Switching back and forth was never argued in the Thompson ruling.  The letter by the Justice Department that allows switching back and forth between rifle and pistol made that letter obsolete.  There's a long winded explanation why that is.  I'm not going to rehash it for you. The Alex Bosco brace changed everything as well.   The ATF is never going to give up constructive possession because it's a useful threat.  But at this point, it has no teeth after allowing the braces to exist.   The ATF would have to argue that a Sig braced pistol is not a SBR but an extra stock not attached to a pistol is.  Think about how absurd that argument would be.

But go ahead and argue it if you'd like.  I'd enjoy your analysis.  

this is taken from the 2-25-2013 letter by the ATF addressing the T/C decision   (13th post on THIS page)

and that is the part that you guys are missing and the chink in your argument.

you are not a manufacturer of a rifle kit in any situation where you purchase a stripped AR lower and are assembling a rifle/pistol.

therefore anything that you assemble from parts you purchase is not the same as a kit or accessory purchased from a manufacturer (T/C, Beretta, etc).

when you file a form 1 to manufacture a firearm, you ARE the manufacturer (when your stamp returns) and at that point you can include whatever you want with your "rifle kit and misc barreled uppers".


as far as you guys are arguing, there is nothing that you've posted as a letter from the ATF that says you can have a stock sitting on the ground next to your "pistol" and it's no problem.  as a matter of fact, the ATF has said that the specific scenario i describe perfectly illustrates construction intent.


I'm done trying to convince you that your sophomoric understanding of the law will keep you out of jail.

I will however always recommend that people new to the AR platform follow the laws as they stand and follow them by a wide margin, and not attempt to come as close to the line as possible without crossing it. (these types of actions are fuel to the fire for the gun grabbers working hard every single day to make sure you lose your 2A rights.) They are where BHOs comments like "felons can go online and buy a gun without a back ground check" start.  It always starts with people trying to do whatever they want albeit "arguably legal" for laws to change and loopholes to be removed, further strengthening the grip of the gun grabbers and libTARDS in general around your 2A rights..

as they say.. people and actions like THIS are why we can't have nice things..  

Redacted, as I could be wrong.

You don't have to be a manufacturer.  The NFA addresses "maker" which is you and me, too.  We make stuff.

You need to pay attention to the Justice Department letters as they have more weight than the technical branch.  

This statement is from a 2011 letter from the DOJ and once again is somewhat obsolete because of the Bosco brace.  The brace CHANGES EVERYTHING because it's essentially a short barreled rifle you don't intend to make just by NOT SHOULDERING it.  Intent becomes EVERYTHING regardless of parts.  It's a problem for the DOJ they haven't fully addressed because it's a can of worms.

https://www.atf.gov/file/55526/download

As you can see in the statement, this addresses parts not kits.

Held further, a firearm, as defined by 26 U.S.C. 5845(a)(3) and (a)(4), is not made when a pistol is attached to a part or parts designed to convert the pistol into a rifle with a barrel of 16 inches or more in length, and the parts are later unassembled in a configuration not regulated under the NFA (e.g., as a pistol).

I love your use of "sophomoric understanding of the law" and in the same post "construction intent".  You have a lot of reading to do member since 2001.  Where you been?

Here's a start for you.  Find the legal definition of  "stock" in federal statutes.  I'll send you a prize when you come up with it.

maker is manufacturer.. assembling parts you purchase which include a manufactured firearm (registered lower) does not make you a manufacturer.
we do not make things (aside from an 80% lower), we assemble them.

I use the term stock because a stock is a piece that implies (arguably mandates) shouldering of a firearm.
it all falls back on intent as everyone has referenced many many times.
I see people with pistols every time I'm shooting who shoulder the buffer extension and operate the firearm exclusively in that manner.
they are clearly intending to use their "wink-wink-nudge-nudge PISTOL" in the same manner as an SBR without doing the SBR paperwork.
they (or you) can argue all day long that a pistol in that configuration is still a pistol, but it's clearly not being used that way anywhere..

as I said before, a novice who reads threads like this and then builds a pistol (instead of an SBR) and shoots it from the shoulder but says all day long that "this is a pistol and not an SBR" is in violation of the law and potentially screws these things up for everyone else..

Methinks best to just ignore Pin now that he's started conflating different issues as all the same thing. I consider him a contrarian troll at this point, just upping the FUD noise to signal ratio by giving him opportunity for replies.

Love the irony of his tag line btw.

- OS

Well, we both agree that you should stop posting replies

His tag line is the best!

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/27/479.11

Make. This term and the various derivatives thereof shall include manufacturing (other than by one qualified to engage in such business under this part), putting together, altering, any combination of these, or otherwise producing a firearm.

Manufacturer. Any person who is engaged in the business of manufacturing firearms.

Oh Shoot is 100% correct.
Perhaps one would more inclined to believe the words of Steven Halbrook who was the attorney for Thompson Center in the case.
"The immediate beneficiaries are tens of thousands of Contender pistol
owners who purchased carbine kits made by other manufacturers, who can
now sleep at night knowing they are not felons. Countless other
consumers may now purchase carbine kits for sporting use." - Steven Halbrook, Esq.
This would certainly be untrue if the "kit" was that supplied only by the firearm manufacturer.
Example 1
Example 2
Example 3
Well, you get the picture. All these are after market accessories used to convert an existing pistol to a carbine without changing the pistol status when kit is removed.



These are all legal because of the Thompson case.
 

None of the examples that inexile points to are firearms manufacturers, by the way.  They make gun parts but they aren't manufacturers or makers for that matter.

And any amalgam of parts to convert a pistol to a rifle can be considered a kit which is really irrelevant at this point since the DOJ's letter refers to "parts" used to turn a pistol into a rifle and back again.

And I'm not saying it's wise to keep a stock around that can be readily attached to a pistol without the other parts to complete a rifle.  It's just at this point with all the braced pistols out there, it'd be hard to prove intent unless it was actually on the pistol at some point.

If its the initial transfer that the ATF is concerned with....then what would a Aero precision stripped lower that I purchased directly from Aero be considered?  My FFL put down "other" on my transfer paperwork.  From your post it sounds like I can build a rifle or pistol from it.

You can build a rifle or pistol from it. Unless you build it a rifle first in which case it cannot be made into a pistol later.





In your case the initial transfer was between Aero and your FFL not between Aero and you.


The FFL recorded the acquisition (transfer from Aero) as a stripped reciever (other firearm) and his disposition of it (his transfer to you) the same way.





 

Or a shotgun.  

Huh, didn't know 410 would fit.  I'll be darned.

http://www.midwayusa.com/product/971002/ati-ar-15-a3-t-14-upper-assembly-410-bore-20-barrel-chrome-moly-matte-with-flash-hider-5-round-magazine

STRAIGHT from the ATF FAQ page

When we were "discussing" this matter, I couldn't find the exact link dealing with "pistols" and an "extra stock lying around"..
well, here it is being addressed by the ATF



so hopefully, those of you with "rifle/pistol" kits out there won't be swayed by the inaccurate information spewing from the keyboard of the other posters in this thread.

Incomplete QA, like many on ATF site. If the word "ONLY" had been in the question, the answer would  be correct.

There is also one somewhere that says it's fine to have a carbine or rifle tube on an AR pistol, but possession of a stock "may" be seen as SBR. Again, of course, only if that's ALL one possessed.

Another fav is the QA where ATF says that shipper must be notified for all firearm shipments, when federal law is clear that only applies to shipments between non-licensees.

etc

- OS

They've already publicly posted in 2 locations that they MAY consider it a violation...
So how about all of you with pistol/rifle KITS play it as close to the line as possible so that the ATF has no option but to decide it constitutes an SBR?
just like they recently did with 41P/F..

THIS is why we can't have nice things, someone has to always find out where the line is and fuck it up for everyone..