Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
10/20/2017 1:01:18 AM
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 8/13/2005 12:30:01 AM EDT
I've seen some posts that kind of skirted around this issue. Is that a big no no?
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 12:32:33 AM EDT
Yes and so are these questions
Id expect this from a newbie. With 5378 posts you should know this one!
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 12:46:46 AM EDT
5378 posts and have never held, built or fired a AR pistol.

Nothing wrong with figuring out what I can and cant do. After all, isnt it my responsability to find out what the law is? Last time I checked I wasnt assigned a ATF agent at birth.
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 4:24:12 AM EDT
Using the buffer tube as a stock to stablize the pistol would basically constitute a Short Barreled Rifle

Nuff said
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 8:49:08 AM EDT

Originally Posted By JohnHollister:
Using the buffer tube as a stock to stablize the pistol would basically constitute a Short Barreled Rifle

Nuff said



Very lame! But most of the laws are. I guess I better conform before the man slams down his iron fist on me! :)

I think I may go SBR just to make sure I avoid any problems.
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 10:31:34 AM EDT

Originally Posted By JohnHollister:
Using the buffer tube as a stock to stablize the pistol would basically constitute a Short Barreled Rifle

Nuff said



A buffer tube is not a stock. A buffer tube is a buffer tuber no matter what you do with it as long as you don't put a stock on it.
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 2:34:25 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/13/2005 2:36:00 PM EDT by MadDogDan]
The ATF has no regulation as to how you "HOLD" your pistol. If you want to put it up against your shoulder or even against your forehead or nose, that is up to you. Hold it how you like, as long as it doesn't have a "shoulder stock" attached to it you are legal. I put my cheek against the "buffer tube" (has an ACE foam sleeve) just like I would with a stock. That way I have three points of contact. That is perfectly "legal" and I am just as accurate with my pistol (has Aimpoint mounted) as I am with any of my AR rifles. I have shot it this way in the presence of many LEO and not one of them has ever commented accept to say "COOL PISTOL".

MadDog
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 2:39:00 PM EDT

Originally Posted By JohnHollister:
Using the buffer tube as a stock to stablize the pistol would basically constitute a Short Barreled Rifle

Nuff said



So if I fire my 92FS with the grip somehow touching my shoulder then it is an SBR? LOLOLOLOL
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 5:01:27 PM EDT
You will notice in the above tacked letter from the ATFE regarding the use of CAR length tubes on pistol builds that they DO NOT SAY the tube is a butt stock if you rest it against your shoulder. They only advise caution if you are also in possession of the butt stock that attaches to it.
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 7:35:57 PM EDT

Originally Posted By monkeyman:

Originally Posted By JohnHollister:
Using the buffer tube as a stock to stablize the pistol would basically constitute a Short Barreled Rifle

Nuff said



A buffer tube is not a stock. A buffer tube is a buffer tuber no matter what you do with it as long as you don't put a stock on it.



+1. You can shoot it in any manner you feel comfortable with. It's not illegal to put the buffer tube on you're shoulder.
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 7:36:53 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Buzz70:

Originally Posted By JohnHollister:
Using the buffer tube as a stock to stablize the pistol would basically constitute a Short Barreled Rifle

Nuff said



So if I fire my 92FS with the grip somehow touching my shoulder then it is an SBR? LOLOLOLOL



I would pay money to watch you try that
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 7:43:28 PM EDT

Originally Posted By JohnHollister:
Using the buffer tube as a stock to stablize the pistol would basically constitute a Short Barreled Rifle

Nuff said




YEP!!!
Here's One MORE thing you may NOT be aware of.. if you make a "rasberry" or "tractor" sound while pretending to shoot your AR pistol, ATF will rule that as shooting an illegal machine gun and you could lose everything you own, spending the next ten years, nightly, tasting various pillows in a federally sponsored facility.

Where do people come up with this stuff???
There are PLENTY of REAL laws to get disgusted over, without dreaming up this kind of crap.

This one has to go DIRECTLY under the "You're only allowed to make (insert any, ridiculously low, number) homemade rifles a year".

Buffer tubes are NOT stocks..

"Nuff said".
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 8:03:51 PM EDT
Thanks for clearing that up guys. I thought it would be funny for the ATF to regulate how you hold your pistol. But then again there are a lot of other goofy laws on the books.
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 9:11:34 PM EDT
Go right ahead then
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 11:44:37 PM EDT

Originally Posted By JohnHollister:
Go right ahead then




Why would I want to do that. Its a pistol :)
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 11:11:49 AM EDT
Slings are legal on pistols aren't they?
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 2:01:40 PM EDT
YES

MadDog
Link Posted: 8/17/2005 11:50:25 AM EDT
MadDogDan is correct as I shoot my AR Pistols with my cheek on the buffer tube. As a side note I am been thinking about building an AR47 Pistol using a AR receiver that accepts AK mags. A Chicom 75 round drum would be way cool on the pistol...what do you think?

MadDog(760)
Link Posted: 8/17/2005 9:50:35 PM EDT
hope johnny knoxville doesnt have an ar pistol
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 11:11:18 AM EDT

Originally Posted By billy_bob:
hope johnny knoxville doesnt have an ar pistol



i hope he does not have a 92FS and try fireing it from his sholder i think it would hurt to have the slide slam into your sholder expecially with +P!
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 2:34:35 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/23/2005 2:59:08 PM EDT by otto_esq]
We seem to have a back-n-forth argument spread over 10 days regarding what is "legal" but no one has yet referenced or argued a single point based on the law. Geez, folks. When you are arguing about conduct that might constitute a 10-year felony and conviction for an unregistered Short Barreled Rifle, I'd think you'd want to be more sure that the reasons I see stated here. I would suggest at least referencing the law that would be the basis for a prosecution regarding whether such activity is or is not legal.

So far we have:


Using the buffer tube as a stock to stablize the pistol would basically constitute a Short Barreled Rifle.



A buffer tube is not a stock. A buffer tube is a buffer tuber no matter what you do with it as long as you don't put a stock on it.



Hold it how you like, as long as it doesn't have a "shoulder stock" attached to it you are legal.



[T]he ATFE regarding the use of CAR length tubes on pistol builds ... DO NOT SAY the tube is a butt stock if you rest it against your shoulder (in the above tacked letter )



It's not illegal to put the buffer tube on you're shoulder.



Buffer tubes are NOT stocks.


With the exception of the ATFE letter reference (**), the above statements are all conclusions with no stated legal argument to support them.

(**Regarding the ATFE letter reference: It does not appear from the ATFE response that they were asked about the condition of firing an AR pistol from the shoulder, so I am not surprised that it was not addressed in the response.
The ATFE did not say in that letter that you couldn't put FA fire control parts in an AR pistol either, but we'd all agree that their lack of reference would not make it legal.
At most, the ATFE letter is negative evidence, which is not really proof of anything other than the specific question the agency was asked to address.
"Is it inherently illegal to use a carbine buffer tube sans the collapsible "stock" portion to house the recoil mechanism of an AR pistol?" Answer: "No."
Note that the question to the ATFE probably did not include, "how about if the "buffer tube" is used in place of the missing "stock" portion?"
Hence, the ATFE did not mention anything about that scenario.)

The National Firearms Act, alluded to in the "would basically constitute a Short Barreled Rifle" comment, above, defines items by their form as well as their function.

Form: "having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length"

Function: "designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed cartridge to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger"

I would argue that the comments, above, that state a "buffer tube" is not, and by implication, can never be a "stock" are focusing too much on the form and the description of the items in a schematic or parts list, instead of examining the function the buffer tube is fulfilling when it is placed against the shoulder for firing.

The NFA definition for a "rifle" does not say "a weapon that has a stock", but instead defines a rifle by function, "a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder". . .

An AR pistol can become a "rifle" under the NFA if it is a "weapon . . . intended to be fired from the shoulder"; the "designed or redesigned, made or remade" aspect of the definition shows the legislative intent to capture in the NFA definition of "rifle" prior non-"rifles" that are in some way converted to rifles based on intent, namely, like in this case, that they are "intended to be fired from the shoulder."

Just because you don't call an aluminum tube sticking out the back of the receiver a "stock" in the classical sense, that does not prevent the legal interpretation that A function of the aluminum tube, i.e. to support the weapon against the shoulder during firing, is a de facto stock.

If you take the position that the buffer tube is not functioning as a stock when it is placed against the shoulder for firing, what is it doing? How does it's FUNCTION differ from the "stock" that could be placed on the same buffer tube? It is not adjustable for length of pull, it is shorter, it does not "widen out" at the rear where it contacts the body, it doesn't look like a traditional stock. So what? If not for the function it performs, how in the world do you define a stock? None of those items are even mentioned in the definition of a "rifle" either; instead, a "rifle is a weapon fired from the shoulder" and is thus defined by function, not whether or not it has a traditional oiled maple, checkered walnut, molded plastic, or wide rubber butt-padded "stock". Only the diameter of the "tube" distinguishes it from a "stock"; none of you would argue that placing a wider, flared piece of metal, plastic or rubber on the end of the tube is not a "stock". However, the only difference would be shooter comfort. Again the NFA does not reference "a weapon that is intended to be fired comfortably from the shoulder".

Remember, those that would be working for the prosecutor are the same group that try to get a weapon to malfunction and thus fire more than one round per trigger manipulation for a charge of unregistered machine guns. How is your argument, "your Honor, although the buffer tube functions as, and therefore takes the place of a stock, it doesn't look like one", going to hold up against them?
Poorly, I'd predict.

Probably "too much said"

Cheers, Otto

(Edited for speling)



ETA: In case my position wasn't clear, my money would be on the prosecutor, 2-1 over the defense attorney.
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 5:01:22 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/23/2005 5:18:47 PM EDT by JohnHollister]
Nevermind
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 5:14:46 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/23/2005 5:19:00 PM EDT by JohnHollister]
Nevermind
Link Posted: 8/28/2005 3:46:03 PM EDT
I saw the guy that motivated me to build my pistol today at the range, I don't know if i didn't notice before when i saw him or if he didn't do it but he definitely put the tube on his shoulder. Makes me wonder what whould happen if the atf man were to see him, what kind of fine or jail time he would be looking at... My real question is why risk it.
Link Posted: 8/30/2005 6:55:05 PM EDT
Otto_esq, I agree with your position and opinion that the discussion should be based upon facts. However, I also believe that a defense attorney would also argue that the buffer tube being placed on one's shoulder does not change the definition of the item from pistol to rifle by this. This is not a primary shooting method, it is only a tempory and/or incidental method. (pardon the weak argument wording, I'm no barrister) The BATF has ruled that this is a pistol despite having a forward barrel shroud and protruding buffer tube because it is primarily intended to be held with one hand as a pistol would. There is no further reference to other shooting positions/grip holds other than to say that a vertical forward grip changes it's status to AOW. In my opinion, the position of the BATF (who probably would love to add restrictions to this already) is that since the pistol is PRIMARILY intended to be fired with one hand as a PISTOL, it is a PISTOL regardless of how a person may hold the weapon while firing.

Personally, I think it's bad for the image of a law-abiding pistol owner and that if the right people were witness to it, that events would be set into motion for new laws regarding how a pistol could be held and/or further legislating AR pistols into extinction.
Link Posted: 8/30/2005 7:21:21 PM EDT
Bushmaster Carbon 15 Type 21 Pistol


otto_esq

The above firearm - shipped from factory as a pistol and transfer to me as a pistol. It has not been altered in any manor and because I put the buffer tube to my shoulder I can be indicted for a SBR ?

I will go with a defense attorney on that one..
Link Posted: 8/30/2005 8:30:04 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/30/2005 8:43:42 PM EDT by otto_esq]
Good! I like seeing some reasoned debate.


Originally Posted By rsc:
In my opinion, the position of the BATF (who probably would love to add restrictions to this already) is that since the pistol is PRIMARILY intended to be fired with one hand as a PISTOL, it is a PISTOL regardless of how a person may hold the weapon while firing.



However, the BATF takes the exact opposite of this position regarding adding a verticle foregrip to an AR pistol (even when there is well-reasoned caselaw against them, I might add. See If this is legal... in the Legal Forum) and Quarterbore's linked forum thread from that post.


Norge1956:

Point of clarification: I am operating under the premise that placing the buffer tube against the shoulder would allow a rifle-like stance and realistic method of firing -- not merely placing the rear of the pistol against the shoulder for academic reasons, sake of argument, "I can also hold it upside-down!"-type shooting. Thus, I am really addressing AR carbine-length recoil tubes on AR pistols. It is my understanding of the Carbon 15 pistol that the buffer tube is pretty short -- along the lines of the old "Model 1" pistol recoil spring housing (4-5 inches?), and not really long enough to get a rifle-like firing stance, with use of the sights, etc. It'd be like shouldering a Remington XP-100. The same cannot be said for essentially Colt Commando's without the plastic (or the original aluminum for you purists) stock piece, complete with highrise sights and longer lengths of pull.

Oh, I can make arguments in defense as well, and based on the same reasoning in US v. Thompson/ Center, and criminal cases interpreting it like US v. Kent, that if a particular situation can be interpreted under the NFA to be perfectly legal and potentially illegal, the gov't must give the defendant the benefit of the doubt; however, I can also see the prosecutor arguing that this isn't a case of potential illegality, but actual illegality as in US v. Owens. (note all cases can be found hosted on Quarterbore's forum)
AR pistols can potentially be fired from the shoulder as well as be legal "handguns" (OK, see Thompson/Center) but when they are "made or remade" with intent to be and there is actual evidence of being fired from the shoulder, the prosecutor would argue that particular case went from potentially illegal to illegal and the defendant would have little support. Again see US v. Owens (possessing a short barrel with an UZI carbine may be potentially illegal, but actually putting it on the carbine in front of the undercover ATF agent made it an actual illegal SBR).

I agree that your scenario would hinge on the "designed or redesigned, made or remade" aspect of the NFA "rifle" definition (same as the definition in 18 USC 921) versus the "handgun" definition ("a firearm which has a short stock and is designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand" 18 USC 921 Definitons (a) (29) )
Compare the 18 USC 921 definition of "handgun" to the CFR (27 CFR 479.11)
("Pistol. A weapon originally designed, made, and intended to fire a projectile (bullet) from one or more barrels when held in one hand..." (emphasis added)) and you see the difference that can be drawn between an unaltered, bone-stock factory AR pistol and one "made" on a pistol lower. Like you, I could make an argument that merely placing a stock, factory pistol against the shoulder is neither redesigning or remaking a pistol into a rifle under the NFA, but the water gets murkier when dealing with carbine buffer tubes sans stock pieces on homemade weapons AND the weapon was fired from the shoulder LIKE a rifle.

The point here is not to win in court; the point is to stay out of it in the first place, for one issue cannot be disputed: the $200 tax stamp for an SBR'ed "pistol" would be cheap compared to any legal defense costs, win or lose.

Cheers, Otto
Top Top