Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel

Log In

A valid email is required.
Password is required.
Site Notices
In a permanent state of WTF.
Avatar
Bronze
Offline
  • Joined Jun 2010
  • Posts 137
  • EE 0% (0)
USA TX, USA
Posted: 7/17/2011 10:49:54 PM EST
I remember someone posting a build with a Plum Crazy lower, and a letter from the ATF stating that it was legal to use as long as it hadn't been barreled as a rifle prior to building the pistol.

I can not seem to find it to save my life. Does anyone have it? Or have a link to the original post/thread?

Thanks.

Basic
Offline
  • Joined Feb 2008
  • Posts 1013
  • EE 0% (0)
USA OK, USA
Link Posted: 7/18/2011 4:20:50 AM EST
I'm willing to bet 5 cherry limeades that you can't find it because it doesn't exist. Somebody might have posted a letter from ATF and some random member might have interpreted the letter to mean that, but it's really hard to believe that ATF would have written an opinion like that. It goes against all their previous AR15 rifle vs. pistol opinions.

How's it goin' eh?
Avatar
Gold
Offline
  • Joined Nov 2002
  • Posts 545
  • EE 100% (220)
USA MI, USA
Link Posted: 7/18/2011 5:30:22 AM EST
I have two Plum Crazy lowers that are registered as pistols in Michigan. Mine both came as stripped lowers with all the other parts in bags, just happened to ship in the same box. Since they were unassembled and had never had a stock on them, my FFL registered them as stripped receivers, allowing me to build them (without stock) into pistol lowers. Since I am in Michigan, I then had to register them as pistols with the state once they were complete. They are now lightweight .22 pistols and make for fun range toys.

Basic
Offline
  • Joined Mar 2008
  • Posts 1062
  • EE 0% (0)
USA IN, USA
Link Posted: 7/18/2011 6:17:15 AM EST
Originally Posted By JustKeepSwimming:
I'm willing to bet 5 cherry limeades that you can't find it because it doesn't exist. Somebody might have posted a letter from ATF and some random member might have interpreted the letter to mean that, but it's really hard to believe that ATF would have written an opinion like that. It goes against all their previous AR15 rifle vs. pistol opinions.


I don't get it ... it's just a stripped lower. Any lower classified as 'other' can be used to construct a pistol because it has not been classified as a 'rifle'.




Member
Avatar
Bronze
Offline
  • Joined Aug 2009
  • Posts 1203
  • EE 0% (0)
USA PA, USA
Link Posted: 7/18/2011 7:07:59 AM EST
[Last Edit: 7/18/2011 7:10:54 AM EST by EdHaney1]

Originally Posted By RandyStacyE:
Originally Posted By JustKeepSwimming:
I'm willing to bet 5 cherry limeades that you can't find it because it doesn't exist. Somebody might have posted a letter from ATF and some random member might have interpreted the letter to mean that, but it's really hard to believe that ATF would have written an opinion like that. It goes against all their previous AR15 rifle vs. pistol opinions.


I don't get it ... it's just a stripped lower. Any lower classified as 'other' can be used to construct a pistol because it has not been classified as a 'rifle'.




State law may require something different. One state may require the virgin lower be registered as one or another. They are listed as other on the 4473. They should be listed as other in the bound book. I don't know if any state requires they be "nomenclatured" upon receipt at the dealer.

Basic
Offline
  • Joined Sep 2007
  • Posts 1175
  • EE 0% (0)
USA NV, USA
Link Posted: 7/18/2011 7:18:35 AM EST
As I understand it, it doesn't really matter how it was "classified" on a Form 4473, it only matters if it was ever actually configured AS a rifle. And this requires having more than a buttstock... an unbarreled receiver with a buttstock does not meet the ATF definition of a rifle. Again, this is just my current understanding, based on the most recent batches of letters (which are of questionable benefit should the ATF go after you.) I'm not a lawyer, and I stayed at home last night.

Basic
Offline
  • Joined Feb 2008
  • Posts 1016
  • EE 0% (0)
USA OK, USA
Link Posted: 7/18/2011 7:31:32 AM EST
Originally Posted By RandyStacyE:
Originally Posted By JustKeepSwimming:
I'm willing to bet 5 cherry limeades that you can't find it because it doesn't exist. Somebody might have posted a letter from ATF and some random member might have interpreted the letter to mean that, but it's really hard to believe that ATF would have written an opinion like that. It goes against all their previous AR15 rifle vs. pistol opinions.


I don't get it ... it's just a stripped lower. Any lower classified as 'other' can be used to construct a pistol because it has not been classified as a 'rifle'.



What you say is true. What I said is because the OP specifically asked about being barreled as a rifle. (emphasis by the OP)


Percussion Instruments Are My Specialty
Avatar
Lifetime Member
Offline
  • Joined Oct 2008
  • Posts 12513
  • EE 100% (35)
USA ID, USA
Military
Link Posted: 7/18/2011 7:37:14 AM EST
[Last Edit: 7/18/2011 7:39:36 AM EST by JoshAston]

Originally Posted By JustKeepSwimming:
I'm willing to bet 5 cherry limeades that you can't find it because it doesn't exist. Somebody might have posted a letter from ATF and some random member might have interpreted the letter to mean that, but it's really hard to believe that ATF would have written an opinion like that. It goes against all their previous AR15 rifle vs. pistol opinions.
http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_122/525036_Request___Scans_of_any_letters_from_the_BATFE__that_pertain_to_AR_pistols.html

I want my 5 cherry limeades

OP, it's one of the stickied threads at the top of the forum, the one labeled Request Scans of any letters from the BATFE that pertain to AR pistols. And it's the first letter in that thread.


Originally Posted By JustKeepSwimming:

What you say is true. What I said is because the OP specifically asked about being barreled as a rifle. (emphasis by the OP)

OP said as long as it had NOT been barreled as a rifle. Which is what the letter states, stock is fine, stock + barrel makes it a rifle that can never be assembled as a pistol.


I, like God, do not play with dice and do not believe in coincidence.
Basic
Offline
  • Joined Feb 2008
  • Posts 1017
  • EE 0% (0)
USA OK, USA
Link Posted: 7/18/2011 8:18:52 AM EST
Originally Posted By JoshAston:

I want my 5 cherry limeades

]OP said as long as it had NOT been barreled as a rifle. Which is what the letter states, stock is fine, stock + barrel makes it a rifle that can never be assembled as a pistol.



I guess I read too much into the OP. I thought if he was asking if the barrel was the sole factor and stock didn't matter any more.

I can't see a way to weasel out of it, I owe you 5 cherry limeades.

Deo vindice
Avatar
Bronze
Offline
  • Joined Jan 2009
  • Posts 1578
  • EE 100% (40)
USA TN, USA
Military
Link Posted: 7/18/2011 5:07:55 PM EST
You must read into the statement "barreled as a rifle" This is more then just a barrel. In order to be considered a rifle it must be a weapon designed and intended to be fired from the shoulder. Therefore "barreled as a rifle" means a firearm with a butt stock and a barrel capable of firing a projectile.
The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil,
but because of the people who don't do anything about it.
Basic
Offline
  • Joined Aug 2009
  • Posts 295
  • EE 0% (0)
USA WA, USA
Link Posted: 7/18/2011 8:18:55 PM EST
*cough*

A receiver is not a rifle until it has a buttstock AND a barrel.

A lower with a buttstock but NEVER having had an upper on it is still an receiver with a buttstock, and is not a rifle or SBR until barreled.

Same goes for pistol.

Pistol buffer tube with no upper and never having been barreled is also just a lower receiver.


Deo vindice
Avatar
Bronze
Offline
  • Joined Jan 2009
  • Posts 1581
  • EE 100% (40)
USA TN, USA
Military
Link Posted: 7/19/2011 2:56:23 PM EST

Originally Posted By Jparks29:
*cough*

A receiver is not a rifle until it has a buttstock AND a barrel.

A lower with a buttstock but NEVER having had an upper on it is still an receiver with a buttstock, and is not a rifle or SBR until barreled.

Same goes for pistol.

Pistol buffer tube with no upper and never having been barreled is also just a lower receiver.


Almost.

(29) The term "handgun" means - 
        (A) a firearm which has a short stock and is designed to be
      held and fired by the use of a single hand; and
        (B) any combination of parts from which a firearm described in
      subparagraph (A) can be assembled.
A receiver along with any combination of parts to assemble a pistol can still be a handgun.
The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil,
but because of the people who don't do anything about it.
In a permanent state of WTF.
Avatar
Bronze
Offline
  • Joined Jun 2010
  • Posts 142
  • EE 0% (0)
USA TX, USA
Link Posted: 7/21/2011 10:36:30 PM EST
Originally Posted By JoshAston:

Originally Posted By JustKeepSwimming:
I'm willing to bet 5 cherry limeades that you can't find it because it doesn't exist. Somebody might have posted a letter from ATF and some random member might have interpreted the letter to mean that, but it's really hard to believe that ATF would have written an opinion like that. It goes against all their previous AR15 rifle vs. pistol opinions.
http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_122/525036_Request___Scans_of_any_letters_from_the_BATFE__that_pertain_to_AR_pistols.html

I want my 5 cherry limeades

OP, it's one of the stickied threads at the top of the forum, the one labeled Request Scans of any letters from the BATFE that pertain to AR pistols. And it's the first letter in that thread.


Originally Posted By JustKeepSwimming:

What you say is true. What I said is because the OP specifically asked about being barreled as a rifle. (emphasis by the OP)

OP said as long as it had NOT been barreled as a rifle. Which is what the letter states, stock is fine, stock + barrel makes it a rifle that can never be assembled as a pistol.




Ah

Thanks. Now to move forward with the project...

Top