Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Posted: 11/21/2007 11:23:18 AM EDT
As I understand it, there is a Semi-auto receiver in manufacture at this time. The receiver is milled in a way as such to disable the full-auto firing capabilities of the weapon. I am wondering if this were registered as an SBR on a form 1, would the rifle also have to be 922(r) compliant? If so, my Vz-61 parts kit would be somewhat useless as I would have to machine enough US Parts to make it compliant.

In general, to re-phrase the question: are registered SBRs exempt from the US parts count/922(r)?

Thanks in advance.
Link Posted: 11/21/2007 2:16:36 PM EDT
yes
Link Posted: 11/21/2007 9:57:17 PM EDT
Yes, 922(r) compliant or Yes, it is exempt from 922(r)?
Link Posted: 11/21/2007 10:02:04 PM EDT
I believe that NFA weapons are exempt from 922(r), because they are non-sporting firearms. There have been ATF courtesy letters that I have seen that say they are exempt, and others I have seen that say they must comply w/ 922(r). I do not think the ATF has issued an official ruling on the matter.
Link Posted: 11/22/2007 6:55:04 AM EDT
If you recall the Beretta Storm Carbine letter, SBR's ARE NOT exempt from 922r. ATF has contradicted itself several times over the course of several letters recently, but we must remember that the letters are only legally binding to the addressee. Thus, one should either get their own letter affirming that 922r does not apply OR follow the most conservative interpretation, and follow 922r. Reading 922r, closely, I believe that it does apply to SBR's and SBS, given that it uses the verbiage "any semi-automatic rifle or any shotgun" and I see no exemption for SBS or SBR.
Link Posted: 11/22/2007 7:58:27 AM EDT
ATF has given multiple answers; no one really knows for sure except for people who bother to write a letter asking for guidance.

Mike
Link Posted: 11/22/2007 6:05:52 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/22/2007 6:06:42 PM EDT by orangelo]
Even if the ATF came back with a letter that said it was A-OK you still can't trust them to not turn around the next day and say OOPS, it isn't legal, our bad, now hand it over. (just like the Akins stocks)

Better idea would be to stamp Made in the USA on every single component of the gun. The burden of proof is on the government to prove that they aren't made in the US.
Link Posted: 11/23/2007 3:03:30 PM EDT

Originally Posted By mcnielsen:
Yes, 922(r) compliant or Yes, it is exempt from 922(r)?


My understanding is they ARE EXEMPT from 922(r).
Link Posted: 11/23/2007 6:22:17 PM EDT
IIRC, the "dualing opinions" usually broke down into "an SBR is not required to abide by the us parts count" and "an SBR that has non-importable features is bound", which aren't actually exclusive opinions.

So, a Storm SBR is fine, a Storm SBR with threads, not as much.
Link Posted: 11/25/2007 2:08:49 AM EDT
Isnt this the way people get around putting extension tubes on there benellis are with going NFA
Link Posted: 11/25/2007 11:58:45 AM EDT
Well, I'm glad I asked!

Clearly, the answer is not clear. Thanks to all who responded to the post.
Link Posted: 11/27/2007 6:43:04 AM EDT
922R is about the stupidest thing i have ever seen.
Link Posted: 11/27/2007 4:45:54 PM EDT

Originally Posted By C-4:

Originally Posted By mcnielsen:
Yes, 922(r) compliant or Yes, it is exempt from 922(r)?


My understanding is they ARE EXEMPT from 922(r).


My 02/07 NFA drug dealer told me that too.
Link Posted: 11/28/2007 2:17:27 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/28/2007 2:21:46 AM EDT by Monkey-man]
Disregard this post if you think it is stupid.

I know little about US law but; as I understand it your issue surrounds fitting a 'stock' to a pistol.

I have a real Scorpion, the thing that attaches to the back and folds over the top could hardly be considered a stock. It is so short most people who use the gun fire it like a pistol. This makes me question the ATF definition of a 'stock' - surely there must be some minimum dimension to qualify?

Conversely, UK laws banned pistols of less than X length (not sure the number). UK builders get around this by fitting handguns with long barrels and 'arm rests' like an adult slingshot sticking off the back and fixed to the frame. The 'thing' on a Scorpion is much more like a UK arm rest than a real folding stock like an UZI or AK.

Just some pointless rambling and maybe food for thought or further investigation. In any case, the gun works fine without the wire thingy extended. My main problem is the lack of 30rd magazines.

(Borrowed internet picture)


My gun

Link Posted: 11/28/2007 4:23:52 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/28/2007 4:27:13 AM EDT by tony_k]
Link Posted: 11/28/2007 7:51:32 AM EDT
Gotcha Tony, thanks.

Back on-topic, you mentioned the 'tension strap' stock system. I've been pondering the stock issue with this Scorpion for some time and I think that may be just the answer. If I can get my stock off without damaging the finish I'll build a dovetailed Lanyard ring for a strap. ANYTHING would work better than the factory wire 'thingy'.
Link Posted: 11/28/2007 10:16:43 AM EDT
somethig else to ponder. you can SBR a Glock and put a shoulder stock on it. so, why not build it as a pistol first, then SBR. the main sticking point that i have been reading is building it as a rifle first, and possibly having to keep it 922 complient. this is the same thing that is going on with AK pistols now.....ie...parts count doesn't matter with a HG. please correct me if i am wrong. the ATF always seem to be hung up on what it started out as.

advntrjnky
Link Posted: 12/2/2007 12:39:31 PM EDT

Originally Posted By BurntPocketHole:

Originally Posted By C-4:

Originally Posted By mcnielsen:
Yes, 922(r) compliant or Yes, it is exempt from 922(r)?


My understanding is they ARE EXEMPT from 922(r).


My 02/07 NFA drug dealer told me that too.




Top Top