3) What is the mechanism by which these individual officers (or servicemen) are allowed to purchase it themselves? I know the agency is basically giving them its blessing, but I don't see that specifically mentioned here. Is it mentioned elsewhere?

4) Could a re-configuration of such an exempted firearm by a later non-LE owner (or even while still in LE hands) ever affect its exempt status?

5) Are licensed manufacturers the only ones who can create such a 922(r) exempt firearm? Could one be created by the agency itself? (I know they can create everything else, tax-exempt.)

Could a gunsmith (Type 01 FFL) assemble one on behalf of an agency?
 

18 U.S. Code § 925
"(1) The provisions of this chapter, except for sections 922 (d)(9) and 922 (g)(9) and provisions relating to firearms subject to the prohibitions of section 922 (p), shall not apply with respect to the transportation, shipment, receipt, possession, or importation of any firearm or ammunition imported for, sold or shipped to, or issued for the use of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or any State or any department, agency, or political subdivision thereof."

So could supporting documentation be the key to proving permanent exemption for future owners?


If an individual officer can personally buy one for duty use, could they not make one as well?
 
 
 
 
 

Individual full-autos would be nice. I see your point about treading carefully, as I certainly wouldn't want to be the test case in my circuit. Currently we know the ATF will not approve a post-86 MG transfer to an individual officer on a Form 5, nor will they approve a Form 1 filed in an individual's name for duty use, so the only way I could think of to try it would be for an agency to transfer a postie to an individual officer who holds a FFL/SOT as a Sole Proprieter. Then upon giving up the SOT, just keep it. I wouldn't want to try it though.



The law only makes assembly illegal, once that is done possession is not outlawed.

That's what makes 922r so weird, and the permanent exemption status hard to figure out.

Physically identical things could have a different legal status. There is no real way for anyone to verify that status, unless it's on a firearm which was manufactured exempt from the beginning.

For example:
Citizen Kane could purchase a Steyr USR, illegally swap an A3 stock and trigger pack onto it, then sell it to Joe. Joe is not breaking the law, since he merely possesses it now, and did not assemble it that way. Joe's firearm still remains subject to 922r, and is configured in violation of it. Now Joe wants to swap for an A2 barrel with a flash suppressor. If Joe does this, he would then have committed the same 922r violation as Kane. If Joe sells the firearm to Bob at the gunshow then Bob is legally in the clear, and happily enjoys his preban configured AUG receiver, never modifying its configuration for the rest of his life.

Start over:
Epic PD has SGT Tackleberry, who asks the Chief if he can private-purchase a USR off Gunbroker and use it as a duty weapon. Chief approves and signs off on Tacklberry's IOP letter, which is then sent to the selling FFL with SGT Tackleberry's payment. When the firearm arrives at EPD ATTN:Tackleberry, he sticks that USR in his patrol unit and off he goes to work. A week later Tackleberry is talking with the EPD armorer, who enlightens him on AUG A3 differences. Tackleberry wants his USR upgraded. Armorer replies "Bro, we got this..." and proceeds to install an A3 stock, trigger pack, and barrel on Tackleberry's rifle. It's now permanently exempt from 922(r). After a few months, Tackleberry sells his rifle so he can afford the premium doughnuts, and goes back to using an agency-owned Colt Commando for duty use.

If Fred is the fortunate private citizen who purchased Tackleberry's AUG, Fred may now swap parts around on this firearm however he wants. How could Fred prove it's permanently 922r-exempt unless he has some statement from the EPD armorer stating "I, EPD armorer, assembled this firearm serial 910USRXXX for LE duty use on this auspicious date." or something?