Unobtanium Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 By the way, Great to have you back on the forum. You know your info well and have helped a bunch of people out. Not bad for a "tacticool" guy. Lol, ty. I sold my first M4 about 3/4 of a year ago. I now have another that I am decking out with a lot of Kip's stuff and an optic. I have to say, I MISSED IT! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MontefeltroPro Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 Hey, Monty. I don't see where he is knocking Duggan. He's calling the guy that wrote the letter a moron. Oops! You're right... I totally missed on that. Sorry Unobtanium. There's a trigger-pull I wish I had back! Sorry. Lordy, I have a Ph.D. BUT didn't read this carefully enough... I AM ashamed... please forgive. Been so much "flaming" lately I had decided to declare war on it. Missed on this one. You are right-on with your posts! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Novaking Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 Oops! You're right... I totally missed on that. Sorry Unobtanium. There's a trigger-pull I wish I had back! Sorry. Lordy, I have a Ph.D. BUT didn't read this carefully enough... I AM ashamed... please forgive. Been so much "flaming" lately I had decided to declare war on it. Missed on this one. You are right-on with your posts! Just one slap on the wrist for tonight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MontefeltroPro Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 Just one slap on the wrist for tonight. Thanks, dude! I gotta' be more careful! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unobtanium Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 Thanks, dude! I gotta' be more careful! It's all good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duggan Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 Oops! You're right... I totally missed on that. Sorry Unobtanium. There's a trigger-pull I wish I had back! Sorry. Lordy, I have a Ph.D. BUT didn't read this carefully enough... I AM ashamed... please forgive. Been so much "flaming" lately I had decided to declare war on it. Missed on this one. You are right-on with your posts! Thanks for sticking up for me though. That Unobtanium guy sure is a big bad meanie! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duggan Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 One question about 922r and import compliance laws that I haven't seen answered (and it may be that the BAFT doesn't know the answer) is: It is legal to replace a foreign part with a US made part if the total after reassmbly is still over the 10-imported-parts limit? Common sense would tell you that reducing the number of imported parts is compatible with the law and a good thing under the law ... But, since when has common sense been synonomous with firearms regulations? Based on the wording of the law, I think it could still be interpreted as illegal to reduce the number of imported parts if you don't get the total n number under 10, because you're still "assembling" a firearm with more than 10 imported parts. Any firearms law scholars out there? Yes, it is legal so long as you don't add any "banned features". If you replace a OEM vanilla item with an identical US made item, no aspects of the gun have changed, and you have gained one US made part. If you replace an OEM vanilla item with a "banned" item (read, full length tube, collapsible stock, etc), your total imported parts count must be under 11 if you want to be 922r legal. If you replace a bunch of OEM vanilla items with US made parts, and get your total imported part count under 11 (it's debatable how many parts the m4 is made of, even the ATF doesn't have their story straight), you can then technically add banned features with full legality. If you just add banned features without getting your imported parts count down to 10, you have violated 922r. Make sense? It is only half supposed to ... the idea is that by replacing parts, the gun is no longer an "import" and as such is no longer subject to import restrictions. It is retarded and should be treated as such in my opinion, but do as you will. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Shotgun Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 Yes, it is legal so long as you don't add any "banned features". If you replace a OEM vanilla item with an identical US made item, no aspects of the gun have changed, and you have gained one US made part. If you replace an OEM vanilla item with a "banned" item (read, full length tube, collapsible stock, etc), your total imported parts count must be under 11 if you want to be 922r legal. If you replace a bunch of OEM vanilla items with US made parts, and get your total imported part count under 11 (it's debatable how many parts the m4 is made of, even the ATF doesn't have their story straight), you can then technically add banned features with full legality. If you just add banned features without getting your imported parts count down to 10, you have violated 922r. Make sense? It is only half supposed to ... the idea is that by replacing parts, the gun is no longer an "import" and as such is no longer subject to import restrictions. It is retarded and should be treated as such in my opinion, but do as you will. This law is retarded, in a sense your're saying just remove the OEM parts and add US made parts whatever they'd be (full length tube, collapsible stock etc) get your imported part count under 11 and you'd be legal... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unobtanium Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 This law is retarded, in a sense your're saying just remove the OEM parts and add US made parts whatever they'd be (full length tube, collapsible stock etc) get your imported part count under 11 and you'd be legal... Yep. You got it. I can have as evil of a shotgun as I want...provided enough of its little nethers are made in the US of A. Even if they are carbon-copies of imported parts. That is why Duggan and I keep stating...it is a rule applied mainly to manufactureres, not citizens. Noone has EVER been prosecuted for violation of 922R by itself. I have heard of it being an ADDED charge for an FFL dealer, IIRC at one point. Probably b/c they were modifying and then selling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOGWILD Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 In California any shotgun with a telescoping butt stock/folding butt stock and a pistol grip is considered an assult shotgun and you will not find a FFL that will do any transfer to anyone. Does not matter how many parts you swap out, this combination is ILLEGAL anywhere in California! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duggan Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 In California any shotgun with a telescoping butt stock/folding butt stock and a pistol grip is considered an assult shotgun and you will not find a FFL that will do any transfer to anyone. Does not matter how many parts you swap out, this combination is ILLEGAL anywhere in California! Same in NY. That's why they don't SELL the shotguns with the parts already on the gun ... you have to add them later. In "ban states" such as ours, we have further potential restrictions placed on us beyond 922r. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renault Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 In California any shotgun with a telescoping butt stock/folding butt stock and a pistol grip is considered an assult shotgun and you will not find a FFL that will do any transfer to anyone. Does not matter how many parts you swap out, this combination is ILLEGAL anywhere in California! california blows Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOGWILD Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 Takes a Lawyer to understand California Gun Laws, not really, if it's cool it's probably illegal and trying to ship an illegal shotgun is not cool! I have read numerous California Gun Laws/Pamphlets and it's amazing how STUPID all of these laws are! Does not take a rocket scientist to figure out a shotgun is illegal if it has a telescoping /folding butt stock & a pistol grip. This has nothing to do with adding or subtracting parts to abide by 922r. This is California state Law and it's not too hard to understand that it's illegal. Just read a few of their laws regarding the meaning of an assault shotgun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renault Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 Takes a Lawyer to understand California Gun Laws, not really, if it's cool it's probably illegal and trying to ship an illegal shotgun is not cool! I have read numerous California Gun Laws/Pamphlets and it's amazing how STUPID all of these laws are! Does not take a rocket scientist to figure out a shotgun is illegal if it has a telescoping /folding butt stock & a pistol grip. This has nothing to do with adding or subtracting parts to abide by 922r. This is California state Law and it's not too hard to understand that it's illegal. Just read a few of their laws regarding the meaning of an assault shotgun. either I'm tired from work or my reading comprehension sucks, but I'm having a hard time deciphering which side of the laws you are on. (side as in... in agreement or disagreement, not like you're some kind of lawbreaker or something) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOGWILD Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 If i wanted an M4 with a telescoping stock and a pistol grip and I lived in California i would probably be illegal like all the others that have them. Do i take sides NOPE Can i read California law YES! plain and simple it's got nothing to do with taking sides i am just saying if i was in California and wanted to transfer an illegal shotgun outta state i would think twice before taking it to a FFL and taking the chance he would report me since California gun cards are the first thing they will ask for on a transfer which will give him all your info! not Good!! He could loose his FFL if he did the transfer i suppose & not many going to put their paperwork on the line for a Assault Shotgun! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duggan Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 (edited) If i wanted an M4 with a telescoping stock and a pistol grip and I lived in California i would probably be illegal like all the others that have them. Do i take sides NOPE Can i read California law YES! plain and simple it's got nothing to do with taking sides i am just saying if i was in California and wanted to transfer an illegal shotgun outta state i would think twice before taking it to a FFL and taking the chance he would report me since California gun cards are the first thing they will ask for on a transfer which will give him all your info! not Good!! He could loose his FFL if he did the transfer i suppose & not many going to put their paperwork on the line for a Assault Shotgun! I'll say it again, CA, NY, MA, NJ etc all have state laws that "must" be followed, in addition to the federal 922r law. We are not legally allowed to have "banned features" regardless of imported part count, because we have gun laws that mirror the old expired federal assault weapon ban. That said, you're also not "allowed" to speed on public roads either. ETA - Most of the ATF involvement in these matters concerns manufacturers and dealers, and forcing them to comply with various laws. Unless you screw up really, really badly, the ATF isn't in the business of going door to door, arresting and charging private citizens with felonies for adding a 7 round tube to their 12 gauge ... Edited May 7, 2009 by Duggan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOGWILD Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 The post was about butt stocks/ and pistol grips and transferring a weapon which has transfer implications and federal Laws would be broken and if i was the FFL i would be concerned more than the individual trying to do the transfer! Being the individual i would be concerned less but i find it hard to believe a FFL would do this transfer. No one mentioned extended magazines or going door to door policing Federal Law! I think California Laws might be policed a bit more by the FFL involved than a Fed busting into a gun shop wanting to arrest a citizen transferring a shotgun that others have deemed an assault weapon ie. California Law! that being said if a FFL transfers it that would be his business and i could actually care less! All i was pointing out was it's probably illegal to do the interstate transfer form California and i get knee capped, what's up? I only answered OP question? Yall can do what makes yall happy and i 100% approve it all, 1 new gun law is 1 too many! I am a NRA Life Member and hate to see people in other states be discriminated against, Fed state Gun Laws should mirror each other! But what do i know! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duggan Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 The post was about butt stocks/ and pistol grips and transferring a weapon which has transfer implications and federal Laws would be broken and if i was the FFL i would be concerned more than the individual trying to do the transfer! Being the individual i would be concerned less but i find it hard to believe a FFL would do this transfer. No one mentioned extended magazines or going door to door policing Federal Law! I think California Laws might be policed a bit more by the FFL involved than a Fed busting into a gun shop wanting to arrest a citizen transferring a shotgun that others have deemed an assault weapon ie. California Law! that being said if a FFL transfers it that would be his business and i could actually care less! All i was pointing out was it's probably illegal to do the interstate transfer form California and i get knee capped, what's up? I only answered OP question? Yall can do what makes yall happy and i 100% approve it all, 1 new gun law is 1 too many! I am a NRA Life Member and hate to see people in other states be discriminated against, Fed state Gun Laws should mirror each other! But what do i know! I hear you and agree, I was just saying that the FFL not transferring a weapon with already added "evil" features is a minor inconvenience, as there is nothing really stopping you from adding them at a later point in time. You buy your virgin, neutered m4 from an uptight CA dealer, then go home and slap a full length tube on it, and who do you really think is going to notice or care? Nobody, unless you screw yourself over some other way and "they" are looking to throw the book at you, in which case a 922r change is probably the least of your worries. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.