This has been argued on this board for years. Don't expect a definative answer. I say play it safe and get a pistol buffer.

Roll the dice and send the ATF a letter asking what they think.
If the reply says no just buy a pistol tube.
If they say yes keep a copy of the letter with you until you get your Form 1 back.

First off, no one can just come to your house and ask to inspect your fire arms with out a search warrant. In order for the authorities to get a search warrant you have to have committed something illegal.

If you add two welds to the end of the RE take stops the stock from being installed you are GTG. You can fill the adjustment holes with epoxy and be GTG, wrap the RE with para cord and be GTG(maybe). ATF&E isn't going to split hairs about the minor BS, UNLESS you have also committed other ATF&E violations. If you have, then they pile everything on they can think of.

Besides, ATF&E is way too bust hiding emails and looking for guns down Mexico way to worry about RE's.

Dont use any extension capable of taking a telestock stock of any kind....there is something called contructive intent.I know they make a atctical entry or stubby stock that takes a carbine spring and buffer but the extension is made like a standard stocks extension so maybe that with the threads on the rear dremeled out so you cant attach the stock should fly while aloowing you to use standard recoil parts.

No.

.........and we also have an AR Pistol subforum here: http://www.ar15.com/forums/f_3/122_AR_Pistols.html

Topic Moved

I can see why the question would be asked, but I would think it would be difficult to prove "constructive intent" or "constructive possession," that seems to be into the realm of the thought police. How can that be proven beyond reasonable doubt unless they have incriminating evidence (you bragged to someone or on a message board about what you "could" do to add a stock, etc.)

And really, if you have a cover or paracord over a carbine buffer, it is no more readily convertible to accept a stock than simply unscrewing a pistol buffer tube and installing a separate carbine tube, which you stated you already have. OR installing any stock that will attach directly to a pistol buffer tube (ACE for example).

I would just get a pistol buffer tube so you don't have to explain/defend yourself. I have an extra one with foam on it from the Spike's pistol I SBRed, but do not know where it is. If I can find it, I will let you know and you can send it back when your stamp comes in.

This is the route I went too- most officers aren't very up on gun laws so it's a cheap and easy way to show them and the average range Fudd that your gun is legal. While I could go through all the hassle of trying to educate them, it's not worth my time in most cases. I'd rather be shooting or on my way.

What "laws" are you guys referring to? There are no laws that specify what receiver extension can and cannot be used.

You guys are probably referring to someone's opinion at the BATF? Other than some person's opinion ... there is no law.

This, as I have argued for years the BATF is smart enough to know that uppers are easily swapped. If in fact they were worried about it there would be a regulation stating the exact tube to be used on a pistol build. Anyone who has a rifle and a pistol could throw together a SBR in about a minute.

Anyone with a hacksaw and a rifle can make a short barreled rifle in about 25 seconds.

I've posted my reference to my position. Please post yours. Please show me ONE letter that states it is not the offical opinion of the ATF. You still haven't got the foggest idea of how those "opinions" are determined. It is not "some" agent that answers the questions and states "his opinion". It is the FTB that is a whole agency unto itself that researches the questions and renders it's decision based on case law, legislative actions, US code, CGA, NFA... Very much as a Judge renders his opinion on cases brought to his court. These ATF letters are very much as valid as a Judges decision.

Are they always right? No. Just like all Judges findings are correct, that is why there are appellate courts. But the fact remains that the decision the ATF renders is every bit as legal and binding as a Judges decision. Both can be overturned but is is rarely the case, and it is never overturned on a whim.

As for your tax BS please respond to the following:

USC Title 26 › Subtitle F › Chapter 61 › Subchapter A › Part II › Subpart A › § 6011

(a) General rule
When required by regulations prescribed by the Secretary any person made liable for any tax imposed by this title, or with respect to the collection thereof, shall make a return or statement according to the forms and regulations prescribed by the Secretary. Every person required to make a return or statement shall include therein the information required by such forms or regulations.


USC Title 26 › Subtitle F › Chapter 61 › Subchapter A › Part II › Subpart B › § 6012

(a) General rule
Returns with respect to income taxes under subtitle A shall be made by the following:
(1)
(A) Every individual having for the taxable year gross income which equals or exceeds the exemption amount.


There are many more laws like these but I'm sure you'll just insist that the United States Codes are not "law".

Good luck with that argument.


eta: As far as the "laws that state that you do NOT have to file if you do not believe that you must" Please post a link to these too. But you may want to look at Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192 (1991) John Cheek himself was charged with six counts of willfully failing to file Federal income tax returns under 26 U.S.C. § 7203 for 1980, 1981, 1983, 1984, 1985 and 1986. He was also charged with tax evasion under 26 U.S.C. § 7201 for years 1980, 1981, and 1983. John Cheek was convicted, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit upheld the conviction. The conviction was reversed by the Supreme Court, but it was based on a error made in instructions to the jury in the original trial, not because Cheek was not guilty.

1. A genuine, good faith belief that one is not violating the Federal tax law based on a misunderstanding caused by the complexity of the tax law (e.g., the complexity of the statute itself) is a defense to a charge of "willfulness", even though that belief is irrational or unreasonable.

2. A belief that the Federal income tax is unconstitutional is not a misunderstanding caused by the complexity of the tax law, and is not a defense to a charge of "willfulness", even if that belief is genuine and is held in good faith.

But then again this is only the Supreme Courts opinion right?


Oh, and as far as Cheek goes, the Supreme Court granted him a re-trial in which he was found guilty. He had to pay all his payments on tax due, interest and penalties to the IRS and spent a year and a day in prison. He is now a convicted felon.