http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/sport

      “a contest or game in which people do certain physical activities according to a specific set of rules and compete against each other”
      http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sport

      “a game, competition, or similar activity, done for enjoyment or as a job, that takes physical effort and skill and is played or done by following particular rules”
      http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/sport

      “an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature, as racing, baseball, tennis, golf, bowling, wrestling, boxing, hunting, fishing, etc.”
      http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sport

      Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera…..

      It’s well past time for the firearms industry, firearms rights organizations and firearms owners in general to put the ATF, the Department of (IN)Justice and anti-gun Congresscritters on the defensive for a change.

      1. avatar W says:

        This seems like a good approach. It seems as though “sporting” has been interpreted as “traditional sporting.” Perhaps this was done by a bureaucrat and needs to be challenged by policymakers or courts.

        http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2013/09/02/hk-hate-you-import-export-laws-vs-people/

        The ATF also put down the idea of action competition shooting as being sporting, for the simple reason that it wasn’t “traditional.”

  17. avatar Justin says:

    “Ridiculous, arbitrary, and subjective…”

    That should’ve been the sum total of words in your 922r compliance article.

    Why people won’t raise an unholy stink about this, NFA, GCA, etc like they did with the M855 thing is beyond me…

    If “we the people” won’t stand up and fight it then “we the people” have the government we deserve. Period. End of story.

  18. avatar BATF = Ban All The Firearms says:

    What if there is NO LAW here ? Put 922 aside for now, The true name of the ‘ atf ‘ is Puerto Rico Trust # 62.( Google it ) It was created after the Federal Alcohol Administration was found unconstitutional in 1935. See 27 USCA sec. 201. The ‘ agency ‘ has a scetchy legal claim to jurisdiction. See also – US v DJ Vollmer and Co. / court held jurisdiction only applies to the first sale of an import. Class Action anyone ?

  19. avatar Anonymous says:

    “Semi-automatic rifles and all shotguns are only approved for importation into the U.S. if they meet certain criteria required for being “suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes”

    I guess the real question is how much can you modify it before they are no longer “suitable for sporting purposes”

    Used to be – AKs were imported with a thumb hole stock and 5 rd mag. There was great incentive to make them 922R complaint. Now after the assault weapons ban is over can one use regular 30 Rd mags without replacing a bunch of parts for 922R compliance? The thumb hole stock days are over.

    1. avatar Jeremy S says:

      Not entirely sure why but The Secretary of the Treasury defines what is and isn’t suitable for sporting purposes.

      As a result of a 1989 study by the U.S. Treasury Department regarding the importability of certain firearms, an import ban was placed on military-style firearms. This ban included not only military-type firearms, but also extended to firearms with certain features that were considered to be “nonsporting.”
      Among such nonsporting features were the ability to accept a detachable magazine; folding/telescoping stocks; separate pistol grips; and the ability to accept a bayonet, flash suppressors, bipods, grenade launchers, and night sights.

      Further, an acceptably redesigned semiautomatic copy of nonsporting firearm must be limited to using less than 10 of the imported parts listed in 27 CFR § 478.39(c). Otherwise, it is considered to be assembled into a nonsporting configuration per the provisions of 18 U.S.C. 925(d)(3) and is thus a violation of § 922(r).

      Bottom line is basically that it needs to be in “suitable for sporting purposes” configuration OR have less than 10 imported parts if in a “nonsporting” configuration.

  20. avatar Patrick Wider says:

    All – Doesn’t the law passed 18 November 2011 now allow me to extend the magazine on my Benelli M4 shotgun since the “sporting purposes” importation rule for shotguns is now null and void?

    See: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2811063/posts and:

    http://www.ammoland.com/2011/11/little-noticed-provision-kills-atf-shotgun-ban-plans/#axzz3WwjyaRD2

    1. avatar Jeremy S says:

      No. As mentioned above, nothing changed about the sporting purposes requirement at all. The first link you posted is completely wrong. The second link is correct. The law simply prevented changes that would have made importing shotguns even harder. It didn’t make any changes to the existing law, it only prevented changes to the law. Apparently a lot of people were confused and rumors started. Anyway, your 2nd link has it correct and the NRA-ILA tried to clear it up also https://www.nraila.org/articles/20111222/rumor-alert-appropriations-bill-blocks-new-shotgun-ban-does-not-repeal-sporting-purposes-test

      1. avatar Patrick Wider says:

        Thanks Jeremy. I just find this whole thing so unnecessary, confusing, and asinine. To what end does any of this serve? Parts counts, barrel lengths, foreign or not foreign, stock or no stock, magazine capacity, pistol grip or no pistol grip, etc. But what comes out of the muzzle is unchanged. Absolutely asinine. Politicians and mindless bureaucrats are involved, that explains everything. I know I’m preaching to the choir. I have a good mind to just ignore this bullshit.

        “The strange American ardor for passing laws, the insane belief in regulation and punishment, plays into the hands of the reformers, most of them quacks themselves. Their efforts, even when honest, seldom accomplish any appreciable good.”

        “Government, like any other organism, refuses to acquiesce in its own extinction. This refusal, of course, involves the resistance to any effort to diminish its powers and prerogatives. There has been no organized effort to keep government down since Jefferson’s day. Ever since then the American people have been bolstering up its powers and giving it more and more jurisdiction over their affairs. They pay for that folly in increased taxes and diminished liberties. No government as such is ever in favor of the freedom of the individual. It invariably seeks to limit that freedom, if not by overt denial, then by seeking constantly to widen its own functions.”

        “The only guarantee of the Bill of Rights which continues to have any force and effect is the one prohibiting quartering troops on citizens in time of peace. All the rest have been disposed of by judicial interpretation and legislative whittling.”
        H. L. Mencken

        “An ideal form of government is democracy tempered with assassination.”
        Voltaire

      2. avatar Juanito ''Johnnie'' Ibañez says:

        Let’s see here: with the advent of IPSC, USPSA, IDPA and 3-Gun Match competitions, there are virtually no firearms; and with 3-Gun particularly, ‘military-pattern modern sporting arms’; which cannot be used for “sporting purposes.”

        To round out the grounds for dismantling gun control in general, and BATF in particular, what we need now is a modern iteration of the century-old “Rattle Battle” (aka: “Infantry Trophy Matches”) of the CMP National Matches, which included the Browning BAR, the M-14 and the M16A1; this time utlilyzing the “arms in common use at (this) time”: the M16A4, M4, M249, et al. — all in “full-auto”.

        Ergo: all these arms are “sporting arms” and, as such, are protected from being “controlled” and/or “banned” under the 2nd Amendment, IMNSHO.

  21. avatar J. D. Smith says:

    Somebody awhile ago mentioned changing out the mag on an SKS. Well I done that with mine but I use Tapco mags which are US made, so that’s no crime, right? And I’ve still got the belly mag so it can go back to original. Tell me this, my son has a Romanian 10/63 AK and I’ve bought him several euro mags that work way better than the original mags that came with the gun (don’t know if they were imports or not) and put a cleaning rod on it that who knows where it came from. China maybe? So how do we know how many of the parts were imported and how many made here and is his AK with the new mags and suspect cleaning rod 922 compliant? If he gets pulled over (it has happened, he has trouble reading speed limit signs) and the mags are not in the gun which they wouldn’t be while driving, is that under the limit? You know I’d hate to see the kid go to prison, I’m just getting to like him.

    1. avatar Jeremy S says:

      It’s really impossible to know and to prove, which is a big reason why no private party has apparently ever been charged with 922(r) violation. BTW, cleaning rods aren’t part of the 20 parts listed. You must have more than 10 of those specific 20 parts to be in violation. …also note that a magazine is 3 parts, not 1…

    2. avatar Raoul Duke says:

      Being an AK nut myself, the compliance parts on a WASR are usually the fire control group (3), muzzle nut (1), pistol grip (1), and the piston (1). A stamped AK which the WASR is only requires 6 U.S. parts. A milled AK only requires 5 since the receiver is also the trunnion.

  22. avatar Raoul Duke says:

    To those asking why this was implemented it is simple. It was to ban imported guns from competing on the U.S. market which is why you did not hear a peep from the domestic manufacturers. Why would they when the government was helping them kill foreign competition.

    The government as well as the domestic manufacturers (for obvious reasons) was also hoping that no U.S. companies would come out with parts to make them legal but they were wrong especially after the lapse of the AWB when a cottage industry of small companies that now exist making 922r compliant parts for the SKS, AK, G3, FAL, Galil, AUG, Tavor, Vz-58, etc.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email