Hey guys, Ive heard a rumor about the BATF&E taking a new stance with 922(R) and a registered short barreled rifle. It is my understanding that up to this point a SBR was exempt from 922 compliance because , by definition, a SBR is not a "sporting"rifle. Since it isn't a "sporting" rifle, how could it ever comply?
I've heard this rumor about a new ruling that not only are post '89 SBRs subject to 922 but, a pre '89 import, if made into a SBR after the '89 ban would also need to be 922 compliant. I just don't see how this could be? If a pre '89 AK was registered this year as a SBR and rebuilt with a Krink kit, the receiver was originally made pre '89. At no time does the receiver stop being a firearm.
After being built into a SBR, a permanent extension could be added to the barrel, returning the rifle to Title I configuration. Then you could write the NFA Branch and notify them that that rifle has been reconfigured to a Title I firearm. You don't have to wait for confirmation from the NFA Branch to change the firearm back to Title I configuration. You forfeit the $200 tax and the NFA Branch removes the firearm from the active NFA registry.
Apparently the BATF&E position is that Filing a Form 1 is making a firearm. While that is true if you are making the firearm from scratch. To me if the receiver that you want to make into a SBR was originally made before '89, you are only changing the configuration of the firearm. You are not making a new firearm. Just as if you changed the caliber of a pre '89 receiver. You would note that change on the receiver, but it is not a "new" firearm. The configuration has been changed.
I don't know how you can make an SBR compliant when it is a "non sporting" firearm by definition. As I recall during the National Assault Weapons Ban, registering a post '94 receiver as an SBR, the firearm was still prohibited from having more than one knotty feature on that SBR. But I see no way that registering a pre '89 receiver as an SBR is only a change in configuration. At no time did the receiver stop being a firearm. What do you guys think?
Scott
I've heard this rumor about a new ruling that not only are post '89 SBRs subject to 922 but, a pre '89 import, if made into a SBR after the '89 ban would also need to be 922 compliant. I just don't see how this could be? If a pre '89 AK was registered this year as a SBR and rebuilt with a Krink kit, the receiver was originally made pre '89. At no time does the receiver stop being a firearm.
After being built into a SBR, a permanent extension could be added to the barrel, returning the rifle to Title I configuration. Then you could write the NFA Branch and notify them that that rifle has been reconfigured to a Title I firearm. You don't have to wait for confirmation from the NFA Branch to change the firearm back to Title I configuration. You forfeit the $200 tax and the NFA Branch removes the firearm from the active NFA registry.
Apparently the BATF&E position is that Filing a Form 1 is making a firearm. While that is true if you are making the firearm from scratch. To me if the receiver that you want to make into a SBR was originally made before '89, you are only changing the configuration of the firearm. You are not making a new firearm. Just as if you changed the caliber of a pre '89 receiver. You would note that change on the receiver, but it is not a "new" firearm. The configuration has been changed.
I don't know how you can make an SBR compliant when it is a "non sporting" firearm by definition. As I recall during the National Assault Weapons Ban, registering a post '94 receiver as an SBR, the firearm was still prohibited from having more than one knotty feature on that SBR. But I see no way that registering a pre '89 receiver as an SBR is only a change in configuration. At no time did the receiver stop being a firearm. What do you guys think?
Scott