I enjoy a good informed conversation involving 18 U.S.C. section 922(v) as much as anyone else here, but lately discussions here have taken a extremely bizarre twist considering the actual application of this law. Sure you sent a interesting question to the ATF in regards to the possibility of a pre-ban losing it's status and got an even more interesting response, and yes it does somewhat reflect the letter of the law, but at some point we need to step back from such letters and take a look at the actual reality of the situation. The reality I refer to is actual court cases, and actual practices. A studied look at court cases involving 18 U.S.C. section 922(v), and a glance around a gun show near you quickly shows a different situation. So what is this reality, nothing that resembles the fantasy land letters put out by the ATF, and the hypothetical debates taking place here.
Walk around a large gun show and what do you see? Do you see 18 U.S.C. section 922(0) violations displayed on dealer's tables (yes, they can be found but you will have some difficulty finding one)? No, such dealer would be arrested and sent to the big house. You will see multiple 18 U.S.C. section 922(v) violations though, for example at the April 2002 Tulsa show I happened to spot the following:
Steyr StG 58 kit on a Hesse receiver, unmodified flash hider/grenade launcher, there was at least two of these
Steyr StG kit 58 on a type III Enterprise receiver, unmodified flash hider/grenade launcher
Colt's Match Target with a 20" barrel, flash hider, and "bayonet mount"
Bushmaster XM15E2S serial number 222,XXX set up as a "CAR-15"
My personal favorite was two Romanian MK2s that a person that I will not name, removed the serialized numbered trunions from, installed Bulgarian AKSU kits on with no butt stock, he then engraved AK PISTOL on the trunion, and they were being sold as pre-ban assault pistols. This is a slick one that I would not expect a ignorant ATF agent to spot, because there are no markings on the receivers of these rifles, but any individual with a working knowledge of Kalashnikovs can spot this in a minute, oh yeah and the removed parts where on display for sale as well, hehe.
In regards to actual court history consider US vs Indelicato, while this case did not involve a 18 U.S.C. section 922(v) prosecution it did address the grandfather clause found there in. The court found that the grandfather status of a pre-ban is lost once it is transferred to another individual.
In short a more relevant and interesting issue involving 18 U.S.C. section 922(v) then the latest and greatest goofy letter put out by the ATF is the lack of enforcement. Why is it that the ATF is more interested in putting out letters, writing regs, and putting out "info" on their web site and in their dealer guide book then actual enforcement of 18 U.S.C. section 922(v)? In what will soon be eight years we know of three documented 922(v) prosecutions that being US vs Spinner, US vs Starr, and US vs Valentin. What are the two SKS cases you refer to?