I have a Preban Norinco 56S-1, do I have to do anything to the rifle to be 922 compliant?
If I want to swap out the pistol grip and handguards(just hypothetical at this point), would I then have to swap out 4 more parts to make the rifle compliant?
Before anyone says do some research on my own, I already did. I searched thru the recent posts, plus the archive for all 922 info I could find. I found there are 3 group mindsets on this issue. One group seems to say that all imported rifles, regardless of being a preban or not, need to be modified. The second group seems to say only Postban(89) rifles need to be modified with US parts. The 3rd group seems to say only kits or personal builds need to have US parts to make the rifles compliant.
So, which group is telling the truth??
Not to muddy the waters - but when I read 922 the year of import did not matter. It is still a felony to assemble a rifle in an illegal configuration - it HAD to be assembled that way before November 1990. If it was imported pre-ban and now you modify it into a non-importable configuration, then you have committed a felony.
So if you have a pre-ban rifle and you decide now to add a pistol grip, etc then it must have the US compliance parts in order to be legally changed.
If I read a fake copy of 922 please post the appropriate sections from the real 922 that indicate you can configure a rifle any way you want it as long as it was imported before the ban.
This is what I mean about confusing information. 3 replies and 2 different answers. Does anyone have a link to the actual written version of 922???
By the way what is the definition of "pistol grip" as is described by the ATF and 922? My rifle has a grip behind the trigger guard and attached to the receiver that looks like a pistol grip to me. So if I want to change out my wooden grip to a plastic model, would that constitute a felony, if I go by what Centuryhouse states above???
"Pre-ban" is one of those terms which has multiple definitions.
1> Imported prior to 1989 ban, regardless of configuration
2> Imported prior to 1989 ban, in "evil" configuration (exempt from 922(r).)
3> Pre-1994 AWB.
In this case, we want the 2nd definition - that it is a rifle imported prior to the 1989 ban, and is already in "evil" configuration.
A thumbhole-stocked AK rifle, even if it was imported prior to 1989, if not in "evil" configuration prior to the 1989 import ban, is NOT a "Pre-ban" firearm.
A Norinco 56S-1 would have been in "evil" configuration prior to the 1989 ban, hence, it's grandfathered, and not subject to 922(r).
I have a 56S-1 Underfolder, that I've changed the grip and forearm out on. You're good to do darn near anything to that rifle.
XGunBunny - I'm sorry I added to the confusion. While I believe that what I posted IS correct, the error comes because I may have misunderstood what your gun's original configuration was. Check out this quote:
As he said, IF the gun was already in that configuration before the 1989 ban went into effect then you can replace LIKE parts. For instance, if it has a pistol grip you can trade that out for another pistol grip. If it DOESN'T have a pistol grip already, then you can't add one.
I was under the mistaken impression that your gun wasn't already in the configuration and that you wanted to CHANGE IT to pistol grip. I don't know what made me think that! Again sorry for the confusion, I should have kept my mouth shut. I've seen a number of posts from MAK and he seems to know what he's talking about - so I defer to him on this one.
Not entirely accurate.
922(r) discusses converting rifles what has been determined to be an unimportable configuration.
High-capacity magazine, threaded barrel, bayonet lug, all the other nasties, but MINUS a pistol-grip would still not be considered importable.
If such a rifle was in that configuration prior to 1989, you could add a PG to it - you can't make a rifle any more or any less importable/unimportable.
Fortunately, we don't have that issue too often - most of the time, rifles either have a PG, or they don't, and that's the biggest configuration issue.
Correct. I guess I screwed up what I was trying to say - if the weapon was already a "semi-automatic assault weapon", which is possible without a pistol grip (i.e. removable magazine, flash hider/threaded barrel, bayonet lug), it's my understanding that it's not illegal to add a pistol grip, without having to dink with parts count.
Basically, if it's a semi-automatic assault weapon, under the law, you can't really make it "more" of a semi-automatic assault weapon.
Anyone know if that's true??
Pre-AWB sunset, in 2002, I was looking at building a 5.45 Krinkov SBR with all the evil features:
Removable Magazine in addition to:
Only problem - no pre-ban 5.45 rifles with which to use as the donor.
As was established by the ATF, building an NFA weapon such as an SBR, while removing the firearm from the purview of 922(r), did NOT remove the firearm from the purview of the AWB - i.e. newly created SBR's built on post-ban receivers could only have one "evil" feature.
If I had decided to go ahead with the build, a Krinkov SBR built on an OOW receiver (all that was really available at the time) would have required a brake, not a hider, being pinned on, and any folding stock permanently fixed, leaving the pistol grip as it's only "evil" feature.
.223/5.56 AK's are apparently quite easy to convert to 5.45, so it was suggested that I try to find myself a Norinco 84S, which came in two flavors - underfolder and fixed.
Both are pre-ban, both are already in "semi-automatic assault weapon" form, therefore, both could be used as the donor for my "evil" Krinkov.
The fixed stock 84S would have been the better choice between the two, for adding a side-folder, as the underfolder holes wouldn't have to be welded up.
The 84S fixed-stock had the following evil features:
Removable magazine in addition to:
Adding a folding stock to this rifle would have been completely legal, had I gone ahead with the project.
Unfortunately, I don't have any ATF letter, or reference to ATF ruling to back this up, but this was the accepted attitude and behavior prior to the ban's sunset, and the rules have gotten more lax, not more strict, so I don't see why this would have changed.
Remember though - the rifle would have had to have been in "semi-automatic assault weapon" PRIOR to the 1989 import ban to be exempt from 922(r).
This means that in addition to a removable magazine, it would have been required to have two or more of the following "evil" parts, prior to the 1989 import ban:
1> Folding or telescopic stock
2> Pistol grip protruding conspicuously beneath the stock
3> Bayonet mount
4> Flash suppressor or threaded barrel (note that a permanently attached flash suppressor on a threaded muzzle does NOT count as two parts, but that a flash suppressor NOT permanently attached to a threaded muzzle DOES count as two parts. A muzzle nut freely-attached to a threaded muzzle still renders the threaded muzzle as one countable "evil" part. A muzzle nut pinned/soldered onto the rifle renders the threaded muzzle as zero countable parts.)
5> Grenade launcher
An AK-style rifle with a thumbhole stock, bayonet lug, threaded muzzle and freely-removable flash hider would be considered a "semi-automatic assault weapon" - even now, you can't assemble such a rifle without maintaining parts compliance. If you had a way to thread the muzzle of a MAK-90, and attach a bayonet lug, you would be in violation of 922(r) unless you swapped out 5-6 imported parts with domestic parts.
Interesting - thanks for providing the rationale.
Thanks to all of you for the info and your replies. Note to Centuryhouse, not to worry about adding to the confusion, it is just I confuse easily sometimes
From what I am reading, you cannot make your non-evil or post-89-ban "assualt rifle" into an evil pre-89-ban "assualt rifle" by using "imported" parts to do so. The emphasis is using imported parts to "evilfy" your assualt rifle.
If you use "US" or "non imported" parts to do the "evilfying" are you exempt from the law? If so, does this hold for home made parts???
Hate to keep beating this poor horse to death.
You couldn't build a Krinkov that would be considered a "semi-automatic assault weapon". You could build a ban-friendly Krinkov - fixed stock, pinned brake, etc.
Non-SBR Krinkov - must comply with 922(r).
SBR Krinkov - NFA firearm, no 922(r) compliance required.
Prior to 2004, making a rifle into an SBR removed said rifle from the purview of 922(r), but not the AWB.
These people would be wrong. If the rifle was not in SAW configuration prior to the 1989 import ban, then it must comply with 922(r). Period. MAK-90's were not in the country prior said ban, therefore, they must comply with 922(r).
Correct. Officially, the burden of proof lies on the ATF to prove that a part is domestic or foriegn. Supposedly, nobody has ever been hammered under 922(r).
I don't wish to rely on either of those.
Save receipts, or make sure your parts are marked.
With any luck, we'll eventually get a manufacturer such as Arsenal who goes the DSA route - 100% domestic AK's in a variety of flavors.