...can you then take off the stock and use shorter barrels?

If by "standard AR" you mean a rifle, it cannot be "other" or "handgun" on a 4473, simple as that, and of course YOU do not check that box in the first place.

Also, what an FFL correctly or incorrectly marks on a 4473 does not ultimately determine the legal classification of a firearm, nor the legality of any given future configuration of it.


- OS

I vote NO, it left the factory as a rifle.

Gotcha, thanks. There is a video on YouTube where the guy says he took his ARs to his dealer and had them "reclassified" as other, on a 4473. It sounded too easy.  If he was talking about virgin lowers, would that make a difference?

ETA: video
https://youtu.be/OlafQ-uprFc

Guy is a dangerous idiot. Taking your AR rifle "back to FFL for reclassification" would also require an idiot FFL.

And wouldn't change the actual facts of the legal config history of the firearm one whit anyway.

I didn't even watch past that part to see what other tripe he may have said.

- OS

+1, did the same thing, as soon as heard that "back to FFL for reclassification".

now what is the chance getting caught? probably not at all. but for whatever reason,  if the ATF inquires to the manufacturer how it left their factory. ie as a  rifle,  then you got some explaining to do.  the defense, "I saw a guy on YOUTUBE saying I could do that" isn't going to fly

big difference, with a "virgin receiver", you can make it into a rifle or pistol. the choice is yours

If you go to your FFL, and they're selling a new stripped lower, can you buy it as a pistol, or would it depend on how they bought it?

If it is a new stripped lower it will be sold as "other". Either way, what it says on the 4473 has no legal bearing on its status as a rifle or not.

If it leaves the manufacturer as a rifle, it is a rifle fo-evah.
If it leaves as a virgin lower it is an "other" and may then be built into a pistol or rifle, or AOW I guess.

If it's first build has been into pistol configuration, it can then be changed from pistol to rifle to pistol as often as you like, and so long as you never configure it as a SBR, you will be square in the eyes of the ATF. Unless they change their mind about it.

No. All receivers are to be marked as "other firearm" regardless of new or used. A used one may or may not be legal for a pistol build, depending on its history.

- OS

So will a used one.

- OS

I have a used lower sitting in the safe, once purchased new by myself as a rifle, if my FFL is willing, could I sell it to him, and then buy it back as "other"?

Yes. But you couldn't make a pistol from it assuming it indeed was originally configured as a rifle. If it were commercially sold in rifle form initially, it's duck soup for ATF to check that should push ever come to shove.

If that lower was a new lower, and you mean the FFL marked it as "long gun", then if that was after 8/2008, he made a mistake. If before that date, "other firearm" was not an option on 4473. In either case, though, assuming you didn't initially configure it as a rifle, you could make it a pistol now period.

- OS

No. That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works. If it left the factory as a rifle it is a rifle, no matter how many boxes are checked.

Edit: Strictly speaking, OhShoot is correct, yes it can be sold as an "other" but will still be considered a rifle when built. I assumed that you meant you wanted to change it's legal status to be able to turn it into a pistol.

It's not that hard a concept:

If FIRST configured as a rifle, always a rifle, no matter what winds up on any given 4473.

- OS

Nothing in the ATF regulations assigns an FFL the authority to designate what kind of weapon it is. All they do is attempt to express the state of it's construction, which in no way determines what it is.

FFL's have no such powers. Whatsoever.

If you build a lower as a rifle first, meaning it has a stock on it then you attach a barrel over 16", it is then and forever a "rifle" and it will cost you a $200 stamp to put a shorter barrel on it, stock or not.

If you build a lower as a pistol first, meaning it has no stock on it, then you attach a barrel to it, it's a pistol. Pistols don't have maximum barrel lengths defined under BATF regulations. It could be the same upper as the one for a rifle. It also has nothing to do with the type of cartridge. It's all about if a STOCK is attached at the time of completion.

This started back with the 1934 National Firearms Act, which originally was an attempt to ban handguns - all handguns - in America. Since then Eugene Stoner and Armalite invented the M16 and the technical innovation was never foreseen. Add to that the Thompson Contender firearm which could be configured as both a pistol or rifle depending on the owner whim. It added layers of complexity to a law that basically was an attempt to outlaw guns.

None of us get to interpret it in a way to suit our own views, and the ATF doesn't delegate any authority to FFL's either. What the ATF will do should their attention get focused on YOUR gun is to research what the original configuration was when shipped and received, what the gun was first completed as, if a stripped lower, and whether or not you can disprove their contentions of your illegal activity in a court of law.

In a notable case of recent origin, the owner of a AR rifle and pistol, stored broken down in the same gun bag, had them seized pursuant to a non gun use investigation, the cops in the property room assembled them into an illegal unstamped SBR, sent pics to the ATF, and the owner was convicted. Poor lawyer and now on appeal. It CAN happen. Keep your ducks in a row and try coloring inside the lines, because when it comes to he said she said THIS CONVERSATION could be entered into a court of law to determine "intent" to get around ATF regulation.

Every time the subject comes up I've been wanting to give a pictorial graphic meming what this is, so far the closest I've come is two guys on unicycles on top of a 840 foot brick chimney in China. Ride close enough to the edge inside or out, it's not going to turn out real good.

Buy a new lower if there is any question or concern about the one in hand. Cheap insurance which goes to making your point in court if needed. It's $50. The assembled gun will cost close to $500. It's ten percent of the cost. There are more important things to save money on, like, $250 free floats or $800 milspec red dots.

That guy in the video is retarded.  You cannot reclassify a firearm.  Can't do it.  It is what it is. If you want to build a pistol, just order an Anderson lower front PA and call it a day. It's $50 plus a few for shipping. A lot cheaper than attorney fees.
I have one AR at the moment. It's a pistol, and it will stay that way.  3 more lowers will be here today.  They will be rifles, and they will stay that way.  It's not that difficult.

Lowers are cheap, cheap, cheap.
Buy a virgin and build what you want.
The other is only good as a rifle.

If it started as a rifle it's always a rifle. Definition of a rifle requires a stock and a barrel. So if it originally sold as a lower with a stock on it, you have to remove the stock before a barrel is ever added or your making a rifle.

Most of my AR's started as bare lowers.  All of those were built into a pistol when they come home.  A picture of it with a pistol tube and a short barrel upper showing the serial number is take and saved.  I have the info on the gun should it ever be stolen and I can prove it was a pistol before it might ever be built into a rifle.  No problems.  If it is a rifle when I get it it stays that way.

Taking an image for insurance purposes is a good idea.

However, just be aware that the image in no way can prove the initial build status of the firearm. The image only proves the build status AT THE EXACT MOMENT THE IMAGE WAS TAKEN. The firearm could have been first configured as a rifle a minute before the image was taken.

It's noted on the factory's books what that receiver was sent out as. A rifle, a pistol, or just a receiver.

That's not even part for the customer to fill out.

That would be something the ATF agent who's inspecting the ffl wouldn't know/notice/have time to look into; but it is something they'd get your ffl holder over.

I wouldn't tell anyone not to take a pic or whatever to prove his pistol always was a pistol. Snap away.

However - which is about the same thing as BUT - that still won't do the job in court. The above case in point, cop and fireman get into a road argument, cop files complaint, cops locate the vehicle next day and arrest fireaman, truck he was driving is taken into custody, his AR rifle and pistol disassembled in a gun bag are logged into PD possession. Then the cops downtown reassemble the wrong parts into an unstamped SBR, SEND PHOTO TO ATF.

Fireman has lame lawyer who loses case. He's still fighting it last I heard. Did the ATF submit they knew what the lowers were originally sold as? Have to ask, What Difference Does It Make Now? As far as they are concerned no Stamp = violation of law.

Your possession and conduct after the fact of purchase is where the LEO meets your gun. That is what gets his attention - he has no previous idea what it may or may not have been, and focusing on the FFL and 4473 doesn't usually add much to the situation. That is legwork for a subordinate agent to go discover in between doing other stuff. As far as the case I relate I've never heard the ATF even checked. Due diligence and being careful agents, I would expect them to, as for the original complaint, not any help. Unstamped SBR = guilty.

Funny, if the guy's AR carbine been one of the old Colt big and small pin lowers it might have put a stop to the PD shenanigans. Or if the buffer tube been too large to accept the carbine stock. Anything like that would have been a significant plus in the firemans favor. Think about it.

That's an amazing scenario, tirod...and I'm not saying that in a doubtful way.  Talk about a perfect storm of "worst case scenario".  

I can't recall transporting more than one of my AR's in a disassembled condition at a time.  Still, I do a couple of things in case I ever run into "that guy".  My two pistol lowers..."other" on 4473...have the Magpul grip with that compartment and cover.  Inside the grip is a small photocopy of the KAK Blade ATF letter with a comment that this lower goes an 11.5 pistol upper...the same in the case of the 10.5.  While none of this would guarantee against a good case of heartburn from authorities who were overly aggressive, it could help to show intent in the event of prosecution or a misunderstanding at the time of a discovery of the firearm or its components.  I don't know...there can be some pretty silly situations pop up where logic and reason could/should have been applied.

There is no ultimate protection from being railroaded by dirty LE. Anytime a short barrel is involved, there's possibility that legal "aggregated parts in close proximity" can be recombined to an illegal config by an unscrupulous actor.

- OS

Yes, it was a perfect storm. Read about it in this very forum. It's not high traffic here, hit the page weekly and you keep up.

I always transport my firearms in individual cases but it would not be impossible for someone to assemble them illegally if they were not in my possession. Food for thought. We need to conduct ourselves with an idea of what the worst case could be because there is always someone willing to volunteer and be a poster child about not thinking things thru.

It can and does happen.

To add to the discussion I was informed by an SOT a simple FFL can not "assemble" a virgin lower in any configuration to make it an operable firearm unless he is a manufacturer/ SOT.

Maybe other SOT's can verify this.

SOT has nothing to do with it btw, unless the FFL wants to deal with NFA stuff.

As I get it, if FFL installs lower parts for a customer who owns it, it's just gunsmithing, with standard 01 FFL required. However, if he does same on a lower to sell it, then it's manufacturing, with the 07 required.

I think (but not sure) same 07 would be required for an FFL simply buying complete lowers and uppers and putting them together for resale?

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/ruling/2010-10-manufacturing-operations-maybe-performed-licensed-gunsmiths-under/download

- OS

No - if a lower receiver is first built into a rifle, it is forever a rifle lower receiver and would require an SBR stamp to house a short-barreled upper.

Can be complicated but doesn't have to be. If you want a rifle with a full length barrel and stock, buy or build one. If you want a shorter gun and/or want to swap uppers of different calibers, then buy or build a pistol. You can still put a full length upper on a pistol, but you cant put a shorter upper on a rifle without NFA or you would be in trouble if ever questioned.


For me I see no reason NOT to buy a pistol lower/receiver and then SBR it, unless I specifically want a 16" or longer barrel. In that case I would just by/build a rifle instead.

Hypothetically, if you took your lower to a pawnshop and used it as collateral for a loan, the FFL/Pawnbroker would log it in and out as a receiver. There is no "willing", he's just logging the firearm that he's presented.

But . . . . all you'll accomplish is spending the pawn fee. Legal details aside, nobody cares about your lower and what you do with it so long as you don't create an NFA item without a tax stamp. There is no "gun police" that spends their time making sure that Bubba doesn't reuse a stripped lower. If your re-purposed lower ever becomes an issue you likely have much bigger problems in your life (i.e. the illegal gun build would likely be just one more tacked on charge as part of a huge fucking federal crime prosecution effort crashing down on your miserable head).

If you are otherwise an honest, law-abiding taxpayer it's highly unlikely they'll send you to Leavenworth over a rifle lower used to build a pistol. Maybe you worry too much.