Bush Gun Ban Underway

[Bruzilla]

Why would one not want an AK-47?

umm..seriously...because I like the weapon.

Why do people like Indian food? It's a matter of taste...

It's the same way that I look at someone who buys one of those ugly Nissan 300Z cars and say "what the fluck were they thinking???"

I have no desire to buy an AK-47-series rifle, but that's just me. They are mainly sheetmetal, and I don't see paying $400 for what's essentially a bunch of pots and pans with a barrel. I have two L1A1s, a CETME, an H&K G-3, and two AR-15s. I've only fired one of the L1A1s and one of the AR-15s, and the rest just sit in the gun rack looking pretty... which is all they need to do to meet my needs.

 

[Ken King]

What they are doing is redefining a bag of parts as a firearm, hence making it applicable to the law. They are not making any new laws, just redefining what constitutes a "firearm", but for imports only. The bag o' parts is still a bag o' parts if it's all made in the USA.

For example, I just bought another L1A1 this week. At some point, this rifle was an FN/FAL rifle somewhere in the World. It was torn down to component parts, the receiver was removed, and it was all stuffed into parts bins with parts from other rifles. These parts were all shipped to the US, along with their barrels and frames, and this was allowed because at the time these parts were not considered to be firearms, and the law was not applicable. The parts were then mated up with a CAI receiver and some other US made parts and made into an L1A1.

With the change of view with the BATF, these parts are now considered to be a "firearm", and now do fall under the law. In fact, okay... kinda fact as I can't document it, I have been told that these parts were often shipped in as "scrap metal", which is technically true.

Call them scrap metal if you want, but the "fact" is that they can be "readily restored to fire" which defines them as a firearm under the law.

 

[Bruzilla]

Actually they can't be restored to firing because the receiver/frame is missing. It isn't until AFTER they are in the United States that they are capable of being built into a firearm using a US-made receiver/frame.

 

[Lenny]

So if I understand all of this (and trust me it's still a little gray around the edges) what BATF is doing is enforcing the laws already on the books that were previously overlooked and not making any new laws, right?

Ken,
That is exactly what is says. Trying to turn this into a gun-grab by the Bush administration is purely irresponsible.

The law has been on the books since before Slick Willie so saying it's a George W law is totally out of touch.

 

[Ken King]

Actually they can't be restored to firing because the receiver/frame is missing. It isn't until AFTER they are in the United States that they are capable of being built into a firearm using a US-made receiver/frame.

Bruzilla,

I fully understand that you are just being extremely difficult with the concept of laws already on the books being enforced. The fact that US made parts can make the "scrap metal" a firearm once again is exactly what is defined as being "readily restored to fire", is it not? The law does not specify where the required items come from only that the unit can be made functional and is thus classified as a firearm. Twist it all you want but that is what the law states.

 

[dustin]

It's the same way that I look at someone who buys one of those ugly Nissan 300Z cars and say "what the fluck were they thinking???"

I have no desire to buy an AK-47-series rifle, but that's just me. They are mainly sheetmetal, and I don't see paying $400 for what's essentially a bunch of pots and pans with a barrel. I have two L1A1s, a CETME, an H&K G-3, and two AR-15s. I've only fired one of the L1A1s and one of the AR-15s, and the rest just sit in the gun rack looking pretty... which is all they need to do to meet my needs.

Hey a cast-iron skillet can be just as fatal in the right hands...

Those are some pretty nice firearms you got there. I wouldnt mind having anyone one of them (or all of them)...if I had the cash....but I dont...hence the 400 dollars... I'm still kicking myself for not buying my brothers AK. he had a nice case, couple magazines, sling, and i think it was Czech made. he ended up selling it to another Devil Dog for 150 for everything

 

[rdonthehd]

gun laws and bans are only making it harder for honest people like me to buy and own a gun if I want to

 

[2ndAmendment]

Amendment II (1791)

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

This law, like others, is a violation of the rights of citizens under the Second Amendment. One of these days, Congress is going to "break the camel's back" and wonder why they are targets.

 

[SamSpade]

For those of you who have been distracted by Katrina and gas prices, the Bush administration just allowed the first ban of specific firearms since Slick Willie's grab in 2004.

The BATF has now made it illegal to import parts guns for rebuilding into completed firearms. This means that all those cheap AK-47s, H&K G-3s and CETMEs, and L1A1s are now banned. Say goodbye to the $400 assault rife.

Thanks George!

How did Slick Willie grab anything in 2004?

 

[Bruzilla]

Bruzilla,

I fully understand that you are just being extremely difficult with the concept of laws already on the books being enforced. The fact that US made parts can make the "scrap metal" a firearm once again is exactly what is defined as being "readily restored to fire", is it not? The law does not specify where the required items come from only that the unit can be made functional and is thus classified as a firearm. Twist it all you want but that is what the law states.

Ken, no offense but you just don't seem to know much about firearms. A firearm, without a frame or receiver is not "readily restored to fire". Think of a car with the engine and transmission yanked, and no replacements available, as being "readily restoreable to drive." It isn't. Now, if the gun were disassembled and all of the parts, including the receiver and the frame, were kept with the parts, then you would be 100% correct. The gun could be readily restored to a firing condition by any competent gunsmith. But, with the receiver/frame gone the gun is no more capable of firing, or being made to fire a shot, than the car with no engine or tranny.

Until this year, the interpretation of the law was that a firearm had to be readily restoreable BEFORE importation to be considered a firearm. Without the receiver/frame all you have is a bag of spare parts, not a firearm or a potential firearm. It isn't until AFTER importation that these parts are mated up with a receiver/frame and made into a firearm.

I have no problem with any law being enforced, I just don't agree with the classification of spare parts as a "firearm" in the case of imported parts, especially when the BATF contradicts itself IRT US-made firearms. I can take a US-made AR-15 apart, remove the lower receiver, and everything that's left is not considered a firearm. I can mail the parts to anyone, anywhere (even to MD), without the need for an FFL or any registration. So if the BATF has for decades recognized the fact that only the receiver or frame of a firearm constitutes "a firearm", and is regulated, why should someone else at the BATF decide out of the blue that the same standard does not apply to imported parts?

 

[Bruzilla]

How did Slick Willie grab anything in 2004?

Ooops... That was 1994... I finally got into the habit of excluding 199X from just about everything I write after messing up about four or five books worth of checks.

 

[Bruzilla]

Hey a cast-iron skillet can be just as fatal in the right hands...

Those are some pretty nice firearms you got there. I wouldnt mind having anyone one of them (or all of them)...if I had the cash....but I dont...hence the 400 dollars... I'm still kicking myself for not buying my brothers AK. he had a nice case, couple magazines, sling, and i think it was Czech made. he ended up selling it to another Devil Dog for 150 for everything

You need to shop around some. I just bought my second L1A1 off gunbroker.com for $425, and that was with six 20-rd mags and a loader. The average price for these rifles at a gun show two weeks ago was over $800. I would also suggest auctionarms.com and gunsamerica.com. If the Internet is good for one thing it's mating people with guns to move with people who want them, which is pretty ironic that Al Gore's invention should be used in such a way. You just need to find an FFL holder who will do the transfer for you, and there's a list of them on the gunbroker.com website. When I lived up there I had a guy on Cobb Island do my transfers. I also bought a Beretta 96 with three hi-cap mags off gunbroker.com for $325, which the dealer down here who did the transfer told me was half of what he would have charged me for the same gun in his store.

But if you want an L1A1, CETME, G-3, AKM or other parts gun you better start shopping now. I expect to see prices double by Jan 1st as the BAN comes into effect.

 

[Ken King]

Ken, no offense but you just don't seem to know much about firearms. A firearm, without a frame or receiver is not "readily restored to fire". Think of a car with the engine and transmission yanked, and no replacements available, as being "readily restoreable to drive." It isn't. Now, if the gun were disassembled and all of the parts, including the receiver and the frame, were kept with the parts, then you would be 100% correct. The gun could be readily restored to a firing condition by any competent gunsmith. But, with the receiver/frame gone the gun is no more capable of firing, or being made to fire a shot, than the car with no engine or tranny.

It’s all about the language of the law. And as such your comments are as you yourself have said that there are companies that make these parts for these pieces of "scrap metal". Which means that they can be readily restored to fire (note the law doesn’t say that the restore must be done by Joe Schmukatelli or by a pro, only that it can be restored readily).

So which is it, are there parts available or are there not? BTW an automobile without an engine and tranny is still an automobile even if you can’t find the original type parts as most grease-monkeys I know (not to mention myself) can make it workable again.

Until this year, the interpretation of the law was that a firearm had to be readily restoreable BEFORE importation to be considered a firearm. Without the receiver/frame all you have is a bag of spare parts, not a firearm or a potential firearm. It isn't until AFTER importation that these parts are mated up with a receiver/frame and made into a firearm.

I have no problem with any law being enforced, I just don't agree with the classification of spare parts as a "firearm" in the case of imported parts, especially when the BATF contradicts itself IRT US-made firearms. I can take a US-made AR-15 apart, remove the lower receiver, and everything that's left is not considered a firearm. I can mail the parts to anyone, anywhere (even to MD), without the need for an FFL or any registration. So if the BATF has for decades recognized the fact that only the receiver or frame of a firearm constitutes "a firearm", and is regulated, why should someone else at the BATF decide out of the blue that the same standard does not apply to imported parts?

Interpretations change all the time, no difference here. Besides there is a section of the law that says receivers and frames are firearms, so if anything the new interpretation is just aligning itself more with the actual code.

But go ahead and believe or think what you want but it is obvious that those tasked with implementation of the law see it basically the same as I do without regard to previous interpretations that might have been erroneous.

 

[Bruzilla]

So which is it, are there parts available or are there not? BTW an automobile without an engine and tranny is still an automobile even if you can’t find the original type parts as most grease-monkeys I know (not to mention myself) can make it workable again.

I can't understand why you're having such a problem with this. When those parts are sitting in a warehouse in lower Schlamogio, they can not be activated because the receivers/frames are no longer with them. Sure I guess some gunsmith could walk into the warehouse and bring along a bunch of milling machines and turn out a receiver given a few days, but that's not being realistic. I would also see things your way if we were discussing parts sets for guns like the British Sten, which has a receiver that is basically a metal tube with some holes cut in it, and that can be made fairly easily, but the receivers in question are milled units that aren't readily available.

But to answer your question, there are not any receivers/frames with these parts. When the guns are disassembled by the respective armories the receivers/frames get scrapped and melted down, or they get sold to other militaries, and the remaining parts get shipped to the jobber who sells them to the US. They are only able to be built into firearms once they have been imported into the US and arrive at Imbel, Century Arms, etc., where the receivers/frames are.

 

[Ken King]

I can't understand why you're having such a problem with this. When those parts are sitting in a warehouse in lower Schlamogio, they can not be activated because the receivers/frames are no longer with them. Sure I guess some gunsmith could walk into the warehouse and bring along a bunch of milling machines and turn out a receiver given a few days, but that's not being realistic. I would also see things your way if we were discussing parts sets for guns like the British Sten, which has a receiver that is basically a metal tube with some holes cut in it, and that can be made fairly easily, but the receivers in question are milled units that aren't readily available.

But to answer your question, there are not any receivers/frames with these parts. When the guns are disassembled by the respective armories the receivers/frames get scrapped and melted down, or they get sold to other militaries, and the remaining parts get shipped to the jobber who sells them to the US. They are only able to be built into firearms once they have been imported into the US and arrive at Imbel, Century Arms, etc., where the receivers/frames are.

I take it you are the one with the problem of comprehension. The following is a quote from you somewhere up the page.

What this states is that if it's illegal to import an entire foreign-made firearm, it is now illegal to import frames, barrels, receivers, etc., that can be assembled, using US-made parts, into legal firearms. The previous requirement was that there had to be some US-made parts in the guns to make them legal, but as of Oct 1 that's no longer the case. Importers who have existing transfers in place can still bring the parts in until Jan 06, and after that all imports are illegal.

Right here you say there are parts available for making the guns usable. No one is saying that the parts are being shipped with the "scrap metal" but that they are here and since they are that "scrap metal" is a firearm because it can "readily be restored to fire". You catching on yet?

 

[Bruzilla]

Interpretations change all the time, no difference here. Besides there is a section of the law that says receivers and frames are firearms, so if anything the new interpretation is just aligning itself more with the actual code.

Receivers and frames are firearms as defined by the BATF and state governments, and have been for decades. That's not a change or a new reading of the law. In fact ONLY the frame or receiver of a firearm is classified as a firearm. Every other part is classified as just a part, with the exception of large machine guns (M-2, M-1934, etc.), which can be fully assembled on a functional receiver and still not be considered a firearm until the right-side receiver plate (which is considered to be the firearm and treated as such even though all it is is a piece of sheet steel with some holes through it) is installed. So, you can have a fully assembled M-1934A4 heavy machine gun, with a box of .30 caliber ammo hanging on the side, and mounted on a tripod, and it is still not a firearm unless it has the right side of the receiver installed. Which by the way is a damn impressive sight when seen from the left side of the gun.

 

[Bruzilla]

Right here you say there are parts available for making the guns usable. No one is saying that the parts are being shipped with the "scrap metal" but that they are here and since they are that "scrap metal" is a firearm because it can "readily be restored to fire". You catching on yet?

Ken, you disappoint me. I said that there were parts available in the US, not where the gun parts are being imported from!!! Jeeze Louise! This new ban is on the IMPORTATION of these parts sets. When these sets are imported they have no receivers or frames, nor are the parts available, nor are there any milling fairies in the box to make said parts before they arrive in the US. This makes them just parts, and they should be treated that way just as parts sets made in the USA are treated.

 

[Ken King]

Ken, you disappoint me. I said that there were parts available in the US, not where the gun parts are being imported from!!! Jeeze Louise! This new ban is on the IMPORTATION of these parts sets. When these sets are imported they have no receivers or frames, nor are the parts available, nor are there any milling fairies in the box to make said parts before they arrive in the US. This makes them just parts, and they should be treated that way just as parts sets made in the USA are treated.

Okay so you bring in a "parts set" (import) and locally in the good old US of A there is a company making frames and receivers for said "part sets", would that not mean that the "part set" is now readily restorable to be made into a complete weapon? That is what I think they are going for with that language.

Now I'm not saying what they are doing is right or wrong but it certainly seems within the language of the laws referenced.