ATF has gone and lost a bit more of their mind.

Now adding a buffer tube constitutes an NFA "firearm" unless it has the SB-15 brace attached. Notice in the definition, 5845(a)(3) , that is says adding the buffer tube to an AK makes it a SBR. But if you add a Sig brace it is still a pistol.

So if you ONLY have a buffer tube might be a good time to pick up some of those cheap Sig braces.

Why do folks keep writing these types of letters to the BATF?

In a way its a good method to get a paper trail of idiocy on file for any future endeavors.

Ludicrous of course.

1.  buffer tube on AK pistol does indeed count in legal OAL, so you can add a VFG
2.  but you must also add a SB-15 brace
3.  but of course you can't shoulder the brace

As I've said, I would have bet against 1. But then the Black Aces letter came to light not long ago where it was without comment counted into OAL of a "shotgun firearm". It's funny only the SB-15 is mentioned. How about the SBX. Or of course the SB-47, the main one sold for the AK period (there's a buffer tube in it). I guess those don't count, eh?

It has all become laughable at this point. I still say no way the ATF will prosecute anyone for any of this stuff, last thing it wants is actual case law to clarify matters. It's just a continuation of its culture of thuggish intimidation.

Hopefully its hand will be legally forced in one way or the other, and all this will lead to simply removing SBR from the NFA, the only sane thing to do in this day and time. And of course same with suppressors.

- OS

Thank you.  Well said!

Point 1 seems very confused.

Attaching a buffer tube to an AK pistol "may" be evidence that it is intended to be fired from the shoulder, but "does" make the weapon a SBR? We go from might be to definitely is in the same sentence.

This is because the buffer tube "is designed and intended to facilitate the attachment of a shoulder stock," but what about buffers that cannot attach a stock, like a pistol buffer or Thordsen keyed buffer?

What if you want to use the buffer for a check weld, and not to shoulder?

What about if you want to use the buffer for the Thordsen buffer cover and saddle for a check weld, and not to shoulder?

Hell, he doesn't even actually answer the straight forward question directly, but instead goes on a tangent.

Dude, it's the new era of the middle level bureaucrat in an acting position interpreting law. Without even being a lawyer, let alone a judge.

- OS

The BATFE are just a bunch of useless anti-2A scumbags, unless it's a law that is officially on the books I honestly don't care what they say.

They are attempting to make criminals out of the law-abiding citizen.

That letter is pretty .  They base the opinion in question 1 on a buffer tube being "designed and intended to facilitate installation of a shoulder stock", but completely ignore the well-known pistol-only buffer tubes, which are not capable of supporting a shoulder stock.  

On the positive side, we at least have confirmation that buffer tubes do indeed count towards OAL, and that the addition of a folding mechanism doesn't change its classification.  

Yet, if the buffer tube has a legitimate purpose other than to support a shoulder stock, it's ok.  The next logical question is what other legitimate purposes for a buffer tube they will accept, though now is probably not the right time to ask.  Hypothetically, though, a buffer tube could be a stabilizing cheek rest or a convenient place to store batteries/spare parts, all without attaching a shoulder stock.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this seems to be only concerning standard buffer tubes which can readily accept a stock. Were notch-less pistol tubes ever mentioned? You'd think it would logically follow the brace bit.

How about quit asking the BATFE "is this a SBR and is that considered full auto?", geez people WTF!!

This....


 

That "firearm" definition is confusing. I can make a firearm from a rifle if it has a barrel less than 16"  and less than 26" in OAL?

No.

"Firearm" just means it is a firearm as defined by the GCA, but does not meet any of the more specific definitions for types of firearms.

Anything that started as a rifle that is reduced to less than 26" OAL OR 16" barrel would be an SBR.

IMO they're playing a game . They figure IF people are that stupid and cannot do ANYTHING without a clarification letter . They deserve to be messed with.
DEAR ATF. If my tapco mags do not fit tight in my AK. Would work on the mag release require a gunsmith to do it? I'm asking since i don't have an FFL and was told i might want to have a gunsmith look at it.

Sincerely,Concerned citizen.

I hate to agree with the ATF, but I've been saying this for years.

Really?  You agree with the ATF that this is designed and intended to facilitate installation of a shoulder stock?  

Love how people are so surprised, confused, and angry when the ATF keeps cutting out the loopholes we've all been using en masse.

The buffer tube is meant to house the buffer and recoil/buffer spring though. It is originally intended to have a stock attached, loophole versions not withstanding.

That's probably why they changed their opinion on the Sig brace, they were just tired of all the letters they were getting from people asking for clarification.

I must vehemently disagree.  There is no such thing as a "loophole" - there is only "legal" and "illegal," which is why laws are defined in specific terms instead of generalities.  If you really want to go down that path, AR-15 rifles (especially those with Geissele triggers) are just "loophole versions" of the M-16, which people use en masse to subvert machine gun laws.  Pinned/welded flash hiders on a 14.7" barrel are "loophole barrels" that people use to subvert SBR laws.  And, during the fed AWB, ban-compliant AR's were "loophole versions" of the banned rifles.  

Calling these things loopholes implies that they are somehow bad or should have been banned/regulated.  This is exactly what the anti's do with terms like "gun-show loophole" (by which they intend to ban private sales) and "gun trust loophole" (by which they intend to further restrict NFA transfers).  We're better than that, and should not allow ourselves to propagate these kinds of lies.  If a configuration meets the requirements of the law, as written, then it is legal - the end.  

You are correct that when used on an AR-15 rifle, a standard CAR buffer tube/receiver extension is intended to hold the recoil assembly and also to support a butt-stock - it has multiple legal purposes.  However, when used on an AR-15 pistol, particularly with a receiver extension that is incapable of supporting a stock, the tube instead acts as a cheek rest, and is neither designed nor intended to support a stock.  This is pretty well established for AR pistols and predates things like the SB-15 by a long time.  Using the same receiver extension on an AK pistol for the same purpose (as a cheek rest) is no different than doing so with an AR pistol, despite the fact that the tube is not needed to house the recoil assembly.  This is key - the removal of one legal purpose (housing the recoil assembly) cannot invalidate other legal purposes (such as a cheek rest).  So long as at least one legal purpose exists, and there is no illegal purpose, such as attaching a stock (demonstrated by having a stock installed, for example), the configuration should be legal.  This is not a loophole - it's simply compliance with the law, just like ban-compliant rifles.  

With this letter, the ATF is basically ignoring all legal purposes for a receiver extension other than housing the recoil assembly or attaching an SB-15, and is presuming that the only other purpose for such an extension is to illegally attach a stock.  Not only does this not make sense given the wide availability of buffer tubes which are not able to attach a stock at all, it has implications for other types of pistols as well, such as .22LR AR's.

Comments like this adds nothing to the discussion.  Good for you that you have been "saying this for years."  I'd be more impressed if you could tell me the winning Mega Millions numbers, since you have so much insight into what the future holds for us.




People that are actually siding with the ATF crack me up.  I have news for you all...the ATF is not on our side and you can continue to blame those that sent in letters asking for clarification.  Did you ever think that people sent in clarification letters because the ATF has been vague and keep on back tracking on what they wrote in the opinion letters.

It's funny how we dislike some of the gun laws in this country and  yet gun owners cannot even unite for the better good of all gun owners.  I swear some of you on this forum own guns, but you don't want everyone to have the freedom that we all SHOULD have under the Constitution.

My state allows for NFA items, but I for one am tired of having to get permission to own something.  America isn't free and our 2A rights are being tested by our gobermint.

Screw it, might as well fill out the form and send in your $200 now.  I am sure that sometime in the future just owning one of these without a stamp will make you a felon.  Why give them a chance? $200 is a small price to pay for ease of mind.

There are 2 primary definitions of Firearm.



The first one is 18 U.S.C 921(a)(3). This refers to the GCA or title 1 firearms. Normal rifles,handguns, shotguns.



Then
there is 26 U.S.C. chapter 53, ss 5485(a). This defines NFA "firearms". MGs, SBRs, SBSs, AOWs, suppressors, DDs....

in your example, a firearm made from a rifle that has a barrel less
than 16"  and/or less than 26" in OAL would fall under this definition and
be classified as a SBR, a NFA "firearm". Or as indicated in the letter a, "..."firearm" as defined in ss 5485(a)."



A firearm such as a non shoulder fired (stockless) AR over 26"
OAL with a VFG, or the factory pistol grip "shotgun" (non-shotgun) would be classified a firearm under 18 U.S.C 921(a)(3). However as
no other specific definition exists for this type of firearm it is simply a
"firearm".

Or as sited in the letter,  "...a "firearm" as defined in 18 U.S.C 921(a)(3)."



Simple ain't it.

Yep.  Words mean things... except when the government defines the same word to mean different things within closely related laws.    Then it lederhosen.

What about an AK pistol with a folding adapter, brace and VFG? Would the folding mechanism need to be pinned to count towards OAL? OR would the VFG need to be removed prior to folding the adapter? Then attach the VFG once the adapter is extended once again?

Well, ATF measures overall length with a folding or collapsible stock in the fully extended position, so since in the letter they seem to acknowledge a buffer tube and brace as also counting in OAL as pieces of the "firearm". So one would assume that the fully extended condition would apply to the entire firearm assembly?

However, like you, I have not added a VFG to mine. Even if I didn't use a folding mechanism, don't think I would personally, seems all too iffy at this point.




- OS

next someone's going to ask if adding a sling makes it a sbr

I guess Mad Max would say yes, if it's around your shoulder when you fire it.

- OS