922r compliance question

[Magiccarpetrides]

I currently have a .308 Saiga and bought some 25rd surefire mags with it. Is it legal for me to use these "hi-caps" since they are US made?

[The Rabbi]

I currently have a .308 Saiga and bought some 25rd surefire mags with it. Is it legal for me to use these "hi-caps" since they are US made?

The problem would be (potentially) if they were foreign made. The rule is that a foreign made parts kit has to have X number of US made parts (someone here knows more about this than I do). Theoretically inserting a foreign made mag increases the number of foreign made parts.

Personally I think its a non-issue. The rule is unenforceable (and silly)and to my knowledge no one has ever been charged with violating that.

[molonlabetn]

Since they count for the required 3 US compliance parts, it wouldn't be considered any differently than the 10rd mags... since the AWB is expired.

I don't see a problem, as 922r is concerned.

[Magiccarpetrides]

Awesome thanks for the quick answer :-D

[Smith]

You'll also have to add a few more US parts to make it "legal". The Sure Fire mags alone are not enough and in fact make it illegal. Although I agree with Rabbi, I doubt it will ever be an issue for you.

[The Rabbi]

I dont think so. The Saiga's come already US compliant. They aren't, to my knowledge, foreign parts kits but foreign-made rifles, like an HK or CZ or something. So 922 isnt an issue here. Using one kind of mag or another wont make a difference.

[molonlabetn]

I dont think so. The Saiga's come already US compliant. They aren't, to my knowledge, foreign parts kits but foreign-made rifles, like an HK or CZ or something. So 922 isnt an issue here. Using one kind of mag or another wont make a difference.

Yes, as long as you don't add a foreign pistolgrip stock, flash-hider, and bayonet lug, 922r doesn't apply. But if you ever do convert it, the magazine will count as 3 parts towards that, as long as you use US parts on the rest of the gun.

[Smith]

Well I had that all out of sorts then. Guns laws are so confusing and everybody says something different. We just need to get rid of all of them! well, at least a bunch of them.

[molonlabetn]

I agree with that!

No more gun laws, or 'thing' laws... only laws which prescribe punishment for criminal behavior which had been demonstrated to directly cause or promote harm can have any real affect.

[Magiccarpetrides]

As much as I hate to admit it I definitely dont think current NFA laws are too "out of whack"...i.e. full autos and the like. Silencers are a mixed bag...on one side you have hearing protection and on the other hand...what are silencers really intended for...

[Smith]

Then you need to hand me your AK assault rifle. It was really only intended for warfare and you aren't in the military.

[Magiccarpetrides]

Lol...yeah you got me there. Course we could all be drafted to the ZDR so I am just prepared ;-D

[molonlabetn]

As much as I hate to admit it I definitely dont think current NFA laws are too "out of whack"...i.e. full autos and the like. Silencers are a mixed bag...on one side you have hearing protection and on the other hand...what are silencers really intended for...

The NFA is about money and about appeasing reactionary liberals.

The whole argument that the rate of fire, barrel length, or muzzle blast noise determines the likelihood that a gun will be used in a crime, or is even 'more lethal', is fundamentally flawed.

It is the natural progress of any technology to become more effective and/or user-friendly... weapons are now advanced to the point that one person can do considerable damage, that is clear. Just like many modern technologies, including the fact that one person can do greater damage with their SUV than our ancestors could with their horses. To universally limit the progress or access to technology because a small percentage of people are apt to misuse it is not even remotely just...

Though I will agree that point-of-sale background checks are sadly necessary, because the justice system regularly allows repeat offending criminals back out into society. Even so, it is an egregious overstep of the government's bounds to require 'registration' of certain types of small arms, just because of their configuration. It's very much like regulating free-speech by requiring an expensive license in order to legally say certain things, but not others.