- Messages
- 4,655
Yes. As a practical matter, 922(r) appears to have very little standalone enforcement against ordinary individual owners, especially for something like a one-off SKS furniture swap.
But I’d separate three points:
First, the law is real. If someone assembles the rifle into a non-sporting configuration with too many imported counted parts, that can technically violate 922(r).
Second, proving it is awkward. The government would have to care enough to prove assembly, configuration, and imported-parts count. On an old SKS with swapped furniture, that is not usually an attractive standalone case unless there is some other criminal investigation already happening.
Third, most real-world risk is collateral. It is more likely to matter if the rifle is seized for another reason, involved in another case, sold commercially, transferred through a shop that cares, posted online while arguing about compliance, or examined by an agency already looking for charges. It is much less likely that ATF is hunting random SKS owners over Archangel stocks.
But I’d separate three points:
First, the law is real. If someone assembles the rifle into a non-sporting configuration with too many imported counted parts, that can technically violate 922(r).
Second, proving it is awkward. The government would have to care enough to prove assembly, configuration, and imported-parts count. On an old SKS with swapped furniture, that is not usually an attractive standalone case unless there is some other criminal investigation already happening.
Third, most real-world risk is collateral. It is more likely to matter if the rifle is seized for another reason, involved in another case, sold commercially, transferred through a shop that cares, posted online while arguing about compliance, or examined by an agency already looking for charges. It is much less likely that ATF is hunting random SKS owners over Archangel stocks.