Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 2/25/2006 1:34:01 PM EDT
Ok, I was thinking about the SBR/pistol/rifle thing, and I realized the BATFE's legal opinions are ridiculous, even more than I thought. Here's my hypothetical situation:

1. Assume the lower is a virgin lower, and has never been built or recorded as either a rifle or pistol, just a generic firearm receiver. No local or state laws require handgun reegistration or anything like that.

2. Builder attaches a 16"+ barrelled upper.

3. Builder decides to use an adjustable stock.

4. Builder removes stock from tube to install easier.

5. Builder completes build, and finally puts stock back onto the tube.

Is this a rifle that can never become a pistol or a pistol with a rifle conversion?
Link Posted: 2/25/2006 4:36:59 PM EDT
both


Link Posted: 2/26/2006 7:56:47 AM EDT
If we ignor all we know, based on what you post......


i would not know.
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 8:15:30 AM EDT
The removable stock, is the stock. And you just broke the law once you try to make it a pistol.
Remember that these laws were written in the 30's when firearms were more primative.
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 9:28:08 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Trey-W:
The removable stock, is the stock. And you just broke the law once you try to make it a pistol.



Right.

From the definitions in the NFA: 26 USC 5845
(c) Rifle
The term “rifle” means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder ...

The shoulderstock, in that it was designed and intended to be a complete shoulderstock, makes it a rifle, assembled or not

and it becomes a regulated NFA Firearm (SBR) if, by making it a "pistol configuration," it violates the following:
26 USC 5845
(a) Firearm
The term “firearm” means
(4) a weapon made from a rifle if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length;


-- the few moments that the removable stock piece is not on the weapon as it is being assembled is a pretty fine hair to split. From the above description, it is pretty clear that the weapon was being assembled as a rifle, not as a pistol.


Cheers, Otto
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 4:55:02 PM EDT
not 100% sure on what t-money is getting at, but say all your rifles you buy as stripped lowers and on the forms have it noted as a stripped lower. then with a generic pistol upper, and pistol buffer tube build it like that, just to get the "pistol first" thing out of the way. then just build it as a rifle, so technically they are all rifles, but can also be pistols? maybe too much work? i dont know, just a random pointless idea.
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 1:02:55 AM EDT
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 1:17:27 AM EDT
If your 4473 says "receiver only" on it, there is no way ATF could ever prove that it originally had a stock.

As such, the pistol/rifle distinction is meaningless.

FWIW
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 9:14:52 AM EDT
I think it would be legal simply due to the fact it couldn't be proven to have been a rifle first. However if you have a friend with a pistol type upper put it on, take a picture of it with the local paper or something like that then make your rifle.
Any legal action taken against you would have a very hard time proving you converted a rifle to a pistol if there are no witnesses and it is simply your word against the prosecuting agency.
Of course this is al a moot point if the reciever was ever registered as a rifle.
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 9:22:56 AM EDT
dont give them any ideas!
Top Top