Not gonna lie.  After 41p, I'm not too enthusiastic about filling out forms to make an SBR.  

I'm thinking about making a pistol caliber AR style pistol.  I have so many parts that I can do it without much (if any) cash outlay.  I don't have any idea on the designation of the lowers I have were transferred to me.  If they were designated rifle or designated other.  

Is there a way to find out?  I have a couple of lowers already, one in particular.  It's really beat up so I'd like to use it for the purpose I have in mine.

If it was a stripped lower it should have been transferred to you as "other", as it is neither a pistol or rifle until it is assembled into one of the two configurations.

More detail...

I'm not sure if it was ever a requirement by any gov to have lowers marked as "pistol" or anything like that.

In conclusion: You can buy a stripped or complete lower new, that's never been made into a rifle, and make it into a pistol. No special markings for pistols required.

But you can't just take a lower from a gun that was sold as a complete rifle and make it into a pistol.

Lowers:
Starts as a rifle - always a rifle.
Starts as a pistol - you can change it as much as you want.

All my complete and stripped lowers 'started' their lives as pistols. Now I can change them when I want.

Do have one AR that's a factory rifle. Can't change that one.

Stupid laws.

Ok.  I don't know for an absolute fact how they were designated.   Seems safer to get a new lower and proceed.  

These are all spikes lowers that were transferred to me.

Can you contact the seller and ask if they had been previously assembled and sold as a rifle?
That's the catch. Once a rifle always a rifle.

No, first a rifle, always a rifle.

- OS

For pistol buffer tubes that are smaller than the traditional m4 buffer tubes, do I have use pistol calibers? Or can I shoot .223 with a different spring and buffer set up?

It's my understanding that you can turn a pistol into a rifle but you cannot turn it back into a pistol legally.

Nope. If it starts as a pistol, switch it as many times as you want.

Starts as a rifle, always a rifle.

Spikes sells a LOT of stripped and sometimes complete lowers. Lots of stripped though. If you bought them stripped, and they seem new, I'd feel more than good to go. odds are very high that they left the factory with the -R (receiver) designation.

Honestly, I'm pretty sure my post is as accurate to the Hive Mind here as you'll get.

well, if you want to go through the trouble,  contact the manufacturer of the lower and ask them how that went out from their facility, either as a receiver or a rifle.  they have to maintain records of things like that.

I'm in no hurry.  I'll try that. Correct me though, it's what's on the last 4473 that matters.  Right?

Stupid question that I came up with over night.   If I "sold" it to an FFL and bought it back immediately.  I'd have to fill out a new 4473 right?  Could the new 4473 list it as other?  Just asking.

Forget the 4473. Its not registering or classifying the lower one way or another.

No matter how the FFL marked the form, it has no bearing on determining what you can do with the lower. All that matters is how the lower is first built into a complete firearm to determine how you can reconfigure it from there.

If you want to build an AR pistol, go ahead and use one of your virgin stripped lowers.

Learn something new every day.  I don't expect I'll ever have an AR pistol, but for simplicity, if I have a couple stripped lower's, can i drop someones pistol upper onto that stripped lower for 10 seconds,  before I do a rifle vuild later,  and Tadaa, call that an assembled pistol first?  Or do i need to put all the other parts on it as well?

Thanks.  I guess that is where my disconnect was.  Thinking that the 4473 was the end defining document.

So from the manufacturer is has to designated as a pistol, rifle or other?  Now it makes sense.  I am almost sure that Spikes sells all of their stripped lowers as other.  Pistol lowers in the fully assembled pistols and rifle lowers in the fully assembled rifles and stripped lowers as other.

Would you say that is correct?

Now I get it.  Thanks.

Absolutely not. There is no pistol or rifle until it's assembled as such.

Any stripped receiver is just that, a stripped receiver. It is what it is, it is not "designated" as anything. They are described on 4473s and other documents and should be described as receiver, stripped receiver, frame or something similar.

There is no such thing as a "pistol lower" or "rifle lower" or "other lower". It's a receiver. Spikes or any other manufacturer do not make a choice of whether to sell lowers as whatever, they sell receivers. They are what they are, which is NOT a rifle OR a pistol.

It's been nearly 10 years since ATF put out an open letter explaining all of this.

Nope if it was first built as pistol it can back and forth as often as you want.

No, even if they were transferred incorrectly by a ill informed FFL as long as they did not come from the factory as a complete rifle, meaning upper and lower together. Even a complete lower, with a stock is still an other or receiver in the eyes of the ATF.

It might be instructive to understand where this all comes from.

The statutory definition of an SBR (NFA) includes a firearm with barrel length less than 16" made from a rifle. The interpretation of that clause, is that if you have a complete firearm that was originally assembled as a rifle, then it cannot ever be a Title I handgun since it would meet the definition of an SBR because of that clause, not because of its overall configuration. If the original configuration is a handgun, then it can go back to its original configuration according to the SCOTUS decision in the Thompson case.

Just stating my understanding, which appears to be wrong.

Thanks.

Do you need to have everyth part assembled you ask.

Uh, whatever. Before you assemble them as a rifle, pistolize them first. Otherwise, you can say you never assembled it as anything and you'll retain the same option.

Point is, just remember You 'assembled them all as pistols first.' Practice in the mirrior if needed.

I used a virgin stripped AR lower for my pistol build and made sure it was submitted as OTHER.

All my other lowers were either purchased as stripped or complete lowers but I had no idea how they were submitted. Should be OTHER but without seeing the reg. paperwork I had no way to know.

FWIW the first 5.56 pistol I bought was a new Kel Tec PLR-16. The shop filed it as a 'rifle' and had already gotten approval on it when I pointed that out, they quickly resubmitted it.

If that ever became an issue common sense would say it's their problem and not mine, but laws rarely have anything to do with common sense.

Where is the sense in that weird law that you can't turn a rifle into a pistol, but you can make a pistol a rifle and back again? That's almost as dumb as having 4 us parts on a imported gun is illegal but 5 us parts is a-ok.

That "weird" law is due to the definition of a pistol.

18 U.S.C., § 921(A)(29) and 27 CFR § 478.11
The term “Pistol” means " 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 chamber(s) as an integral part(s) of, or permanently aligned with, the bore(s); and a short stock designed to be gripped by one hand at an angle to and extending below the line of the bore(s)."

The key term is "originally designed". No matter what you do you can never change how the weapon was originally designed. So it is always a pistol. It can be "converted" to a different firearm and back, but it will always be "originally designed" as a pistol.

This is also why any other firearm can never be made a pistol, it was not originally designed as such.

Sad irony is, the original statute passed by Congress, 18 USC 921 does not say "originally" at all, uses the term "handgun", and has no definition for "pistol".

The "pistol" definition was added to the interpretation in the CFR by the usual arcane process. After a period of time for any debate (which nobody that voted on the original bill ever seems to care about), the CFR becomes law too. Lots of federal laws happen this way, becoming significantly different from what the Congress actually voted on.

And btw, the "handgun" definition remains in that CFR also, which has always begged the question of just what exactly is the difference between handgun and pistol? Whichever definition best suits what they want to make illegal, obviously. :)

- OS

The weird law in question started out as the 1934 National Firearms Act which required certain types of firearms to submit to a tax being paid on transfer of ownership. That immediately restricted full auto sales and limited what short barrels could be used on guns. None of it was written with the AR15 in mind as it hadn't even been invented yet. Rifles and pistols were distinct and unique then, almost none could be easily converted one to another.

Then came guns like the Thompson Contender with changeable barrels, grips, stocks, etc, and as the M16 matured on the American market, AR15 pistols. Regulations were written to cover them long after the '34 NFA was written. It's still better than what was originally proposed - to outright ban all handguns in America.

A stripped lower is just that and only that, and it is what it is, irregardless of what is checked off on the 4473. The ATF reserves their determination to themselves alone and does not delegate any authority to the FFL making them the final say so on what it is. FFL's make mistakes and are not the final word on a lower, ever. Neither is the 4473 or whatever box was checked.

When that lower was first assembled into a gun - "firearm" is one of those tricky ATF classifications - then it determines what it will be for all future uses. I read where some people like to "assemble" the lower into a pistol for a few seconds, with no description of exactly how many parts or if it was even fired, and considering how the ATF might take it, good luck in court. Sounds chancy and what was the point? To circumvent the law, which seems to be what a lot of folks on the internet state is their intent. The ATF reserves the determination of what the gun is, and if your intent was otherwise, expect it to be questioned.

Somewhat moot point, first of all, because the ATF isn't arresting very many, and secondly, despite all the posts to the contrary, very few switch up their lowers back and forth. Most build a lower into one specific type of gun and leave well enough alone. That was their intent, to use it in that form, and it's what they do with it. At the range, hunting, etc. Which at least demonstrates thru witnesses what your intent was.

If you have a lower you know for a fact was never constructed and used as a rifle first, then OK, build a pistol with it. If there is a chance and you don't know, lowers are so cheap then it's worth the "insurance" to just get another you are certain has no questions. A lower is just $50, the complete pistol is usually over $400, same as the rifles, and for that matter, a lot of the Barbie dress up stuff tacked on to guns these days costs a lot more - freefloats, side charger uppers, coated bolt assemblies, etc.

As for "first a pistol you can change it back and forth." No. There is a case where a fireman got into it with a cop on the road, the cop reported road rage, the next day his car was impounded and searched. He was carrying an AR rifle and a pistol in one case, it was taken into custody because the car was, the cops downtown assembled it into an illegal NFA configuration, took pics and sent them to the ATF. He was prosecuted, his lawyer was out of his lane and didn't know what to do, conviction. Now on appeal. It was a train wreck, but first and foremost, it made no difference what the lowers were first assembled as, or who put them together. They were in the same bag he left in the vehicle the day after he was at the range. Fail.

Do what you like, but if you decide to trust the provenance of a lower it's your call. I'd be more concerned about how you handle the gun after it's complete because that is what an LEO will decide on. Your lawyer will need to do the leg work proving it was a stripped lower never made into a rifle for you and that fact will have to survive the prosecutors attack. Some guys advice on the internet won't even be considered, the chain of custody of that lower is what will be determined. "I build it into a pistol first for ten seconds then a rifle?"

Not so much.

SCOTUS, and subsequently published guidelines, disagree with you.

Here's how I'd do it:

Step one: Assemble lower.

Step two: Screw pistol buffer tube onto lower (thirty bucks at Primary Arms).

Step three: Stick upper on lower. Any upper. There's no "maximum barrel length" reg. You wanted a 16" barrel pistol, so you made a 16" barrel pistol. Just make sure the upper doesn't have a vertical foregrip attached (vertical foregrips on pistols are illegal, and remember, this is a pistol)

Step four: Take a picture of your new pistol. Left side, showing the serial number.

There. It was built as a pistol. See, you even have proof.

A picture proves nothing. It only shows the configuration at the exact moment the pic was taken. The lower could have been configured first as a rifle a minute before.

And dates prove nothing on a digital pic file anyway. Even including something like a newspaper in it ain't concrete either nowadays.

In reality, no legitimate worries unless you're using a lower that actually left a manufacturer as a rifle, and even getting stung for that is uber remote. (but still dumb to do it)

- OS

It's called "preponderance of evidence." The stripped lower was built first as a pistol, so no evidence can exist that it was a rifle first. A photo of the pistol is evidence.

No, it's not iron-clad proof, but it's a step up from "I built it as a pistol first, pinky-swears."

Besides, we're not buying film and taking it to Photo-Mat here. Snap a picture on your phone. Two seconds. The likelihood you'd ever need it? Exceedingly remote. But... two seconds.

Great. Thanks for agreeing with me.

921 is the definition of terms as a collection and is derived from other statues already codified. The pistol definition is the same wording as passed by congress in the National Firearms Act off 1934 and later incorporated in title 2 of the Gun Control Act of 1968 which replaced the NFA34.  The term handgun and its definition was added to GCA68. So while both definitions were technically codified at the same time (the passing of CGA68) the definition of pistol is actually the older of the two.

No, it isn't.

Here is full text (picture PDF, not searchable I'm afraid, but definitions are first thing in it) of original NFA bill of 1934 which was enacted. I saved from GPO at some point, can't find the link right off.

But only the weapons which are to be taxed are defined, certainly not "pistol" or "handgun".  The only mention of the term is "except a pistol or revolver".

http://www.macmcdougald.com/gunpix/national_firearms_act_of_1934.pdf

And it's not in the Gun Control Act of 1968 either (which makes up most of 18 USC 921-922) -- so I still contend that this "originally made" pistol def was just fabricated out of thin air for the CFR that accompanies it.

- OS

Yeah....

Fuck this thread.

What you linked to is the NFA34 as submitted, not what was passed, it is also missing the first 21 sections. NFA 34 was replaced in 1968 in response to Haynes v. US which basically found the registration requirement of NFA34 violated a persons 5th amendment right. As a result the NFA34 was changed and codified as title II of the GCA of 1968. (hence NFA firearms being refered to as title II firearms)

The National Firearms Act (NFA) is part of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. The Internal Revenue Code, with the exception of the NFA, is administered and enforced by the Secretary of the Treasury. When ATF transferred to the Department of Justice under the Homeland Security Act of 2002, all its authorities, including the authority to administer and enforce the NFA, were transferred to the Attorney General. In order to keep all the references throughout the Internal Revenue Code consistent, references to the Secretary of the Treasury in the NFA were left unchanged by the Homeland Security Act. The pistol definition is found in 26 USC Chapter 53 part B ss 479.11.

The definition of Handgun is found in 18 USC part 1 chapter 44 section 921.
This definition is provided as defining the meaning of the term handgun  found in the unlawful acts and their penalties involving firearms codified in USC title 18 which deals with crimes and criminal procedures.

Regardless of when or where the pistol definition came into existence, it is the basis of the Thompson decision which gave us the ability to do the whole pistol to rifle and back thing as well as providing a legal path to keep spare parts while owning both AR pistols and rifles without fear of violating the NFA, and that's a good thing whether they meant it or not. 

Oops