User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 11/16/2016 9:53:39 AM EDT
[#1]
If the lower was sold as a "rifle", as in the dealer who transferred it to the new owner sold it under the "rifle" designation... The lower can never be made into a pistol, no matter if it has ever had a stock affixed or not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/16/2016 9:57:40 AM EDT
[#2]
Quoted:
Wanting to do a 9mm pistol with future plans for SBR. What is the legality of buying a complete lower with stock, removing the stock and making it a pistol? PSA has been out of the complete pistol lowers but has lowers with carbine stocks. Seems like a good case for constructive intent, especially if you buy a complete pistol upper. You are over thinking it. You're fine just get the parts you need and male yourself a pistol |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/16/2016 10:04:41 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If the lower was sold as a "rifle", as in the dealer who transferred it to the new owner sold it under the "rifle" designation... The lower can never be made into a pistol, no matter if it has ever had a stock affixed or not. What was marked on the 4473 is completely irrelevant. Whether or not it met the definition of a rifle is the only thing that matters. Without a barrel, a lower doesn't meet the definition of a rifle. So take the stock off and build it as a pistol. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/16/2016 10:40:22 AM EDT
[#4]
Once a rifle always a rifle unless NFA. Originally configured as ? Is where the rubber meets the road. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/16/2016 10:42:22 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Once a rifle always a rifle unless NFA. Originally configured as ? Is where the rubber meets the road. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/16/2016 10:44:06 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not true either. A pistol can be converted into a rifle and back into a pistol at will. Only if it was originally built as a rifle, or intended to be built as a rifle, then is it always a rifle. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Once a rifle always a rifle unless NFA. Originally configured as ? Is where the rubber meets the road. Reading comprehension. You don't have it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/16/2016 10:48:21 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Reading comprehension. You don't have it. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Once a rifle always a rifle unless NFA. Originally configured as ? Is where the rubber meets the road. Reading comprehension. You don't have it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/16/2016 10:53:47 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, you lack the skill of explanation. I realize we're basically saying the same thing, but you left out the part where a pistol can be swapped back and forth, which is a critical element of the "once a rifle always a rifle" shtick. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Once a rifle always a rifle unless NFA. Originally configured as ? Is where the rubber meets the road. Reading comprehension. You don't have it. Dear Lord.. The answer was in context to original configuration. The OP alludes to a Reciever that more than likely started as a rifle. Makes no difference to me. Do as you will. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/16/2016 11:15:18 AM EDT
[#9]
it's one of those things that COULD get you in more trouble if you're already in trouble for something firearms related.
is it against the NFA to purchase a "complete lower" from PSA for a pistol build? YES will you get in trouble for doing it, assuming you immediately remove the extension tube, stock, spring, buffer, etc and "get rid of them".. No, probably not. BUT, it absolutely IS against the NFA to do so. (I always recommend building a pistol from a designated pistol complete lower or brand new "other firearm" registered stripped receiver.) remember, the ATF already has a list of every firearm receiver ever built by a manufacturer for sale in the US, so down the road, if you have your pistol out, get fingered for some reason, and the ATF runs that serial number and it's a "rifle" in their system, you're probably going to catch a firearms charge. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/16/2016 11:16:59 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No. What was marked on the 4473 is completely irrelevant. Whether or not it met the definition of a rifle is the only thing that matters. Without a barrel, a lower doesn't meet the definition of a rifle. So take the stock off and build it as a pistol. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If the lower was sold as a "rifle", as in the dealer who transferred it to the new owner sold it under the "rifle" designation... The lower can never be made into a pistol, no matter if it has ever had a stock affixed or not. What was marked on the 4473 is completely irrelevant. Whether or not it met the definition of a rifle is the only thing that matters. Without a barrel, a lower doesn't meet the definition of a rifle. So take the stock off and build it as a pistol. Not trying to get into the argument going on here, but I, and probably others, would like to know about the classification that gets put on the lower at the time of purchase. I know all of my AR15 lowers got classified as "Other" at time of purchase. Unless the lower was part of a complete rifle from a manufacturer, why or how would a lower get classified as a "Rifle"? I'm sure this has an obvious answer, but I think a lot of us are still a little fuzzy on it. I get the "Other" classification being capable of any construction...pistol or rifle. I get that a "pistol" classification can be converted to a rifle and back. I'm curious about when/how a lower gets classified as rifle or long gun. Why would any lower ever get classified as a rifle/long gun unless it was manufactured or delivered to an FFL as an actual rifle? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/16/2016 11:20:35 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not trying to get into the argument going on here, but I, and probably others, would like to know about the classification that gets put on the lower at the time of purchase. I know all of my AR15 lowers got classified as "Other" at time of purchase. Unless the lower was part of a complete rifle from a manufacturer, why or how would a lower get classified as a "Rifle"? I'm sure this has an obvious answer, but I think a lot of us are still a little fuzzy on it. I get the "Other" classification being capable of any construction...pistol or rifle. I get that a "pistol" classification can be converted to a rifle and back. I'm curious about when/how a lower gets classified as rifle or long gun. Why would any lower ever get classified as a rifle/long gun unless it was manufactured or delivered to an FFL as an actual rifle? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If the lower was sold as a "rifle", as in the dealer who transferred it to the new owner sold it under the "rifle" designation... The lower can never be made into a pistol, no matter if it has ever had a stock affixed or not. What was marked on the 4473 is completely irrelevant. Whether or not it met the definition of a rifle is the only thing that matters. Without a barrel, a lower doesn't meet the definition of a rifle. So take the stock off and build it as a pistol. Not trying to get into the argument going on here, but I, and probably others, would like to know about the classification that gets put on the lower at the time of purchase. I know all of my AR15 lowers got classified as "Other" at time of purchase. Unless the lower was part of a complete rifle from a manufacturer, why or how would a lower get classified as a "Rifle"? I'm sure this has an obvious answer, but I think a lot of us are still a little fuzzy on it. I get the "Other" classification being capable of any construction...pistol or rifle. I get that a "pistol" classification can be converted to a rifle and back. I'm curious about when/how a lower gets classified as rifle or long gun. Why would any lower ever get classified as a rifle/long gun unless it was manufactured or delivered to an FFL as an actual rifle? I purchase spikes lower receivers because they list all theirs as "other firearm" on the form sent to the dealers.. I have also purchased a Stag Arms stripped lower that was listed as "rifle" but ended up making it into a rifle so it didn't matter anyway. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/16/2016 11:34:25 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Why would any lower ever get classified as a rifle/long gun unless it was manufactured or delivered to an FFL as an actual rifle? The 4473 is supposed to accurately reflect the current configuration of the firearm. Even then, it's not always correct. There are still dealers that after nearly a decade of having the option of "other" will still mark AR lowers as rifles. Then there's the possibility of you buying a stripped lower that was actually sent from the manufacturer as a complete rifle and stripped at some point down the line. That's always a rifle, of course there's no real way for you to know and there's no way you'd actually get caught and prosecuted. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/16/2016 11:55:57 AM EDT
[#13]
Quoted: Wanting to do a 9mm pistol with future plans for SBR. What is the legality of buying a complete lower with stock, removing the stock and making it a pistol? PSA has been out of the complete pistol lowers but has lowers with carbine stocks. Seems like a good case for constructive intent, especially if you buy a complete pistol upper. To simply answer your question OP, Yes you can do what you describe legally. The only recommendation I would add is that if you have no other legal use for that stock you plan to remove, get rid of it before you build your pistol. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/16/2016 6:52:57 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
it's one of those things that COULD get you in more trouble if you're already in trouble for something firearms related. is it against the NFA to purchase a "complete lower" from PSA for a pistol build? YES will you get in trouble for doing it, assuming you immediately remove the extension tube, stock, spring, buffer, etc and "get rid of them".. No, probably not. BUT, it absolutely IS against the NFA to do so. (I always recommend building a pistol from a designated pistol complete lower or brand new "other firearm" registered stripped receiver.) remember, the ATF already has a list of every firearm receiver ever built by a manufacturer for sale in the US, so down the road, if you have your pistol out, get fingered for some reason, and the ATF runs that serial number and it's a "rifle" in their system, you're probably going to catch a firearms charge. This is what worry's me as the lower comes with a carbine stock and I have no clue how PSA would list it. Hopefully they will put the pistol lowers on black Friday or I will just buy the stripped lower and build it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/16/2016 7:38:49 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This is what worry's me as the lower comes with a carbine stock and I have no clue how PSA would list it. Hopefully they will put the pistol lowers on black Friday or I will just buy the stripped lower and build it. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: it's one of those things that COULD get you in more trouble if you're already in trouble for something firearms related. is it against the NFA to purchase a "complete lower" from PSA for a pistol build? YES will you get in trouble for doing it, assuming you immediately remove the extension tube, stock, spring, buffer, etc and "get rid of them".. No, probably not. BUT, it absolutely IS against the NFA to do so. (I always recommend building a pistol from a designated pistol complete lower or brand new "other firearm" registered stripped receiver.) remember, the ATF already has a list of every firearm receiver ever built by a manufacturer for sale in the US, so down the road, if you have your pistol out, get fingered for some reason, and the ATF runs that serial number and it's a "rifle" in their system, you're probably going to catch a firearms charge. This is what worry's me as the lower comes with a carbine stock and I have no clue how PSA would list it. Hopefully they will put the pistol lowers on black Friday or I will just buy the stripped lower and build it. It is a receiver, period. Transfers the same as a stripped lower. In order to meet the federal definition of a rifle or pistol, it must have a rifled barrel attached. When it transfers to you your FFL will mark "Other" on the 4473, same as a stripped lower. If your FFL is incompetent and incorrectly marks it "long gun", it does not change the fact that legally it is still just a receiver, and does not bind you to only using it as a rifle. The only thing that would happen is should the FFL have his book audited and the error found, he/she would be in trouble with the ATF for not properly filling out the form. For the ATF's position on this, read further:  Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/16/2016 9:43:23 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: it's one of those things that COULD get you in more trouble if you're already in trouble for something firearms related. is it against the NFA to purchase a "complete lower" from PSA for a pistol build? YES will you get in trouble for doing it, assuming you immediately remove the extension tube, stock, spring, buffer, etc and "get rid of them".. No, probably not. BUT, it absolutely IS against the NFA to do so. (I always recommend building a pistol from a designated pistol complete lower or brand new "other firearm" registered stripped receiver.) remember, the ATF already has a list of every firearm receiver ever built by a manufacturer for sale in the US, so down the road, if you have your pistol out, get fingered for some reason, and the ATF runs that serial number and it's a "rifle" in their system, you're probably going to catch a firearms charge.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/16/2016 9:50:15 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Not trying to get into the argument going on here, but I, and probably others, would like to know about the classification that gets put on the lower at the time of purchase. I know all of my AR15 lowers got classified as "Other" at time of purchase. Unless the lower was part of a complete rifle from a manufacturer, why or how would a lower get classified as a "Rifle"? I'm sure this has an obvious answer, but I think a lot of us are still a little fuzzy on it. I get the "Other" classification being capable of any construction...pistol or rifle. I get that a "pistol" classification can be converted to a rifle and back. I'm curious about when/how a lower gets classified as rifle or long gun. Why would any lower ever get classified as a rifle/long gun unless it was manufactured or delivered to an FFL as an actual rifle? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: If the lower was sold as a "rifle", as in the dealer who transferred it to the new owner sold it under the "rifle" designation... The lower can never be made into a pistol, no matter if it has ever had a stock affixed or not. What was marked on the 4473 is completely irrelevant. Whether or not it met the definition of a rifle is the only thing that matters. Without a barrel, a lower doesn't meet the definition of a rifle. So take the stock off and build it as a pistol. Not trying to get into the argument going on here, but I, and probably others, would like to know about the classification that gets put on the lower at the time of purchase. I know all of my AR15 lowers got classified as "Other" at time of purchase. Unless the lower was part of a complete rifle from a manufacturer, why or how would a lower get classified as a "Rifle"? I'm sure this has an obvious answer, but I think a lot of us are still a little fuzzy on it. I get the "Other" classification being capable of any construction...pistol or rifle. I get that a "pistol" classification can be converted to a rifle and back. I'm curious about when/how a lower gets classified as rifle or long gun. Why would any lower ever get classified as a rifle/long gun unless it was manufactured or delivered to an FFL as an actual rifle? "Rifle. A weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder, and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed metallic cartridge to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger." - CFR Title 27 § 478.11 Let's examine the OP's lower: Is it designed, made and intended to be fired from the shoulder? It seems to be it has a shoulder stock which would indicate such. So far it's a rifle. Is it designed and made to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed metallic cartridge? It seems to be, it contains a magazine well and a finished chamber which would indicate such a feature. so far still a rifle. Does it fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for single pull of the trigger? Well it does have a single stage trigger that is stopped from resetting until it's released so it would only fire a single projectile for each single pull of the trigger, but it does not have a rifled bore to send that projectile down. OH, no rifled bore? Sorry not a rifle, thanks for playing how about a lovely parting gift..... |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/17/2016 9:35:03 PM EDT
[#18]
So far, I've not seen a single person acknowledge that PSA mounts a rifled upper to every lower for a test fire prior to selling it.
Which of course means that it doesn't leave PSA without having been configured into a rifle. Details are made up of words, words are important. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/17/2016 11:29:23 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So far, I've not seen a single person acknowledge that PSA mounts a rifled upper to every lower for a test fire prior to selling it. Which of course means that it doesn't leave PSA without having been configured into a rifle. Details are made up of words, words are important. If that were the case, then they would be in violation for marking it as "other" on the form, which they've done on all 5 complete lowers that I've purchased from them. And from what I've heard, they get audited by the ATF quite a bit too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/18/2016 12:20:42 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So far, I've not seen a single person acknowledge that PSA mounts a rifled upper to every lower for a test fire prior to selling it. ..... They don't. Their only claim is that they test fire (some of) their uppers before releasing them. Which is why they transfer all their lowers, including complete ones with stocks, as "other firearm" to either you or your FFL. - OS |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/18/2016 4:51:07 AM EDT
[#21]
I've been told in the store and on the phone with customer service that they test fire ALL of the complete lowers that go out the door.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/18/2016 8:40:58 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I've been told in the store and on the phone with customer service that they test fire ALL of the complete lowers that go out the door. Never the less, test firing at the manufacture does not make it a rifle. Testing at the manufacturer does not indicate it was designed, made and intended to be shoulder fired as is needed to meet the rifle definition. It does not leave the manufacturer as a rifle. It is not a rifle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2016 11:50:58 AM EDT
[#23]
If it is not a complete pistol or rifle it is marked "other" on the form 4473.
That is the instructions and guidance from the ATF. A complete lower is not a pistol or rifle, it is other. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2016 7:21:43 PM EDT
[#24]
Quoted:
Wanting to do a 9mm pistol with future plans for SBR. What is the legality of buying a complete lower with stock, removing the stock and making it a pistol? PSA has been out of the complete pistol lowers but has lowers with carbine stocks. Seems like a good case for constructive intent, especially if you buy a complete pistol upper. As long as it is not a complete rifle, meaning upper and lower connected, then it is just a reciever whether it has a stock or not. If this is your only AR I would probably throw thag stock in the trash before you take procession of the pistol upper, if not then you can keep it as ling as the stock can be used in a legal configuration on another AR. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2016 7:29:10 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I've been told in the store and on the phone with customer service that they test fire ALL of the complete lowers that go out the door. If they do test every one which I doubt, they most likely have a test rig, non fuctional upper to prevent any legal issue for their customers. Not to mention you can fuction test a lower without ever mounting it on an upper. Update: Your signature line under your username is amusing in the context of this thread and your responses. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2016 1:46:47 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Which is why they transfer all their lowers, including complete ones with stocks, as "other firearm" to either you or your FFL... <---FFL/SOT who has transferred more than a thousand AR lowers (several hundred from PSA) ..........and exactly ZERO were received with documentation as "other firearm". Quite simply, the firearm just arrives. No documentation as to what was shipped is required by ATF. Where folks get this idea that some document exists is beyond me. The dealer records WHAT HE RECEIVES. If Palmetto (or any other manufacturer or distributor) takes complete rifles, removes the barreled upper and sells off the complete lower........the receiving dealer is REQUIRED to record that complete lower as "Other Firearm" in his bound book. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2016 1:50:02 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I've been told in the store and on the phone with customer service that they test fire ALL of the complete lowers that go out the door. So? It's possible to test fire an AR without a shoulder stock being attached. Even if the stock was attached, the firearm isn't "manufactured" until the manufacturer says it is.....and if test firing a lower is part of the manufacturing process it doesn't mean a rifle was manufactured. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2016 11:37:58 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
<---FFL/SOT who has transferred more than a thousand AR lowers (several hundred from PSA) ..........and exactly ZERO were received with documentation as "other firearm". Quite simply, the firearm just arrives. No documentation as to what was shipped is required by ATF. Where folks get this idea that some document exists is beyond me. The dealer records WHAT HE RECEIVES. If Palmetto (or any other manufacturer or distributor) takes complete rifles, removes the barreled upper and sells off the complete lower........the receiving dealer is REQUIRED to record that complete lower as "Other Firearm" in his bound book. Well, didn't mean that other FFLs get an actual 4473 or anything, just really meant how PSA or any other OEM records the firearm as released when sold. Which is the first place checked in any investigation. Obviously they wouldn't call something a rifle unless it really was, since among record keeping requirements in general, there's also excise tax involved for complete firearms. - OS |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2016 4:46:57 AM EDT
[#29]
Here's some good advice:
Go to the internet and find a website where all the guys know exactly what they are talking about, except they all disagree with each other. Then ask as many questions as you want. That should clear things up. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2016 1:04:05 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well, didn't mean that other FFLs get an actual 4473 or anything, just really meant how PSA or any other OEM records the firearm as released when sold. Which is the first place checked in any investigation. Obviously they wouldn't call something a rifle unless it really was, since among record keeping requirements in general, there's also excise tax involved for complete firearms. - OS Recently I've had a number of NIB Aero Precision firearms arrive. While the box is marked "Rifle"......it isn't. What was shipped by Aero is a 16" barreled AR with buffer tube but no shoulder stock. There is no furniture- no shoulder stock, no forearm. Same configuration as the Colt "OEM" AR's from a while back. You could argue all day long that Aero Precision believes they left the factory as rifles and logged them out as such......but ATF regs show that they are definitely not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2016 1:29:52 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Recently I've had a number of NIB Aero Precision firearms arrive. While the box is marked "Rifle"......it isn't. What was shipped by Aero is a 16" barreled AR with buffer tube but no shoulder stock. There is no furniture- no shoulder stock, no forearm. Same configuration as the Colt "OEM" AR's from a while back. You could argue all day long that Aero Precision believes they left the factory as rifles and logged them out as such......but ATF regs show that they are definitely not. While they are not at a glance configured as "rifles" (no stock), the prevailing logic with regard to these OEM models from Colt or Aero is that since the manufacturer calls them "rifles", then it can be said they are "designed to be fired from the shoulder", and thus legally rifles. While they may not be efficiently equipped to do so, if the manufacturer markets it as a rifle (explaining to the end user that they can add the stock of their choice) and identifies it as such, then it is implied that it was designed to be shouldered. And it meets all the other definitions for a rifle (rifled barrel, etc.). |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2016 1:41:02 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
While they are not at a glance configured as "rifles" (no stock), the prevailing logic with regard to these OEM models from Colt or Aero is that since the manufacturer calls them "rifles", then it can be said they are "designed to be fired from the shoulder", and thus legally rifles. While they may not be efficiently equipped to do so, if the manufacturer markets it as a rifle (explaining to the end user that they can add the stock of their choice) and identifies it as such, then it is implied that it was designed to be shouldered. And it meets all the other definitions for a rifle (rifled barrel, etc.). Sorry, but your "prevailing logic" doesn't jibe with Federal law or ATF rulings. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2016 1:50:03 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sorry, but your "prevailing logic" doesn't jibe with Federal law or ATF rulings. No, I get it, honestly I'm still on the fence on this one, both sides have merit. On one hand, they've never been configured as a rifle, so you can say they are not rifles at the point of sale. On the other, cannot a manufacturer say a firearm they make and sell is "designed to be shoulder fired", even if it's not exactly well equipped to do so? Think of how the ATF letter on not shouldering the Sig brace was worded, based in intent. If you build a pistol with a sig brace with the intent to shoulder it, then it is "designed or redesigned" to the shouldered and is a rifle. If the manufacturer sells the OEM models labeled as "rifles" and states in their product literature that they are designed to have the end user add a stock, then it could be argued the manufacturer intends for them to be shoulder fired. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2016 6:06:21 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, I get it, honestly I'm still on the fence on this one, both sides have merit. On one hand, they've never been configured as a rifle, so you can say they are not rifles at the point of sale. On the other, cannot a manufacturer say a firearm they make and sell is "designed to be shoulder fired", even if it's not exactly well equipped to do so? Think of how the ATF letter on not shouldering the Sig brace was worded, based in intent. If you build a pistol with a sig brace with the intent to shoulder it, then it is "designed or redesigned" to the shouldered and is a rifle. If the manufacturer sells the OEM models labeled as "rifles" and states in their product literature that they are designed to have the end user add a stock, then it could be argued the manufacturer intends for them to be shoulder fired. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. ATF is the one to determine if a firearm is a rifle or not. A manufacturer can call it whatever they want........and it means exactly jack shit. Consider all those silly AR lowers that are marked PISTOL.............doesn't mean jack shit. Per the letter of the law, current regulations as well as ATF Rulings.............THEY AIN'T RIFLES.
Those Colt OEM and the current Aero Precision firearm are "Other Firearm" on a 4473 and cannot be transferred as anything else. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2016 6:21:58 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sorry, it doesn't work that way. ATF is the one to determine if a firearm is a rifle or not. A manufacturer can call it whatever they want........and it means exactly jack shit. Consider all those silly AR lowers that are marked PISTOL.............doesn't mean jack shit. Per the letter of the law, current regulations as well as ATF Rulings.............THEY AIN'T RIFLES.
Those Colt OEM and the current Aero Precision firearm are "Other Firearm" on a 4473 and cannot be transferred as anything else. Woah now, I can certainly see the argument that they are "handguns", but how do you justify fitting the OEM models into the "other firearm" category? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2016 8:28:53 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Woah now, I can certainly see the argument that they are "handguns", but how do you justify fitting the OEM models into the "other firearm" category? Not a handgun, not a long gun. Same type of firearm as firearm frames, receivers and firearms that are not long guns or hand guns. See the instructions to Question 18 on the 4473. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2016 11:06:30 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not a handgun, not a long gun. Same type of firearm as firearm frames, receivers and firearms that are not long guns or hand guns. See the instructions to Question 18 on the 4473. Your FFL credentials and "technicality" of the config noted, but I do believe ATF would tell you it is indeed a long gun, and to transfer it as such in field 18, and to describe it as "rifle" in field 29. - OS |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2016 12:41:07 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Your FFL credentials and "technicality" of the config noted, but I do believe ATF would tell you it is indeed a long gun, and to transfer it as such in field 18, and to describe it as "rifle" in field 29. - OS |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2016 1:01:40 AM EDT
[#39]
Just FYI, I see the OP is in TX. Last weekend at the Market Hall show, Runner Runner Guns had complete lowers for 9mm in stock for $199? They are in McKinney so you might give them a call.I would have mated a lower and an upper to take Glock Mags if I didn't already have a complete AR Pistol I recently bought.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2016 2:27:20 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Long guns have to have stocks, so no, they wouldn't tell you to transfer it as a long gun. When I remove the stock from my rifle, it does not become "other firearm". ATF says that I can make a rifle with no stock by shouldering my pistol. There is no federal definition of "rifle" that includes the word "stock", or "buttstock". Colt builds these as firearms for the intent of being fired from the shoulder, which does fit the definition. That's why they call them "carbines". - OS |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2016 2:52:13 AM EDT
[#41]
You're missing the and. It has to be designed and intended to be fired from the shoulder. Without a stock it's not designed to be fired from the shoulder so intent is meaningless.
And removing the stock from a completed rifle isn't the same as a firearm that never had a stock. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2016 3:10:49 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You're missing the and. It has to be designed and intended to be fired from the shoulder. Without a stock it's not designed to be fired from the shoulder so intent is meaningless. And removing the stock from a completed rifle isn't the same as a firearm that never had a stock. It's also designed to be fired from the shoulder; though not a definitive component for classification, the carbine buffer tube supports that part. But that doesn't really matter, as Colt says it is designed for shoulder fire by calling it a carbine. - OS |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2016 3:14:50 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's also designed to be fired from the shoulder; though not a definitive component for classification, the carbine buffer tube supports that part. But that doesn't really matter, as Colt says it is designed for shoulder fire by calling it a carbine. - OS Except that ATF has said in writing that a carbine buffer tube means nothing. A pistol is allowed to have a carbine buffer tube, so that supports nothing. There are manufacturers calling stripped lowers pistols even though they're clearly nothing more than a stripped lower. So what the manufacturer calls it and what legal definition it meets are not necessarily the same. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2016 3:27:31 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Except that ATF has said in writing that a carbine buffer tube means nothing. A pistol is allowed to have a carbine buffer tube, so that supports nothing. There are manufacturers calling stripped lowers pistols even though they're clearly nothing more than a stripped lower. So what the manufacturer calls it and what legal definition it meets are not necessarily the same. I said the buffer tube is not definitive, only supportive. But since Colt says it is designed and intended to be fired from the shoulder by calling it a carbine and saying you may add the handguard and stock of your choice etc, that's enough I'm sure. I'd bet a cnote than ATF would say to transfer it as a long gun/rifle. - OS |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2016 3:33:51 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I said the buffer tube is not definitive, only supportive. But since Colt says it is designed and intended to be fired from the shoulder by calling it a carbine and saying you may add the handguard and stock of your choice etc, that's enough I'm sure. - OS Quote HistoryQuoted:
I said the buffer tube is not definitive, only supportive. But since Colt says it is designed and intended to be fired from the shoulder by calling it a carbine and saying you may add the handguard and stock of your choice etc, that's enough I'm sure. - OS What Colt says is fucking immaterial. Do you also believe that an AR lower with "SAFE, FIRE, AUTO" selector markings is also a machine gun?......after all, the company that made it says it can be full auto. I'd bet a cnote than ATF would say to transfer it as a long gun/rifle. Educate yourself before making promises.
Read the instructions to Question 18 on the 4473. Read ATF Ruling 2011-4 Read ATF Open Letter to FFL's regarding transfer of firearm frames and receivers From ATF regs: Pistol. A weapon originally designed, made, and intended to fire a projectile (bullet) from one or more barrels when held in one hand, and having (a) a chamber(s) as an integral part(s) of, or permanently aligned with, the bore(s); and (b) a short stock designed to be gripped by one hand and at an angle to and extending below the line of the bore(s). A barreled AR receiver with no shoulder stock actually comes closer to this definition than it does to "rifle"......but it doesn't apply until the firearm is completed. I take PayPal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2016 4:41:45 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What Colt says is fucking immaterial. Do you also believe that an AR lower with "SAFE, FIRE, AUTO" selector markings is also a machine gun?......after all, the company that made it says it can be full auto. Educate yourself before making promises.
Read the instructions to Question 18 on the 4473. Read ATF Ruling 2011-4 Read ATF Open Letter to FFL's regarding transfer of firearm frames and receivers From ATF regs: Pistol. A weapon originally designed, made, and intended to fire a projectile (bullet) from one or more barrels when held in one hand, and having (a) a chamber(s) as an integral part(s) of, or permanently aligned with, the bore(s); and (b) a short stock designed to be gripped by one hand and at an angle to and extending below the line of the bore(s). A barreled AR receiver with no shoulder stock actually comes closer to this definition than it does to "rifle"......but it doesn't apply until the firearm is completed. I take PayPal. None of that is exactly relevant to the example under discussion. Again, "designed and intended" are the keys, and I'd say this config which comes ready to fire is enough to meet that qualification. Again, ATF has ruled that you create a rifle through either intent or actual practice of using a brace or cheek weld on a pistol. Without a stock having ever been attached, same as this situation in that regard. You also have the case of the Franklin XO26, which is also a completely functional firearm, but to be transferred as "other firearm". Since that is the case, seems it could never be a legally classified handgun (not "originally" made as one), which is an important distinction in many states; it's even debatable as to whether it's technically legal to remove the VFG on it at all, unless it's converted to a rifle first. All further complicated by the fact that not all "other firearms" have the same options for future config, ie, virgin receiver vs used receiver, Franklin XO, a PGO shotgun, perhaps the Colt under discussion, etc. Most all of this is moot of course, except in the uber rare case of a LEA charging someone down the road for a illegal config that is based on the legal status of the original configuration at the time of the first transfer. - OS |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2016 12:20:22 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
None of that is exactly relevant to the example under discussion. It sure as hell is relevant. ALL ATF regs are relevant. Again, "designed and intended" are the keys, No sir, there's a whole lot more that is "key". and I'd say this config which comes ready to fire is enough to meet that qualification. And has been pointed out REPEATEDLY via ATF regulations, ATF Rulings and ATF Open Letters.....you are wrong. Again, ATF has ruled that you create a rifle through either intent or actual practice of using a brace or cheek weld on a pistol. Horseshit. I don't know if you are trolling or really this ignorant of what the ATF Determination Letter on the Sig Arm Brace really said. In either case, your statement above comes nowhere close to what ATF actually wrote. Without a stock having ever been attached, same as this situation in that regard. Again, wrong. You also have the case of the Franklin XO26, which is also a completely functional firearm, but to be transferred as "other firearm". Since that is the case, seems it could never be a legally classified handgun (not "originally" made as one), Again, wrong. Spend 30 seconds, heck, take five minutes and ponder how a stripped AR lower legally becomes a handgun. It starts getting old telling you of your ignorance of ATF regs & federal gun law. You've stepped off in the deep end with no knowledge of water or swimming. which is an important distinction in many states; Wrong again. Very FEW states have such a restriction. And this isn't a discussion of what Kommiefornia gun laws are this week, but FEDERAL FUCKING LAW. it's even debatable as to whether it's technically legal to remove the VFG on it at all, unless it's converted to a rifle first. Doubling down on the derp. All further complicated by the fact that not all "other firearms" have the same options for future config, ie, virgin receiver vs used receiver, Not part of the argument, but show me where the law differs for a used receiver vs new. I'll save you the trouble.....it doesn't. New vs used doesn't mean jack squat. What DOES matter is what the used receiver was prior to disassembly. See how little distinctions evade your thought process? I'm not saying that to be mean, but to point out that words have a meaning and you need to use precise language in discussing Federal gun laws. Franklin XO, a PGO shotgun, perhaps the Colt under discussion, etc. Yeah? All are other firearms, not rifles, not handguns, not shotguns...........EXACTLY what we've been trying to tell you. Most all of this is moot of course, except in the uber rare case of a LEA charging someone down the road for a illegal config that is based on the legal status of the original configuration at the time of the first transfer. Not moot. Those that build AR's with no shoulder stock and an OAL of greater than 26" sure as hell better know WHY it's not a pistol, why it's not a rifle and above all else why it's not NFA. I've had two ATF traces this year asking how a particular firearm was transferred (stripped lowers). - OS Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
What Colt says is fucking immaterial. Do you also believe that an AR lower with "SAFE, FIRE, AUTO" selector markings is also a machine gun?......after all, the company that made it says it can be full auto. Educate yourself before making promises.
Read the instructions to Question 18 on the 4473. Read ATF Ruling 2011-4 Read ATF Open Letter to FFL's regarding transfer of firearm frames and receivers From ATF regs: Pistol. A weapon origin"ally designed, made, and intended to fire a projectile (bullet) from one or more barrels when held in one hand, and having (a) a chamber(s) as an integral part(s) of, or permanently aligned with, the bore(s); and (b) a short stock designed to be gripped by one hand and at an angle to and extending below the line of the bore(s). A barreled AR receiver with no shoulder stock actually comes closer to this definition than it does to "rifle"......but it doesn't apply until the firearm is completed. I take PayPal. None of that is exactly relevant to the example under discussion. It sure as hell is relevant. ALL ATF regs are relevant. Again, "designed and intended" are the keys, No sir, there's a whole lot more that is "key". and I'd say this config which comes ready to fire is enough to meet that qualification. And has been pointed out REPEATEDLY via ATF regulations, ATF Rulings and ATF Open Letters.....you are wrong. Again, ATF has ruled that you create a rifle through either intent or actual practice of using a brace or cheek weld on a pistol. Horseshit. I don't know if you are trolling or really this ignorant of what the ATF Determination Letter on the Sig Arm Brace really said. In either case, your statement above comes nowhere close to what ATF actually wrote. Without a stock having ever been attached, same as this situation in that regard. Again, wrong. You also have the case of the Franklin XO26, which is also a completely functional firearm, but to be transferred as "other firearm". Since that is the case, seems it could never be a legally classified handgun (not "originally" made as one), Again, wrong. Spend 30 seconds, heck, take five minutes and ponder how a stripped AR lower legally becomes a handgun. It starts getting old telling you of your ignorance of ATF regs & federal gun law. You've stepped off in the deep end with no knowledge of water or swimming. which is an important distinction in many states; Wrong again. Very FEW states have such a restriction. And this isn't a discussion of what Kommiefornia gun laws are this week, but FEDERAL FUCKING LAW. it's even debatable as to whether it's technically legal to remove the VFG on it at all, unless it's converted to a rifle first. Doubling down on the derp. All further complicated by the fact that not all "other firearms" have the same options for future config, ie, virgin receiver vs used receiver, Not part of the argument, but show me where the law differs for a used receiver vs new. I'll save you the trouble.....it doesn't. New vs used doesn't mean jack squat. What DOES matter is what the used receiver was prior to disassembly. See how little distinctions evade your thought process? I'm not saying that to be mean, but to point out that words have a meaning and you need to use precise language in discussing Federal gun laws. Franklin XO, a PGO shotgun, perhaps the Colt under discussion, etc. Yeah? All are other firearms, not rifles, not handguns, not shotguns...........EXACTLY what we've been trying to tell you. Most all of this is moot of course, except in the uber rare case of a LEA charging someone down the road for a illegal config that is based on the legal status of the original configuration at the time of the first transfer. Not moot. Those that build AR's with no shoulder stock and an OAL of greater than 26" sure as hell better know WHY it's not a pistol, why it's not a rifle and above all else why it's not NFA. I've had two ATF traces this year asking how a particular firearm was transferred (stripped lowers). - OS |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2016 12:42:07 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
all that Now that you've largely abandoned real debate for ad hominem tone and twisting of obvious facts - - among them: -- ATF ruling on braces/cheek weld devices -- the numerous states where only handguns may be carried on person or in vehicle either with or without permits -- the obvious possible configuration limitations between new and used lowers (you of course knew what I meant), -- Franklin AO26 as per their own statements is to be transferred as "other firearm" and the ramifications of that for config/classification and carry (which they seem to have abandoned as a complete firearm now, btw) -- etc, tired of listing I hereby grant you the floor for any last vituperations you'd like to fling. Adieu. - OS |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2016 1:06:22 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Now that you've largely abandoned real debate for ad hominem tone and twisting of obvious facts - - among them: Horseshit. I've not twisted a single fact. In fact your entire argument is based on your "feels"....that is you haven't a shred of evidence to support your argument. -- ATF ruling on braces/cheek weld devices The one you haven't read? -- the numerous states where only handguns may be carried on person or in vehicle either with or without permits WTF does that have to do with anything discussed in this thread?
-- the obvious possible configuration limitations between new and used lowers (you of course knew what I meant), Yes, I knew what you meant........but your supposition of "new vs used" was flawed. Don't get butthurt because I pointed out the error of your statement. -- Franklin AO26 as per their own statements is to be transferred as "other firearm" and the ramifications of that for config/classification and carry (which they seem to have abandoned as a complete firearm now, btw) And again, what do you think you are arguing here? Any dealer (or nondealer) who takes five minutes to read the ATF definitions, Ruling and Open Letters (linked above) would be able to understand WHY the Franklin is an "Other Firearm". -- etc, tired of listing I hereby grant you the floor for any last vituperations you'd like to fling. The typical response from someone with no real knowledge or ability to defend their argument. You got busted for your ignorance fella. Take it like a man. Adieu.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2016 7:45:02 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
is it against the NFA to purchase a "complete lower" from PSA for a pistol build? YES Mama's wrong again. Link includes a pretty letter from the ATF on the subject. http://www.typicalshooter.com/atf-putting-a-stock-on-an-ar-15-lower-does-not-make-it-a-rifle/ |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
