AR Sponsor
Posted: 1/30/2014 3:01:27 AM EDT
| Anyone know any vendors selling complete pistol lowers that are ACTUALLY in stock? Looking to build a truck gun so it doesn't need to be crazy high end will act as a place holder while my lower waits for the ATF approval. |
|
Fall out has 3
They seem a little pricey, but I didn't look at the specs. There was a poly pistol lower not mentioned here either assuming you don't want poly. 1 with Sig Brace 2 3 Ar15 parts finder.com.. go to complete lowers and type pistol. |
|
Quoted:
A stripped lower may become a pistol lower or rifle lower. It may not become a pistol after having been a rifle. However, a pistol lower may become a rifle and then revert back to a pistol. Stripped lower -> Pistol -> Rifle -> Pistol Stripped lower -> Rifle Is this 100% the right way to inform people of this? Isnt it more a stripped lower sold as "other firearm" on the 4373 maybe built as a rifle or a pistol at any time as long as it does not infringe upon the nfa. Also if I have a stripped lower that came from a rifle (designated as such on the 4473) then it is not to be built as a pistol . Or if I have a lower sold as a pistol (designated on the 4473) then it may be set up as either at any time as long as you do not infringe on the nfa. Also a virgin stripped lower that is new even with a rifle stock should be sold as "other firearm". If I am wrong please let me know. Thanks. |
|
Quoted:
Is this 100% the right way to inform people of this? Isnt it more a stripped lower sold as "other firearm" on the 4373 maybe built as a rifle or a pistol at any time as long as it does not infringe upon the nfa. Quoted:
Quoted:
A stripped lower may become a pistol lower or rifle lower. It may not become a pistol after having been a rifle. However, a pistol lower may become a rifle and then revert back to a pistol. Stripped lower -> Pistol -> Rifle -> Pistol Stripped lower -> Rifle Is this 100% the right way to inform people of this? Isnt it more a stripped lower sold as "other firearm" on the 4373 maybe built as a rifle or a pistol at any time as long as it does not infringe upon the nfa. What the FFL notates on 4473 does not determine the legality of a firearm. As a matter of fact, a FFL is required to transfer a used lower as "other firearm" -- however, if that lower were first made as a rifle purchased by or made by the first owner, it would still be illegal to make into a pistol. If he mistakenly notates a virgin lower as "long gun", that does not make it so. Also, no lowers were notated as "other firearm" before 2008 because that classification did not exist on 4473, yet they are still as legal to initially make into pistols under the ruling as any other ones, whether they were first transferred as "long gun" or "handgun". The ruling by SCOTUS is clear. Any receiver FIRST built as a handgun may go back and forth between legal handgun and legal long gun. One first built as a long gun must stay a long gun. The burden of proof might include various elements, but what an FFL puts on a 4473 is not at all conclusive. - OS |
|
Quoted:
What the FFL notates on 4473 does not determine the legality of a firearm. As a matter of fact, a FFL is required to transfer a used lower as "other firearm" -- however, if that lower were first made as a rifle purchased by or made by the first owner, it would still be illegal to make into a pistol. If he mistakenly notates a virgin lower as "long gun", that does not make it so. Also, no lowers were notated as "other firearm" before 2008 because that classification did not exist on 4473, yet they are still as legal to initially make into pistols under the ruling as any other ones, whether they were first transferred as "long gun" or "handgun". The ruling by SCOTUS is clear. Any receiver FIRST built as a handgun may go back and forth between legal handgun and legal long gun. One first built as a long gun must stay a long gun. The burden of proof might include various elements, but what an FFL puts on a 4473 is not at all conclusive. - OS Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
A stripped lower may become a pistol lower or rifle lower. It may not become a pistol after having been a rifle. However, a pistol lower may become a rifle and then revert back to a pistol. Stripped lower -> Pistol -> Rifle -> Pistol Stripped lower -> Rifle Is this 100% the right way to inform people of this? Isnt it more a stripped lower sold as "other firearm" on the 4373 maybe built as a rifle or a pistol at any time as long as it does not infringe upon the nfa. What the FFL notates on 4473 does not determine the legality of a firearm. As a matter of fact, a FFL is required to transfer a used lower as "other firearm" -- however, if that lower were first made as a rifle purchased by or made by the first owner, it would still be illegal to make into a pistol. If he mistakenly notates a virgin lower as "long gun", that does not make it so. Also, no lowers were notated as "other firearm" before 2008 because that classification did not exist on 4473, yet they are still as legal to initially make into pistols under the ruling as any other ones, whether they were first transferred as "long gun" or "handgun". The ruling by SCOTUS is clear. Any receiver FIRST built as a handgun may go back and forth between legal handgun and legal long gun. One first built as a long gun must stay a long gun. The burden of proof might include various elements, but what an FFL puts on a 4473 is not at all conclusive. - OS Thanks for making that clear though it is just silly! More stupid laws that are impossible to enforce. How does anyone know how I assembled the firearm the first time while in the privacy of my own home? Seeing how my pistol may have a regular carbine buffer tube does the fact that I building it without a stock but with a 16" barrel make it a pistol? |
|
Quoted:
Thanks for making that clear though it is just silly! More stupid laws that are impossible to enforce. How does anyone know how I assembled the firearm the first time while in the privacy of my own home? Seeing how my pistol may have a regular carbine buffer tube does the fact that I building it without a stock but with a 16" barrel make it a pistol? Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
A stripped lower may become a pistol lower or rifle lower. It may not become a pistol after having been a rifle. However, a pistol lower may become a rifle and then revert back to a pistol. Stripped lower -> Pistol -> Rifle -> Pistol Stripped lower -> Rifle Is this 100% the right way to inform people of this? Isnt it more a stripped lower sold as "other firearm" on the 4373 maybe built as a rifle or a pistol at any time as long as it does not infringe upon the nfa. What the FFL notates on 4473 does not determine the legality of a firearm. As a matter of fact, a FFL is required to transfer a used lower as "other firearm" -- however, if that lower were first made as a rifle purchased by or made by the first owner, it would still be illegal to make into a pistol. If he mistakenly notates a virgin lower as "long gun", that does not make it so. Also, no lowers were notated as "other firearm" before 2008 because that classification did not exist on 4473, yet they are still as legal to initially make into pistols under the ruling as any other ones, whether they were first transferred as "long gun" or "handgun". The ruling by SCOTUS is clear. Any receiver FIRST built as a handgun may go back and forth between legal handgun and legal long gun. One first built as a long gun must stay a long gun. The burden of proof might include various elements, but what an FFL puts on a 4473 is not at all conclusive. - OS Thanks for making that clear though it is just silly! More stupid laws that are impossible to enforce. How does anyone know how I assembled the firearm the first time while in the privacy of my own home? Seeing how my pistol may have a regular carbine buffer tube does the fact that I building it without a stock but with a 16" barrel make it a pistol? One could argue that with any AR build, as long as the stock goes on last, one has always first built a pistol, eh? But the point is that actually assembling a receiver as a rifle first or not is the determiner for legality of making it a pistol, but the 4473 is not definitive. Obviously if the serial number doesn't trace back to a manufacturer who first released it as a rifle, it would be a tough burden of proof to show what was done in your basement. Of course, there are lots of stupid people, and between FB pages, YouTube vids, and testimony from a friend who is in a bind to rat somebody out, I suppose the case could be made. :) - OS |
|
Quoted:
One could argue that with any AR build, as long as the stock goes on last, one has always first built a pistol, eh? But the point is that actually assembling a receiver as a rifle first or not is the determiner for legality of making it a pistol, but the 4473 is not definitive. Obviously if the serial number doesn't trace back to a manufacturer who first released it as a rifle, it would be a tough burden of proof to show what was done in your basement. Of course, there are lots of stupid people, and between FB pages, YouTube vids, and testimony from a friend who is in a bind to rat somebody out, I suppose the case could be made. :) - OS Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
A stripped lower may become a pistol lower or rifle lower. It may not become a pistol after having been a rifle. However, a pistol lower may become a rifle and then revert back to a pistol. Stripped lower -> Pistol -> Rifle -> Pistol Stripped lower -> Rifle Is this 100% the right way to inform people of this? Isnt it more a stripped lower sold as "other firearm" on the 4373 maybe built as a rifle or a pistol at any time as long as it does not infringe upon the nfa. What the FFL notates on 4473 does not determine the legality of a firearm. As a matter of fact, a FFL is required to transfer a used lower as "other firearm" -- however, if that lower were first made as a rifle purchased by or made by the first owner, it would still be illegal to make into a pistol. If he mistakenly notates a virgin lower as "long gun", that does not make it so. Also, no lowers were notated as "other firearm" before 2008 because that classification did not exist on 4473, yet they are still as legal to initially make into pistols under the ruling as any other ones, whether they were first transferred as "long gun" or "handgun". The ruling by SCOTUS is clear. Any receiver FIRST built as a handgun may go back and forth between legal handgun and legal long gun. One first built as a long gun must stay a long gun. The burden of proof might include various elements, but what an FFL puts on a 4473 is not at all conclusive. - OS Thanks for making that clear though it is just silly! More stupid laws that are impossible to enforce. How does anyone know how I assembled the firearm the first time while in the privacy of my own home? Seeing how my pistol may have a regular carbine buffer tube does the fact that I building it without a stock but with a 16" barrel make it a pistol? One could argue that with any AR build, as long as the stock goes on last, one has always first built a pistol, eh? But the point is that actually assembling a receiver as a rifle first or not is the determiner for legality of making it a pistol, but the 4473 is not definitive. Obviously if the serial number doesn't trace back to a manufacturer who first released it as a rifle, it would be a tough burden of proof to show what was done in your basement. Of course, there are lots of stupid people, and between FB pages, YouTube vids, and testimony from a friend who is in a bind to rat somebody out, I suppose the case could be made. :) - OS If a receiver that is first assembled as a pistol then may be built as a rifle. I would like to see any manufacturers build process because installing the buffer tube without a stock basically validates it as a pistol first before it is a rifle. I think this would be a good argument in a denfense, possible. |
|
Quoted: If a receiver that is first assembled as a pistol then may be built as a rifle. I would like to see any manufacturers build process because installing the buffer tube without a stock basically validates it as a pistol first before it is a rifle. I think this would be a good argument in a denfense, possible. Quoted: Quoted: One could argue that with any AR build, as long as the stock goes on last, one has always first built a pistol, eh? But the point is that actually assembling a receiver as a rifle first or not is the determiner for legality of making it a pistol, but the 4473 is not definitive. Obviously if the serial number doesn't trace back to a manufacturer who first released it as a rifle, it would be a tough burden of proof to show what was done in your basement. Of course, there are lots of stupid people, and between FB pages, YouTube vids, and testimony from a friend who is in a bind to rat somebody out, I suppose the case could be made. :) - OS If a receiver that is first assembled as a pistol then may be built as a rifle. I would like to see any manufacturers build process because installing the buffer tube without a stock basically validates it as a pistol first before it is a rifle. I think this would be a good argument in a denfense, possible. |
|
Quoted:
<snip> If a receiver that is first assembled as a pistol then may be built as a rifle. I would like to see any manufacturers build process because installing the buffer tube without a stock basically validates it as a pistol first before it is a rifle. I think this would be a good argument in a denfense, possible. Disclaimer: I have never worked at a company that does large scale manufacturing of AR-15s, but I have assembled many from parts kits. Thinking of large scale manufacturing of AR firearms, I would think it would be most efficient for the company to build complete lowers and complete uppers, as separate assemblies, then mate the two halves as the last step. If this is done, then the assembled firearm was never a pistol. I think this is most efficient because for many AR manufacturers, the lower half may be standardized, with only the upper being different between specific models of rifles. Thus, a company may have only two standard lowers (M4 and fixed A2 styles), with smaller runs of specialty lowers (pistol, upgraded triggers, etc.). |
|
Quoted:
No it wouldn't. If the manufacture intended it to be fired from the shoulder (i.e. a rifle )when it was made it is a rifle regardless of assembly process. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
One could argue that with any AR build, as long as the stock goes on last, one has always first built a pistol, eh? But the point is that actually assembling a receiver as a rifle first or not is the determiner for legality of making it a pistol, but the 4473 is not definitive. Obviously if the serial number doesn't trace back to a manufacturer who first released it as a rifle, it would be a tough burden of proof to show what was done in your basement. Of course, there are lots of stupid people, and between FB pages, YouTube vids, and testimony from a friend who is in a bind to rat somebody out, I suppose the case could be made. :) - OS If a receiver that is first assembled as a pistol then may be built as a rifle. I would like to see any manufacturers build process because installing the buffer tube without a stock basically validates it as a pistol first before it is a rifle. I think this would be a good argument in a denfense, possible. No it wouldn't. If the manufacture intended it to be fired from the shoulder (i.e. a rifle )when it was made it is a rifle regardless of assembly process. I am not sure the intent of the manufacturer is applied here. If so than you could go back and say Stoner/Sullivan never intended it to be firedd as a pistol ;-). I intended to build my receiver as a pistol but because I have the parts and wanted to see how it fires I built it as a rifle first and post a picture and now I am in trouble. |
|
Quoted:
Disclaimer: I have never worked at a company that does large scale manufacturing of AR-15s, but I have assembled many from parts kits. Thinking of large scale manufacturing of AR firearms, I would think it would be most efficient for the company to build complete lowers and complete uppers, as separate assemblies, then mate the two halves as the last step. If this is done, then the assembled firearm was never a pistol. I think this is most efficient because for many AR manufacturers, the lower half may be standardized, with only the upper being different between specific models of rifles. Thus, a company may have only two standard lowers (M4 and fixed A2 styles), with smaller runs of specialty lowers (pistol, upgraded triggers, etc.). Quoted:
Quoted:
<snip> If a receiver that is first assembled as a pistol then may be built as a rifle. I would like to see any manufacturers build process because installing the buffer tube without a stock basically validates it as a pistol first before it is a rifle. I think this would be a good argument in a denfense, possible. Disclaimer: I have never worked at a company that does large scale manufacturing of AR-15s, but I have assembled many from parts kits. Thinking of large scale manufacturing of AR firearms, I would think it would be most efficient for the company to build complete lowers and complete uppers, as separate assemblies, then mate the two halves as the last step. If this is done, then the assembled firearm was never a pistol. I think this is most efficient because for many AR manufacturers, the lower half may be standardized, with only the upper being different between specific models of rifles. Thus, a company may have only two standard lowers (M4 and fixed A2 styles), with smaller runs of specialty lowers (pistol, upgraded triggers, etc.). I probably agree that the upper and lowers are built at different times, maybe even in different buildings. I really dont think this matters though. If the lower is built by first assembling the buffer tube without a stock then in essencience it was first built as a pistol regardless of the intent of the manufacturer. It basically comes down to what is the single act that creates a pistol versus a rifle. I believe it is the assembly and regardless of your desired intent the process of that assembly is what consistutes the crime. These are just my thoughts until my day in court they will remain just that from me. |
|
Quoted: I am not sure the intent of the manufacturer is applied here. If so than you could go back and say Stoner/Sullivan never intended it to be firedd as a pistol ;-). I intended to build my receiver as a pistol but because I have the parts and wanted to see how it fires I built it as a rifle first and post a picture and now I am in trouble. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: One could argue that with any AR build, as long as the stock goes on last, one has always first built a pistol, eh? But the point is that actually assembling a receiver as a rifle first or not is the determiner for legality of making it a pistol, but the 4473 is not definitive. Obviously if the serial number doesn't trace back to a manufacturer who first released it as a rifle, it would be a tough burden of proof to show what was done in your basement. Of course, there are lots of stupid people, and between FB pages, YouTube vids, and testimony from a friend who is in a bind to rat somebody out, I suppose the case could be made. :) - OS If a receiver that is first assembled as a pistol then may be built as a rifle. I would like to see any manufacturers build process because installing the buffer tube without a stock basically validates it as a pistol first before it is a rifle. I think this would be a good argument in a denfense, possible. No it wouldn't. If the manufacture intended it to be fired from the shoulder (i.e. a rifle )when it was made it is a rifle regardless of assembly process. I am not sure the intent of the manufacturer is applied here. If so than you could go back and say Stoner/Sullivan never intended it to be firedd as a pistol ;-). I intended to build my receiver as a pistol but because I have the parts and wanted to see how it fires I built it as a rifle first and post a picture and now I am in trouble. Tying to argue in court that it was first built as a pistol because the manufacturer installed the stock last would get you laughed right out of the courtroom. Title 27: Alcohol, Tobacco Products, and Firearms CHAPTER II: BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS, AND EXPLOSIVES, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE SUBCHAPTER B: FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION PART 478: COMMERCE IN FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION Subpart B: Definitions 478.11 - Meaning of terms. "Rifle. A weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder, and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed metallic cartridge to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger." |
|
Quoted:
Design and intent of the manufacture is everything. Stoner/Sullivan is not/are not/were not the manufacture. If Noveske or Colt or Armalite, for instance, makes a firearm they are the manufacturer and if the design and intent of their firearm is that it be fired from the shoulder then it is a rifle regardless of the order of assembly. Tying to argue in court that it was first built as a pistol because the manufacturer installed the stock last would get you laughed right out of the courtroom. Title 27: Alcohol, Tobacco Products, and Firearms CHAPTER II: BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS, AND EXPLOSIVES, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE SUBCHAPTER B: FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION PART 478: COMMERCE IN FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION Subpart B: Definitions 478.11 - Meaning of terms. "Rifle. A weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder, and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed metallic cartridge to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger." Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
One could argue that with any AR build, as long as the stock goes on last, one has always first built a pistol, eh? But the point is that actually assembling a receiver as a rifle first or not is the determiner for legality of making it a pistol, but the 4473 is not definitive. Obviously if the serial number doesn't trace back to a manufacturer who first released it as a rifle, it would be a tough burden of proof to show what was done in your basement. Of course, there are lots of stupid people, and between FB pages, YouTube vids, and testimony from a friend who is in a bind to rat somebody out, I suppose the case could be made. :) - OS If a receiver that is first assembled as a pistol then may be built as a rifle. I would like to see any manufacturers build process because installing the buffer tube without a stock basically validates it as a pistol first before it is a rifle. I think this would be a good argument in a denfense, possible. No it wouldn't. If the manufacture intended it to be fired from the shoulder (i.e. a rifle )when it was made it is a rifle regardless of assembly process. I am not sure the intent of the manufacturer is applied here. If so than you could go back and say Stoner/Sullivan never intended it to be firedd as a pistol ;-). I intended to build my receiver as a pistol but because I have the parts and wanted to see how it fires I built it as a rifle first and post a picture and now I am in trouble. Tying to argue in court that it was first built as a pistol because the manufacturer installed the stock last would get you laughed right out of the courtroom. Title 27: Alcohol, Tobacco Products, and Firearms CHAPTER II: BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS, AND EXPLOSIVES, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE SUBCHAPTER B: FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION PART 478: COMMERCE IN FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION Subpart B: Definitions 478.11 - Meaning of terms. "Rifle. A weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder, and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed metallic cartridge to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger." So I buy a reciever and my intent is to build it as a pistol, yet because I have the current parts to assemble a rifle I do. I have broken the law if i take it back to a pistol even though my original intent was to build a pistol? Yet if I first assemble said reciever as a pistol; reciever, carbine buffer tube, and a 16" barrel thus a pistol. Then that is not breaking the law to install a stock and then later take it to a pistol? Because I fist assembled it as a pistol? How is it not about the order of assembly? |
|
Quoted: So I buy a reciever and my intent is to build it as a pistol, yet because I have the current parts to assemble a rifle I do. I have broken the law if i take it back to a pistol even though my original intent was to build a pistol? Yet if I first assemble said reciever as a pistol; reciever, carbine buffer tube, and a 16" barrel thus a pistol. Then that is not breaking the law to install a stock and then later take it to a pistol? Because I fist assembled it as a pistol? How is it not about the order of assembly? Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: If a receiver that is first assembled as a pistol then may be built as a rifle. I would like to see any manufacturers build process because installing the buffer tube without a stock basically validates it as a pistol first before it is a rifle. I think this would be a good argument in a denfense, possible. No it wouldn't. If the manufacture intended it to be fired from the shoulder (i.e. a rifle )when it was made it is a rifle regardless of assembly process. I am not sure the intent of the manufacturer is applied here. If so than you could go back and say Stoner/Sullivan never intended it to be firedd as a pistol ;-). I intended to build my receiver as a pistol but because I have the parts and wanted to see how it fires I built it as a rifle first and post a picture and now I am in trouble. Tying to argue in court that it was first built as a pistol because the manufacturer installed the stock last would get you laughed right out of the courtroom. Title 27: Alcohol, Tobacco Products, and Firearms CHAPTER II: BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS, AND EXPLOSIVES, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE SUBCHAPTER B: FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION PART 478: COMMERCE IN FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION Subpart B: Definitions 478.11 - Meaning of terms. "Rifle. A weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder, and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed metallic cartridge to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger." So I buy a reciever and my intent is to build it as a pistol, yet because I have the current parts to assemble a rifle I do. I have broken the law if i take it back to a pistol even though my original intent was to build a pistol? Yet if I first assemble said reciever as a pistol; reciever, carbine buffer tube, and a 16" barrel thus a pistol. Then that is not breaking the law to install a stock and then later take it to a pistol? Because I fist assembled it as a pistol? How is it not about the order of assembly? A pistol must be built as a pistol from the start. In your example if you first assemble a rifle on your newly bought lower then yes you have broken the law if you later use the lower to build a pistol. The second part of your example is a gray area to put it mildly. It would all depend on the intent of your build and also your state law. Some states stipulate barrel length, Tennessee for example a pistol or handgun has a barrel not more than 12", so you may not be able to legally build a 16" barreled pistol in your state to begin with. In this case State law does supersede Federal Law. in other words, if you build an illegal firearm, according to your state law, in your state the Federal government will also consider it illegal. That is why some states cannot have NFA weapons even though they are federally legal to own. In any case the original question was if a manufacture, such as Colt, assembles the firearm and puts the stock on last would that be a defense to building a pistol from a factory rifle. That answer is no. |
|
Quoted:
I probably agree that the upper and lowers are built at different times, maybe even in different buildings. I really dont think this matters though. If the lower is built by first assembling the buffer tube without a stock then in essencience it was first built as a pistol regardless of the intent of the manufacturer. It basically comes down to what is the single act that creates a pistol versus a rifle. I believe it is the assembly and regardless of your desired intent the process of that assembly is what consistutes the crime. These are just my thoughts until my day in court they will remain just that from me. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
<snip> If a receiver that is first assembled as a pistol then may be built as a rifle. I would like to see any manufacturers build process because installing the buffer tube without a stock basically validates it as a pistol first before it is a rifle. I think this would be a good argument in a denfense, possible. Disclaimer: I have never worked at a company that does large scale manufacturing of AR-15s, but I have assembled many from parts kits. Thinking of large scale manufacturing of AR firearms, I would think it would be most efficient for the company to build complete lowers and complete uppers, as separate assemblies, then mate the two halves as the last step. If this is done, then the assembled firearm was never a pistol. I think this is most efficient because for many AR manufacturers, the lower half may be standardized, with only the upper being different between specific models of rifles. Thus, a company may have only two standard lowers (M4 and fixed A2 styles), with smaller runs of specialty lowers (pistol, upgraded triggers, etc.). I probably agree that the upper and lowers are built at different times, maybe even in different buildings. I really dont think this matters though. If the lower is built by first assembling the buffer tube without a stock then in essencience it was first built as a pistol regardless of the intent of the manufacturer. It basically comes down to what is the single act that creates a pistol versus a rifle. I believe it is the assembly and regardless of your desired intent the process of that assembly is what consistutes the crime. These are just my thoughts until my day in court they will remain just that from me. Your example is flawed. A lower being assembled is NEVER anything but a receiver until an upper is attached. Example of steps of assembling a lower receiver: Step 1: Lower assembled without buffer tube or stock and without upper: status is receiver. Step 2: Buffer tube is added, still without stock or upper: status is still receiver. Step 3: Stock is added, still without upper: status is still receiver. Step 4: Upper is added: status is rifle (if upper is 16" or greater barrel length) or SBR (if less than 16" barrel,length). Never in the above steps is the lower receiver EVER a pistol because an upper was never attached until after the stock was attached. A lower is always just a lower UNTIL an upper is added, then it becomes a rifle, pistol SBR, etc. For a receiver to become a pistol, the assembly order would need to be step 1, step 2, SKIP step 3, then do step 4. Not likely if lowers and uppers were being assembled separately. Edited for clarity. |
|
Quoted:
What the FFL notates on 4473 does not determine the legality of a firearm. As a matter of fact, a FFL is required to transfer a used lower as "other firearm" -- however, if that lower were first made as a rifle purchased by or made by the first owner, it would still be illegal to make into a pistol. If he mistakenly notates a virgin lower as "long gun", that does not make it so. Also, no lowers were notated as "other firearm" before 2008 because that classification did not exist on 4473, yet they are still as legal to initially make into pistols under the ruling as any other ones, whether they were first transferred as "long gun" or "handgun". The ruling by SCOTUS is clear. Any receiver FIRST built as a handgun may go back and forth between legal handgun and legal long gun. One first built as a long gun must stay a long gun. The burden of proof might include various elements, but what an FFL puts on a 4473 is not at all conclusive. - OS Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
A stripped lower may become a pistol lower or rifle lower. It may not become a pistol after having been a rifle. However, a pistol lower may become a rifle and then revert back to a pistol. Stripped lower -> Pistol -> Rifle -> Pistol Stripped lower -> Rifle Is this 100% the right way to inform people of this? Isnt it more a stripped lower sold as "other firearm" on the 4373 maybe built as a rifle or a pistol at any time as long as it does not infringe upon the nfa. What the FFL notates on 4473 does not determine the legality of a firearm. As a matter of fact, a FFL is required to transfer a used lower as "other firearm" -- however, if that lower were first made as a rifle purchased by or made by the first owner, it would still be illegal to make into a pistol. If he mistakenly notates a virgin lower as "long gun", that does not make it so. Also, no lowers were notated as "other firearm" before 2008 because that classification did not exist on 4473, yet they are still as legal to initially make into pistols under the ruling as any other ones, whether they were first transferred as "long gun" or "handgun". The ruling by SCOTUS is clear. Any receiver FIRST built as a handgun may go back and forth between legal handgun and legal long gun. One first built as a long gun must stay a long gun. The burden of proof might include various elements, but what an FFL puts on a 4473 is not at all conclusive. - OS And if the ATF is on their game, and they catch something logged out to him as a receiver, and logged out by him as a long gun, and it's NOT on his manufacturing report, or he's an 01, they're going to fuck him up. |
|
Quoted:
Your example is flawed. A lower being assembled is NEVER anything but a receiver until an upper is attached. Example of steps of assembling a lower receiver: Step 1: Lower assembled without buffer tube or stock and without upper: status is receiver. Step 2: Buffer tube is added, still without stock or upper: status is still receiver. Step 3: Stock is added, still without upper: status is still receiver. Step 4: Upper is added: status is rifle (if upper is 16" or greater barrel length) or SBR (if less than 16" barrel,length). Never in the above steps is the lower receiver EVER a pistol because an upper was never attached until after the stock was attached. A lower is always just a lower UNTIL an upper is added, then it becomes a rifle, pistol SBR, etc. For a receiver to become a pistol, the assembly order would need to be step 1, step 2, SKIP step 3, then do step 4. Not likely if lowers and uppers were being assembled separately. Edited for clarity. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
<snip> If a receiver that is first assembled as a pistol then may be built as a rifle. I would like to see any manufacturers build process because installing the buffer tube without a stock basically validates it as a pistol first before it is a rifle. I think this would be a good argument in a denfense, possible. Disclaimer: I have never worked at a company that does large scale manufacturing of AR-15s, but I have assembled many from parts kits. Thinking of large scale manufacturing of AR firearms, I would think it would be most efficient for the company to build complete lowers and complete uppers, as separate assemblies, then mate the two halves as the last step. If this is done, then the assembled firearm was never a pistol. I think this is most efficient because for many AR manufacturers, the lower half may be standardized, with only the upper being different between specific models of rifles. Thus, a company may have only two standard lowers (M4 and fixed A2 styles), with smaller runs of specialty lowers (pistol, upgraded triggers, etc.). I probably agree that the upper and lowers are built at different times, maybe even in different buildings. I really dont think this matters though. If the lower is built by first assembling the buffer tube without a stock then in essencience it was first built as a pistol regardless of the intent of the manufacturer. It basically comes down to what is the single act that creates a pistol versus a rifle. I believe it is the assembly and regardless of your desired intent the process of that assembly is what consistutes the crime. These are just my thoughts until my day in court they will remain just that from me. Your example is flawed. A lower being assembled is NEVER anything but a receiver until an upper is attached. Example of steps of assembling a lower receiver: Step 1: Lower assembled without buffer tube or stock and without upper: status is receiver. Step 2: Buffer tube is added, still without stock or upper: status is still receiver. Step 3: Stock is added, still without upper: status is still receiver. Step 4: Upper is added: status is rifle (if upper is 16" or greater barrel length) or SBR (if less than 16" barrel,length). Never in the above steps is the lower receiver EVER a pistol because an upper was never attached until after the stock was attached. A lower is always just a lower UNTIL an upper is added, then it becomes a rifle, pistol SBR, etc. For a receiver to become a pistol, the assembly order would need to be step 1, step 2, SKIP step 3, then do step 4. Not likely if lowers and uppers were being assembled separately. Edited for clarity. Switch 3 and 4 in your example with a 16" barreled upper. Did u build a pistol first and then a rifle? (Assuming your allowed 16" barrelled pistols in your state). Does anyone know the assembly process of a major manufacturer? |
|
Quoted:
Switch 3 and 4 in your example with a 16" barreled upper. Did u build a pistol first and then a rifle? (Assuming your allowed 16" barrelled pistols in your state). Does anyone know the assembly process of a major manufacturer? Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
<snip> If a receiver that is first assembled as a pistol then may be built as a rifle. I would like to see any manufacturers build process because installing the buffer tube without a stock basically validates it as a pistol first before it is a rifle. I think this would be a good argument in a denfense, possible. Disclaimer: I have never worked at a company that does large scale manufacturing of AR-15s, but I have assembled many from parts kits. Thinking of large scale manufacturing of AR firearms, I would think it would be most efficient for the company to build complete lowers and complete uppers, as separate assemblies, then mate the two halves as the last step. If this is done, then the assembled firearm was never a pistol. I think this is most efficient because for many AR manufacturers, the lower half may be standardized, with only the upper being different between specific models of rifles. Thus, a company may have only two standard lowers (M4 and fixed A2 styles), with smaller runs of specialty lowers (pistol, upgraded triggers, etc.). I probably agree that the upper and lowers are built at different times, maybe even in different buildings. I really dont think this matters though. If the lower is built by first assembling the buffer tube without a stock then in essencience it was first built as a pistol regardless of the intent of the manufacturer. It basically comes down to what is the single act that creates a pistol versus a rifle. I believe it is the assembly and regardless of your desired intent the process of that assembly is what consistutes the crime. These are just my thoughts until my day in court they will remain just that from me. Your example is flawed. A lower being assembled is NEVER anything but a receiver until an upper is attached. Example of steps of assembling a lower receiver: Step 1: Lower assembled without buffer tube or stock and without upper: status is receiver. Step 2: Buffer tube is added, still without stock or upper: status is still receiver. Step 3: Stock is added, still without upper: status is still receiver. Step 4: Upper is added: status is rifle (if upper is 16" or greater barrel length) or SBR (if less than 16" barrel,length). Never in the above steps is the lower receiver EVER a pistol because an upper was never attached until after the stock was attached. A lower is always just a lower UNTIL an upper is added, then it becomes a rifle, pistol SBR, etc. For a receiver to become a pistol, the assembly order would need to be step 1, step 2, SKIP step 3, then do step 4. Not likely if lowers and uppers were being assembled separately. Edited for clarity. Switch 3 and 4 in your example with a 16" barreled upper. Did u build a pistol first and then a rifle? (Assuming your allowed 16" barrelled pistols in your state). Does anyone know the assembly process of a major manufacturer? Yes, if steps 3 and 4 are switched, a pistol would have been built first. But I cannot see why a manufacturer would do that. It makes far more sense to make complete lower receiver assemblies and separate upper receiver assemblies, then mate them at the end. |
|
Quoted: Yes, if steps 3 and 4 are switched, a pistol would have been built first. But I cannot see why a manufacturer would do that. It makes far more sense to make complete lower receiver assemblies and separate upper receiver assemblies, then mate them at the end. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Your example is flawed. A lower being assembled is NEVER anything but a receiver until an upper is attached. Example of steps of assembling a lower receiver: Step 1: Lower assembled without buffer tube or stock and without upper: status is receiver. Step 2: Buffer tube is added, still without stock or upper: status is still receiver. Step 3: Stock is added, still without upper: status is still receiver. Step 4: Upper is added: status is rifle (if upper is 16" or greater barrel length) or SBR (if less than 16" barrel,length). Never in the above steps is the lower receiver EVER a pistol because an upper was never attached until after the stock was attached. A lower is always just a lower UNTIL an upper is added, then it becomes a rifle, pistol SBR, etc. For a receiver to become a pistol, the assembly order would need to be step 1, step 2, SKIP step 3, then do step 4. Not likely if lowers and uppers were being assembled separately. Edited for clarity. Switch 3 and 4 in your example with a 16" barreled upper. Did u build a pistol first and then a rifle? (Assuming your allowed 16" barrelled pistols in your state). Does anyone know the assembly process of a major manufacturer? Yes, if steps 3 and 4 are switched, a pistol would have been built first. But I cannot see why a manufacturer would do that. It makes far more sense to make complete lower receiver assemblies and separate upper receiver assemblies, then mate them at the end. No it wouldn't. The finished product is a rifle. It will go to the FFL as a rifle and it will be sold as a rifle. At no time was it ever originally designed and intended to fired when held in one hand. It was never a pistol and can never be one. 26 U.S.C. Chapter 53. Pistol. A weapon originally designed, made, and intended to fire a projectile (bullet) from one or more barrels when held in one hand, and having (a) a chamber(s) as an integral part(s) of, or permanently aligned with, the bore(s); and (b) a short stock designed to be gripped by one hand and at an angle to and extending below the line of the bore(s). |
|
Quoted:
No it wouldn't. The finished product is a rifle. It will go to the FFL as a rifle and it will be sold as a rifle. At no time was it ever originally designed and intended to fired when held in one hand. It was never a pistol and can never be one. 26 U.S.C. Chapter 53. Pistol. A weapon originally designed, made, and intended to fire a projectile (bullet) from one or more barrels when held in one hand, and having (a) a chamber(s) as an integral part(s) of, or permanently aligned with, the bore(s); and (b) a short stock designed to be gripped by one hand and at an angle to and extending below the line of the bore(s). Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Your example is flawed. A lower being assembled is NEVER anything but a receiver until an upper is attached. Example of steps of assembling a lower receiver: Step 1: Lower assembled without buffer tube or stock and without upper: status is receiver. Step 2: Buffer tube is added, still without stock or upper: status is still receiver. Step 3: Stock is added, still without upper: status is still receiver. Step 4: Upper is added: status is rifle (if upper is 16" or greater barrel length) or SBR (if less than 16" barrel,length). Never in the above steps is the lower receiver EVER a pistol because an upper was never attached until after the stock was attached. A lower is always just a lower UNTIL an upper is added, then it becomes a rifle, pistol SBR, etc. For a receiver to become a pistol, the assembly order would need to be step 1, step 2, SKIP step 3, then do step 4. Not likely if lowers and uppers were being assembled separately. Edited for clarity. Switch 3 and 4 in your example with a 16" barreled upper. Did u build a pistol first and then a rifle? (Assuming your allowed 16" barrelled pistols in your state). Does anyone know the assembly process of a major manufacturer? Yes, if steps 3 and 4 are switched, a pistol would have been built first. But I cannot see why a manufacturer would do that. It makes far more sense to make complete lower receiver assemblies and separate upper receiver assemblies, then mate them at the end. No it wouldn't. The finished product is a rifle. It will go to the FFL as a rifle and it will be sold as a rifle. At no time was it ever originally designed and intended to fired when held in one hand. It was never a pistol and can never be one. 26 U.S.C. Chapter 53. Pistol. A weapon originally designed, made, and intended to fire a projectile (bullet) from one or more barrels when held in one hand, and having (a) a chamber(s) as an integral part(s) of, or permanently aligned with, the bore(s); and (b) a short stock designed to be gripped by one hand and at an angle to and extending below the line of the bore(s). I think I understand this. For a manufacturer (manufacturing FFL) order of assembly does not matter; the end product determines status. For non-FFL, order of assembly does matter; the order of assembly (pistol or rifle first) determines status. |
|
Quoted: I think I understand this. For a manufacturer (manufacturing FFL) order of assembly does not matter; the end product determines status. For non-FFL, order of assembly does matter; the order of assembly (pistol or rifle first) determines status. A manufacture such as Colt never intended the firearm they manufactured to be fired when held in one hand. So even though they may put the stock on last it is never a pistol. The individual builder that decides to install the stock last to, in their mind, reserve the right to later build it into a pistol is mistaken. The firearm must be deigned and intended to be fired while held in one hand to be a pistol. Simply calling it a pistol because it doesn't have a stock on it yet does not meet that definition. They may intend to build it into a pistol at some time, but a pistol; i.e. being fired while held in one hand, is not the intent of the firearm they first build. Now I'm not saying that I know what the intent of the builder is but most of the posts on this forum revolve around trying to reserve the right to build a lower they have into a pistol by not installing a stock until the last moment and claiming it was built first as a pistol. Those individuals never intended their build to first be a pistol. Is this enforceable? No, not realistically. But that does not make it legal or right. Blatantly pushing the edges of law just because it would appear unenforceable will simply, in time, result in more law or regulation that will insure compliance or simply banning altogether. |
|
Quoted:
What the FFL notates on 4473 does not determine the legality of a firearm. As a matter of fact, a FFL is required to transfer a used lower as "other firearm" -- however, if that lower were first made as a rifle purchased by or made by the first owner, it would still be illegal to make into a pistol. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
A stripped lower may become a pistol lower or rifle lower. It may not become a pistol after having been a rifle. However, a pistol lower may become a rifle and then revert back to a pistol. Stripped lower -> Pistol -> Rifle -> Pistol Stripped lower -> Rifle Is this 100% the right way to inform people of this? Isnt it more a stripped lower sold as "other firearm" on the 4373 maybe built as a rifle or a pistol at any time as long as it does not infringe upon the nfa. What the FFL notates on 4473 does not determine the legality of a firearm. As a matter of fact, a FFL is required to transfer a used lower as "other firearm" -- however, if that lower were first made as a rifle purchased by or made by the first owner, it would still be illegal to make into a pistol. Considering there is absolutely no way to prove what the first owner did or had it setup as, I think this is bogus. If I were selling a lower I had originally built up to an ffl, or doing a trade, do you think I'd bother to tell him what it was setup as. No, as it's none of their business and their is 0 legal terms and reasons for me to let him know. Honestly if you get something from an FFL as stripped odds are there will be almost no way in hell you'd ever know if someone had assembled it as a rifle before. Personally for me either way it doesn't matter as I only buy new lowers, but just saying. A lot of this stuff is just beurocrats coming up with unprovable nonsense. Fyi, I'm not a lawyer and in no way will be held liable if someone follows what I say and gets boned by the law. Make your own judgement after contacting an attorney regarding your decision. |
|
Quoted:
Anyone know any vendors selling complete pistol lowers that are ACTUALLY in stock? Looking to build a truck gun so it doesn't need to be crazy high end will act as a place holder while my lower waits for the ATF approval. R-Guns has complete pistol lowers in stock now. www.rguns.net/rifles/rifles-semiauto-ar15-lowers-556rguns-nostock.shtml |
|
Quoted:
Well kind of. The determining factor here is the manufacturer's or in the case of individual, the builders original design and intent. A manufacture such as Colt never intended the firearm they manufactured to be fired when held in one hand. So even though they may put the stock on last it is never a pistol. The individual builder that decides to install the stock last to, in their mind, reserve the right to later build it into a pistol is mistaken. The firearm must be deigned and intended to be fired while held in one hand to be a pistol. Simply calling it a pistol because it doesn't have a stock on it yet does not meet that definition. They may intend to build it into a pistol at some time, but a pistol; i.e. being fired while held in one hand, is not the intent of the firearm they first build. Now I'm not saying that I know what the intent of the builder is but most of the posts on this forum revolve around trying to reserve the right to build a lower they have into a pistol by not installing a stock until the last moment and claiming it was built first as a pistol. Those individuals never intended their build to first be a pistol. Is this enforceable? No, not realistically. But that does not make it legal or right. Blatantly pushing the edges of law just because it would appear unenforceable will simply, in time, result in more law or regulation that will insure compliance or simply banning altogether. Quoted:
Quoted:
I think I understand this. For a manufacturer (manufacturing FFL) order of assembly does not matter; the end product determines status. For non-FFL, order of assembly does matter; the order of assembly (pistol or rifle first) determines status. A manufacture such as Colt never intended the firearm they manufactured to be fired when held in one hand. So even though they may put the stock on last it is never a pistol. The individual builder that decides to install the stock last to, in their mind, reserve the right to later build it into a pistol is mistaken. The firearm must be deigned and intended to be fired while held in one hand to be a pistol. Simply calling it a pistol because it doesn't have a stock on it yet does not meet that definition. They may intend to build it into a pistol at some time, but a pistol; i.e. being fired while held in one hand, is not the intent of the firearm they first build. Now I'm not saying that I know what the intent of the builder is but most of the posts on this forum revolve around trying to reserve the right to build a lower they have into a pistol by not installing a stock until the last moment and claiming it was built first as a pistol. Those individuals never intended their build to first be a pistol. Is this enforceable? No, not realistically. But that does not make it legal or right. Blatantly pushing the edges of law just because it would appear unenforceable will simply, in time, result in more law or regulation that will insure compliance or simply banning altogether. Kind of the whole point I guess is that these victimless laws and crimes are senseless and need removed let alone any more created. The NFA infringes on every law abiding citizens firearms ownership right and needs to be repealed. As it is unenforcible. ~lj |
|
Hard part will be how the maker of the lower logs the thing...
Back when I did my pistol I had a nice long chat with RRA about the lower I had. The issue being that the lower was shipped out from their Rifle stock... I ended up using that lower for another build, and got one from LAR from their "pistol stock" and stamped "Pistol" on the side... 
|
AR Sponsor