Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 36

Thread: helpful website for 922r compliance

  1. #21
    Gunco Regular ACMcom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    IN
    Posts
    900
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default

    I wonder if pookie is misremembering things. During the ban it was illegal to have a flash suppressor, or a barrel threaded to accept a flash suppressor. The BATF determined that a muzzle nut was not a flash suppressor, because it did not FUNCTION as one. The BATF also determined that it was legal to have a rifle with a threaded barrel so long as you had the muzzle nut (which covered the threads) as long as the muzzle nut was permanently attached (as the BATF defined that).
    The question of legality during the ban is different than 922 (r) compliance. The list developed by the BATFE regarding countable parts does not refer to the FUNCTION of the "muzzle attachment". The FUNCTION was crucial to the question of whether a muzzle nut was legal during the ban, but irrelevant now.
    The BATFE has not made a determinaton that a bayonet is a muzzle attachment, but now that you've put the idea in their heads, expect that to change if there's an Obama bin Biden administration.

  2. #22
    No Hope For Me 1biggun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    13,636
    Feedback Score
    14 (100%)

    Default

    The BATFE has not made a determinaton that a bayonet is a muzzle attachment, but now that you've put the idea in their heads, expect that to change if there's an Obama bin Biden administration.
    the ATF dont need my input to come up with stupid laws like make sure you evil AK dosent have an imported barrel nut or that the pistol grip is american made or go to jail for 10 years. they come up with there own stupid crap. I suspose imported electrical tape would be illeagle on the threads. GOOD GRIEF. There more worried about whats on the muzzel end than the guy on the other end. What amazes me is for every simple question there is NEVER A SIMPLE ANSWER. only gray areas. the money they spend passing these laws on this crap is amazing.

  3. #23
    Gunco Regular ACMcom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    IN
    Posts
    900
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 1biggun View Post
    What amazes me is for every simple question there is NEVER A SIMPLE ANSWER. only gray areas.
    I gave you a simple answer: If it attaches near the muzzle, consider it a muzzle attachment, which is a countable part. There is nothing gray about that.
    The problem in this case isn't the lack of a simple answer. The problem is that people don't like the simple answer so they complicate the matter by launching into discussions of function or the lack thereof, or the question of whether a muzzle nut is a device (which is simply a different way to discuss function), or questions like "If a muzzle nut is a countable part why isn't a bayonet a countable part?"
    I'm not here to defend the BATFE but in this instance, any confusion cannot be attributed to them. There is nothing unclear about the words "muzzle attachments".

    BTW: You should be thankful that the BATFE chose to complicate this matter by issuing a regulation with a list of parts and an arbitrary number of those parts required to have the rifle considered to be US made. I am.
    The statute is very simple: It says it is illegal to assemble a semiauto rifle from imported parts if that rifle can't be imported. The simple answer would be: You can't use ANY imported parts. The result of that simple answer: No AKs built from imported parts. I think the cost of an all US made AK would be prohibitive, assuming you could obtain those parts.

  4. #24
    No Hope For Me 1biggun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    13,636
    Feedback Score
    14 (100%)

    Default

    if it were back and white I wouldnt need to ask about a bayonet it would be yes it is or no its not.

    simply put i asked a legitmite question and the ansewer was
    The BATFE has not made a determinaton that a bayonet is a muzzle attachment, but now that you've put the idea in their heads, expect that to change if there's an Obama bin Biden administration.
    well if the havent decided if a big KNIFE attached to the MUZZEL is or isnt a countable part. then how is it asking if a nut that dont extend past the muzzel and serves no muzzel discharge controll function a countable part unreasonable
    on some AK,s the threads arent even on the damm barrel they are on the front sight block. A sight block that is well guess what attached to the muzzel. the ATF did specify certain parts as countable. and if a bayonete is not for sure a countable part then how can we say a nut or even a threaded sight block is. unless it is in writting. Honestly If I had a threaded adjustable site block and it had a nut on those threads Id call it part of the block. (just playing a little devils advocite here)

    Honestly I would say yes it is a attachment and I agree with you, however the reports of atf documens saying other wise is what Im questioning. I dont think these guys are making it up. I still would not be suprised that they did come out and say a nut is not an a atachment as defined by them. and that attaachments must have some sort of function. at this point if I really care enough I should write the ATF and likely get another unclear response from them.
    Personaly I would only care if it becomes a issue there $5 for a us made one

    I completly agree that the that the whole arbituary number of parts has allowed us to keep building it could have just as easly have said no use of any trunion bolt or reciver. and we would be done

    with the increasing prices I dont think a US made AK is out of the question. If they can make AR 15 and all the other stuff out there like the mini 14 and auto loading shot guns surely some one can tool up to build a US AK for around the same money.
    Its the cheap parts kits of the past that have not made it worth it. but now a kit is $200+ it sees that some one will step up to the plate eventualy. I hope it is a 3 lug version that can handel 308 and other hooter rounds

  5. #25
    Gunco Regular ACMcom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    IN
    Posts
    900
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 1biggun View Post
    then how is it asking if a nut that dont extend past the muzzel and serves no muzzel discharge controll function a countable part unreasonable
    I wouldn't say that asking the question about the muzzle nut was unreasonable, but discussing whether it serves a function (and if so what that function is) merely confuses the issue.
    One more time: Whether a muzzle nut served the function of suppressing muzzle flash was crucial during the ban on flash suppressors.
    Whether a muzzle nut serves any function at all is completely irrelevent to the question of whether it is a countable part for purposes of 922 (r) compliance.
    This is so because the regulations do NOT say muzzle attachments that serve the function of (insert a function here) are countable parts. The regulations simply say that "muzzle attachments" are countable parts.

  6. #26
    Gunco Veteran Markp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Somalia
    Posts
    1,840
    Feedback Score
    7 (100%)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 1biggun View Post
    the ATF dont need my input to come up with stupid laws like make sure you evil AK dosent have an imported barrel nut or that the pistol grip is american made or go to jail for 10 years. they come up with there own stupid crap. I suspose imported electrical tape would be illeagle on the threads. GOOD GRIEF. There more worried about whats on the muzzel end than the guy on the other end. What amazes me is for every simple question there is NEVER A SIMPLE ANSWER. only gray areas. the money they spend passing these laws on this crap is amazing.
    Just simply amazing.... I can't believe that we can even still get ak parts kits. Although I know that's gonna change soon.

    Mark

  7. #27
    Gunco Veteran Markp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Somalia
    Posts
    1,840
    Feedback Score
    7 (100%)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 7.62x39 View Post
    For anybody still having a problem grasping the concept of how the 922r law works.

    922(r) Worksheet for AK-47 Builds
    If the firearm was imported prior to this law is the firearm subject to 922(r)?

    Mark

  8. #28
    Gunco Member GunLocators's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    33
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default

    thank you

  9. #29
    Gunco Member Akinhand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    146
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)

    Default

    This law baffles me.

  10. #30
    Gunco Rookie tag187's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    19
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default Doesn't work

    This link no longer works.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Search tags for this page

There are currently no search engine referrals.
Click on a term to search our site for related topics.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •