AR Sponsor
Posted: 3/7/2008 8:28:00 AM EDT
|
I found this posted on another forum. Thought it was interesting FYI. I know it refers to the full size UZI pistol (like the ones from Vector), but thought maybe it applies to AR pistols as well? Like I said, I saw it on another forum and thought I would share, it is not my letter, I have no other info. http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e22/Mettlepig/untitled.jpg http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e22/Mettlepig/untitled2.jpg |
|
WTF man So if I put a Mech Tech rifle conversion on a 1911 (not that I would), The 1911 can never go back to being a pistol without the tax and papers making it into a SBR? I thought the rules were: Once a machinegun, always a machinegun Once a rifle, always a rifle. Once a pistol, always a pistol. |
|
Well, that's news to me. I have yet to do it, and now I know not to, but I honestly thought that if you have a pistol, you can convert it to a rifle so long as it has a barrel longer than 16", overall longer than 26", and a stock, and you could convert it back to a pistol whenever you want. I was also always under the assumption that you could NEVER change a rifle in to a pistol, only an SBR (for the previous poster), which I believe is still true. Thanks for sharing the letter though. |
|
This is bunk. I was just in a shop that had a revolver with a detachable buttstock. The revolver had a 16"+ barrel. The guy showed me the revolver - put the buttstock on it and shouldered it - then took the buttstock off and placed it back in the display case. I guess this guy is now a felon according to this letter. bigcraig - As far as not writing letters, I disagree. I think the more letters that are written that disagree with other letters that have been written, without the actual laws ever changing, will prove that most of these rulings are not based on facts of the law but instead on feelings. I believe that if a case ever came down to it that all of the contradictory rulings within the bureau would definitely help in some aspects. Two that come to mind are the Akins accelerator and the shoestring rulings. ETA - Think of making these weapons as you would having children. If you have a daughter and dress her as a tomboy does that "make" her a boy. NO. She simply looks like a boy. The outward appearance does not change the intrinsic makeup of either. Lets look at it from the other angle. If I have a NFA registered sbr,sbs,aow,mg,etc. and I assemble them in a non-NFA configuration do I have to re-register them again as a NFA weapon? If I want to take that NFA weapon to another state and I have it configured in a non-NFA way am I exempt from Filing the federal 5320 forms to transport it to another state. I believe the answer to both would be NO. I think someone wants to have their cake and eat it too. |
|
That letter flies counter to everything I have in writing and have been told by the ATFE NFA division for a bit over 4 years. But it is an official letter and just like the Akins Accelerator, apparently the ATFE has changed their minds. This sucks and I only wish I had the money to challenge it in court. For years and years the ATFE has said, once a pistol,rifle,mg, then always a P,R,MG, and now they say you cannot do the P to R change except with the TC Contender ONLY? BS. But they are the "law" and I guess we all have to take a great big bight of another ATFE shit sandwich. I tell you, they are as screwed up as a soup sandwich. |
The atfe can change their mind all they want and then some. They CANNOT change the law. They CANNOT make the law. Just like you driving down the road and doing the speed limit. You can change your mind and not do the speed limit but that does not change the law. If nothing else this perpetual flip flopping would be a good reason to keep your "PISTOL" or "REVOLVER" as such and by a new "RIFLE". |
+1. This is similar to why "may-issue" CCWs don't work. Whenever you get someones opinion involved its problematic. |
|
why in the FUCK do people keep writing letters to the ATF with their latest greatest dumbass idea. what kind of affirmation are they looking for? speaking of drawing the unwanted attention of the ATF, why the fuck is Oly Arms still in business???? (sorry no hi-jack just a vent) and what is that crap about registering it as "a weapon made from a rifle"? wtf is THAT? |
|
From what I was told by emailing the BATFE was that they do not regulate pistols or rifles make-ups, if it falls into the SBR rules that is where you need to watch youself. Local LE had told me when I registered my ar-15 pistol that if I wanted to make the pistol into a rifle that I would have to carry the paper work with me that said it was still a pistol. Go figure. |
|
This Absolutely Must Become a Tacked Thread!!!!! We need to watch out for our fellow enthusiasts and protect them from opportunistic bureaucrat vulchers that are spawned by the ATF! They don't seem to make any qualms about finding more and more subversive ways to undermine our rights for the chance at catching some innocent law abiding citizen stumbling on some minor technicality. I guess sending someone to jail for 10 + years for attaching a $29 piece of plastic to their gun is no price to pay for an agency feather in the cap. OMG these people really think their serving society and reducing violent crime?!!! hinking.gifRant over. |
Nope, because that revolver is a rifle. Probably says so right on the box it came in, and also when the ATF paperwork was submitted by the manufacturer, it was listed as a rifle/carbine. This should also protect you if the gunshop owner makes a mistake with the 4473 and enters it as a pistol, rather than a rifle/carbine. Out of curiousity, did it look like this? http://www.emf-company.com/model1873.htm And, of course, one is protected if they have a Broomhandle mauser with a original (does the law allow repro stocks?) shoulder stock, and I think a vintage Browning/Inglis HP is legal with a vintage stock as well. |
stfram, The gun I saw did not look like the one in your link. It had a 16" barrel and a brass skeleton detachable buttstock. I don't remember if the shop employee measured the OAL but it could not have been 26" to make it a rifle. I measured a couple other revolvers and added the 16" for a barrel and all I come up with is 22-23" at the most. It is absolutely not designed to be fired from the shoulder without the buttstock. Just because someone has come up with another ruling du jour does not make it law. The law is the law in black and white and that is what MUST be followed first and foremost. |
|
How many of you have an ATF agent as a room mate who watches you assemble and disassemble your guns? We need to get a hold of the actual TC ruling and see just what it says. It may be fathrur reaching than the ATF is stating in the letter. They got their asses handed to them in that ruling and the same would happen with say a Mech-Tech CCU. The letter is a ruling not law. I'm not saying flaunt or break the law/ruling but this is virtually impossible to enforce. A LEO would have to watch you make the conversion and document the serial number while the gun was in each configuration and be aware of the ATF ruling letters. |
AR Sponsor