User Panel
Posted: 5/25/2020 12:19:26 AM EDT
First, thanks in advance for reading this and any replies on my quest towards an SBR.
I currently have a Kriss Vector pistol that I want to legally convert to an SBR with a real folding stock (not a brace) and a Vertical Fore Grip. I’m aware of that process and can follow the outlines pinned on this forum, which I’m grateful for. However, with recent legislation passed by our neighbors to the north I’m afraid that if the time comes that all NFA items are to be surrendered to the government, I’ll lose this gun. TL; DR Is it possible to revert a legally recognized SBR back to a pistol? Also, if it has a 5.5” barrel the NFA flow chart says this would be an AOW and not an SBR…is that correct? |
|
Yes you can send a letter to the ATF and have an SBR removed from the registry once it is no longer configured as an SBR.
A weapon with a rifled barrel <16" and a stock is an SBR, you would register it as an SBR on the Form 1. |
|
One thing I never understood was that when you form 1 a SBR you create a new rifle. A pistol cannot be made from a rifle. I have never seen a letter that allows what is described but would sure like to. It always seemed like everyone took the TC decision and applied to form 1 guns even though to me it seems like a different situation.
|
|
If you have a registered Lower and put a 16" barreled upper on it. it is no longer a SBR.
If you have a registered Lower and put a pistol brace on it is no longer a SBR, it is a pistol. Now, if they want to confiscate legally owned form1 or form 4 receivers, suppressors etc, then they can confiscate any and all receivers, they are all registered, just not in a centralized database. This, of course, is unconstitutional. If .gov did not want private ownership of SBR, suppressor etc. the laws would have to be changed. |
|
Quoted: One thing I never understood was that when you form 1 a SBR you create a new rifle. A pistol cannot be made from a rifle. I have never seen a letter that allows what is described but would sure like to. It always seemed like everyone took the TC decision and applied to form 1 guns even though to me it seems like a different situation. View Quote As long as the receiver that you are going to title 2, SBR, is a pistol first, you can go back to a pistol. |
|
Quoted: As long as the receiver that you are going to title 2, SBR, is a pistol first, you can go back to a pistol. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: One thing I never understood was that when you form 1 a SBR you create a new rifle. A pistol cannot be made from a rifle. I have never seen a letter that allows what is described but would sure like to. It always seemed like everyone took the TC decision and applied to form 1 guns even though to me it seems like a different situation. As long as the receiver that you are going to title 2, SBR, is a pistol first, you can go back to a pistol. Got a link or letter? Like I said I don’t think I’ve ever seen that. |
|
Quoted: Got a link or letter? Like I said I don’t think I’ve ever seen that. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: One thing I never understood was that when you form 1 a SBR you create a new rifle. A pistol cannot be made from a rifle. I have never seen a letter that allows what is described but would sure like to. It always seemed like everyone took the TC decision and applied to form 1 guns even though to me it seems like a different situation. As long as the receiver that you are going to title 2, SBR, is a pistol first, you can go back to a pistol. Got a link or letter? Like I said I don’t think I’ve ever seen that. ALASKANFIRE, To my knowledge, that is not written into law. Just as having a full auto BCG as written by law now is illegal to have in your AR but ATF deems it permissible. To shoulder or not shoulder a pistol brace is determined by fiat by the BATFE, not as written by any laws. They can decide whatever they want- bump stocks did not fit the lawful definition of a machine gun but were outlawed after BAFTE amended the law as written by Congress and the new, amended definition contradicts machine-gun definition as written by Congress. What a mess. What I do, and have done on several occasions, when I have a question about the laws or just procedural matters such as just one set of fingerprint cards needed for a batch of F1 or F4's is ask the experts using the eform website, they have always been very quick to answer and always helpful for me. Again, I don't think that Pistol>SBR>Pistol has been codified by Congress. Let us know their response if you contact them. |
|
|
Quoted: You don’t need a link or a letter to show something is lawful. You need proof it is unlawful. Which doesn’t exist. So it’s lawful. View Quote Current law doesn’t allow making a pistol from a rifle. |
|
Quoted: Current law doesn’t allow making a pistol from a rifle. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: You don’t need a link or a letter to show something is lawful. You need proof it is unlawful. Which doesn’t exist. So it’s lawful. Current law doesn’t allow making a pistol from a rifle. However current law does allow you to make a pistol into a rifle and then back into a pistol. |
|
IF that were not true then these guys would have been a problem a long time ago.
https://mechtechsys.com/ |
|
Quoted: Current law doesn’t allow making a pistol from a rifle. View Quote Even the ATF uses ruling 2011-4 as a basis for the legality of returning a pistol made into an SBR to a non-nfa (pistol) configuration. I'ts perfectly legal, and done every day..... You're not making a rifle by converting a pistol into an SBR, you are configuring the pistol in a manner where it must be registered as an NFA weapon, and that "configuration" just happens to be "SBR" No different than converting a pistol to an AOW by putting a VFG on it, then returning it to a pistol by removing the VFG |
|
Quoted: One thing I never understood was that when you form 1 a SBR you create a new rifle. A pistol cannot be made from a rifle. I have never seen a letter that allows what is described but would sure like to. It always seemed like everyone took the TC decision and applied to form 1 guns even though to me it seems like a different situation. View Quote This right here. It's unsettled law. In my mind, even and SBR that started out as a pistol turns into a rifle when it's "made" into an SBR. No longer has the pistol history, so it's always going to something made from a rifle. |
|
If you have a registered Lower and put a pistol brace on it is no longer a SBR, it is a pistol. View Quote But it's now made from a rifle. |
|
You're not making a rifle by converting a pistol into an SBR, you are configuring the pistol in a manner where it must be registered as an NFA weapon, and that "configuration" just happens to be "SBR" View Quote No. you are MAKING a rifle when you F1 a pistol. In the law it's a "short barrelled rifle", not a "pistol with a stock" All my F1s are titled "Application to Make and Register a Firearm", and then Box 4b says "Short Barrelled Rifle" for type of firearm to be made. Just because you can easily reconfigure it in Title I status doesn't mean you haven't MADE a new firearm. |
|
Quoted: No. you are MAKING a rifle when you F1 a pistol. In the law it's a "short barrelled rifle", not a "pistol with a stock" All my F1s are titled "Application to Make and Register a Firearm", and then Box 4b says "Short Barrelled Rifle" for type of firearm to be made. Just because you can easily reconfigure it in Title I status doesn't mean you haven't MADE a new firearm. View Quote All my Form 1's say the same thing..... ATF hasn't had any issue with the 3 SBR's I've sent them notifications on that I'm returning to non-NFA pistol configuration and have requested updates be made in the NFRTR guess we are just going to have to agree to disagree on this...... |
|
|
|
|
|
Quoted: Even the ATF uses ruling 2011-4 as a basis for the legality of returning a pistol made into an SBR to a non-nfa (pistol) configuration. I'ts perfectly legal, and done every day..... You're not making a rifle by converting a pistol into an SBR, you are configuring the pistol in a manner where it must be registered as an NFA weapon, and that "configuration" just happens to be "SBR" No different than converting a pistol to an AOW by putting a VFG on it, then returning it to a pistol by removing the VFG View Quote My problem is that when you read 2011-4 they use very specific wording that does not describe what we are talking about in this thread. They mention numerous times that you have no issues as long as you don't assemble a gun regulated by NFA Therefore, so long as a parts kit or collection of parts is not used to make a firearm regulated under the NFA (e.g., a short-barreled rifle or “any other weapon” as defined by 26 U.S.C. 5845(e)), no NFA firearm is made when the same parts are assembled or reassembled in a configuration not regulated under the NFA (e.g., a pistol, or a rifle with a barrel of 16 inches or more in length). View Quote Held further, a firearm, as defined by 26 U.S.C. 5845(a)(3) and (a)(4), is not made when parts in a kit that were originally designed to be configured as both a pistol and a rifle are assembled or re-assembled in a configuration not regulated under the NFA (e.g., as a pistol, or a rifle with a barrel of 16 inches or more in length). View Quote |
|
|
|
Quoted: We are discussing a single part, not an entire FCG. A F/A BCG is not illegal in your otherwise S/A gun. View Quote and service rifle shooters breathe a sigh of relief....lol |
|
Quoted: My problem is that when you read 2011-4 they use very specific wording that does not describe what we are talking about in this thread. They mention numerous times that you have no issues as long as you don't assemble a gun regulated by NFA View Quote That's the part of 2011-4 that specifically addresses the issue of possession of parts that could constitute "constructive possession" If you build an AOW out of a pistol by attaching a VFG, then notify the ATF that you have removed the VFG and the weapon is no longer in AOW configuration, what do you now have? I own a number of SBR's made from pistols, and over the years have notified the ATF I have returned a few to Non-NFA "pistol" configuration for resale purposes.....numerous members on this site have posted correspondence from the NFA branch stating this is legal and in accordance to their rulings.... This whole argument is like asking someone to show the statutes that state I can legally drive the speed limit |
|
To everyone, THANK YOU!
This has turned into an excellent discussion with great points made on both sides. I truly appreciate all of these replies and information. |
|
This has been discussed numerous times before and there is no clear winner.
No one is going to change anyone's mind on it for the most part, and no one is going to "prove" their argument correct. You can almost tell how old the person is by where they stand on it though. BATFE seems not to care too much these days as long as there is nothing else going on. Back in the day the Thompson case only applied to that specific firearm, then they changed their "opinion" and it applied to all pistols, now it seems they have let it apply to all rifles but haven't released an official "opinion" of it. Depending on your state and other local laws, it may be an issue locally even if not federally. Then add to the fact that with many firearms, a new frame or receiver costs less than a stamp, and it's just easier to have a spare pistol setup to switch to. I can see both sides to the argument, but until that argument happens and is settled in a courthouse, there is no end to it. |
|
Quoted: All my Form 1's say the same thing..... ATF hasn't had any issue with the 3 SBR's I've sent them notifications on that I'm returning to non-NFA pistol configuration and have requested updates be made in the NFRTR guess we are just going to have to agree to disagree on this...... View Quote All I'm saying is it's a gray area and is not settled in law. The question is, when an SBR is made from a pistol, does the prior status as a pistol still hold? Or is it now a rifle for the future? Chances of getting racked up over it are essentially nil, but it is an unsettled question. |
|
|
|
|
Quoted: So again, what would be the benefit of asking ATF about this anymore? We cannot prove the scenario to be unlawful either, so why ask them? View Quote I’m definitely not asking them. But I’m also not putting myself in the situation that the answer matters. With six registered lowers and seven braced lowers, I always have other options. I simply build another lower when there’s a different configuration needed. |
|
I guess the simple answer is this...…
If you are the least bit concerned about it, just use a (Non-NFA) rifle as the basis for your SBR build.....then later, if you wish to return it to Non-NFA status, just put a 16" or longer bbl back on it, or weld on something that will get you back to a 16" bbl / 26" OAL.....then it's a rifle again.......simple as that.... |
|
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.