4/14/06 - MG42 Firearm vs Rifle Question - ATF's Response

Post by **Abominog** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 11:53 am

It's been a long time. Any update?

Thanks.

Post by **762x51** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 2:05 pm

On 24 May 2006 I sent a request to Senator Burr (R-NC) asking him to submit a request to the ATF for classification of the MG42 as a firearm.

It's my understanding from the Office of Chief Counsel at ATF that as of last week a draft response has been written and it's been forwarded to the Directors office for review. Your guess is as good as mine as to when Senator Burr will receive a reply from the ATF.

Of late, the ATF has responded to questions at a snails pace.

Regards,
Orin

Post by **tomcatshaas** » Fri Jan 19, 2007 8:32 pm

anymore news on this?

Post by **762x51** » Fri Jan 19, 2007 10:54 pm

My Senator finally got a response from them and the ATF isn't going to change their stance.

They are still saying it's a rifle simply because it has or can have a buttstock.

This is simply another misuse of power by what has become a rogue agency.

Regards,
Orin

Post by **justashooter** » Fri Jan 19, 2007 11:35 pm

so cut the buttstock off and call it a very heavy pistol. no US parts requirement. it's legal to do, if eccentric. no limit on handgun barrel length or weight by federal statute.

Post by **salt6** » Fri Jan 19, 2007 11:40 pm

Yeah, and the charging handle on an FAL is an op-rod. Go figure. I guess this is what you get when you elect the people you elect.

041x · Post by **041x** » Sat Jan 20, 2007 1:37 am

justashooter wrote:so cut the buttstock off and call it a very heavy pistol. no US parts requirement. it's legal to do, if eccentric. no limit on handgun barrel length or weight by federal statute.

Pistol barrel have to be less than 16"

Post by **striker754** » Sat Jan 20, 2007 10:31 am

041x wrote:
justashooter wrote:so cut the buttstock off and call it a very heavy pistol. no US parts requirement. it's legal to do, if eccentric. no limit on handgun barrel length or weight by federal statute.
Pistol barrel have to be less than 16"

Not in federal law.

(29) The term ``handgun'' means--
(A) a firearm which has a short stock and is designed to be held
and fired by the use of a single hand; and
(B) any combination of parts from which a firearm described in
subparagraph (A) can be assembled.

State law maybe.

Post by **waffendude** » Sat Jan 20, 2007 10:56 am

so enlighten me guys--- is it legal to home bulid a sa42 using the fal fcg? and make the sa mods to the receiver?

Post by **M1 Tanker** » Sat Jan 20, 2007 11:20 am

Waffendude, if your question relates to US made parts...you simply need to buy a US made FAL FCG. I have always liked http://www.fseusa.com/ in my FALs.

Post by **Bil** » Sat Jan 20, 2007 11:36 am

I would like to repeat Waffendudes question,EXACTLY as written. ---bil

Post by **tomcatshaas** » Sat Jan 20, 2007 12:27 pm

why not use panaceabeachbums grip stick and add to the us made parts count.

TC

propos · Post by **propos** » Sat Jan 20, 2007 1:23 pm

I substantially modified my gripstick. It can't be used in it's original configuration. I used a US AR15 FCG in it. I made a new wood buttstock for it also.
I wonder what US parts Century is using on their SA-42?

Post by **drooling idiot** » Sat Jan 20, 2007 2:33 pm

the century guns will probably be determined to be firearms not rifles

propos · Post by **propos** » Sat Jan 20, 2007 6:18 pm

Yeah, ain't nothing like having influence in the right places. However if that would be the case, then wouldn't ours fall under the same heading? One can only hope.

Post by **drooling idiot** » Sat Jan 20, 2007 7:15 pm

i think thats kinda the point Orins arguing , BRP's is a firearm , homebuilt is a rifle , same gun different standards.

Post by **tomcatshaas** » Sat Jan 20, 2007 7:38 pm

762x51 wrote:My Senator finally got a response from them and the ATF isn't going to change their stance.

They are still saying it's a rifle simply because it has or can have a buttstock.

This is simply another misuse of power by what has become a rogue agency.

Regards,
Orin

Is this a regional thing? When something like this comes up...do All the ATF agencies across the nation veiw this the same way? I have experience with the FAA and it seems like with them
one agency can view or interpet the regulations the way they want to and different than another region of the country. Maybe their are grey area's in regulations just for this very reason.

Sledge303 · Post by **Sledge303** » Sat Jan 20, 2007 7:50 pm

drooling idiot wrote:the century guns will probably be determined to be firearms not rifles :roll:

The Century Yugo M53's are being classified as a rifle and use US parts (new barrel, receiver, grip/fire control group, etc..)

Post by **tomcatshaas** » Sat Jan 20, 2007 7:58 pm

New barrel? what are they doing for new barrels? Converting MG34 barrels or are they makeing their own?

propos · Post by **propos** » Sat Jan 20, 2007 8:10 pm

Hey, I wonder how much Century's new barrel is? I wonder who's making it. I wonder if they will offer it for sale. Gosh, I'm doing a lot of wondering. I wonder why. It's been a long day.