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.