User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/28/2013 5:39:02 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm still trying to figure out exactly what this rule does. My thoughts are that they want to make ar/ak pistols NFA. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Dumb it down. Negative or positive step? I'm still trying to figure out exactly what this rule does. My thoughts are that they want to make ar/ak pistols NFA. That's what I get from it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/28/2013 5:40:52 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm still trying to figure out exactly what this rule does. My thoughts are that they want to make ar/ak pistols NFA. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Dumb it down. Negative or positive step? I'm still trying to figure out exactly what this rule does. My thoughts are that they want to make ar/ak pistols NFA. Oh great there goes my pap 92 |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/28/2013 5:49:28 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The only thing I want to hear from the ATF is that they are closing shop. Fuck the ATF. 
Which do you think has a better chance- (A) One of my horses growing a center horn and shitting skittles? Or (B) the ATF disappearing or at least cut way down? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/28/2013 6:02:53 AM EDT
[#4]
Seems to be a lot of problems with reading comprehension in this thread...
This is how things stand RIGHT NOW: 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) a chamber(s) as an integral part(s) of, or permanently aligned with, the bore(s); and (b) a short stock designed to be gripped by one hand and at an angle to and extending below the line of the bore(s). This is the proposed change: (a) A weapon originally designed, made, and intended to fire a projectile (bullet) from one or more barrels when held in one hand, and having— (1) A chamber(s) as an integral part(s) of, or permanently aligned with, the bore(s); and (2) A short fixed stock designed to be gripped by one hand and at an angle to and extending below the line of the bore(s). (b) The term shall not include any weapon disguised to look like an item other than a firearm, such as a pengun, wallet gun, belt buckle gun, pager gun or gadget device, or any gun that fires more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. NOTHING regarding "conversion" of rifles back and forth to pistols is involved AT ALL. The only change has to do with further clarifying weapons such as pen-guns and other things that most of us already consider as AOWs. The comment you guys are all focused on has nothing to do with the actual change being proposed; it is only a comment about the comparison to the older CFR entry that the ATF is trying to pull from to get the new wording. That older (pre-1988) wording included the part abouty "converted" firearms, while that is continuing to be omitted under the changes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/28/2013 6:05:30 AM EDT
[#5]
OK...can someone clear this up for me...
The OP posts a reg or reg change from 2005 and says that things are changing, that they are looking at this again...doom be upon us... What leads him to believe or infer that something at ATF has changed, that someone at ATF has said something to this affect, that some memo has come out saying "Oh we passed this in 2005 and now we can scoop up AR Pistols" WHAT LEADS THE OP TO BELIEVE THAT SOMETHING IS CHANGING? An NFAB ruling? Rumor mill? Something someone said at a news conference? A Memo that's been leaked? WHAT OTHER THAN FINDING A REG OR RULE CHANGE FROM 2005 THAT CAN BE INTERPRETED AS DOOM? Thanks Capt Beach |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/28/2013 6:10:23 AM EDT
[#6]
TAG.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/28/2013 6:13:08 AM EDT
[#7]
(a) A weapon originally designed, made,and intended to fire a projectile (bullet) from
one or more barrels when held in one hand, and having—(1) A chamber(s) as an integral part(s) of,or permanently aligned with, the bore(s); and (2) A short fixed stock designed to be gripped by one hand and at an angle to and extending below the line of the bore(s). (b) The term shall not include any weapon disguised to look like an item other than a firearm, such as a pengun, wallet gun, belt buckle gun, pager gun or gadget device, or any gun that fires more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. Refering to the red high lighted portion above I could certainly see how BATFE given its broad brush appraoch to firearms rulings could interpret the phrase "or any gun that fires more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger." to include every pistol other than single action revolvers, meaning AR Pistols, auto loaders, every Glock, 1911, double action revolver as now NFA items and demand the regulation or turn in of such devices... |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/28/2013 6:19:40 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What leads him to believe or infer that something at ATF has changed, that someone at ATF has said something to this affect, that some memo has come out saying "Oh we passed this in 2005 and now we can scoop up AR Pistols" Based on the second link in the OP, it appears this has been brought up again for review. Again, this has NOTHING to do with AR pistols or anything of the like. It's about disguised guns and anything firing multiple shots (MGs, or multi-barrel pistols firing more than one barrel at once). |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/28/2013 6:21:32 AM EDT
[#9]
Anything they do can't be for the good.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/28/2013 6:22:20 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Refering to the red high lighted portion above I could certainly see how BATFE given its broad brush appraoch to firearms rulings could interpret the phrase "or any gun that fires more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger." to include every pistol other than single action revolvers, meaning AR Pistols, auto loaders, every Glock, 1911, double action revolver as now NFA items and demand the regulation or turn in of such devices... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Refering to the red high lighted portion above I could certainly see how BATFE given its broad brush appraoch to firearms rulings could interpret the phrase "or any gun that fires more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger." to include every pistol other than single action revolvers, meaning AR Pistols, auto loaders, every Glock, 1911, double action revolver as now NFA items and demand the regulation or turn in of such devices... You are grossly mistaken; that phrasing is already used to identify automatics and specifically not semi-automatics. This is the leading part of the definition of a machinegun: Machine gun. Any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. I would think the proposed wording also covers things like multi-barrel pistols firing more than one barrel at the same time from a single trigger - think a derringer that fires both barrels with a single trigger. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/28/2013 6:25:33 AM EDT
[#11]
Multiple shots with a single trigger pull also describes some expensive trap shotguns.
Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/28/2013 6:34:34 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Multiple shots with a single trigger pull also describes some expensive trap shotguns. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Not really, each chamber in an over/under requires a separate trigger pull. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/28/2013 6:48:48 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This. Are they going to start saying that pistol AR's are actually SBRs? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Dumb it down. Negative or positive step? Not a negative necessarily, but it moves more guns to be under control of the NFA, which isn't good for us. how is that not a negative? This. Are they going to start saying that pistol AR's are actually SBRs? I think they are trying to say they are AOWs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/28/2013 6:56:18 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The only thing I want to hear from the ATF is that they are closing shop. Fuck the ATF. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/28/2013 6:57:49 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Listen 13er, I make firearms for a living I keep up on all laws and I am in touch with ATF legal and tech branch at least once a week, there is no infringement I can see or any changes of the law that states what a pistol is or is not. You want to panic and scream the sky is falling go ahead, that makes you sheeple. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2005-04-07/pdf/05-6932.pdf#page=1 This is a 2005 proposed rule. Never implemented. It's being revived...... SUMMARY: The Department of Justice is proposing to amend the regulations relating to machine guns, destructive devices, and certain other firearms regulated under the National Firearms Act (NFA) for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) to clarify the definition of the term ‘‘pistol’’ and to define more clearly exceptions to the ‘‘pistol’’ definition. The added language is necessary to clarify that certain weapons, including any weapon disguised to look like an item other than a firearm or any gun that fires more than one shot without manual reloading by a single function of the trigger, are not pistols and are classified as ‘‘any other weapon’’ under the NFA. Omitted from the proposed regulation is the language: ‘‘any gun altered or converted to resemble a pistol.’’ This language mirrors the statutory provisions in 26 U.S.C. 5845(a)(2) and (4) that refer to weapons made from a shotgun or rifle. The NFA adequately reflects the Department’s consistent position that a rifle or shotgun, altered to function as a smaller, pistol-like weapon, maintains its classification as a rifle or shotgun and will not be classified as a pistol. Therefore, the addition of this language into the proposed regulation is unnecessary. (Nolo's note: for now. The ATF appears to say this won't make an AR pistol an NFA firearm, but we all know this will probably be an incremental step) http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=201304&RIN=1140-AA23 We are hardly "sheep" for being concerned about yet another infringement of our 2A rights. It is not exactly shocking to hear this may be a possibility. You want to panic and scream the sky is falling go ahead, that makes you sheeple. Accordingly, the proposed definition of ‘‘pistol’’ in section 479.11 would read as follows: (a) A weapon originally designed, made, and intended to fire a projectile (bullet) from one or more barrels when held in one hand, and having— (1) A chamber(s) as an integral part(s) of, or permanently aligned with, the bore(s); and (2) A short fixed stock designed to be gripped by one hand and at an angle to and extending below the line of the bore(s). (b) The term shall not include any weapon disguised to look like an item other than a firearm, such as a pengun, wallet gun, belt buckle gun, pager gun or gadget device, or any gun that fires more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. That doesn't bother you at all? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/28/2013 7:29:28 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Why don't they do something productive.. Like get the guns back they lost in Mexico. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Dumb it down. Negative or positive step? I'm still trying to figure out exactly what this rule does. My thoughts are that they want to make ar/ak pistols NFA. Why don't they do something productive.. Like get the guns back they lost in Mexico. Because work like that goes against the agenda of obama and all of his buddies in the gun control movement. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/28/2013 7:30:10 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Show me a .gov agency that does anything productive...  Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Dumb it down. Negative or positive step? I'm still trying to figure out exactly what this rule does. My thoughts are that they want to make ar/ak pistols NFA. Why don't they do something productive.. Like get the guns back they lost in Mexico. Show me a .gov agency that does anything productive... Yeah, this too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/28/2013 7:42:08 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I fucking hate those assholes. this seems to be intended to move pistol AR's into NFA i hate them. What says that in support of your statement? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/28/2013 7:42:35 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: According to these new regulations it may not be any more. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Dumb it down. Negative or positive step? This is NOT a pistol. http://img174.imageshack.us/img174/5809/p1010036thumb8ps.jpg Yeah it is! According to these new regulations it may not be any more. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/28/2013 7:45:48 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
(a) A weapon originally designed, made, and intended to fire a projectile (bullet) from one or more barrels when held in one hand, and having— ... That doesn't bother you at all? That's exactly the same as what is on the books RIGHT NOW. That is not the proposed change. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/28/2013 7:45:52 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The big question here is, is this an effort to put ALL semi autos under NFA, or is just to add language to clarify why you can use only a virgin reciever? This is not a rule change it is a change in the law they are not even doing, the people in this thread who are saying they want to change AR and AK pistols into NFA items have no basis in reality for that asinine assumption. No where is there any such mention or hint of that BS |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/28/2013 7:46:22 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Listen 13er, I make firearms for a living I keep up on all laws and I am in touch with ATF legal and tech branch at least once a week, there is no infringement I can see or any changes of the law that states what a pistol is or is not. You want to panic and scream the sky is falling go ahead, that makes you sheeple. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2005-04-07/pdf/05-6932.pdf#page=1 This is a 2005 proposed rule. Never implemented. It's being revived...... SUMMARY: The Department of Justice is proposing to amend the regulations relating to machine guns, destructive devices, and certain other firearms regulated under the National Firearms Act (NFA) for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) to clarify the definition of the term ‘‘pistol’’ and to define more clearly exceptions to the ‘‘pistol’’ definition. The added language is necessary to clarify that certain weapons, including any weapon disguised to look like an item other than a firearm or any gun that fires more than one shot without manual reloading by a single function of the trigger, are not pistols and are classified as ‘‘any other weapon’’ under the NFA. Omitted from the proposed regulation is the language: ‘‘any gun altered or converted to resemble a pistol.’’ This language mirrors the statutory provisions in 26 U.S.C. 5845(a)(2) and (4) that refer to weapons made from a shotgun or rifle. The NFA adequately reflects the Department’s consistent position that a rifle or shotgun, altered to function as a smaller, pistol-like weapon, maintains its classification as a rifle or shotgun and will not be classified as a pistol. Therefore, the addition of this language into the proposed regulation is unnecessary. (Nolo's note: for now. The ATF appears to say this won't make an AR pistol an NFA firearm, but we all know this will probably be an incremental step) http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=201304&RIN=1140-AA23 We are hardly "sheep" for being concerned about yet another infringement of our 2A rights. It is not exactly shocking to hear this may be a possibility. You want to panic and scream the sky is falling go ahead, that makes you sheeple. Forgive me sir, I had no clue you were an ATF insider. Honestly, you sound a bit naive. Where have you been this past year? 
Just because they aren't saying it, doesn't mean rainbows and unicorns. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/28/2013 7:47:58 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If it was built from a non virgin receiver it isnt! Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Dumb it down. Negative or positive step? This is NOT a pistol. http://img174.imageshack.us/img174/5809/p1010036thumb8ps.jpg Yeah it is! If it was built from a non virgin receiver it isnt! Even if it was an SBR it could be taken out of the NFA reg and made into a pistol, a SBR is not a riflke, it's a class called Short Barreled Rifle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/28/2013 7:49:24 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Based on the second link in the OP, it appears this has been brought up again for review. Again, this has NOTHING to do with AR pistols or anything of the like. It's about disguised guns and anything firing multiple shots (MGs, or multi-barrel pistols firing more than one barrel at once). Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
What leads him to believe or infer that something at ATF has changed, that someone at ATF has said something to this affect, that some memo has come out saying "Oh we passed this in 2005 and now we can scoop up AR Pistols" Based on the second link in the OP, it appears this has been brought up again for review. Again, this has NOTHING to do with AR pistols or anything of the like. It's about disguised guns and anything firing multiple shots (MGs, or multi-barrel pistols firing more than one barrel at once). Sounds like they are closing the loophole that allows assholes and nutjobs like the one we banned from here who painted the muzzle tip orange to try and make a real AK pistol look like a toy gun. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/28/2013 7:51:01 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Dumb it down. Negative or positive step? What's happening to the CLEO sign off? __________________________________________________________________ Cross-platform electronic bound book (original thread). PGP public key. «nolite confidere in principibus, in filiis hominum quibus non est salus» http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1536761_The_next_gun_grab__ATF_41P_targets_NFA_Trusts__moved_from_NRA_Activism_.html http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1523702_NFA_Trust_rule_change.html&page=1 I was just trying subtly to say that this "redefinition" is likely a negative step. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/28/2013 7:52:46 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm still trying to figure out exactly what this rule does. My thoughts are that they want to make ar/ak pistols NFA. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Dumb it down. Negative or positive step? I'm still trying to figure out exactly what this rule does. My thoughts are that they want to make ar/ak pistols NFA. That's what I'm reading into it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/28/2013 7:56:24 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's what I get from it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Dumb it down. Negative or positive step? I'm still trying to figure out exactly what this rule does. My thoughts are that they want to make ar/ak pistols NFA. That's what I get from it. I don't see that (or see how they could do that with a reg). This change looks mostly minor/cosmetic to me, but I'm open to being convinced otherwise. An example of how the proposed language would affect a particular item would help. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/28/2013 7:58:44 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: "Listen 13er, I make firearms for a living I keep up on all laws and I am in touch with ATF legal and tech branch at least once a week, there is no infringement I can see or any changes of the law that states what a pistol is or is not. You want to panic and scream the sky is falling go ahead, that makes you sheeple." Really dude? Since I know how long you held your FFL and many other things. It's pretty ballsy statement for you to chastise anyone.....Thinking ATF Chief Counsel's Office and FTB are your friend, and you calling others sheeple??? I'd venture to say I have had more interaction with those groups than 99% of this entire forum. I have no information on what will happen or what they are attempting, but the track record is not a good indicator. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2005-04-07/pdf/05-6932.pdf#page=1 This is a 2005 proposed rule. Never implemented. It's being revived...... SUMMARY: The Department of Justice is proposing to amend the regulations relating to machine guns, destructive devices, and certain other firearms regulated under the National Firearms Act (NFA) for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) to clarify the definition of the term ‘‘pistol’’ and to define more clearly exceptions to the ‘‘pistol’’ definition. The added language is necessary to clarify that certain weapons, including any weapon disguised to look like an item other than a firearm or any gun that fires more than one shot without manual reloading by a single function of the trigger, are not pistols and are classified as ‘‘any other weapon’’ under the NFA. Omitted from the proposed regulation is the language: ‘‘any gun altered or converted to resemble a pistol.’’ This language mirrors the statutory provisions in 26 U.S.C. 5845(a)(2) and (4) that refer to weapons made from a shotgun or rifle. The NFA adequately reflects the Department’s consistent position that a rifle or shotgun, altered to function as a smaller, pistol-like weapon, maintains its classification as a rifle or shotgun and will not be classified as a pistol. Therefore, the addition of this language into the proposed regulation is unnecessary. (Nolo's note: for now. The ATF appears to say this won't make an AR pistol an NFA firearm, but we all know this will probably be an incremental step) http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=201304&RIN=1140-AA23 We are hardly "sheep" for being concerned about yet another infringement of our 2A rights. It is not exactly shocking to hear this may be a possibility. "Listen 13er, I make firearms for a living I keep up on all laws and I am in touch with ATF legal and tech branch at least once a week, there is no infringement I can see or any changes of the law that states what a pistol is or is not. You want to panic and scream the sky is falling go ahead, that makes you sheeple." Really dude? Since I know how long you held your FFL and many other things. It's pretty ballsy statement for you to chastise anyone.....Thinking ATF Chief Counsel's Office and FTB are your friend, and you calling others sheeple??? I'd venture to say I have had more interaction with those groups than 99% of this entire forum. I have no information on what will happen or what they are attempting, but the track record is not a good indicator. 8 years is long enough for the 100's of hours of research and the Tech branch letters I have written (not one ever turned down or rejected) Now maybe I am not the expert you are and do not testify in court as you do as an expert but I do know what I'm talking about and some of the people in the thread are acting more like stampeding cattle, not sheeple, sheeple was an incorrect term. No one at the ATF is anyones friend Len, you and I have had these conversations many times. The track record of the ATF doing sneaky shit is bad I agree You have read my tech branch letters especially the "Chameleon" letter which allows a person now to take an AOW shorty 12 ga and turn it into a full size shotgun for other uses and then return it back to the AOW status, that allowed a whole class of novelty guns to have far more uses? So yeah I do have some knowledge and expertise Len. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/28/2013 8:00:08 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't see that (or see how they could do that with a reg). This change looks mostly minor/cosmetic to me, but I'm open to being convinced otherwise. An example of how the proposed language would affect a particular item would help. My guess is that things like the Stinger pen guns could be reclassified as AOW. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/28/2013 8:00:09 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: "Listen 13er, I make firearms for a living I keep up on all laws and I am in touch with ATF legal and tech branch at least once a week, there is no infringement I can see or any changes of the law that states what a pistol is or is not. You want to panic and scream the sky is falling go ahead, that makes you sheeple." Really dude? Since I know how long you held your FFL and many other things. It's pretty ballsy statement for you to chastise anyone.....Thinking ATF Chief Counsel's Office and FTB are your friend, and you calling others sheeple??? I'd venture to say I have had more interaction with those groups than 99% of this entire forum. I have no information on what will happen or what they are attempting, but the track record is not a good indicator. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2005-04-07/pdf/05-6932.pdf#page=1 This is a 2005 proposed rule. Never implemented. It's being revived...... SUMMARY: The Department of Justice is proposing to amend the regulations relating to machine guns, destructive devices, and certain other firearms regulated under the National Firearms Act (NFA) for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) to clarify the definition of the term ‘‘pistol’’ and to define more clearly exceptions to the ‘‘pistol’’ definition. The added language is necessary to clarify that certain weapons, including any weapon disguised to look like an item other than a firearm or any gun that fires more than one shot without manual reloading by a single function of the trigger, are not pistols and are classified as ‘‘any other weapon’’ under the NFA. Omitted from the proposed regulation is the language: ‘‘any gun altered or converted to resemble a pistol.’’ This language mirrors the statutory provisions in 26 U.S.C. 5845(a)(2) and (4) that refer to weapons made from a shotgun or rifle. The NFA adequately reflects the Department’s consistent position that a rifle or shotgun, altered to function as a smaller, pistol-like weapon, maintains its classification as a rifle or shotgun and will not be classified as a pistol. Therefore, the addition of this language into the proposed regulation is unnecessary. (Nolo's note: for now. The ATF appears to say this won't make an AR pistol an NFA firearm, but we all know this will probably be an incremental step) http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=201304&RIN=1140-AA23 We are hardly "sheep" for being concerned about yet another infringement of our 2A rights. It is not exactly shocking to hear this may be a possibility. "Listen 13er, I make firearms for a living I keep up on all laws and I am in touch with ATF legal and tech branch at least once a week, there is no infringement I can see or any changes of the law that states what a pistol is or is not. You want to panic and scream the sky is falling go ahead, that makes you sheeple." Really dude? Since I know how long you held your FFL and many other things. It's pretty ballsy statement for you to chastise anyone.....Thinking ATF Chief Counsel's Office and FTB are your friend, and you calling others sheeple??? I'd venture to say I have had more interaction with those groups than 99% of this entire forum. I have no information on what will happen or what they are attempting, but the track record is not a good indicator. Len I was not suggesting I had any inside info on this, I was just saying there is rumble that AR or AK pistols or semi autos are trying to be moved to the NFA |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/28/2013 8:02:39 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Accordingly, the proposed definition of ‘‘pistol’’ in section 479.11 would read as follows: (a) A weapon originally designed, made, and intended to fire a projectile (bullet) from one or more barrels when held in one hand, and having— (1) A chamber(s) as an integral part(s) of, or permanently aligned with, the bore(s); and (2) A short fixed stock designed to be gripped by one hand and at an angle to and extending below the line of the bore(s). (b) The term shall not include any weapon disguised to look like an item other than a firearm, such as a pengun, wallet gun, belt buckle gun, pager gun or gadget device, or any gun that fires more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. That doesn't bother you at all? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2005-04-07/pdf/05-6932.pdf#page=1 This is a 2005 proposed rule. Never implemented. It's being revived...... SUMMARY: The Department of Justice is proposing to amend the regulations relating to machine guns, destructive devices, and certain other firearms regulated under the National Firearms Act (NFA) for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) to clarify the definition of the term ‘‘pistol’’ and to define more clearly exceptions to the ‘‘pistol’’ definition. The added language is necessary to clarify that certain weapons, including any weapon disguised to look like an item other than a firearm or any gun that fires more than one shot without manual reloading by a single function of the trigger, are not pistols and are classified as ‘‘any other weapon’’ under the NFA. Omitted from the proposed regulation is the language: ‘‘any gun altered or converted to resemble a pistol.’’ This language mirrors the statutory provisions in 26 U.S.C. 5845(a)(2) and (4) that refer to weapons made from a shotgun or rifle. The NFA adequately reflects the Department’s consistent position that a rifle or shotgun, altered to function as a smaller, pistol-like weapon, maintains its classification as a rifle or shotgun and will not be classified as a pistol. Therefore, the addition of this language into the proposed regulation is unnecessary. (Nolo's note: for now. The ATF appears to say this won't make an AR pistol an NFA firearm, but we all know this will probably be an incremental step) http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=201304&RIN=1140-AA23 We are hardly "sheep" for being concerned about yet another infringement of our 2A rights. It is not exactly shocking to hear this may be a possibility. You want to panic and scream the sky is falling go ahead, that makes you sheeple. Accordingly, the proposed definition of ‘‘pistol’’ in section 479.11 would read as follows: (a) A weapon originally designed, made, and intended to fire a projectile (bullet) from one or more barrels when held in one hand, and having— (1) A chamber(s) as an integral part(s) of, or permanently aligned with, the bore(s); and (2) A short fixed stock designed to be gripped by one hand and at an angle to and extending below the line of the bore(s). (b) The term shall not include any weapon disguised to look like an item other than a firearm, such as a pengun, wallet gun, belt buckle gun, pager gun or gadget device, or any gun that fires more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. That doesn't bother you at all? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/28/2013 8:05:40 AM EDT
[#32]
Aren't the yugo pap 92s originally equipped with a folding stock before they were imported? Or are they imported with the folder and the receiver is cut/modified after import?
Does that wording mean that an ak in that fashion can never be a pistol then? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/28/2013 8:08:18 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why would it? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Accordingly, the proposed definition of ‘‘pistol’’ in section 479.11 would read as follows: (a) A weapon originally designed, made, and intended to fire a projectile (bullet) from one or more barrels when held in one hand, and having— (1) A chamber(s) as an integral part(s) of, or permanently aligned with, the bore(s); and (2) A short fixed stock designed to be gripped by one hand and at an angle to and extending below the line of the bore(s). (b) The term shall not include any weapon disguised to look like an item other than a firearm, such as a pengun, wallet gun, belt buckle gun, pager gun or gadget device, or any gun that fires more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. That doesn't bother you at all? I agree, I just don't see the issue here. All they're doing is clarifying that an AOW is NOT a Title I pistol. That's all I see here. They're making the regs more detailed to match the true intent of the GCA and NFA. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/28/2013 8:08:32 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Forgive me sir, I had no clue you were an ATF insider. Honestly, you sound a bit naive. Where have you been this past year? Just because they aren't saying it, doesn't mean rainbows and unicorns. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2005-04-07/pdf/05-6932.pdf#page=1 This is a 2005 proposed rule. Never implemented. It's being revived...... SUMMARY: The Department of Justice is proposing to amend the regulations relating to machine guns, destructive devices, and certain other firearms regulated under the National Firearms Act (NFA) for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) to clarify the definition of the term ‘‘pistol’’ and to define more clearly exceptions to the ‘‘pistol’’ definition. The added language is necessary to clarify that certain weapons, including any weapon disguised to look like an item other than a firearm or any gun that fires more than one shot without manual reloading by a single function of the trigger, are not pistols and are classified as ‘‘any other weapon’’ under the NFA. Omitted from the proposed regulation is the language: ‘‘any gun altered or converted to resemble a pistol.’’ This language mirrors the statutory provisions in 26 U.S.C. 5845(a)(2) and (4) that refer to weapons made from a shotgun or rifle. The NFA adequately reflects the Department’s consistent position that a rifle or shotgun, altered to function as a smaller, pistol-like weapon, maintains its classification as a rifle or shotgun and will not be classified as a pistol. Therefore, the addition of this language into the proposed regulation is unnecessary. (Nolo's note: for now. The ATF appears to say this won't make an AR pistol an NFA firearm, but we all know this will probably be an incremental step) http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=201304&RIN=1140-AA23 We are hardly "sheep" for being concerned about yet another infringement of our 2A rights. It is not exactly shocking to hear this may be a possibility. You want to panic and scream the sky is falling go ahead, that makes you sheeple. Forgive me sir, I had no clue you were an ATF insider. Honestly, you sound a bit naive. Where have you been this past year? Just because they aren't saying it, doesn't mean rainbows and unicorns. And where did I say everything is fine and dandy when it comes to the ATF? Just people in this thread making wild assumptions about AR & AK pistols going to be NFA and semi autos going to become NFA items is just plain crazy. The first thing I did when I was getting my first FFL an 01 dealer was read the GCA of 1968, I reread it a year later when I added the three 07/sot 's I have now. Mainly because I want to know what ground I am standing on while I am conducting my business, read the GCA |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/28/2013 8:09:25 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That's what I'm reading into it. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Dumb it down. Negative or positive step? I'm still trying to figure out exactly what this rule does. My thoughts are that they want to make ar/ak pistols NFA. That's what I'm reading into it. What would lead anyone to think that? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/28/2013 8:13:46 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Aren't the yugo pap 92s originally equipped with a folding stock before they were imported? Or are they imported with the folder and the receiver is cut/modified after import? Does that wording mean that an ak in that fashion can never be a pistol then? In other words if it had a rifle stock on it , it cannot become a pistol. One step further is that some shotguns are shipped from the factory with the pistol grip attached and the full stock in the box and never had been attached, i seem to remember the ATF saying those shotguns or firearms could never become an AOW, they could become a SBS though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/28/2013 8:46:41 AM EDT
[#37]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/28/2013 9:05:33 AM EDT
[#38]
nevermind
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/28/2013 11:54:45 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
OK...can someone clear this up for me... The OP posts a reg or reg change from 2005 and says that things are changing, that they are looking at this again...doom be upon us... What leads him to believe or infer that something at ATF has changed, that someone at ATF has said something to this affect, that some memo has come out saying "Oh we passed this in 2005 and now we can scoop up AR Pistols" WHAT LEADS THE OP TO BELIEVE THAT SOMETHING IS CHANGING? An NFAB ruling? Rumor mill? Something someone said at a news conference? A Memo that's been leaked? WHAT OTHER THAN FINDING A REG OR RULE CHANGE FROM 2005 THAT CAN BE INTERPRETED AS DOOM? Thanks Capt Beach I AM NOT FORECASTING DOOM AND GLOOM. I'm simply pointing something out. This is a "final" rule that was never implemented. Attorneys I've spoken to differ on what the reg means. Under the reg, an ar or ak was never designed, intended, or made to be a pistol, right? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/28/2013 12:04:47 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Aren't the yugo pap 92s originally equipped with a folding stock before they were imported? Or are they imported with the folder and the receiver is cut/modified after import? Does that wording mean that an ak in that fashion can never be a pistol then? by ATF regs, all pistol receivers must be new built and recorded in the books as pistols. That's why you can get a factory Draco pistol built on a re-arsenaled underfolder AK parts kit with a new factory receiver serialized as a pistol, but you can't convert a built UF AK rifle into a pistol. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/28/2013 12:15:55 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I AM NOT FORECASTING DOOM AND GLOOM. I'm simply pointing something out. This is a "final" rule that was never implemented. Attorneys I've spoken to differ on what the reg means. Under the reg, an ar or ak was never designed, intended, or made to be a pistol, right? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: OK...can someone clear this up for me... The OP posts a reg or reg change from 2005 and says that things are changing, that they are looking at this again...doom be upon us... What leads him to believe or infer that something at ATF has changed, that someone at ATF has said something to this affect, that some memo has come out saying "Oh we passed this in 2005 and now we can scoop up AR Pistols" WHAT LEADS THE OP TO BELIEVE THAT SOMETHING IS CHANGING? An NFAB ruling? Rumor mill? Something someone said at a news conference? A Memo that's been leaked? WHAT OTHER THAN FINDING A REG OR RULE CHANGE FROM 2005 THAT CAN BE INTERPRETED AS DOOM? Thanks Capt Beach I AM NOT FORECASTING DOOM AND GLOOM. I'm simply pointing something out. This is a "final" rule that was never implemented. Attorneys I've spoken to differ on what the reg means. Under the reg, an ar or ak was never designed, intended, or made to be a pistol, right? The so called AR pistol is a misnomer It is simply a semi automatic pistol. We make them from a virgin Lower receiver It is not altered or converted into a pistol It is manufactured as a pistol from it's beginning It is the same as a ruger 10/22 rifle or the 10/22 Ruger pistol (charger), they are made either into a rifle or a pistol from the start The lower receiver on a ruger 10/22 or an AR lower receiver is neither a rifle or a pistol until it is manufactured into one of those |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/28/2013 12:57:08 PM EDT
[#42]
Jrzy, you are taking the "reasonable person" approach to this reg, and I hope that is the correct approach. I read it as it stands "designed, intended." The ar15 platform... Was it intended to be a pistol?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/28/2013 1:44:15 PM EDT
[#43]
Nolo,
Jrzy has distinction of never having issues of any nature with ATF. To his credit he is not bashing them either.... While I hope he's right and this is nothing to worry about, I can't help but remember the "barrel ban" that ATF pulled out of their collective nether regions (meaning that from 1968 till just a couple of years ago only barrels for "Saturday Night Specials" [2" or less] were banned from import....Then POOF!!! All barrels are banned from import). The ATF can and does RE-interpret the law at will. It will continue to do so until SCOTUS stops them....It's just their incremental-ism nature. The office of president would not post that stuff for no reason. My best guess is that an ATF Ruling will be issued in February (given the date on the website). I have heard rumblings that ATF management was looking for a way to stem the pistol format versions of rifle actions (perfectly legal)....I have also heard the Chief Counsels Office wants another go at the Thompson Contender issue. It would create a real problem since even one of the most produced rifles (Ruger 10/22) is made in a pistol format (Ruger Charger) and any attempt to ban by way of the above thinking would create chaos by shear numbers alone...... I guess the silver lining in this concern would be an amnesty would be required by law for them to go forward.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/28/2013 2:22:45 PM EDT
[#44]
Well, if they want to further destroy the nfrtr, especially in the courts eyes, then by all means make additional firearms NFA and register them. Holy hell can you imagine the fustercluck that would be.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/28/2013 5:08:07 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Jrzy, you are taking the "reasonable person" approach to this reg, and I hope that is the correct approach. I read it as it stands "designed, intended." The ar15 platform... Was it intended to be a pistol? It has nothing to so with the AR pistol other than it shares the same type lower receiver which as I said it is not a rifle or a pistol until it's completed. Yes I do try and apply the "reasonable person" standard but the ATF is not reasonable. To do what is suggested it's a pretty heavy lift considering I believe they would have to rewrite the GCA What other guns can use the same receiver to make either a pistol or rifle? You can build a Glock carbine from a glock lower You can build a 1911 carbine from a 1911 frame. The frame is not a rifle or pistol until it's completed as one or the other so the intended result is not anything until it is built. Keep this in mind. An stripped lower receiver has no intentions or leans one way or the other as to what it will end up, it is neutral until born. You could say that a 1911 frame was intended to become a pistol but that is not always true so the intention is not there. "altered or converted" is what we were talking about and neither of those apply to a virgin lower receiver Since it's not a rifle or pistol it cannot be altered or converted It is the govt's own language , It (the lower) is "manufactured into the rifle or the pistol, it is not converted or altered. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/28/2013 5:13:04 PM EDT
[#46]
Damn I hate this, I am disagreeing with two of the people I respect most in the 2nd Amendment battle.
Len Savage & NoloContendere This is one time I hope you're both wrong because if not I can also see them going after AR Upper receivers to make them reg parts of a weapon with serial numbers too boot. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/28/2013 5:18:07 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There is no basis to even mention the AR platform It has nothing to so with the AR pistol other than it shares the same type lower receiver which as I said it is not a rifle or a pistol until it's completed. Yes I do try and apply the "reasonable person" standard but the ATF is not reasonable. To do what is suggested it's a pretty heavy lift considering I believe they would have to rewrite the GCA What other guns can use the same receiver to make either a pistol or rifle? You can build a Glock carbine from a glock lower You can build a 1911 carbine from a 1911 frame. The frame is not a rifle or pistol until it's completed as one or the other so the intended result is not anything until it is built. Keep this in mind. An stripped lower receiver has no intentions or leans one way or the other as to what it will end up, it is neutral until born. You could say that a 1911 frame was intended to become a pistol but that is not always true so the intention is not there. "altered or converted" is what we were talking about and neither of those apply to a virgin lower receiver Since it's not a rifle or pistol it cannot be altered or converted It is the govt's own language , It (the lower) is "manufactured into the rifle or the pistol, it is not converted or altered. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Jrzy, you are taking the "reasonable person" approach to this reg, and I hope that is the correct approach. I read it as it stands "designed, intended." The ar15 platform... Was it intended to be a pistol? It has nothing to so with the AR pistol other than it shares the same type lower receiver which as I said it is not a rifle or a pistol until it's completed. Yes I do try and apply the "reasonable person" standard but the ATF is not reasonable. To do what is suggested it's a pretty heavy lift considering I believe they would have to rewrite the GCA What other guns can use the same receiver to make either a pistol or rifle? You can build a Glock carbine from a glock lower You can build a 1911 carbine from a 1911 frame. The frame is not a rifle or pistol until it's completed as one or the other so the intended result is not anything until it is built. Keep this in mind. An stripped lower receiver has no intentions or leans one way or the other as to what it will end up, it is neutral until born. You could say that a 1911 frame was intended to become a pistol but that is not always true so the intention is not there. "altered or converted" is what we were talking about and neither of those apply to a virgin lower receiver Since it's not a rifle or pistol it cannot be altered or converted It is the govt's own language , It (the lower) is "manufactured into the rifle or the pistol, it is not converted or altered. Slightly off topic, but...if I bought a stripped (virgin) lower through an FFL...and then bought a 7" barrelled upper, I could build an AR "pistol" legally? I have heard that you need to get your FFL to include something about the lower being intended for a pistol build on the 4473, but I am skeptical about this. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/28/2013 5:19:04 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Damn I hate this, I am disagreeing with two of the people I respect most in the 2nd Amendment battle. Len Savage & NoloContendere This is one time I hope you're both wrong because if not I can also see them going after AR Upper receivers to make them reg parts of a weapon with serial numbers too boot. I fear this too. A very real threat if there ever was one
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/28/2013 5:23:09 PM EDT
[#49]
Rifles can't be pistols. Ar pistols are now just rifles. Rifles with barrels less than 16 inches= illegal. So now we need a tax stamp for at pistols??
Also looks like bump fire stocks are being "Redefined." Someone correct me if I am wrong. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/28/2013 5:26:22 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Slightly off topic, but...if I bought a stripped (virgin) lower through an FFL...and then bought a 7" barrelled upper, I could build an AR "pistol" legally? I have heard that you need to get your FFL to include something about the lower being intended for a pistol build on the 4473, but I am skeptical about this. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Jrzy, you are taking the "reasonable person" approach to this reg, and I hope that is the correct approach. I read it as it stands "designed, intended." The ar15 platform... Was it intended to be a pistol? It has nothing to so with the AR pistol other than it shares the same type lower receiver which as I said it is not a rifle or a pistol until it's completed. Yes I do try and apply the "reasonable person" standard but the ATF is not reasonable. To do what is suggested it's a pretty heavy lift considering I believe they would have to rewrite the GCA What other guns can use the same receiver to make either a pistol or rifle? You can build a Glock carbine from a glock lower You can build a 1911 carbine from a 1911 frame. The frame is not a rifle or pistol until it's completed as one or the other so the intended result is not anything until it is built. Keep this in mind. An stripped lower receiver has no intentions or leans one way or the other as to what it will end up, it is neutral until born. You could say that a 1911 frame was intended to become a pistol but that is not always true so the intention is not there. "altered or converted" is what we were talking about and neither of those apply to a virgin lower receiver Since it's not a rifle or pistol it cannot be altered or converted It is the govt's own language , It (the lower) is "manufactured into the rifle or the pistol, it is not converted or altered. Slightly off topic, but...if I bought a stripped (virgin) lower through an FFL...and then bought a 7" barrelled upper, I could build an AR "pistol" legally? I have heard that you need to get your FFL to include something about the lower being intended for a pistol build on the 4473, but I am skeptical about this. |
|
|
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.
