Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 4
Posted: 1/27/2011 5:09:48 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/5/2011 10:18:56 PM EDT by vermont2nd]
Link Posted: 2/5/2011 4:44:29 PM EDT
Don't take it as law, just take it for what its worth.
https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B0qyloA48O3XZWFjYjMwYTMtYTg1MC00NzVhLWI3NmMt­ZDRiNTMzNzdhMzUx&hl=en
Just stumbled across it looking for an answer to something else
Link Posted: 2/9/2011 8:08:01 PM EDT
The letter I am looking for is the one where the ATF says you can use a standard buffer tube on an AR pistol. I had it saved to my hard drive but lost it.
Link Posted: 2/10/2011 8:17:52 PM EDT
the cane tip one would be nice too.

but remember the context of that was - for use while sitting in a safe ....
Link Posted: 2/11/2011 7:53:10 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/11/2011 8:01:58 PM EDT by iNeXile556]

Originally Posted By VictorUnit:
the cane tip one would be nice too.

but remember the context of that was - for use while sitting in a safe ....

That one is actually an archived thread found HERE.

And you are correct. The letter makes it seem like the cane tip is GTG and will not be considered a stock. But you must take it in context to the question that was asked. This thread clears that up.


ETA: Vermont2nd maybe you can extract the letters and repost them here. Please make sure the original question is included also so the letters are not taken out of context.

Also is there a way that you can store these images on the ARFCOM server? Using image Shack or the like is fine but they tend to disappear over time and we loose them again.
Link Posted: 2/11/2011 8:01:15 PM EDT
Great thread!
Link Posted: 2/25/2011 12:56:01 PM EDT
Brilliant, BRILLIANT thread.
Bravo.
Link Posted: 3/9/2011 2:10:18 PM EDT
And be sure to notice the contradiction between the letter to me and the very first letter that was posted but does not have a date on it. In the letter Nixon wrote to me in 2004, right after the AWB ended, he specifically and clearly said that a lower could not have had either a rifle upper OR butt stock attached, lest it be considered a rifle lower.
Then in the first letter posted they reversed that saying that if it has had a butt stock attached but no upper, it was still not a rifle.
Now, right or wrong, this is my thinking. They contradict themselves all the time. So, if you play the logic game, since there is no maximum or minimum length for a pistol barrel, it seems the upper would have little influence on what the build was. But a butt stock, if it has had a butt stock attached, and a butt stock cannot be used on a pistol, one can make an strong argument that if it has had a butt stock attached then it is a rifle lower, as was said in the letter written to me in November 2004.
Since the new letter is more than likely more recent than mine, then one can assume they have changed their minds and you CAN build a pistol out of a lower that has had a butt stock but no upper attached. However, since the only person these letters have any legal weight for is the person the letter is actually addressed to and the person actually in possession of that letter, I think I will stick with what mine says, just in case they change their minds again.
Link Posted: 3/28/2011 7:25:42 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/10/2011 9:54:37 PM EDT by crkone]
Any letters on the CAA Saddle?

scratch that, im sending in my form1
Link Posted: 5/1/2011 4:17:15 PM EDT
The question about the Magpul AFG comes up at least once a week.
Espos1111 has already posted this link but I'll do it again.

Page 3, found here, deals with the Magpul AFG.
I'll bet the question still comes up weekly but at least we can point the lazy (i.e. search challenged) to this link.
Link Posted: 5/8/2011 6:47:36 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Big-Bore:
And be sure to notice the contradiction between the letter to me and the very first letter that was posted but does not have a date on it. In the letter Nixon wrote to me in 2004, right after the AWB ended, he specifically and clearly said that a lower could not have had either a rifle upper OR butt stock attached, lest it be considered a rifle lower.
Then in the first letter posted they reversed that saying that if it has had a butt stock attached but no upper, it was still not a rifle.
Now, right or wrong, this is my thinking. They contradict themselves all the time. So, if you play the logic game, since there is no maximum or minimum length for a pistol barrel, it seems the upper would have little influence on what the build was. But a butt stock, if it has had a butt stock attached, and a butt stock cannot be used on a pistol, one can make an strong argument that if it has had a butt stock attached then it is a rifle lower, as was said in the letter written to me in November 2004.
Since the new letter is more than likely more recent than mine, then one can assume they have changed their minds and you CAN build a pistol out of a lower that has had a butt stock but no upper attached. However, since the only person these letters have any legal weight for is the person the letter is actually addressed to and the person actually in possession of that letter, I think I will stick with what mine says, just in case they change their minds again.


I understand where you are coming from. However, I think they got it wrong in your letter and right in the letter after yours. If you read the definition of the various firearms, most of them have some variation of 'propel a projectile(s) by use of an explosive' in the definition. If a receiver has a buttstock but has never otherwise been configured to be able to propel any projectile (a barrel put on) then the actual type of firearm it 'is' has not yet been determined and it is still a 'receiver'.

My $.02
Link Posted: 5/14/2011 8:27:21 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/14/2011 8:40:26 AM EDT by FIGJAM]
Linky to Franklin Armory's overall length of =>26" is not a handgun or a pistol for the purposes of extra grips. I'm surprised it's not here already considering the desire of those with OAL of 26" and greater to have a forward grip. Nothing ground shaking here but it's an interesting letter.

I only will provide the link because they claim copyright (for commercial purposes only). However, should they yank it or complain, I will archive it and make available as necessary.

OAL =>26" without stock, not handgun or pistol, just a firearm not subject to NFA

Here's the url for those interested in what the letter was pertaining to.

http://www.franklinarmory.com/PRODUCTS.html

Link Posted: 5/15/2011 8:53:45 AM EDT

Originally Posted By FIGJAM:
Linky to Franklin Armory's overall length of =>26" is not a handgun or a pistol for the purposes of extra grips. I'm surprised it's not here already considering the desire of those with OAL of 26" and greater to have a forward grip. Nothing ground shaking here but it's an interesting letter.

I only will provide the link because they claim copyright (for commercial purposes only). However, should they yank it or complain, I will archive it and make available as necessary.



Here's the url for those interested in what the letter was pertaining to.

http://www.franklinarmory.com/PRODUCTS.html

Franklin has no copyright claim to this letter. It was not authored by them, it is not in their words nor is it a work for hire. In short it is not theirs to copyright.

Link Posted: 5/15/2011 10:18:55 PM EDT
Originally Posted By iNeXile556:

Originally Posted By FIGJAM:
Linky to Franklin Armory's overall length of =>26" is not a handgun or a pistol for the purposes of extra grips. I'm surprised it's not here already considering the desire of those with OAL of 26" and greater to have a forward grip. Nothing ground shaking here but it's an interesting letter.

I only will provide the link because they claim copyright (for commercial purposes only). However, should they yank it or complain, I will archive it and make available as necessary.



Here's the url for those interested in what the letter was pertaining to.

http://www.franklinarmory.com/PRODUCTS.html

Franklin has no copyright claim to this letter. It was not authored by them, it is not in their words nor is it a work for hire. In short it is not theirs to copyright.


I beg to differ. Since the copyright itself required typeset and scanning "artwork," it is indeed copyright-able. Sure, the base document from our artwork can be FOIA'd since it is public, but I expect that would take about as long as writing your own letter. The intent of posting this document was to make it available to the 2A rights community. Individuals are welcome to make a copy for their personal use. We simply want a head start in the commercial field because we spent several months writing several letters, and fronted the expense of sending in a sample firearm to the FTB. (....Which we still have not gotten back yet.)

There are several manufacturers (that will remain unnamed) that have copied what Franklin Armory has done in the past. The XO-26 will probably not be an exception.

Link Posted: 5/16/2011 6:58:05 PM EDT

Originally Posted By franklinarmory:
Originally Posted By iNeXile556:

Originally Posted By FIGJAM:
Linky to Franklin Armory's overall length of =>26" is not a handgun or a pistol for the purposes of extra grips. I'm surprised it's not here already considering the desire of those with OAL of 26" and greater to have a forward grip. Nothing ground shaking here but it's an interesting letter.

I only will provide the link because they claim copyright (for commercial purposes only). However, should they yank it or complain, I will archive it and make available as necessary.



Here's the url for those interested in what the letter was pertaining to.

http://www.franklinarmory.com/PRODUCTS.html

Franklin has no copyright claim to this letter. It was not authored by them, it is not in their words nor is it a work for hire. In short it is not theirs to copyright.


I beg to differ. Since the copyright itself required typeset and scanning "artwork," it is indeed copyright-able. Sure, the base document from our artwork can be FOIA'd since it is public, but I expect that would take about as long as writing your own letter. The intent of posting this document was to make it available to the 2A rights community. Individuals are welcome to make a copy for their personal use. We simply want a head start in the commercial field because we spent several months writing several letters, and fronted the expense of sending in a sample firearm to the FTB. (....Which we still have not gotten back yet.)

There are several manufacturers (that will remain unnamed) that have copied what Franklin Armory has done in the past. The XO-26 will probably not be an exception.
Actually a scan of a letter is not protected by copyright unless you are the author of the letter. The scan, while an image, does not contain any intellectual or artistic property that belongs to the person doing the scanning. It is much like taking a scan or photo of say, the Mona Lisa, and selling it because you have the "copyright". Copyright means you own the rights to the image, intellectual and/or artistic property thereof to the point that you can lease, assign or sell those rights, or sell copies or extractions of the work. Making a scan, copy or photo of someone elses work, even if you add the typeset "copyright" to it does not make it your property. As the founder of SoCal Image, a stock photo warehousing company, I am well versed in copyright laws. I'm not sure why you would even want to copyright this, how a copy of this letter could even be used by anyone for commercial purposes is beyond me. Any manufacture can make these firearms without a letter, legal is legal.

That aside I don't think anyone here is trying to cash in on your coupon. You do indeed have the jump on the market. The Idea however is not new. I posted the probable legality of exactly the same type firearm in this forum a year or so ago. As well as the legality of making the same type firearm using a .410 shotshell upper.

I applaud you for taking the initiative to get the firearm classified and to market. I myself am not a manufacture and have no plan on making any, even for my personal use as I find the position created by a VFG awkward on any firearm. I support you 100% and wish you only the very best luck in Franklin Armory's endeavors. It's good to see a hardworking, honest company down in the trenches fighting not only for 2A rights, but doing it in one of the harshest states as far as firearms go. Bravo.

Link Posted: 5/16/2011 7:46:09 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/16/2011 7:48:47 PM EDT by Ryo]
Originally Posted By iNeXile556:
The question about the Magpul AFG comes up at least once a week.
Espos1111 has already posted this link but I'll do it again.

Page 3, found here, deals with the Magpul AFG.
I'll bet the question still comes up weekly but at least we can point the lazy (i.e. search challenged) to this link.


I just thought to mention that it's legitimate. I asked a ATF investigator about this specific letter, and he emailed me that it was valid.

Specifically he said "ATF Firearms Technology Branch says # 7 is correct." when dealing with the AFG in the letter.
Link Posted: 7/20/2011 10:31:59 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/20/2011 10:32:53 PM EDT by CommonwealthKid]
"Flexible Hand Straps" on pistols don't change them to AOWs:

Link Posted: 7/22/2011 2:07:45 PM EDT
Flexible hand strap? Your talking about a strap that goes around the back of your hand?
Link Posted: 7/22/2011 8:43:23 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/22/2011 8:45:23 PM EDT by CommonwealthKid]
Ala:
My Plum Crazy
Just a cinch loop that I can put 2 fingers through.
Link Posted: 8/3/2011 3:25:39 PM EDT
From this thread: link

This ATF ruling: link

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-assembled 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). 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.
Link Posted: 8/3/2011 3:44:16 PM EDT
NICE!!

Melson is still a scumbag.
Link Posted: 8/11/2011 6:04:12 PM EDT
Originally Posted By iNeXile556:
The question about the Magpul AFG comes up at least once a week.
Espos1111 has already posted this link but I'll do it again.

Page 3, found here, deals with the Magpul AFG.
I'll bet the question still comes up weekly but at least we can point the lazy (i.e. search challenged) to this link.


Since that is a 3 page document and wanted something to carry with my pistol, I sent a brief request with pictures and all.
here is there response:

http://www.dustyjacket.com/shooting/atf-afg.jpg
Link Posted: 8/11/2011 10:17:37 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DustyJacket:
Originally Posted By iNeXile556:
The question about the Magpul AFG comes up at least once a week.
Espos1111 has already posted this link but I'll do it again.

Page 3, found here, deals with the Magpul AFG.
I'll bet the question still comes up weekly but at least we can point the lazy (i.e. search challenged) to this link.


Since that is a 3 page document and wanted something to carry with my pistol, I sent a brief request with pictures and all.
here is there response:

http://www.dustyjacket.com/shooting/atf-afg.jpg


Now if we can just get magpul to make an AFG that is on an 89 degree angle...

Link Posted: 8/14/2011 12:58:55 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/14/2011 1:02:43 AM EDT by bp_968]
Originally Posted By FIGJAM:
Linky to Franklin Armory's overall length of =>26" is not a handgun or a pistol for the purposes of extra grips. I'm surprised it's not here already considering the desire of those with OAL of 26" and greater to have a forward grip. Nothing ground shaking here but it's an interesting letter.

I only will provide the link because they claim copyright (for commercial purposes only). However, should they yank it or complain, I will archive it and make available as necessary.

OAL =>26" without stock, not handgun or pistol, just a firearm not subject to NFA

Here's the url for those interested in what the letter was pertaining to.

http://www.franklinarmory.com/PRODUCTS.html



*edit* (ignore.. i should read the whole thread before responding)
Link Posted: 8/14/2011 2:07:38 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/14/2011 2:08:16 PM EDT by iNeXile556]
Here is a letter that member jrzy first posted last year. Although it deals with a PG shotgun, I'm posting it to highlight the VFG on greater then 26" opinion that the ATF recently gave to Franklin Armory. After this opinion there are many people that somehow feel that the 26" rule is a hard fast law. Nothing is further from the truth. Although 26" is a standing opinion by the ATF concerning a firearms concealability, it is not codified as a legal limit and as such firearms could still be considered AOW even if over 26" OAL.

This letter explains the 26" opinion that the ATF is currently using. Let's hope they don't reverse this policy.




Link Posted: 8/24/2011 6:55:46 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/26/2011 8:00:10 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/28/2011 11:46:34 PM EDT by vermont2nd]
This is a tacked thread and is used for resource purposes, if you have nothing to add or cannot keep a civil tongue, refrain from posting in it. Further posts like the one I just edited will result in warnings or sanctions. ~vermont2nd
Link Posted: 9/3/2011 5:03:53 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/3/2011 5:13:19 PM EDT by MakoDefense]
Link Posted: 9/14/2011 3:37:26 PM EDT
Re-posted for preservation:
Originally Posted By jrzy:
There has been much speculation if it is legal to install a saddle like the one pictured on the buffer tube of an AR 15 Pistol.
As always I post the Tech branch letters when I get them approved (or denied)
The Saddle does not make this an SBR and it retains it's legal Pistol standing
I want to clear up something that is a very hard rumor to kill.
These letters I get are not just valid for us.
We are an 07 MFGer with an SOT.
The tech branch has told us that they know we pass the letters on to our clients and they are in fact valid for everyone as long as they follow the letter and contents with no modifications that would change whatever is we are doing (see page2)



Here's the Letter



Link Posted: 10/6/2011 12:55:30 PM EDT
QUESTION: I am about to send a similar request to ATF, and was wondering within what time-frame I can expect a reply?


-sf
Link Posted: 12/7/2011 11:09:17 PM EDT
Originally Posted By slamfyre:
QUESTION: I am about to send a similar request to ATF, and was wondering within what time-frame I can expect a reply?


-sf


I sent in a letter 07/25/11. I got a letter back today. 12/7/11.
Link Posted: 12/8/2011 5:23:52 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/8/2011 5:25:01 PM EDT by browningfan91]
I found this letter in a search.

Here is the link


It clearly states that a regular buffer tube may be used on a pistol.

It clearly states that a pistol may be converted to a firearm, and then converted to a rifle, then returned to a pistol configuration.
Link Posted: 12/11/2011 8:01:20 AM EDT
Originally Posted By browningfan91:
I found this letter in a search.

Here is the link


It clearly states that a regular buffer tube may be used on a pistol.



Yes it does. So long as you do not have an "unassembled" stock in close proximity that may be attached to make the pistol into a NFA firearm.

Link Posted: 12/13/2011 8:54:46 AM EDT
Originally Posted By shrikefan:
Originally Posted By browningfan91:
I found this letter in a search.

Here is the link


It clearly states that a regular buffer tube may be used on a pistol.



Yes it does. So long as you do not have an "unassembled" stock in close proximity that may be attached to make the pistol into a NFA firearm.



The letter does not say that. The scenario described possessing, in close proximity, a stock which could be readily installed onto the pistol buffer tube. The opinion letter said it was lawful.

Link Posted: 12/13/2011 1:58:42 PM EDT
Originally Posted By browningfan91:
Originally Posted By shrikefan:
Originally Posted By browningfan91:
I found this letter in a search.

Here is the link


It clearly states that a regular buffer tube may be used on a pistol.



Yes it does. So long as you do not have an "unassembled" stock in close proximity that may be attached to make the pistol into a NFA firearm.



The letter does not say that. The scenario described possessing, in close proximity, a stock which could be readily installed onto the pistol buffer tube. The opinion letter said it was lawful.



Maybe I took it out of context. Could you please quote the part you are refering to.

Link Posted: 12/14/2011 1:20:32 PM EDT
Originally Posted By shrikefan:
Originally Posted By browningfan91:
Originally Posted By shrikefan:
Originally Posted By browningfan91:
I found this letter in a search.

Here is the link


It clearly states that a regular buffer tube may be used on a pistol.



Yes it does. So long as you do not have an "unassembled" stock in close proximity that may be attached to make the pistol into a NFA firearm.



The letter does not say that. The scenario described possessing, in close proximity, a stock which could be readily installed onto the pistol buffer tube. The opinion letter said it was lawful.



Maybe I took it out of context. Could you please quote the part you are refering to.



Scenario:

"Further, I intend to possess all of the parts to readily convert the firearm from a pistol to firearm and rifle."

Question:

"May the possessor of an AR pistol, which is assembled with a carbine buffer tube, also possess a stock which may readily fit on said buffer tube, if the stock is never attached? Or is the possession of a stock which may readily fit an AR type pistol buffer tube illegal?"



Answer:

Not only did the answer include a copy of the Tnompson supreme court decision which said a kit to make a pistol into a rifle then back to a pistol was fine, but it also said, "The above described scenario is lawful..." That means the scenario of a kit gun with parts in possession to convert the gun back and forth from pistol to firearm, to rifle and back is lawful.
Link Posted: 12/14/2011 4:05:01 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/14/2011 4:05:36 PM EDT by shrikefan]
Originally Posted By browningfan91:

Scenario:

"Further, I intend to possess all of the parts to readily convert the firearm from a pistol to firearm and rifle."

Question:

"May the possessor of an AR pistol, which is assembled with a carbine buffer tube, also possess a stock which may readily fit on said buffer tube, if the stock is never attached? Or is the possession of a stock which may readily fit an AR type pistol buffer tube illegal?"



Answer:

Not only did the answer include a copy of the Tnompson supreme court decision which said a kit to make a pistol into a rifle then back to a pistol was fine, but it also said, "The above described scenario is lawful..." That means the scenario of a kit gun with parts in possession to convert the gun back and forth from pistol to firearm, to rifle and back is lawful.


It looks like they are following the rule of lenity. So as long as you have the 16"+ unassembled barrel along with the unassembled corresponding attachable stock then you are should be OK.

Link Posted: 12/15/2011 10:15:25 AM EDT
Originally Posted By shrikefan:
Originally Posted By browningfan91:

Scenario:

"Further, I intend to possess all of the parts to readily convert the firearm from a pistol to firearm and rifle."

Question:

"May the possessor of an AR pistol, which is assembled with a carbine buffer tube, also possess a stock which may readily fit on said buffer tube, if the stock is never attached? Or is the possession of a stock which may readily fit an AR type pistol buffer tube illegal?"



Answer:

Not only did the answer include a copy of the Tnompson supreme court decision which said a kit to make a pistol into a rifle then back to a pistol was fine, but it also said, "The above described scenario is lawful..." That means the scenario of a kit gun with parts in possession to convert the gun back and forth from pistol to firearm, to rifle and back is lawful.


It looks like they are following the rule of lenity. So as long as you have the 16"+ unassembled barrel along with the unassembled corresponding attachable stock then you are should be OK.



I hope so because my friend made a video that shows him doing that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbIpWWG0JEg

Link Posted: 12/18/2011 11:58:22 AM EDT

Originally Posted By shrikefan:
Originally Posted By browningfan91:

Scenario:

"Further, I intend to possess all of the parts to readily convert the firearm from a pistol to firearm and rifle."

Question:

"May the possessor of an AR pistol, which is assembled with a carbine buffer tube, also possess a stock which may readily fit on said buffer tube, if the stock is never attached? Or is the possession of a stock which may readily fit an AR type pistol buffer tube illegal?"



Answer:

Not only did the answer include a copy of the Tnompson supreme court decision which said a kit to make a pistol into a rifle then back to a pistol was fine, but it also said, "The above described scenario is lawful..." That means the scenario of a kit gun with parts in possession to convert the gun back and forth from pistol to firearm, to rifle and back is lawful.


It looks like they are following the rule of lenity. So as long as you have the 16"+ unassembled barrel along with the unassembled corresponding attachable stock then you are should be OK.


I'm done trying to convince you that your interpretation of the letter is wrong, but this highlighted part is defiantly wrong. The Thompson case never addressed the assembly of a pistol to rifle and back. It dealt ONLY with the issue of whether the kit packaged together with a short barrel constituted "making" of making a SBR.
Link Posted: 12/27/2011 6:18:59 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/27/2011 6:20:03 PM EDT by browningfan91]
Originally Posted By iNeXile556:

Originally Posted By shrikefan:
Originally Posted By browningfan91:

Scenario:

"Further, I intend to possess all of the parts to readily convert the firearm from a pistol to firearm and rifle."

Question:

"May the possessor of an AR pistol, which is assembled with a carbine buffer tube, also possess a stock which may readily fit on said buffer tube, if the stock is never attached? Or is the possession of a stock which may readily fit an AR type pistol buffer tube illegal?"

Answer:

Not only did the answer include a copy of the Tnompson supreme court decision which said a kit to make a pistol into a rifle then back to a pistol was fine, but it also said, "The above described scenario is lawful..." That means the scenario of a kit gun with parts in possession to convert the gun back and forth from pistol to firearm, to rifle and back is lawful.


It looks like they are following the rule of lenity. So as long as you have the 16"+ unassembled barrel along with the unassembled corresponding attachable stock then you are should be OK.


I'm done trying to convince you that your interpretation of the letter is wrong, but this highlighted part is defiantly wrong. The Thompson case never addressed the assembly of a pistol to rifle and back. It dealt ONLY with the issue of whether the kit packaged together with a short barrel constituted "making" of making a SBR.


It is not illegal to possess an AR pistol assembled with an m4 receiver extension tube and possess a stock which may readily fit on that buffer tube/receiver extension.

Video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbIpWWG0JEg

Letter
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B4xDZlk5vthcMjhmZmZkYWYtMjRhOC00MjQ0LWFiYmYt­YjJjMjJiYTZkNzU0

Link Posted: 1/11/2012 8:57:56 PM EDT
The guy, kwikrnu, who was banned here has several more letters about AR-15 pistols posted on his website.


http://www.kwikrnu.com/batfe_letters.htm
Link Posted: 1/12/2012 6:39:12 AM EDT
Originally Posted By browningfan91:
The guy, kwikrnu, who was banned here has several more letters about AR-15 pistols posted on his website.


http://www.kwikrnu.com/batfe_letters.htm


Some interesting stuff and some pretty effed up stuff in those letters. Have to do a 4473 and NICS check to do a form 4 transfer? So I guess the presumption that they do some sort of background check with the $200 transfer tax is bogus.

Link Posted: 1/14/2012 8:24:13 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/14/2012 8:26:28 PM EDT by iNeXile556]
Anyone taken in by the BS from the above posts simply google kwikrnu to find real story behind this fool.

Vermont2nd, can you delete these BS posts so we can keep this thread on track and useful please.
Link Posted: 1/15/2012 12:17:42 AM EDT
Originally Posted By iNeXile556:
Anyone taken in by the BS from the above posts simply google kwikrnu to find real story behind this fool.

Vermont2nd, can you delete these BS posts so we can keep this thread on track and useful please.


I'm not sure who you are refering to as the fool but kwikrnu asked some pretty specific questions from the atf and received answers. What is wrong with that?

Link Posted: 1/15/2012 10:02:15 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/15/2012 10:03:06 AM EDT by iNeXile556]

Originally Posted By shrikefan:
Originally Posted By iNeXile556:
Anyone taken in by the BS from the above posts simply google kwikrnu to find real story behind this fool.

Vermont2nd, can you delete these BS posts so we can keep this thread on track and useful please.


I'm not sure who you are refering to as the fool but kwikrnu asked some pretty specific questions from the atf and received answers. What is wrong with that?


Like I said google this clown and ask yourself if this is someone you want representing responsible gun owners. He has been banned from every gun forum on the internet, including this one.

He lives near me and I have meet him on many occasions, he is a complete attention seeking idiot that should not be allowed to own firearms. He is the poster child for gun control and the control nazis regularly use his antics as ammunition to further their cause.

Ar15.com forbids linking to or even mentioning some other sites and this guy and his site should be included in this group. He was banned here, why continue promoting his stupidity and his web site?
Link Posted: 1/15/2012 12:52:00 PM EDT
Originally Posted By iNeXile556:

Originally Posted By shrikefan:
Originally Posted By iNeXile556:
Anyone taken in by the BS from the above posts simply google kwikrnu to find real story behind this fool.

Vermont2nd, can you delete these BS posts so we can keep this thread on track and useful please.


I'm not sure who you are refering to as the fool but kwikrnu asked some pretty specific questions from the atf and received answers. What is wrong with that?


Like I said google this clown and ask yourself if this is someone you want representing responsible gun owners. He has been banned from every gun forum on the internet, including this one.

He lives near me and I have meet him on many occasions, he is a complete attention seeking idiot that should not be allowed to own firearms. He is the poster child for gun control and the control nazis regularly use his antics as ammunition to further their cause.

Ar15.com forbids linking to or even mentioning some other sites and this guy and his site should be included in this group. He was banned here, why continue promoting his stupidity and his web site?


The web address posted above was for some very insightful letters to and from the atf. I understand that other aspects of the letter writer's life may not be under some of the best circumstances. A stopped clock and all that...

Link Posted: 1/22/2012 2:17:28 PM EDT
My friend has some good insight and has obtained very good responses from the ATF through his letter writing. I saw that he put a new letter yesterday about the possession of spare parts for an AR.

http://www.kwikrnu.com/BATFE%20opinion%20letters/batfe%20atf%20letter%20response%201-12-2012%20ar%20parts.pdf
Link Posted: 3/10/2012 11:09:43 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/10/2012 11:15:54 PM EDT by iNeXile556]

Originally Posted By browningfan91:
My friend has some good insight and has obtained very good responses from the ATF through his letter writing. I saw that he put a new letter yesterday about the possession of spare parts for an AR.

link removed

Whatever, bye-bye browningfan or should I say kwikrnu, seems the staff had the good sense drop the ban hammer on you, AGAIN!


Originally Posted By VA-gunnut:
Please don't link to his site anymore.

Oh, he won't be back with his latest account anytime soon.
link
Link Posted: 3/28/2012 3:02:03 PM EDT
I currently have a letter out to the BATFE specifically asking about, making a pistol, converting the pistol to rifle, then converting that rifle back to pistol. will let you guys know what they says at some point.
Link Posted: 3/28/2012 10:08:15 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ncgunrights:
I currently have a letter out to the BATFE specifically asking about, making a pistol, converting the pistol to rifle, then converting that rifle back to pistol. will let you guys know what they says at some point.


That concern was addressed directly by the ATF last year. It is not illegal under the NFA or GCA to convert a pistol into a rifle and then back to a pistol. It is illegal, however, to convert a rifle into a pistol.

ATF language: A firearm, as defined by 26 U.S.C. 5845(a)(3) and (a)(4), is not made when a pistol is attached to a part or parts designed to convert the pistol into a rifle with a barrel or barrels of 16 inches or more in length, and the parts are later unassembled in a configuration not regulated under the NFA (e.g., as a pistol). Link: http://www.atf.gov/regulations-rulings/rulings/atf-rulings/atf-ruling-2011-4.pdf
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 4
Top Top