In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.

For repair or replacement only?

kimberkidkimberkid Member Posts: 8,858 ✭✭✭
edited September 2003 in General Discussion
I've been seeing this question asked on several boards but I don't think I've ever seen it here ...

======================================================================

Several companys are selling parts and/or receivers with the statement "Sold for Repair or Replacement Only". The parts and receivers I've seen are for everything from Sten's and AK's to AUG's, SIG550's, G3(HK91), Galil to name just a few.

What is this repair or replacement only statement and how does it apply to individuals? Does this mean I can't use this type of kit or receiver to make a new firearm even with the required US parts ... which by (current) BTAFE defination would classify the firearm as sporting and not assault?

For instance ... Can I buy an AUG receiver that was legally imported and "Sold for Repair or Replacement Only", they buy a parts kit ... Get out my dremmel tool and make from scratch my own parts to get it 922 compliant ...

OR...

Does "Sold for Repair or Replacement Only" mean just that and I cannot legally build a new weapon from them?

======================================================================

In my mind"Sold for Repair or Replacement Only" means just that! and I cannot legally build a new weapon using them, kits or receivers ... seems pretty clear, point blank and peroid ... but a lot of people are disagreeing with me ... opinions?

===========================
Chance favors the prepared mind [8D]

kimberkid@cox.net
If you really desire something, you'll find a way ?
? otherwise, you'll find an excuse.
· Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

Comments

  • mark christianmark christian Member Posts: 24,443 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Hello Kimber. Repair or replacement pretty much means exactly that as far as dealers and manufacturers are concerned. This is all based on an January 2001 agreement between the BATF and the FAIR (Firearms Importers Round Table) group. FAIR is a trade group which represents the interests of both importers and some firearms dealers involved in imports of firearms and related items. As a result of this agreement parts kits for otherwise prohibited firearms (Section 925(d)(3)) can be imported and used to replace damaged parts on an existing firearm or if a complete firearm was stripped down to the bare receiver and all of its parts could be replaced with the new kit parts...as long as the resulting firearm is EXACTLY the same as the original. For instance an exisiting FAL type rifle cannot be used as a host and a PARA parts kit installed onto to the receiver. There were some stripped Galil receivers floating around last year but these receivers can not be assembled onto a new parts kit and then sold even if they are 922 compliant but the new receiver could be used to replace a damaged receiver on a Galil which was already an exisiting rifle. Remeber that section 922(r) prohibits the production of otherwise prohibited imported firearms from parts under nearly any circumstances by other than Class 2 manufacturers; and then only for sales to law enforcement or government agencies.

    At this point in time importers are allowed to bring these parts kits in only if they include this repair/replacement statement. Dealers and manufacturuers are prohibited from assembling these kits into ANY type new firearm. Now here comes the grey area. By regulation there is NOTHING to prevent an unlicensed individual from using these kits to produce a 922 compliant firearm for his PERSONAL use. You'd have to do EVERYTHING yourself because anyone with any type of FFL can't touch this sort of project. Right now the BATFE is rather upset because a number of newly produced personal firearms from kits are turning up and it appears that there may be another change in the regulations at some point in time. Currently these sorts of personal firearms "appear" perfectly legal if they are 922 compliant for an unlicensed individual...but I am NOT a lawyer. There is no promise that if the regulations are changed that any firearms which suddenly become non compliant would be grandfathered-- you could be out of luck. This sort of stuff is packed full of legal mumbo jumbo which the governments and FAIR's lawyers fight over every week. The law says one thing (BATFE) and the regulations say something else (FAIR). On the surface I would say that repair and replacement does not allow you to produce a new firearm form these kits. The regulations however are not so clear on this matter. Procede with caution my friend!

    Mark T. Christian
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • kimberkidkimberkid Member Posts: 8,858 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Mark -
    I was hoping you would respond ... we see "eye to eye" on this subject and I'm glad to get a little support on the subject.

    Although I continually get beat up for it, my position on the subject is and has always been: quote:"For Repair or Replacement Only" ... since you can't replace or repair something that did not already exist ... using them to build a "new" weapon" is prohibited in by the very statement!

    It doesn't say "For Repair or Replacement Only" if you are a manufacturer.

    It doesn't say "For Repair or Replacement Only" but individuals can use for anything they want ...

    It simply says: "For Repair or Replacement Only" To me there is no gray area ... the importers bring them in "For Repair or Replacement Only" ... and they sell them "For Repair or Replacement Only"

    Lawyers can try to make anything out of it they want, but until they change the wording, it means what it says; "For Repair or Replacement Only"

    If it weren't for Lawyers ... we wouldn't need Lawyers [V]

    ===========================
    Chance favors the prepared mind [8D]

    kimberkid@cox.net
    If you really desire something, you'll find a way ?
    ? otherwise, you'll find an excuse.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • mark christianmark christian Member Posts: 24,443 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I also conceur and have been chastised by a NUMBRER of folks who'll claim that if I were to ONLY read the regulations I'd see that my position is incorrect. Well I have read the regulations MANY times (I'm in this business after all) and my posistion is that you simply cannot produce, manufacture, build, or create a new firearm from one of these kits! The kits were imported by reason of that very same repair/replacement disclaimer and as far as I am concerned this is the end of thier legal use right there in black and white. The grey areas are for those folks who don't mind taking the risks involved in possibly running afoul of the law and paying the price if and when the worst happens.

    Mark T. Christian
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • DancesWithSheepDancesWithSheep Member Posts: 12,938 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    When is a door not a door? Is there anything in this to prohibit someone from legally "repairing or replacing" the receiver on an existing gun, then taking the old receiver and building another gun from parts?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • mark christianmark christian Member Posts: 24,443 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    When is a door not a door? When it is ajar! You can repair your old receiver if you please. In the case of machineguns there is nothing you can do but to repair your damaged receiver becasue there is no mechanisim in the regulations that allow you to have a new MG receiver produced for you to replace original which was damaged. If you crack the lower receiver on your registered receiver HK-91 conversion you can't have a new HK-91 receiver converted to replace it...the original must be repaired (some how) or it is game over. Lawful replacement of the exisiting receiver means that the old receiver has either been destroyed or is rendered unserviceable. If it is not and you attempt to reuse it in order to produce another firearm from parts then you are actually manufacturing a NEW firearm and this is prohibited. Now Sheepman, please tell me that we are not going to get into another syllogism on firearm regulations (major and minor) because the third part (the conclusion) seems to be always out of reach!

    Mark T. Christian
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • kimberkidkimberkid Member Posts: 8,858 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    According to the BTAFE regulations:quote:if the frame or receiver for a semiautomatic assault weapon is defective, the replacement must be made by the weapon's manufacturer or importer. The replacement receiver must be marked with the same serial number as the original receiver and the original receiver must be destroyed. However, a manufacturer or importer who is unable to mark the replacement receiver with the same serail number as the original receiver may seek a marking variance in accordance with 27 CFR 178.92. In addition. the permanent records of the manufacturer or importer should indicate that the receiver for the weapon has been replaced."
    I have one of the 100 Steyr AUGs that GSI sent back to Austria for an A2 upgrade ... The replacement receiver was marked with the same serial number as the original receiver and the original receiver was destroyed ... at least as far as I know; it was in Austria and I wasn't there.

    I don't really understand why the BTAFE has allowed these receivers to be imported - or allow them to be sold ... the sellers are not adhearing in any way to the provision outlined for them ... possiably it was a simple oversite, but my suspisions are more sinister ... that the BTAFE intends to round these up at some later date and will look hard at the people that possess them for other violations ... kind of like whats going on with the Yugo M-76 rifles right now. These were originally banned in 84 (I think) ... then someone (Inter-Ordance?) made new application for them which was initally approved by the BTAFE, the error was "discovered" and they are now sending the owners letters to turn them in without compensation.

    ===========================
    Chance favors the prepared mind [8D]

    kimberkid@cox.net
    If you really desire something, you'll find a way ?
    ? otherwise, you'll find an excuse.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • DancesWithSheepDancesWithSheep Member Posts: 12,938 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:kimberkid

    I don't really understand why the BTAFE has allowed these receivers to be imported - or allow them to be sold ...

    Exactly.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • mark christianmark christian Member Posts: 24,443 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Another very good point Kimber. As a dealer if I take a firearm in on trade or purchase one outright that is unsafe or damaged and I simply want to have it for the parts, then I must destroy the receiver according to regualtions and list in my bound book that the receiver was destroyed. If that same "destroyed" receiver turns up on some other firearm then I am headed for the slam and my gun dealing days are finnished! Some folks like to believe that whatever they have "gotten away with" will continue to be legal after the new regulations catch up with them. There are simply no assurences that such firearms will be grandfathered or that current owners will be allowed to remain in possession of them. If these firearms are subject to forfiture there will of course be no compensation...you pays your money and you takes your chances!

    Mark T. Christian
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • offerorofferor Member Posts: 8,625 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Mumbo jumbo aside, you now see this same language being used on simple parts like Glock magazine bodies. The intent of the language is clear. The replacement hi-cap parts may be legally applied only on pre-ban stuff, not used to manufacture new hi-cap mags from partly post-ban parts.

    Any other interpretation of the language seems to me wishful thinking, aka rationalization. Certainly the legal disclaimer is designed to protect the manufacturer from being accused of manufacturing illegal parts. What the end user does with it is therefore the crux of the matter. All us law-abiding gun owners (as the NRA likes to describe us) would OF COURSE never have the intent to manufacture any illegal materials from such post-ban manufactured parts -- now, would we? [8D]

    T. Jefferson: "[When doing Constitutional interpretation], let us [go] back to the time when [it] was adopted. [Rather than] invent a meaning [let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."

    lifepatch.giffortbutton2.gif
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • kimberkidkimberkid Member Posts: 8,858 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I found this posted over at fal.files.com:
    ======================================================================
    Fair%20Trade%20Group%20ATF%20Letter.gif

    ======================================================================

    I'd say that pretty well clears up any doubt

    ===========================
    Chance favors the prepared mind [8D]

    kimberkid@cox.net
    If you really desire something, you'll find a way ?
    ? otherwise, you'll find an excuse.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • mark christianmark christian Member Posts: 24,443 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    THANK YOU KIMBER! I've been searching all over my files for that notice and have come up empty. Most of my first post was based on what I could remember reading in that notice and it appears that the old memory is still pretty good! My advice continues to be this: If you have an FFL as a dealer or manufacturer I urge that you keep your distance from these kits or anything relating to them. If you are a private indidual I advise you to watch you step...the boys in the cheap suits are just looking for easy targets so why help them along!

    Mark T. Christian
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Smokeeater 38Smokeeater 38 Member Posts: 2,735
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by offeror
    Mumbo jumbo aside, you now see this same language being used on simple parts like Glock magazine bodies. The intent of the language is clear. The replacement hi-cap parts may be legally applied only on pre-ban stuff, not used to manufacture new hi-cap mags from partly post-ban parts.



    I have wondered how it could be proven that you didn't have a pre-ban hi-cap mag, say a Pro-Mag, and replaced the body and then the spring & follower and then the base plate. They all needed replacement due to the fact they are junk to start with. Or, that you just bought all the parts and put together a new mag.






    Get the job done and come home safe guys.

    I rush in where others flee.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Smokeeater 38Smokeeater 38 Member Posts: 2,735
    edited November -1
    BTT





    Get the job done and come home safe guys.

    I rush in where others flee.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
Sign In or Register to comment.