5.45X39 7N6 banned for import into U.S.

[Erno86]

Last week...BATFE has banned the import of 5.45X39 7N6 {steel core} ammunition into the United States. The reason for the ban is apparently due to the fact that someone has developed a pistol that is capable of firing the 5.45X39 round; and has nothing to do with the current U.S. sanctions on Russia.

The ATF can ban any steel core ammo that has a pistol for such a round that can be sold here in the United States.

I for one...am saddened by this current stage of events --- and most likely --- will be paying more money for 5.45X39 ammo for my AR upper and Saiga AK-74; besides being more conservative in expending the --- once cheap --- round.

One question: Will the store owners be banned and stuck with any stock that is in the 5.45X39 7N6 round? The round has only a mild steel core...but that did not stop ATF from dropping the hammer down.

Views?

[URL="http://wwwyoutube.com/watch?v=B6Ht1pGx2vE"=URL]

 

[JD0x0]

So silly. Probably based off of some politician that just discovered that AK 'pistols' exist. Not sure why the 7.62x39 is not affected, as it is capable of being chambered in the same guns for the most part. Just shows their ignorance. AFAIK there are no typical pistols that can fire the round, so I'd have to assume it's one of those cut down rifles that are small enough to be classified as a 'pistol' just ridiculous.

I did a google search for "5.45x39 pistol" and "5.45x39 handgun" and the only thing that came up were AK variant "pistols." Why are they pretending/claiming that these just came out or were just developed? AK 'pistols' have been around for YEARS, both 7.62x39 and 5.45x39 versions.

I mean just the concept of not allowing 'Armor piercing' pistol rounds is insane. I mean you can buy body armor on ebay for cheap. You could easily be attacked in your home or even on the street, by someone wearing body armor/ballistic vests. Why are we not allowed to legally defend ourselves against these threats? It's based on the VERY small percentage of cops that get shot. They don't want concealable weapons that can pierce their vests, but it's not like criminals are going to listen to the law. Like every firearms restriction, it only hurts the law abiding people.
A criminal will load up whatever ammo they feel like using, legal or not, or they'd just cut down a rifle to a concealable size and use that to defeat armor.

Laws like this weaken the people, and strengthen our Gestapo police force and criminals. They're slowly disarming us so that we're powerless against them so we remain compliant and submissive.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

This happened before with the 7.62x39 rounds. IIRC, the old rounds were classified as AP with steel cores. Olympic Arms (again, IIRC) came out with an AR style pistol and caused those rounds to be banned.

However, new rounds were quickly developed and you can get 7.62 x 39 easily.

Whether an AR style pistol is a pistol is an interesting question.

 

[44 AMP]

Whether an AR style pistol is a pistol is an interesting question.

I don't see any question of it. Under the law, they are handguns, so that is it.

However, if you were to ask "is an AR/AK pistol a proper handgun?", then I'd say that's open for opinions.

My 14" Contenders are pistols. My XP-100 is a pistol. NO buttstock, and a barrel below legal rifle length makes it a pistol, no matter how awkward it may be to fire it with one hand.

 

[armoredman]

I remember the Olympic Arms saga and how manufacturers asked them to NOT sell a 7.62x39mm pistol due to the ammo importability issue, and Olympic refused. Pistol on sale, ammo off the import list. I'm surprised it took this long. Now if we can keep anyone from marketing a 7.62x54R "pistol"...

 

[zxcvbob]

My 14" Contenders are pistols. My XP-100 is a pistol. NO buttstock, and a barrel below legal rifle length makes it a pistol, no matter how awkward it may be to fire it with one hand.

I think the lack of a buttstock is the only thing that really matters. You could put a 20+ inch barrel on a pistol -- it would be ridiculous, but still a handgun. (I could be wrong, but I don't think so)

 

[Tom Servo]

Yeager provides no proof in his video. In fact, he dismisses those who would ask for it as if we're nitpickers.

I have found no official source for the rumors of a ban. All I've found are blogs and forum posts, none of which have a link to or a copy of an official letter from the ATF.

Absent proof, I have to assume this is irresponsible rumermongering.

 

[FrankenMauser]

I think the lack of a buttstock is the only thing that really matters. You could put a 20+ inch barrel on a pistol -- it would be ridiculous, but still a handgun. (I could be wrong, but I don't think so)

That's correct, barrel length doesn't matter on a Federal level (though, it can on a state/local level). But...

There are more factors that determine whether it's a handgun, rifle, short barrel rifle, or 'any other weapon'.
For starters, a handgun (with very few exceptions), can never be assembled in a configuration that meets the definition of a rifle, if you want it to remain a handgun. Once a rifle, always a rifle.
You also cannot have any kind of vertical forward grip, or forward grip that allows the thumb and fingers to meet while grasping it. Doing so without a butt stock makes it an 'any other weapon'.
And, of course, if you add any kind of device that can be used as a butt stock, it becomes a rifle (short barrel rifle or proper rifle depends on overall length and barrel length).

And then you can get into the tricky little area of uncategorized 'firearms', that are not rifles, not handguns, not shotguns, not AOWs, not SBRs, and not SBSs. They're legal, but don't meet any of the definitions for specific types of firearms. Shotguns that ship from the manufacturer with a pistol grip are a good example of something that is stuck in the 'firearm' category, rather than actually being classified as a shotgun. ....unless the buyer adds a butt stock. Then, it becomes a proper shotgun or short barrel shotgun.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

No offense on whether the AR pistol is a pistol. I was just ruminating as to its utility as a handgun. Contenders are fine handguns.

 

[Tucker 1371]

Apparently this is for real, here's a link from TheBangSwitch.com

https://www.thebangswitch.com/import-ban-on-7n6-5-45x39/

If this turns out to be long term then I will be quite upset.

 

[Technosavant]

If this turns out to be long term then I will be quite upset.

Oh, barring a change in the law I'd expect it to be quite permanent.

Thing is, ammo makers will retool and make non-steel core 5.45x39. It's just the military surplus 7N6 that won't be coming in any more so there will be a price jump.

You can likely thank whoever decided to make a 5.45x39 pistol out of an AK for this one... it isn't like this was unforeseeable given this is exactly what happened with 7.62x39 before.

 

[Sharkbite]

For starters, a handgun (with very few exceptions), can never be assembled in a configuration that meets the definition of a rifle, if you want it to remain a handgun. Once a rifle, always a rifle.

This is NOT true..

Years ago Thompson/center filed a lawsuit against the US govt over the selling of one of their products. That gun came as a pistol but included as a set a longer (rifle length)barrel AND a stock

The govt claimed that selling it that way provided the means of making a short barreled rifle (pistol length barrel + stock)

T/C sued and WON. The court ruled that it was perfectly legal to take a pistol.. Install a rifle length barrel then add a stock. Thus turning your pistol into a rifle AND then turn it back into a pistol

As long as the short barrel and stock are never on the gun together its LEGAL

Where the confusion come in; is a firearm sold as a rifle CANNOT be made into a pistol. The firearm in question MUST have started as a pistol (or just a receiver)

In other words... If it was born a pistol it can go back and forth. Born a rifle...always a rifle (short of doing the NFA paperwork to SBR)

Sorry but this is a sore point for me. There is TOO much internet myth and speculation about this kind of thing. The T/C win was a mile stone for the firearms industry. A pvt company took on the Govt and won a pro-gun lawsuit about manufacturing.

Dont take my word as gospel... Do some searching. The decision is avail online.

 

[FrankenMauser]

Sharkbite.... note the "with very few exceptions" disclaimer in the text you quoted. The TC 'kits' you refer to are one of those very rare exceptions (specific artillery Lugers being another). You can't do it with just any handgun.

The ATF has opined, many times, that turning other "handguns" into rifles is a permanent change.
For example, you can't buy an AR or AK pistol, turn it into a rifle for a few years, and then legally revert to 'handgun' configuration.
Unless it is on the 'exceptions' list.... Once a rifle, always a rifle - even if it started life as a handgun.

The T/C win was a mile stone for the firearms industry.

It was a milestone for TC. It didn't help anyone else.

 

[Sharkbite]

Frank

No disrespect, but where exactly do you get that information?

If it is legal to take a T/c pistol,replace the pistol barrel with a rifle barrel and THEN add a stock. Go shoot it as a rifle, then remove the stock and re-install the pistol barrel... Now turning it back into a pistol

How does this differ from an AR pistol? Remove pistol upper, install rifle upper add a stock. Shoot as a rifle. Remove stock, install pistol upper... Again a pistol
I dont see the legal difference between the two cases.

A pistol is a pistol regardless of who made it. I would think the T/C ruling applied to all pistols not just ones with T/C stamped on them.

 

[zxcvbob]

As I understand it, the ATF claims the T/C case did not set a precedent -- it only applies very narrowly to that specific brand and model of firearm.

They are given pretty broad discretion by our lazy Congress to do whatever the heck they want with regard to making up and/or reinterpreting gun regulations, so they get away with defying the court in this case.

 

[Tom Servo]

If this turns out to be long term then I will be quite upset

It appears they're sitting on one application, not banning imports. We've still yet to see any kind of official announcement.

 

[Sharkbite]

Not looking to fight.....

But, as i see it.... The T/C case would make a GREAT defense if anyone was ever charged with making a pistol outta a PISTOL.

ATF opined that T/C was breaking the law and the courts disagreed. ATF can opine all they want but there is now CASE LAW that clarified this. Not anyones opinion now but black and white researchable court decision.

Thats the good thing about case law is that it clarifies the written statute.

For me personally, every AR i own (and its a few) began life as a pistol (or receiver). Only 2 wear a 16" barrel. One 223, one 300blk. All the others have pistol length barrels. I feel confidant in swapping uppers around freely. Never will a stock and a short barrel be together, except the stamped SBR's

Of course others are free to do as they please. For me knowing the T/C case is there to fall back on if needed, is enough

Sorry about the thread jack!!! I just remembered this was about banning ammo imports

 

[carguychris]

If it is legal to take a T/c pistol,replace the pistol barrel with a rifle barrel and THEN add a stock. Go shoot it as a rifle, then remove the stock and re-install the pistol barrel... Now turning it back into a pistol

How does this differ from an AR pistol?

I'll let Justice Souter explain it.

Accordingly, we conclude that the Contender pistol and carbine kit when packaged together by Thompson/Center have not been "made" into a short barreled rifle for purposes of the NFA.

(Emphasis mine)

The ruling is exceptionally narrow. It specifically and unequivocally calls out the "Contender pistol and carbine kit when packaged together by Thompson/Center". The ruling does NOT explicitly address other types of firearms, firearms parts, and/or kits assembled by other parties.

The reasoning in Souter's opinion could theoretically be extended to other pistol/carbine/SBR parts-kit thingies made by parties other than Thompson/Center, but I am not familiar with any case law that does this. If such case law exists, I'd love to hear about it. If not, anyone mixing and matching AR pistol and rifle parts needs to ask themselves: Do I want to be the test case?

For me knowing the T/C case is there to fall back on if needed, is enough

OK, but that's your call, not mine.

 

[Sarge]

With current US vs Russia financial war and the proclivity of this administration to legislate by executive fiat, it is poor time to be dependent on any arms-related paraphernalia from overseas- and particularly Russia and its satellites.

 

[Erno86]

"OFFICIALLY BANNED" as per BATFE