<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>        <rss version="2.0"
             xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
             xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
             xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
             xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
             xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
             xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
        <channel>
            <title>
									Barrels - AllGunStuff Forum				            </title>
            <link>https://systemz.online/barrels/</link>
            <description>AllGunStuff Discussion Board</description>
            <language>en-US</language>
            <lastBuildDate>Fri, 08 May 2026 00:04:42 +0000</lastBuildDate>
            <generator>wpForo</generator>
            <ttl>60</ttl>
							                    <item>
                        <title>Barrel replacements - court decision</title>
                        <link>https://systemz.online/barrels/barrel-replacements-court-decision</link>
                        <pubDate>Thu, 19 Jan 2023 05:46:34 +0000</pubDate>
                        <description><![CDATA[Morning All , breaking news of a good type.The dealers association, SAAADA, has been in constant litigation with saps about numerous policy decisions of the cfr and the interpretation of the...]]></description>
                        <content:encoded><![CDATA[Morning All , breaking news of a good type.<br>The dealers association, SAAADA, has been in constant litigation with saps about numerous policy decisions of the cfr and the interpretation of the FCA by saps .<br>SAAADA has been litigating the issue of barrel changes for several years&nbsp; , because saps issued two directives on the procedures&nbsp; required which were unlawful and were deemed to be so by the High Court. The initial&nbsp; 2017 directive was set aside and then the second directive was interdicted in 2019 on an interim basis , pending a full review .<br>The review was argued late last year and Judge Davis gave judgment on Tuesday. The delay in the hearing I might add was occasioned by deliberate delaying tactics from the office of the state attorney .<br>The salient points of the ruling are as follows:<br>Paragraph 4.2.2 of the directive is set aside, which means a gunsmith does not have to certify the &quot;necessity &quot; of the barrel change, so if you want to change your barrel you can simply state why you want to do so.<br>Paragraph 4.2.5 of the directive, the requirement that the replacement barrel must be licensed&nbsp; to the person changing the barrel BEFORE you change it was set aside&nbsp; because the the license held by any person who can legally possess the barrel is sufficient , ie if the barrel is in dealer or gunsmith stock it is deemed to be licensed .<br>Paragraph 4.2.6 was set aside where the owner of the &quot;old&quot; barrel had to specify how the old barrel would be destroyed . Now the old barrel may be legally disposed of , you are not forced to destroy your property .<br>Simply put, the process of changing barrels has now been pronounced upon by the High Court and the process will be simpler and more certain from here on.<br>I will post an amended version of the directive later today.<br>SAPS were ordered to pay SAAADA&#039;s&nbsp; legal costs.<br>]]></content:encoded>
						                            <category domain="https://systemz.online/barrels/">Barrels</category>                        <dc:creator>Tripodmvr</dc:creator>
                        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://systemz.online/barrels/barrel-replacements-court-decision</guid>
                    </item>
							        </channel>
        </rss>
		