ARCHIVED
 joshuap 
Member
Joined: Mar 2003  PA, USA
 Posts: 231 Feedback: 0% (0) |
Posted: 8/2/2011 4:29:31 PM
THE IMAGE ABOVE IS A PAID ADVERTISEMENT |
|
|
|
blwngazkit
Member
Team Member
Joined: Aug 2008 VA, USA
Posts: 636 Feedback: 0% (0) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/2/2011 4:31:50 PM
[Last Edit: 8/2/2011 4:32:01 PM by blwngazkit]
Well that makes perfectly logical sense...
 |
|
|
Lacoochee
Deo Vindice
Team Member
Joined: Nov 2006 FL, USA
Posts: 1073 Feedback: 0% (0) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/2/2011 4:36:57 PM
Originally Posted By blwngazkit:
Well that makes perfectly logical sense... Yep, I went well then I will buy them all as pistols from now on. Then I envisioned myself at the range shooting with guys from the SO and trying to explain how my short barreled AR pistol could be converted back and forth without a stamp as long as the new upper was longer than 16" and realized why bother? |
|
|
Cypher15
Member
Team Member
Joined: May 2007 MD, USA
Posts: 15788 Feedback: 100% (1) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/2/2011 4:37:26 PM
|
|
|
andrasik
Don't tax me bro!
Team Member
Joined: Jul 2006 KS, USA
Posts: 15629 Feedback: 100% (15) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/2/2011 4:38:19 PM
Interesting policy change. Wonder if this has to do with the recent influx of stocks for Glocks and other handguns.
(Granted that most of those are still considered SBRs so maybe not.) |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2011 4:39:26 PM
[Last Edit: 8/2/2011 4:45:25 PM by Gamma762]
That's actually excellent news if true.
Originally Posted By andrasik:
Interesting policy change. Wonder if this has to do with the recent influx of stocks for Glocks and other handguns. (Granted that most of those are still considered SBRs so maybe not.) Might be part of it... something like a Glock that can't really be made into a Title I rifle, so if you SBR it then you can't revert to Title I. There was also the Thompson/Center SCOTUS case from a few years back. |
|
|
brickeyee
Member
Team Member
Joined: Nov 2005 VA, USA
Posts: 8180 Feedback: 0% (0) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/2/2011 4:43:33 PM
[Last Edit: 8/2/2011 4:44:13 PM by brickeyee]
It puts BATFE in better agreement with the SCOTUS ruling for Thompson-Center.
BATFE had been interpreting the SCOUTUS case to apply ONLY if the action, pistol barrel, and rifle barrel had been sold together, a VERY narrow interpretation of the SCOTUS ruling. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2011 4:46:02 PM
I want to see it in actual writing from the bATFe, instead of second hand.
|
|
|
|
Curdmugeon45
In a permanent state of WTF.
Team Member
Joined: Jun 2010 TX, USA
Posts: 169 Feedback: 0% (0) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/2/2011 4:47:23 PM
From the blog:
However, if the firearm starts life as a rifle, the Ruling further holds, that it cannot be converted to a pistol without registering it as a Short-Barreled Rifle under the NFA.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this always the case? And with regards to an AR pistol: Correct me if I'm wrong, again, but all you're doing is replacing the upper with a longer upper, but not making it a rifle at all. That's like saying my G26 just became a rifle because I stuck a 16" barrel on it. This still sounds like a bit of a contradiction though. I was always under the impression that once you turn a pistol into a rifle (i.e. add a stock to it), you can't go back. |
|
|
|
strycnine
Fruitcake
Team Member
Joined: Dec 2005 GA, USA
Posts: 4646 Feedback: 100% (11) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/2/2011 4:48:34 PM
Interesting
 |
|
|
andrasik
Don't tax me bro!
Team Member
Joined: Jul 2006 KS, USA
Posts: 15630 Feedback: 100% (15) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/2/2011 4:48:49 PM
Originally Posted By Silence: I want to see it in actual writing from the bATFe, instead of second hand. Josh is a very well known guy especially in the NFA community. If he says that the ATF said this, I believe it. |
|
|
fiver
TechGal26's plaything
Life Member
Joined: May 2007 OH, USA
Posts: 19117 Feedback: 100% (2) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/2/2011 4:50:00 PM
Definitely a step in the right direction if true.
|
|
|
glazer1972
Lifetime Team Member
Life Member
Joined: Mar 2001 TX, USA
Posts: 15346 Feedback: 100% (52) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/2/2011 4:50:36 PM
You have to stick the rifle buffer tube along with the rifle upper to make it a rifle.
Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
TeeRex
Don't do it in the park.
Team Member
Joined: Oct 2009 OH, USA
Posts: 4898 Feedback: 100% (2) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/2/2011 4:52:14 PM
Would be helpful if its true.
|
|
|
RayGunz2
Inherently Rebellious
Team Member
Joined: Nov 2006 OH, USA
Posts: 5108 Feedback: 100% (286) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/2/2011 4:53:44 PM
Sounds like a good thing to me.
|
|
|
QwikKotaTx
Member
Team Member
Joined: Mar 2008 TX, USA
Posts: 4990 Feedback: 100% (61) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/2/2011 4:55:40 PM
Originally Posted By glazer1972:
You have to stick the rifle buffer tube along with the rifle upper to make it a rifle. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile This is what I don't get. Registering it as a rifle this way, doesn't this make my AR pistol with a carbine buffer and tube an SBR then?? Confusing. 
Supposedly this is legal but the end of the tube has a threaded hole that could easily take a foot piece and make it a stock. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2011 5:00:04 PM
What exactly does this mean? If a person buys AR lowers as pistols then they are free to upgrade to an SBR without registration? And a person can now buy that Glock stock? How will certain states follow?
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2011 5:01:29 PM
Originally Posted By andrasik: Originally Posted By Silence: I want to see it in actual writing from the bATFe, instead of second hand. Josh is a very well known guy especially in the NFA community. If he says that the ATF said this, I believe it. I didnt mean it as a criticism of him... More that I want to see the bATFe rationalization (in long form) of why making/remaking a rifle is a black hole in one occurrence is not a black hole in another. |
|
|
|
glazer1972
Lifetime Team Member
Life Member
Joined: Mar 2001 TX, USA
Posts: 15349 Feedback: 100% (52) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/2/2011 5:02:40 PM
That sleeve goes on it and makes it not readily capable of taking a stock. I don't think it really matters if u can stick that scrawny tube to your shoulder and fire it. Do you expect the goobermint to actually make sense?
Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2011 5:04:48 PM
[Last Edit: 8/2/2011 5:06:30 PM by Gamma762]
Originally Posted By Tboy:
What exactly does this mean? If a person buys AR lowers as pistols then they are free to upgrade to an SBR without registration? NO If that is what the ruling actually says, it means that if you have a pistol, you can convert it to a Title I (normal) rifle, and then back to a Title I pistol at your whim. Presumably it would also mean that if you have a pistol and register it as an SBR, you could then remove it from the registry and revert back to a pistol. Current policy is that once a firearm has been configured as a rifle, that it can never be a pistol again, only a Title I rifle or else an SBR. |
|
|
QwikKotaTx
Member
Team Member
Joined: Mar 2008 TX, USA
Posts: 4991 Feedback: 100% (61) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/2/2011 5:10:15 PM
Originally Posted By glazer1972:
That sleeve goes on it and makes it not readily capable of taking a stock. I don't think it really matters if u can stick that scrawny tube to your shoulder and fire it. Do you expect the goobermint to actually make sense? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile I know using a carbine buffer tube with notches on it is a bad idea, but Ace makes a stock mount that uses this same tube, so it's odd that it's legal. Hell no they don't make sense. What is so "dangerous" about an SBR that requires extra paper work anyway... Like this:  |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2011 5:11:19 PM
Originally Posted By Gamma762:
Originally Posted By Tboy:
What exactly does this mean? If a person buys AR lowers as pistols then they are free to upgrade to an SBR without registration? NO If that is what the ruling actually says, it means that if you have a pistol, you can convert it to a Title I (normal) rifle, and then back to a Title I pistol at your whim. Presumably it would also mean that if you have a pistol and register it as an SBR, you could then remove it from the registry and revert back to a pistol. Current policy is that once a firearm has been configured as a rifle, that it can never be a pistol again, only a Title I rifle or else an SBR. Makes more sense. I jumped 2 steps and when straight to SBR which will still be Title 2. Regarding the AR buffer tubes - I thought you are GTG with a standard tube as long as you're not in possession of a stock, otherwise there would be big issues with AR pistols with front rails (and VFGs making them AOW). |
|
|
|
juan223
Member
Team Member
Joined: Oct 2007 AZ, USA
Posts: 4063 Feedback: 100% (9) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/2/2011 5:15:29 PM
Its a trap
|
|
|
|
GLHX2112
Member
Team Member
Joined: Sep 2005 PA, USA
Posts: 9823 Feedback: 100% (2) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/2/2011 5:17:11 PM
Originally Posted By andrasik:
Originally Posted By Silence:
I want to see it in actual writing from the bATFe, instead of second hand. Josh is a very well known guy especially in the NFA community. If he says that the ATF said this, I believe it. ditto. He did my Trust, so If I read it on his site, I will take it to the bank, er, believe it.  |
|
|
glazer1972
Lifetime Team Member
Life Member
Joined: Mar 2001 TX, USA
Posts: 15352 Feedback: 100% (52) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/2/2011 5:20:42 PM
Originally Posted By QwikKotaTx:
Originally Posted By glazer1972:
That sleeve goes on it and makes it not readily capable of taking a stock. I don't think it really matters if u can stick that scrawny tube to your shoulder and fire it. Do you expect the goobermint to actually make sense? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile I know using a carbine buffer tube with notches on it is a bad idea, but Ace makes a stock mount that uses this same tube, so it's odd that it's legal. Hell no they don't make sense. What is so "dangerous" about an SBR that requires extra paper work anyway... Like this: http://riflestocks.com/store/media/UL-M-FS.png I wouldn't use a tube capable of doing that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2011 5:20:48 PM
Tag for future Letter and clarification on the specifics
|
|
|
FlashHole
Member
Team Member
Joined: Jan 2008 TX, USA
Posts: 4326 Feedback: 0% (0) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/2/2011 5:22:35 PM
Originally Posted By juan223:
Its a trap This response makes the most sense to me 
|
|
|
QwikKotaTx
Member
Team Member
Joined: Mar 2008 TX, USA
Posts: 4992 Feedback: 100% (61) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/2/2011 5:34:13 PM
Originally Posted By glazer1972:
Originally Posted By QwikKotaTx:
Originally Posted By glazer1972:
That sleeve goes on it and makes it not readily capable of taking a stock. I don't think it really matters if u can stick that scrawny tube to your shoulder and fire it. Do you expect the goobermint to actually make sense? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile I know using a carbine buffer tube with notches on it is a bad idea, but Ace makes a stock mount that uses this same tube, so it's odd that it's legal. Hell no they don't make sense. What is so "dangerous" about an SBR that requires extra paper work anyway... Like this: http://riflestocks.com/store/media/UL-M-FS.png I wouldn't use a tube capable of doing that. Better get someone to change the AR-15 Pistol FAQ then. http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_122/245294__223__AR_pistol____Buffer_tube_assemblies.html |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2011 5:51:03 PM
[Last Edit: 8/2/2011 5:53:15 PM by RenegadeX]
Originally Posted By andrasik: Originally Posted By Silence: I want to see it in actual writing from the bATFe, instead of second hand. Josh is a very well known guy especially in the NFA community. If he says that the ATF said this, I believe it. There is an NFATCA Conference in NOVA this week, BATFE is giving presentations and such. http://www.nfatca.org/conference/ Hyatt Reston Town Center, Reston, Virginia Your business is valuable and so is your time. Insure
that you are on top of and in line with all of the regulations and
issues that affect every aspect of your ability to become and remain
profitable. This is a must attend conference that will keep you from being buried under a mountain of confusion and compliance. Hear presentations from ATF senior staff and dedicated
branches, Tax and Trade Bureau, Commerce Department, Heckler &
Koch, State Department and so much more. |
|
|
|
Duratuss
Member
Team Member
Joined: Sep 2005 MI, USA
Posts: 832 Feedback: 100% (15) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/2/2011 5:56:05 PM
[Last Edit: 8/2/2011 6:00:28 PM by Duratuss]
So you can do this now without needing a stamp?????
Or did the ATF just drop the soap |
|
|
echo_5
unconventional
Team Member
Joined: Feb 2008 CT, USA
Posts: 3877 Feedback: 100% (30) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/2/2011 5:58:05 PM
[Last Edit: 8/2/2011 6:03:07 PM by echo_5]
If only we had a stickied thread for BATFE opinion letters.
 ETA: in the ClassIII Legal section |
|
|
HarryStone
The Original Colt .45
Team Member
Joined: Jul 2005 MO, USA
Posts: 7733 Feedback: 100% (1) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/2/2011 6:00:23 PM
Let me guess: legal until someone does it, then illegal again for no reason at all. And probably legal for one manufacture to do it and not another.
|
|
|
slabertooch
NDA'd all to hell
Team Member
Joined: Dec 2009 USA
Posts: 3029 Feedback: 0% (0) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/2/2011 6:01:30 PM
Originally Posted By Duratuss: So you can do this now without needing a stamp????? http://winkin.phpwebhosting.com/~redstararms/glock-stock-1.gif Or did the ATF just drop the soap i would imagine that you would need at least a 16in barrel. |
|
|
GUNGUY148
Member
Team Member
Joined: Dec 2009 MO, USA
Posts: 1422 Feedback: 100% (9) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/2/2011 6:03:18 PM
Originally Posted By glazer1972:
That sleeve goes on it and makes it not readily capable of taking a stock. I don't think it really matters if u can stick that scrawny tube to your shoulder and fire it. Do you expect the goobermint to actually make sense? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Ace makes a stock sorta thing to go on there even with the sleeve. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2011 6:56:30 PM
[Last Edit: 8/2/2011 6:57:11 PM by joshuap]
The rifle created cannot come under the purview of the NFA. So, it must have a barrel if 16"+ and an overall length of 26"+. So long as you do that, you can convert back to a pistol.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2011 7:02:40 PM
[Last Edit: 8/2/2011 7:12:26 PM by 3-gun]
Originally Posted By Duratuss:
So you can do this now without needing a stamp????? http://winkin.phpwebhosting.com/~redstararms/glock-stock-1.gif Or did the ATF just drop the soap No, but you can do this; 
|
|
|
Duratuss
Member
Team Member
Joined: Sep 2005 MI, USA
Posts: 834 Feedback: 100% (15) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/2/2011 8:50:38 PM
Originally Posted By 3-gun:
Originally Posted By Duratuss:
So you can do this now without needing a stamp????? http://winkin.phpwebhosting.com/~redstararms/glock-stock-1.gif Or did the ATF just drop the soap No, but you can do this; http://www.mechtechsys.com/images/web/GlockCCU_small.png  |
|
|
FredMan
Scallywag
Team Member
Joined: Jul 2005 VA, USA
Posts: 7586 Feedback: 100% (2) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/2/2011 9:51:15 PM
Originally Posted By glazer1972:
You have to stick the rifle buffer tube along with the rifle upper to make it a rifle. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Actually, you just need the stock (kind of a moot point with ARs, you need the tube for the stock). What this is going to allow if for AR pistols to have buffers capable of accepting a stock. Put on a stock? Better have a long upper. Take off the stock? put back on your short buffer. No stamp required. And then, once this gets out there, it's not all that long a reach for a ruling that rifles can be converted into pistols without a stamp. |
|
|
FredMan
Scallywag
Team Member
Joined: Jul 2005 VA, USA
Posts: 7587 Feedback: 100% (2) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/2/2011 9:52:52 PM
Originally Posted By Duratuss:
So you can do this now without needing a stamp????? http://winkin.phpwebhosting.com/~redstararms/glock-stock-1.gif Or did the ATF just drop the soap As long as you put a 16" barrel on it, and OAL is 26" |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2011 9:48:10 AM
Originally Posted By FredMan:
Originally Posted By Duratuss:
So you can do this now without needing a stamp????? http://winkin.phpwebhosting.com/~redstararms/glock-stock-1.gif Or did the ATF just drop the soap As long as you put a 16" barrel on it, and OAL is 26" Correct |
|
|
|
dbd870
which way to the classifieds
Team Member
Joined: Sep 2008 IN, USA
Posts: 3574 Feedback: 0% (0) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/3/2011 9:52:50 AM
Originally Posted By fiver:
Definitely a step in the right direction if true. Yep, good. |
|
|
RayGunz2
Inherently Rebellious
Team Member
Joined: Nov 2006 OH, USA
Posts: 5123 Feedback: 100% (286) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/3/2011 10:56:28 AM
Mechtech upper comes to mind.
|
|
|
dbrowne1
Member
Team Member
Joined: Jan 2001 VA, USA
Posts: 4312 Feedback: 100% (22) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/3/2011 10:59:04 AM
[Last Edit: 8/3/2011 11:02:08 AM by dbrowne1]
Originally Posted By Lacoochee:
Originally Posted By blwngazkit:
Well that makes perfectly logical sense... Yep, I went well then I will buy them all as pistols from now on. Then I envisioned myself at the range shooting with guys from the SO and trying to explain how my short barreled AR pistol could be converted back and forth without a stamp as long as the new upper was longer than 16" and realized why bother? Wasn't that issue settled by the Thompson Center case involving the Contender, which is/was sold with enough parts to configure it as a legal pistol, a legal rifle and an illegal SBR? |
|
|
dbrowne1
Member
Team Member
Joined: Jan 2001 VA, USA
Posts: 4313 Feedback: 100% (22) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/3/2011 11:01:37 AM
[Last Edit: 8/3/2011 11:05:06 AM by dbrowne1]
Originally Posted By Duratuss:
So you can do this now without needing a stamp????? http://winkin.phpwebhosting.com/~redstararms/glock-stock-1.gif Or did the ATF just drop the soap No, you can't do that without a stamp, and you will be the one dropping the soap if you do. Now, if you put a 16"+ barrel on it first, then you'd be fine. And now the ATF is apparently saying they are fine with you converting it back and forth. But I'm not really sure why this is such a startling revelation given that the Supreme Court already said this almost 20 years ago in United States v. Thompson-Center Arms Company, 504 U.S. 505 (1992). |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2011 11:06:43 AM
Originally Posted By brickeyee:
It puts BATFE in better agreement with the SCOTUS ruling for Thompson-Center. BATFE had been interpreting the SCOUTUS case to apply ONLY if the action, pistol barrel, and rifle barrel had been sold together, a VERY narrow interpretation of the SCOTUS ruling. Was this a Virginia thing. BATFE here in Illinois would go by serial number on receiver.' A rifle numbered receiver built as a handgun is a big No-No but a pistol numbered frame built as a rifle was A-Ok and they didn't care if it was converted back to pistol form but the buyer had to be 21 whether the unit was sold as a rifle or a pistol.. |
|
|
|
dbrowne1
Member
Team Member
Joined: Jan 2001 VA, USA
Posts: 4314 Feedback: 100% (22) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/3/2011 11:10:50 AM
[Last Edit: 8/3/2011 12:13:22 PM by dbrowne1]
Originally Posted By brickeyee:
It puts BATFE in better agreement with the SCOTUS ruling for Thompson-Center. BATFE had been interpreting the SCOUTUS case to apply ONLY if the action, pistol barrel, and rifle barrel had been sold together, a VERY narrow interpretation of the SCOTUS ruling. Thompson Center made clear that if you have a lawful use for each and every of the parts, even if an unlawful configuration is theoretically possible, then you have not "made" a NFA firearm just because of that theoretical possibility. A number of subsequent circuit cases have clarified this further. I don't know what ATF was smoking before if they read the case so narrowly, but if they want to finally say "me too, " I guess that's a good thing. ETA: The Thompson Center case really only addressed the NFA aspect, not the "converting back and forth between pistol and rifle" aspect, so I guess this issue wasn't entirely cleared up by the case. Although at least implicitly, nobody (including ATF) seems to have stopped Thompson-Center from selling these sorts of setups since that case, and they know damn well that people convert back and forth because that's the whole point of the kits. |
|
|
SWIRE
Team Member
Team Member
Joined: Jan 2001 KY, USA
Posts: 10364 Feedback: 100% (4) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/3/2011 11:12:47 AM
So it is basically saying once a pistol, always a pistol and once a rifle, always a rifle. Seems pretty straightforward.
|
|
|
fiver
TechGal26's plaything
Life Member
Joined: May 2007 OH, USA
Posts: 19164 Feedback: 100% (2) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/3/2011 11:15:03 AM
Originally Posted By dbrowne1: Originally Posted By Lacoochee: Originally Posted By blwngazkit: Well that makes perfectly logical sense... Yep, I went well then I will buy them all as pistols from now on. Then I envisioned myself at the range shooting with guys from the SO and trying to explain how my short barreled AR pistol could be converted back and forth without a stamp as long as the new upper was longer than 16" and realized why bother? Wasn't that issue settled by the Thompson Center case involving the Contender, which is/was sold with enough parts to configure it as a legal pistol, a legal rifle and an illegal SBR? No. Everyone - most especially the ATF - likes to take that case and use it as a citation for something it wasn't. All that case said was, is if you have a box of parts you don't owe $200 in taxes because you have a box of parts, not a rifle or a pistol or an SBR. People try to say it means you can switch this and that, or you can ONLY switch a TC, or all kinds of blah blah blah but if you read the actual decision itself, instead of what people (most especially the ATF) say about it, it's pretty clear. |
|
|
Burnsy87
AAARRRGGHH
Team Member
Joined: Jul 2008 NE, USA
Posts: 4158 Feedback: 0% (0) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/3/2011 11:37:31 AM
Originally Posted By SWIRE:
So it is basically saying once a pistol, always a pistol and once a rifle, always a rifle. Seems pretty straightforward. Remember who you're dealing with. |
|
|
dbrowne1
Member
Team Member
Joined: Jan 2001 VA, USA
Posts: 4315 Feedback: 100% (22) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/3/2011 12:10:57 PM
Originally Posted By fiver:
Originally Posted By dbrowne1:
Originally Posted By Lacoochee:
Originally Posted By blwngazkit:
Well that makes perfectly logical sense... Yep, I went well then I will buy them all as pistols from now on. Then I envisioned myself at the range shooting with guys from the SO and trying to explain how my short barreled AR pistol could be converted back and forth without a stamp as long as the new upper was longer than 16" and realized why bother? Wasn't that issue settled by the Thompson Center case involving the Contender, which is/was sold with enough parts to configure it as a legal pistol, a legal rifle and an illegal SBR? No. Everyone - most especially the ATF - likes to take that case and use it as a citation for something it wasn't. All that case said was, is if you have a box of parts you don't owe $200 in taxes because you have a box of parts, not a rifle or a pistol or an SBR. People try to say it means you can switch this and that, or you can ONLY switch a TC, or all kinds of blah blah blah but if you read the actual decision itself, instead of what people (most especially the ATF) say about it, it's pretty clear. You're right that the case doesn't address the regulatory issue of converting back and forth between a Title I pistol and a Title I rifle - it only addresses whether the compilation of parts at issue constituted "making" a NFA firearm in that situation where there are lawful uses for all the parts, but theoretically unlawful configurations as well. Which is the issue I was responding to above (about range nazis thinking you were making an unregistered SBR). |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2011 12:17:23 PM
[Last Edit: 8/3/2011 12:18:08 PM by RenegadeX]
Originally Posted By SWIRE: So it is basically saying once a pistol, always a pistol and once a rifle, always a rifle. Seems pretty straightforward. A pistol is not always pistol, it can become a rifle and then a pistol again, and ATF has already issued letters stating rifles can become SBRs and then rifles again. ATF Deputy Chief Steve Albro stated that the Ruling holds that a pistol may be converted to a rifle and back to a pistol without having to register the firearm as a Short-Barreled Rifle under the NFA. |
|
|
ARCHIVED
CIV
