User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 12/20/2017 5:23:46 PM EDT
[#1]
Either take it as a pistol, or as a Title 1 rifle. Then it's not an SBR, and SBR rules don't apply.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2017 5:31:43 PM EDT
[#2]
Still a federally registered SBR. Wouldn't do it. File form with ATF notifying them of movement across state lines.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2017 5:38:37 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Still a federally registered SBR. Wouldn't do it. File form with ATF notifying them of movement across state lines. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2017 5:41:44 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: ATF has specifically stated that it is only an NFA firearm subject to NFA rules when in the SBR configuration. 
interesting... |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2017 5:54:15 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: ATF has specifically stated that it is only an NFA firearm subject to NFA rules when in the SBR configuration. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2017 7:05:38 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: do you have a link/source? I got the SBR as an individual and I would hate to get myself or wife in trouble for it being alone with her (like if we stop and I run into the store or something) as we'll be traveling in an RV. Last paragraph on Page 2 |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2017 7:38:00 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote Historythe way I'm reading that it talks about the longer barrel making it a regular rifle, nothing about as a pistol. Says specifically the upper much be left in the home state.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2017 9:25:01 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Either take it as a pistol, or as a Title 1 rifle. Then it's not an SBR, and SBR rules don't apply. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2017 10:08:05 AM EDT
[#9]
If you put a brace on it and keep the short upper, it's then a firearm made from a rifle (made from the SBR).
There's some disagreement on the subject. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2017 10:11:31 AM EDT
[#10]
If that argument were true, then wouldn't it be illegal to turn any pistol into a rifle, and then back into a pistol?
You aren't re-manufacturing a pistol into a rifle when you make it a Form 1 SBR. You're just making it. When you turn a Title I pistol into a Title I rifle, you made it into a rifle. Same terminology. I think it's acceptable to go back to pistol. ATF doesn't have to green-light stuff for it to be legal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2017 10:29:03 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If that argument were true, then wouldn't it be illegal to turn any pistol into a rifle, and then back into a pistol? You aren't re-manufacturing a pistol into a rifle when you make it a Form 1 SBR. You're just making it. When you turn a Title I pistol into a Title I rifle, you made it into a rifle. Same terminology. I think it's acceptable to go back to pistol. ATF doesn't have to green-light stuff for it to be legal. Quote HistoryQuoted:
If that argument were true, then wouldn't it be illegal to turn any pistol into a rifle, and then back into a pistol? You aren't re-manufacturing a pistol into a rifle when you make it a Form 1 SBR. You're just making it. When you turn a Title I pistol into a Title I rifle, you made it into a rifle. Same terminology. I think it's acceptable to go back to pistol. ATF doesn't have to green-light stuff for it to be legal. The term "short-barreled rifle" means a rifle having one or more barrels less than sixteen inches in length and any weapon made from a rifle (whether by alteration, modification, or otherwise) if such weapon, as modified, has an overall length of less than twenty-six inches.[18 USCS § 921] |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2017 11:32:53 AM EDT
[#12]
That same law applies to any handgun made from any rifle, so if one is gray, they're both gray.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2017 11:46:51 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That same law applies to any handgun made from any rifle, so if one is gray, they're both gray. Quote HistoryQuoted:
That same law applies to any handgun made from any rifle, so if one is gray, they're both gray. The TC Contender case was the one that created the pistol>rifle>pistol allowance. The legal dispute in United States v. Thompson-Center Arms Company arose when officials from the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms contacted Thompson Center Arms informing them that the kit of the Contender Pistol that included a stock and a 16-inch (410 mm) barrel constituted a short-barreled rifle under the National Firearms Act. The court ruled in Thompson Center Arms' favor in that the carbine conversion kit did not constitute a short-barreled rifle, primarily because the kit contained both the stock and the 16 inch barrel. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2017 12:03:13 PM EDT
[#14]
Let's not forget that pistol to rifle to pistol was once considered illegal and took a court case (all the way to SCOTUS) to get overturned.
Then it was a "that case only applied to TC" stance, until BATFE changed their mind not too long ago. An argument can be made that registering a SBR creates a new rifle an henceforth can't be a pistol. An argument can also be made that since pistol to rifle to pistol is ok and rifle to SBR to rifle is ok, then pistol to rifle to SBR to rifle to pistol should be ok "logically" But we all know where logic stands with the BATFE and conflicting arguments get settled in court. Most in the NFA game have a long standing history with taking an ultra-conservative approach to the grey areas of the law as it applies to NFA |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2017 1:43:04 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think it's acceptable to go back to pistol. ATF doesn't have to green-light stuff for it to be legal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2017 1:58:06 PM EDT
[#16]
Folks have been doing this for years. It is amazing to watch the current generation quible over things over things previous generations have done for decades. ROFL under the theory if you cannot provide a link, it is not legal.
Just go back to all the broomhandles and such where pistols <> SBR were done routinely, to this day. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2017 2:53:43 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Folks have been doing this for years. It is amazing to watch the current generation quible over things over things previous generations have done for decades. ROFL under the theory if you cannot provide a link, it is not legal. Just go back to all the broomhandles and such where pistols <> SBR were done routinely, to this day. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2017 8:41:23 PM EDT
[#18]
As mentioned, the two sides of the argument are:
1. Legal because of the pistol->rifle->pistol case 2. Illegal because you do make a new firearm with a Form 1, even though you're adopting existing markings (including SN), and that firearm is a rifle...so a pistol would be a weapon made from a rifle, which by definition is an SBR The only time I've seen the ATF address it was in an email reply, and Gary Schaible (IIRC, that's who replied) said it was fine to do. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/14/2018 4:21:24 PM EDT
[#19]
Am inclined to agree with Gopherboy's interpretation; however, it would be nice to get a clarifying letter from ATF on this issue. Am wondering if anyone has sent such a request?
It is the unique characteristics of SBR law that brings such questions. No other NFA item can be removed, and added back (or even removed completely, forever) from NFA, with no further required ATF involvement, simply by changing parts. The desired interpretation is that a receiver/firearm that starts out assembled as a pistol, then becomes a NFA SBR, and then later a (16"+ barrel) rifle, back and forth, etc., and: Whenever it is not a SBR or rifle -will simply revert back to it's original configuration -meaning, a pistol, which could then also be used with a pistol brace. It would actually be the same receiver and short upper, but as a pistol, when using the brace (and under 26"), or as a SBR with the same upper and a shoulder stock. I haven't found anything that specifically contradicts this. Has anyone? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/14/2018 5:24:14 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No other NFA item can be removed, and added back (or even removed completely, forever) from NFA, with no further required ATF involvement, simply by changing parts. For example, I can remove the 40mm barrel from my DD M203, and sell it as a Title I firearm. I could also swap a smoothbore 37mm barrel onto it and cross state lines (since it isn't a DD at that time). I could permanently separate the barrel from a USAS-12 and sell everything else as a Title I firearm. Silencer tubes (or whatever is serialized) must be destroyed to not be a silencer anymore. Generally MGs are the same, but status can change. When I insert a DIAS or Lightning Link into a Title I AR host, the entire assembly is now considered a MG. I can swap whatever length barrel(s) I want etc. When I remove the registered MG conversion device, the host AR reverts to Title I status, so it must be in a lawful Title I configuration (unless independently registered as a SBR, as some prefer to do). If it was a pistol before pairing with the DIAS, it should be a pistol again. I've never seen information to suggest otherwise. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/14/2018 10:01:06 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This isn't unique to SBRs. DDs and SBSs can also become Title I by changing/removing parts. This can be a permanent change. ATF doesn't have to be notified/involved. ...If it was a pistol before pairing with the DIAS, it should be a pistol again. I've never seen information to suggest otherwise. I hadn't given DD's their due consideration -don't see any in this area. A sear or link would seem to fall into a slightly different area, as that single item is always NFA, even off the host. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2018 6:35:02 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Am inclined to agree with Gopherboy's interpretation; however, it would be nice to get a clarifying letter from ATF on this issue. Am wondering if anyone has sent such a request? It is the unique characteristics of SBR law that brings such questions. No other NFA item can be removed, and added back (or even removed completely, forever) from NFA, with no further required ATF involvement, simply by changing parts. The desired interpretation is that a receiver/firearm that starts out assembled as a pistol, then becomes a NFA SBR, and then later a (16"+ barrel) rifle, back and forth, etc., and: Whenever it is not a SBR or rifle -will simply revert back to it's original configuration -meaning, a pistol, which could then also be used with a pistol brace. It would actually be the same receiver and short upper, but as a pistol, when using the brace (and under 26"), or as a SBR with the same upper and a shoulder stock. I haven't found anything that specifically contradicts this. Has anyone? ATF Ruling 2011-4 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 re-assembledin a configuration not regulated under the NFA (e.g., a pistol, or a rifle with a barrel of 16 inches or more in length). Merely assembling and disassembling such a rifle does not result in the making of a new weapon; rather, it is the same rifle in a knockdown condition (i.e., complete as to all component parts). Likewise, because it is the same weapon when reconfigured as a pistol, no “weapon made from a rifle” subject to the NFA has been made. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2018 10:53:59 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Don't know if this will help or just make it a little more confusing. ATF Ruling 2011-4 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 re-assembledin a configuration not regulated under the NFA (e.g., a pistol, or a rifle with a barrel of 16 inches or more in length). Merely assembling and disassembling such a rifle does not result in the making of a new weapon; rather, it is the same rifle in a knockdown condition (i.e., complete as to all component parts). Likewise, because it is the same weapon when reconfigured as a pistol, no “weapon made from a rifle” subject to the NFA has been made. Thanks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2018 1:11:18 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This isn't unique to SBRs. DDs and SBSs can also become Title I by changing/removing parts. This can be a permanent change. ATF doesn't have to be notified/involved. For example, I can remove the 40mm barrel from my DD M203, and sell it as a Title I firearm. I could also swap a smoothbore 37mm barrel onto it and cross state lines (since it isn't a DD at that time). I could permanently separate the barrel from a USAS-12 and sell everything else as a Title I firearm. Silencer tubes (or whatever is serialized) must be destroyed to not be a silencer anymore. Generally MGs are the same, but status can change. When I insert a DIAS or Lightning Link into a Title I AR host, the entire assembly is now considered a MG. I can swap whatever length barrel(s) I want etc. When I remove the registered MG conversion device, the host AR reverts to Title I status, so it must be in a lawful Title I configuration (unless independently registered as a SBR, as some prefer to do). If it was a pistol before pairing with the DIAS, it should be a pistol again. I've never seen information to suggest otherwise. DD M203 to firearm - no rifle no problem same for the USAS-12 silencer - obviously no rifle here AR to MG goes back to AR - a machinegun is made not a rifle so it could go back to original config either pistol or rifle no problem (you can see this with HK sears as well) pistol + DIAS back to pistol - again, no rifle was made = no problem Now the only thing similar from all the other types would be a firearm to SBS back to a firearm. Is it legal? or would it be a SBS still since it could be argued to be a weapon made from a shotgun. Again, I'm not saying it's one way or the other. I'm just showing both sides of the argument. IME this is the type of thing that is settled in court, and most take a conservative stance to avoid that situation. For the case of an AR, which is what the OP was asking, a separate pistol lower to use the short upper on easily solves his goals as well as avoids the issue outright = a no brainer |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2018 2:00:38 PM EDT
[#25]
It is certainly easy to avoid the issue altogether, which is probably why it doesn't come up much.
Let's look at RenegadeX's great example of the Broomhandle Mauser with shoulder stock/holster. Currently ATF considers a C&R C96 with stock to not be a SBR, but this was not always the case, so there should be decades worth of cases if ATF once considered C96 SBRs to never be Title I pistols again, once a stock had been attached. Is there any case law for individuals charged with possession of a weapon made from a rifle by possessing a C96 pistol? Relevant opinions might also be found in cases regarding C96 SBR possession (or constructive possession) with shoulder stocks. I think Ruling 2011-4 would be relevant. It seems the C96 and holster/stock would count as a "kit". |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2018 12:41:18 PM EDT
[#26]
I'll be the first one to admit that I'm not sure on ATF's stance on the entire situation.
But lack of prosecution, shouldn't imply legal status or that prosecution couldn't happen in the future. For most, the issue of is it a pistol or is it a SBR, doesn't even matter. If I have a legal SBR in pistol config and ATF still considers it a SBR - so what, it's still legal. Unless I need that pistol determination to make other actions legal (like taking over state lines). But then what is the likelyhood that it will ever be an issue even in that particular circumstance. Odds are it won't, just as odds are that if I speed at some point on my drive home I won't be given a speeding ticket. Individuals owning legal title2 weapons are almost nonexistent in violent crime statistics involving firearms (where a likely add on charge to this effect would be seen) and IME are ultra conservative when it comes to following weapons laws. All of this may be the reason for a lack of individuals being charged. I don't see ruling 2011-4 being relevant with any of this as it specifically deals with title1 status and the lack of a title2 weapon being made and therefore no registration being required. IMO, political winds being what they are, I could see an ambitious prosecutor throwing someone under the bus and going after them in the right circumstances in a left controlled environment |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2018 11:18:43 AM EDT
[#27]
While interesting to look it, it seems the whole SBR to Pistol thing is not really grounded in any significant amount of real-life situations.
If somehow you manage to have the ATF show up and run the serial on a pistol, then get in touch with the NFA branch and see it's on the registry as an SBR... but it's not in SBR format, then they have to prove it was once an SBR. Maybe you just never made it into an SBR? Then they have to try to prosecute for that, and confuse the living daylights out of a jury. But more importantly... why is the ATF on your case like that? You've probably got way bigger problems to worry about. This is like the DEA arresting you for drug paraphernalia because you've got a syringe with no needle in it for dog medication in a cardboard box that's under the sink in an RV. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2018 3:05:02 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
But more importantly... why is the ATF on your case like that? You've probably got way bigger problems to worry about. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2018 2:51:08 PM EDT
[#29]
To further convolute the situation, what if you remove the short barreled upper, put it on a pistol lower, and put a standard upper on the registered lower? Could you then travel across state lines with both (i.e. moving to another state)?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2018 7:31:03 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
To further convolute the situation, what if you remove the short barreled upper, put it on a pistol lower, and put a standard upper on the registered lower? Could you then travel across state lines with both (i.e. moving to another state)? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2018 5:40:00 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
ATF has specifically stated that it is only an NFA firearm subject to NFA rules when in the SBR configuration. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Still a federally registered SBR. Wouldn't do it. File form with ATF notifying them of movement across state lines. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2018 6:58:47 AM EDT
[#32]
From a practical perspective I would just have a second lower set up in pistol form and swap lowers if I wanted to use the SBR upper. Lowers are cheap and then I can leave my registered SBR lower at home.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2018 7:35:47 AM EDT
[#33]
Thanks for the help all. I wanted to bring the SBR because it has a Law folder and fits in my smaller back back. But Its looking like I'll just put the short upper on a bladed pistol lower. I can keep them separate and fit in a small bag and just slap them together at night if I need to.
I will be carrying my carry gun so this is back up/bump in the night stuff. may even be able to leave it assembled, depending on the storage options I won't know till we rent the damn thing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2018 10:51:30 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So I could slap a 16" upper on my SBR lower and move to Hawaii with it despite Hawaii not allowing SBRs? I'm curious how the firearms registration dept would react when bringing that in. Not sure why they'd call the NFA Division to even check on it if you arrived with a full length upper attached. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2018 6:08:43 PM EDT
[#35]
Quoted:
Hey all, I'm pretty sure you can make an SBR temporarily not an SBR by throwing a longer barrel on it. Then regular title 1 firearm rules apply and you can cross state lines without issue. Could you (assuming that you built the lower as a pistol while waiting for the stamp to clear) swap out the stock and buffer tube for a pistol brace while keeping the short upper on it and convert it back to a pistol? I have a trip coming up and I'm not sure of the final destination or if I'd be able to get an SBR hall pass completed and returned by the time we left. Just wondering what the options are. I have a pistol lower but the SBR already has a Law on it and I'm not super interested in taking it all apart if I don't have to. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2018 7:27:49 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The part I underlined, correct me if I'm mistaken... It's "First a rifle, always a rifle." If first a pistol, it can swap freely. There is some debate about SBRs. I am in the "SBR registration changes nothing about pistol eligibility" camp. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2018 9:48:09 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The part I underlined, correct me if I'm mistaken, but as I understand it, once a stock has been fixed to the AR lower reciever / firearm, it is now and forever a rifle. Now would Mr. Officer have any idea the firearm currently configured as a pistol ever had a stock on it, highly highly doubtful, but that doesn't make it legal. Do what you want, I don't care, just saying. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/6/2018 9:44:11 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Don't know if this will help or just make it a little more confusing. ATF Ruling 2011-4 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 re-assembledin a configuration not regulated under the NFA (e.g., a pistol, or a rifle with a barrel of 16 inches or more in length). Merely assembling and disassembling such a rifle does not result in the making of a new weapon; rather, it is the same rifle in a knockdown condition (i.e., complete as to all component parts). Likewise, because it is the same weapon when reconfigured as a pistol, no "weapon made from a rifle" subject to the NFA has been made. "Nonetheless, if a handgun or other weapon with an overall length of less than 26 inches, or a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length is assembled or otherwise produced from a weapon originally assembled or produced only as a rifle, such a weapon is a "weapon made from a rifle" as defined by 26 U.S.C. 5845(a)(4). Such a weapon would not be a "pistol" because the weapon was not originally designed, made, and intended to fire a projectile by one hand." A form 1 is an application to make a firearm. Does it matter if that firearm is made from an existing pistol or a block of aluminum? That's were the question is. Does the resultant firearm have a new "born as" configuration (a rifle) with it's new "birth certificate"/ form 1? If not then simply sliding the stock off the SBR and leaving it home would allow free intestate travel. Now I maybe a skeptic but I doubt the ATF would see it that way. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/15/2018 4:01:48 PM EDT
[#39]
If everyone just built all there builts as a pistol first then going back to a pistol is GTG.
If heading out of state, the sbr gets a rifle upper and the sbr upper goes on a pistol lower. Just because the SBR lower is engraved...so what? I could everything I own, but that still won't somehow turn a engraved VCR onto a SBR. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2018 8:23:22 PM EDT
[#40]
I have an engraved lower that is not registered as an SBR.
It wears a 16" upper. It's a title one firearm. I also have a pistol. And another pistol upper I am building. Getting another lower soon to make that a pistol. It seems to me that the configuration is all that matters. 16" rifle is a title one firearm and can be moved across state lines, provided the gun is legal in that state. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2018 11:01:49 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Your leaving out the very next paragraph: "Nonetheless, if a handgun or other weapon with an overall length of less than 26 inches, or a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length is assembled or otherwise produced from a weapon originally assembled or produced only as a rifle, such a weapon is a "weapon made from a rifle" as defined by 26 U.S.C. 5845(a)(4). Such a weapon would not be a "pistol" because the weapon was not originally designed, made, and intended to fire a projectile by one hand." A form 1 is an application to make a firearm. Does it matter if that firearm is made from an existing pistol or a block of aluminum? That's were the question is. Does the resultant firearm have a new "born as" configuration (a rifle) with it's new "birth certificate"/ form 1? If not then simply sliding the stock off the SBR and leaving it home would allow free intestate travel. Now I maybe a skeptic but I doubt the ATF would see it that way. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: Don't know if this will help or just make it a little more confusing. ATF Ruling 2011-4 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 re-assembledin a configuration not regulated under the NFA (e.g., a pistol, or a rifle with a barrel of 16 inches or more in length). Merely assembling and disassembling such a rifle does not result in the making of a new weapon; rather, it is the same rifle in a knockdown condition (i.e., complete as to all component parts). Likewise, because it is the same weapon when reconfigured as a pistol, no "weapon made from a rifle" subject to the NFA has been made. "Nonetheless, if a handgun or other weapon with an overall length of less than 26 inches, or a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length is assembled or otherwise produced from a weapon originally assembled or produced only as a rifle, such a weapon is a "weapon made from a rifle" as defined by 26 U.S.C. 5845(a)(4). Such a weapon would not be a "pistol" because the weapon was not originally designed, made, and intended to fire a projectile by one hand." A form 1 is an application to make a firearm. Does it matter if that firearm is made from an existing pistol or a block of aluminum? That's were the question is. Does the resultant firearm have a new "born as" configuration (a rifle) with it's new "birth certificate"/ form 1? If not then simply sliding the stock off the SBR and leaving it home would allow free intestate travel. Now I maybe a skeptic but I doubt the ATF would see it that way. The way it reads to me (an ignorant novice, mind you) is that something built from a "kit", such as the TC Contender or AR15, which are available in both a pistol and rifle configuration, can be built in either configuration without worry as long as it does not otherwise fall under the NFA; specifically an SBR or AOW. It even goes so far as to say "Likewise, because it is the same weapon when reconfigured as a pistol, no "weapon made from a rifle" subject to the NFA has been made." The problem lies in the second paragraph quoted, where it specifically says that a handgun "assembled or otherwise produced from a weapon originally assembled or produced only as a rifle" is a "weapon made from a rifle". It's interesting how they differentiate between weapons built from "kits" vs those built from weapons that were only produced as a rifle. This leads me to believe (quite possibly in error) that weapons such as the TC Contender or AR15, which are built and readily available in both pistol and rifle "kits", can be swapped at will without worry. It is only when you have a pistol made from something that is only available as a rifle that it would fall under the "weapon made from a rifle" designation. For instance, you can't convert a Remington 760 to a pistol, because it has never been offered in pistol form, only as a rifle. Another interesting example would be the Obrez pistol, though I'm not sure if that was ever a factory configuration or just a modification. Someone more fluent in Legalese is welcome to correct me where I am wrong. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2018 12:04:46 PM EDT
[#42]
Obrez Title 1 pistols are made from new Mosin receivers.
Only issue, no factory has made a new Mosin receiver since the 1950's or maybe 60's, don't remember when Chinese & Hungarian production wound down. However, to make an Obrez, take TWO Mosin rifle receivers, and torch cut them in two places each - you should now have 6 pieces of former Mosin receivers. You then put 3 of those pieces in a jig, and weld them together - you now have a new Mosin receiver, a Title 1 other, that has never been a rifle. Now you may legally build an Obrez pistol. Made sense when Mosin receivers were $10 ea. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2018 6:56:23 PM EDT
[#43]
Now that is Rules Lawyering at it's finest!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2018 9:43:00 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Let's not forget that pistol to rifle to pistol was once considered illegal and took a court case (all the way to SCOTUS) to get overturned. Then it was a "that case only applied to TC" stance, until BATFE changed their mind not too long ago. An argument can be made that registering a SBR creates a new rifle an henceforth can't be a pistol. An argument can also be made that since pistol to rifle to pistol is ok and rifle to SBR to rifle is ok, then pistol to rifle to SBR to rifle to pistol should be ok "logically" But we all know where logic stands with the BATFE and conflicting arguments get settled in court. Most in the NFA game have a long standing history with taking an ultra-conservative approach to the grey areas of the law as it applies to NFA As for OP's situation if there's any doubt on an sbr made from a handgun, why not attach a 16" upper since pistol > rifle > pistol is gtg? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2018 10:49:17 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Basics this hinges on whether an SBR is a newly manufactured rifle or if SBR is merely a configuration made from a Title 1 firearm. As for OP's situation if there's any doubt on an sbr made from a handgun, why not attach a 16" upper since pistol > rifle > pistol is gtg? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2018 4:10:52 PM EDT
[#46]
Oh - then why not use the 16" folding bbl AR? Folds to 16", and can be a pistol or rifle depending if the stock is attached. No need for a stamp.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2018 10:00:42 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Oh - then why not use the 16" folding bbl AR? Folds to 16", and can be a pistol or rifle depending if the stock is attached. No need for a stamp. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2018 11:08:00 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
@backbencher nope, an AR with a 16" barrel folds to be like 24" long since the folder is after the receiver. Smaller, yes, but not small enough to do what I want it to do. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Oh - then why not use the 16" folding bbl AR? Folds to 16", and can be a pistol or rifle depending if the stock is attached. No need for a stamp. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2018 11:33:23 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: @backbencher nope, an AR with a 16" barrel folds to be like 24" long since the folder is after the receiver. Smaller, yes, but not small enough to do what I want it to do. 
No longer than a SUB-2000 folded. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/7/2018 4:33:39 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Folding bbl guns typically fold to the length of the bbl: https://www.fddefense.com/files/2017/04/2017.04.24-09.10-fddefense-58fe69d2106b4.png No longer than a SUB-2000 folded. looks cool, but significantly more expensive than I was hoping for. would be cool if you did that in like 8 "barrel with a law folder on an SBR or pistol. make it into an accordion AR. |
|
|
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.
