AK Rifles banner

1 - 20 of 22 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
42 Posts
To whoever is actually reading this, thank you lol. Now, here's the *hypothetical* situation. Suppose you had a friend who was 17. Suppose that friend was raised around firearms their whole life. Suppose that friend's father owns a Maadi AK-47 rifle. Suppose your friend's father is unaware of the 922r compliance law. Suppose your friend's father's Maadi AK-47 is comprised of nothing but 100% Egyptian-made parts. Suppose that your friend's father put in his will that everything he owns, including his guns, go to your friend once he passes away. When that time comes, could your friend lawfully own that rifle when it's passed onto them if they have intentions of swapping some of the Egyptian parts for American replacements to make it 922r-compliant? Any answer or advice would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,153 Posts
Should be pre ban which means it dosent matter because it was imported before the dumbass laws came about
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,047 Posts
The rifle only has to be in compliance if you are the one who converted the post-ban from Bush-hole stock to standard AKM stock. If someone gives you the rifle and you do nothing to it compliance is not an issue. According to the sporting purpose clause of the new ATF second amendment it is only the entity who does the conversion that has to use enough USA parts so that there are no more than 10 imported parts in the resulting rifle. Once it changes hands, again as long as you do not make any changes 922(r) is not an issue.

By the way if one stupid statute wasn't enough, 922(r) is duplicated in Title 27 CFR 478.39 as a "codified regulation"
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
13,774 Posts
Suppose you don't double post. Suppose your question will get answered. Suppose I welcome you to the akforum.

On a legal note, your friends fathers rifle is legal. As long as it's not touched and is still 100% as imported, it doesn't need 922 parts. It only needs to be compliant when parts of the rifle are swapped out from its original configuration. Having said that, if your friends father modified the rifle and it is no longer 100% original, whoever owns the gun after him is NOT required to make it 922 compliant.

**EDIT...indykid got it before I did**
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
621 Posts
Where is the authoritive language/document that that supports the idea that 922r does not apply to subsequent owners? As an attorney, I am calling bullshit.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,590 Posts
A question I've always wondered is, where does burden of proof lie with 922r? Many people, including myself, have made their own parts, so how can proof of origin be established? I'm not going to be marking stuff and making it all ugly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,688 Posts
and I've seen original imported parts that someone has engraved USA upon. Let's face it; 922(r) is unenforceable, and they know it. It's only likely to be applied as an add on charge if they nail you on a bunch of other stuff, and then you've got more to worry about than whether a gas piston was made by Tapco or not. I'd worry about a welded up third pin hole, but not gonna stress over this one.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
212 Posts
I'm sure 922r applies more to big import/rebrand companies than Joe Schmoe making a rifle in his garage.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,047 Posts
Where is the authoritive language/document that that supports the idea that 922r does not apply to subsequent owners? As an attorney, I am calling bullshit.
As stated in my reply above, if you read 922(r) and if that wasn't enough they added Title 27 CFR 478.39 which state "you cannot make" or something like that as I don't feel like looking it up again. Nowhere does it say "you cannot own".

Also something that would be considered hearsay in a court. A friend of mine who is way up on the federal food chain that ATF reports to once warned me that "as long as you don't go up to an agent and brag about your 'hot-rodded" firearm they don't want anything to do with it". Hearsay yes, but funny to hear from someone charged with overseeing the weapons ATF owns.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
42 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
I sincerely apologize for the double post. I've stalked the forums for a long time but created an account yesterday just to ask this question (as if it isn't evident) but I plan on staying here for a long while now. As for the people who've replied, thank you! If this was a situation, I just wouldn't want that Maadi to be confiscated or anything just because it doesn't comply to a silly law. So basically, what I'm reading is that the rifle would be passed onto said friend no problem?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,047 Posts
I sincerely apologize for the double post. I've stalked the forums for a long time but created an account yesterday just to ask this question (as if it isn't evident) but I plan on staying here for a long while now. As for the people who've replied, thank you! If this was a situation, I just wouldn't want that Maadi to be confiscated or anything just because it doesn't comply to a silly law. So basically, what I'm reading is that the rifle would be passed onto said friend no problem?
This is correct.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,660 Posts
:nutkick:
Where is the authoritive language/document that that supports the idea that 922r does not apply to subsequent owners? As an attorney, I am calling bullshit.
As an attorney you should do your research before spouting off on a public forum...I hereby call bullshit on your bullshit call...:nutkick:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 22many

·
Registered
Joined
·
621 Posts
Thanks for the output of different sources of letters/ statutes on this discussion. All that being said, it seems that there is some ambiguity in the law, verses what might happen if you have the weight of a federal prosecutor on your ass. I still believe that one should be compliant with 922r just to cover yourself.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,774 Posts
Just have them get a C39 instead.

American AK is best AK

:twirl::twirl::twirl:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,660 Posts
Thanks for the output of different sources of letters/ statutes on this discussion. All that being said, it seems that there is some ambiguity in the law, verses what might happen if you have the weight of a federal prosecutor on your ass. I still believe that one should be compliant with 922r just to cover yourself.
LOL...if there wasn't ambiguity in the law(s) the lawyers would be pretty much out of business.
 
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
Top