Originally Posted By Big-Bore:
And be sure to notice the contradiction between the letter to me and the very first letter that was posted but does not have a date on it. In the letter Nixon wrote to me in 2004, right after the AWB ended, he specifically and clearly said that a lower could not have had either a rifle upper OR butt stock attached, lest it be considered a rifle lower.
Then in the first letter posted they reversed that saying that if it has had a butt stock attached but no upper, it was still not a rifle.
Now, right or wrong, this is my thinking. They contradict themselves all the time. So, if you play the logic game, since there is no maximum or minimum length for a pistol barrel, it seems the upper would have little influence on what the build was. But a butt stock, if it has had a butt stock attached, and a butt stock cannot be used on a pistol, one can make an strong argument that if it has had a butt stock attached then it is a rifle lower, as was said in the letter written to me in November 2004.
Since the new letter is more than likely more recent than mine, then one can assume they have changed their minds and you CAN build a pistol out of a lower that has had a butt stock but no upper attached. However, since the only person these letters have any legal weight for is the person the letter is actually addressed to and the person actually in possession of that letter, I think I will stick with what mine says, just in case they change their minds again.
I understand where you are coming from. However, I think they got it wrong in your letter and right in the letter after yours. If you read the definition of the various firearms, most of them have some variation of 'propel a projectile(s) by use of an explosive' in the definition. If a receiver has a buttstock but has never otherwise been configured to be able to propel any projectile (a barrel put on) then the actual type of firearm it 'is' has not yet been determined and it is still a 'receiver'.