Armory Sponsor
Posted: 11/17/2010 7:42:58 AM EDT
|
Who is keeping their pistol a pistol and will not make it a SBR.
This has probably been discussed. Quick question. Since the SBR started-out as pistol w/ a dedicated pistol Lower, it will cease to be a pistol or have the pistol status when you acquire a Tax Stamp making it a SBR. Or will it be a pistol and SBR? |
|
It wiil become a short barreled "rifle"........
I registered 1 lower and have 2 pistol lowers. 1 - because I have three uppers under 16" 2 - because you can keep a loaded pistol in a car here in NV 
3 - because its just not right to have "any" upper without a lower.............you dont store your Glock in 2 pieces?? 4 - lowers are fairly cheap So, yeah....my pistols stay pistols.........but the uppers may take the occasional ride on the SBR lower |
|
Quoted:
I will always have 1 pistol lower. I can carry it loaded in my vehicle and I can legally cross state lines to another free state. You can do that with an SBR, too, if you remove the stock and don't take it with you. The ATF treats it as a pistol for that purpose. |
|
I'm not following you on that. The lower is registered as an SBR regardless of having a stock or not.
To my knowledge, crossing state lines with an SBR without a letter notifying the BATF is still a no. But if you can show me where it is stated by the ATF, that's just one less thing to be concerned with.
Dave |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I will always have 1 pistol lower. I can carry it loaded in my vehicle and I can legally cross state lines to another free state. You can do that with an SBR, too, if you remove the stock and don't take it with you. The ATF treats it as a pistol for that purpose. That's actually not what any of the ATF letters I've read have said. There are several letters scanned which note that a virgin lower receiver which has never had a rifle upper and a stock simultaneously attached can be used as a pistol lower without engraving said lower as a pistol. They do note however that if a stock is on the lower but no barreled action attached while a stock was on the lower, the stock can still be removed and lower may then be used as a pistol lower. Lastly, if a lower receiver has been stocked and had a rifle action pinned in place, it is forever a Rifle lower, and any placement of an upper with a barreled action of less than 16" constitutes a Short Barrel Rifle according to NFA. SBR Tax must be paid at the point the owner of said lower wants to put a <16" barreled upper on said lower. Confusing isn't it? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I will always have 1 pistol lower. I can carry it loaded in my vehicle and I can legally cross state lines to another free state. You can do that with an SBR, too, if you remove the stock and don't take it with you. The ATF treats it as a pistol for that purpose. That's actually not what any of the ATF letters I've read have said. There are several letters scanned which note that a virgin lower receiver which has never had a rifle upper and a stock simultaneously attached can be used as a pistol lower without engraving said lower as a pistol. They do note however that if a stock is on the lower but no barreled action attached while a stock was on the lower, the stock can still be removed and lower may then be used as a pistol lower. Lastly, if a lower receiver has been stocked and had a rifle action pinned in place, it is forever a Rifle lower, and any placement of an upper with a barreled action of less than 16" constitutes a Short Barrel Rifle according to NFA. SBR Tax must be paid at the point the owner of said lower wants to put a <16" barreled upper on said lower. Confusing isn't it? Can you post that letter from ATF? So, once Stamped as a SBR, it can be a SBR and or a Pistol depending on if the Stock/Forward Grip is removed. I can not find where this is clearly spelled-out! Because there is a greater benefit to getting the Tax Stamp if you can have both worlds!! |
|
I can't find that specific letter but you guys can get the gist of what it means to be under NFA purview here:
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/national-firearms-act-short-barreled-rifles-shotguns.html#receiver-sale Essentially, an SBR is only an SBR when it has a stock and a short barrel (or if you have control of the parts to make one). In fact, you can sell a registered receiver as a pistol or a rifle without even informing the ATF (although they highly recommend it). |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I will always have 1 pistol lower. I can carry it loaded in my vehicle and I can legally cross state lines to another free state. You can do that with an SBR, too, if you remove the stock and don't take it with you. The ATF treats it as a pistol for that purpose. That's actually not what any of the ATF letters I've read have said. There are several letters scanned which note that a virgin lower receiver which has never had a rifle upper and a stock simultaneously attached can be used as a pistol lower without engraving said lower as a pistol. They do note however that if a stock is on the lower but no barreled action attached while a stock was on the lower, the stock can still be removed and lower may then be used as a pistol lower. Lastly, if a lower receiver has been stocked and had a rifle action pinned in place, it is forever a Rifle lower, and any placement of an upper with a barreled action of less than 16" constitutes a Short Barrel Rifle according to NFA. SBR Tax must be paid at the point the owner of said lower wants to put a <16" barreled upper on said lower. Confusing isn't it? You need to keep reading. A registered short barreled rifle can temporarily be any GCA firearm. |
|
I have a Sig 556P. I intend to keep it a pistol since it is the only firearm I can keep loaded in a motor vehicle in this state.
Some would say that a regular handgun would be better. However, with three interlocking magazines and the portability that this firearm affords one cannot ignore its advantages. My preference for a SHTF firearm would be an SBR or regular AR15 carbine. However, I cannot carry these in a vehicle in Ohio even with loaded magazines carried separately. Our political masters have redefined the definition of a loaded firearm in this state. Even if you have the loaded magazines in a locked box in a separate compartment in the vehicle a long gun is considered “loaded.” So, until I can legally carry a loaded long gun in my vehicle the AR15 type pistol will give me another tool to use should the SHTF. With good hearing protection, it is really fun to shoot. |
|
Quoted:
I can't find that specific letter but you guys can get the gist of what it means to be under NFA purview here: http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/national-firearms-act-short-barreled-rifles-shotguns.html#receiver-sale Essentially, an SBR is only an SBR when it has a stock and a short barrel (or if you have control of the parts to make one). In fact, you can sell a registered receiver as a pistol or a rifle without even informing the ATF (although they highly recommend it). However..., a "Weapon Made From a Rifle" is also a NFA firearm. If your SBR started life as a rifle then you can't just pull the stock off and call it a pistol without some paperwork and taxes. |
| Currently I have 4 'pistols' and two SBRs. I know I am keeping two lowers as pistols (already built up) and still have two more lowers that are not built yet so they might remain 'pistols' or end up as rifles, and two SBRs. I know I will keep two lowers as pistols since that way if I want to cross over into another state I can without getting permission first, but the SBRs are a lot more fun to shoot with the short uppers. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I can't find that specific letter but you guys can get the gist of what it means to be under NFA purview here: http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/national-firearms-act-short-barreled-rifles-shotguns.html#receiver-sale Essentially, an SBR is only an SBR when it has a stock and a short barrel (or if you have control of the parts to make one). In fact, you can sell a registered receiver as a pistol or a rifle without even informing the ATF (although they highly recommend it). However..., a "Weapon Made From a Rifle" is also a NFA firearm. If your SBR started life as a rifle then you can't just pull the stock off and call it a pistol without some paperwork and taxes. An NFA registered short barreled rifle without a stock is a pistol. You may travel with it as a pistol and you may sell it as a pistol without notifying anyone. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I can't find that specific letter but you guys can get the gist of what it means to be under NFA purview here: http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/national-firearms-act-short-barreled-rifles-shotguns.html#receiver-sale Essentially, an SBR is only an SBR when it has a stock and a short barrel (or if you have control of the parts to make one). In fact, you can sell a registered receiver as a pistol or a rifle without even informing the ATF (although they highly recommend it). However..., a "Weapon Made From a Rifle" is also a NFA firearm. If your SBR started life as a rifle then you can't just pull the stock off and call it a pistol without some paperwork and taxes. An NFA registered short barreled rifle without a stock is a pistol. You may travel with it as a pistol and you may sell it as a pistol without notifying anyone. A pistol that is converted to a SBR is now a rifle. It will be considered a violation if now being usd as a pistol (loaded = in your car/on your person). Local law enforcement can/will probably conficate your expensive weapon and ATF/BATF rule will be enforced. You can cross state lines if the ATF is notifieds in writing ahead of time! I do not know about other State-local/county officials. Dallas Coutny TX will act if you are tranporting a SBR lower as a pistol loaded. It is now a loaded Short Barrel rifle without the stock. It is a NO NO!!! You better check with your local law enforcement!!! PS do not think that your local law enforcement does not know what a pistol/SBR is. My Pistol was built by a local Constable!! |
|
A pistol that is converted to a short barreled rifle is not a rifle. It is a short barreled rifle. And there is nothing in the National Firearms Act that prevents converting a short barreled rifle into a pistol. But why would you register a firearm that's already registered? Duh.
Now, you can convert a rifle to a pistol. When you register a rifle converted to a pistol, it's treated as an AOW (any other weapon). What's nice about doing that is then you can switch back and forth from rifle to pistol any time you like (because it's registered). The cost for making/registering an AOW is $200 but you can transfer it to anyone for $5 and they will still have the ability to convert it back and forth. Unfortunately, it can never be a short barreled rifle without registering it as a such (which you should have done in the first place unless you're looking for the $5 transfer). Now, you can make your own SBR and it can be anything you want it to be. It can be a rifle, a pistol or a short barreled rifle. The only problem is that now, it'll cost you $200 to transfer. Unless, of course, the next owner doesn't want a short barreled rifle, then you can sell it as a pistol or a rifle. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I can't find that specific letter but you guys can get the gist of what it means to be under NFA purview here: http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/national-firearms-act-short-barreled-rifles-shotguns.html#receiver-sale Essentially, an SBR is only an SBR when it has a stock and a short barrel (or if you have control of the parts to make one). In fact, you can sell a registered receiver as a pistol or a rifle without even informing the ATF (although they highly recommend it). However..., a "Weapon Made From a Rifle" is also a NFA firearm. If your SBR started life as a rifle then you can't just pull the stock off and call it a pistol without some paperwork and taxes. An NFA registered short barreled rifle without a stock is a pistol. You may travel with it as a pistol and you may sell it as a pistol without notifying anyone. A pistol that is converted to a SBR is now a rifle. It will be considered a violation if now being usd as a pistol (loaded = in your car/on your person). Local law enforcement can/will probably conficate your expensive weapon and ATF/BATF rule will be enforced. You can cross state lines if the ATF is notifieds in writing ahead of time! I do not know about other State-local/county officials. Dallas Coutny TX will act if you are tranporting a SBR lower as a pistol loaded. It is now a loaded Short Barrel rifle without the stock. It is a NO NO!!! You better check with your local law enforcement!!! PS do not think that your local law enforcement does not know what a pistol/SBR is. My Pistol was built by a local Constable!! And what violation would they charge you with in TX? |
|
Quoted:
A pistol that is converted to a short barreled rifle is not a rifle. It is a short barreled rifle. And there is nothing in the National Firearms Act that prevents converting a short barreled rifle into a pistol. ... After a further reading of the NFA I think that you are correct, but your definitions are a bit off. A Short Barreled Rifle is a rifle and it is clearly defined as such in the NFA. When you remove the stock on your SBR you are not making it into a pistol. You are making it into a Weapon Made From a Rifle (same definition as SBR) and it is still a NFA firearm. However, a Weapon Made from a Rifle falls under the same definition as Short Barreled Rifle and thus shouldn't require any further registering since you would not be making a new type of NFA firearm. The ATF confuses this issue a bit by trying to define "Weapon Made From a Rifle" differently than "Short Barreled Rifle", even though they are legally the same thing. Now, if you were to change to a longer barrel then you would be converting into a non-NFA firearm, but simply removing the stock doesn't accomplish that. A quote from US Code TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 44 > § 921 - Definitions "The term “short-barreled rifle” means a rifle having one or more barrels less than sixteen inches in length and any weapon made from a rifle (whether by alteration, modification, or otherwise) if such weapon, as modified, has an overall length of less than twenty-six inches." |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I can't find that specific letter but you guys can get the gist of what it means to be under NFA purview here: http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/national-firearms-act-short-barreled-rifles-shotguns.html#receiver-sale Essentially, an SBR is only an SBR when it has a stock and a short barrel (or if you have control of the parts to make one). In fact, you can sell a registered receiver as a pistol or a rifle without even informing the ATF (although they highly recommend it). However..., a "Weapon Made From a Rifle" is also a NFA firearm. If your SBR started life as a rifle then you can't just pull the stock off and call it a pistol without some paperwork and taxes. An NFA registered short barreled rifle without a stock is a pistol. You may travel with it as a pistol and you may sell it as a pistol without notifying anyone. A pistol that is converted to a SBR is now a rifle. It will be considered a violation if now being usd as a pistol (loaded = in your car/on your person). Local law enforcement can/will probably conficate your expensive weapon and ATF/BATF rule will be enforced. You can cross state lines if the ATF is notifieds in writing ahead of time! I do not know about other State-local/county officials. Dallas Coutny TX will act if you are tranporting a SBR lower as a pistol loaded. It is now a loaded Short Barrel rifle without the stock. It is a NO NO!!! You better check with your local law enforcement!!! PS do not think that your local law enforcement does not know what a pistol/SBR is. My Pistol was built by a local Constable!! And what violation would they charge you with in TX? In Texas a Revolver can be carried legally in your car (granted that you are not a Felon). You can only carry a semi-auto self loading PISTOL in your car or on your person if you have a CHL (Conceal Hangun License - for those not in TX). Now a loaded rifle in your front-back seat carried as a pistol is going to get your weapon (expensive) taken w/ some possible jail and or Court time. You can not carriy a loaded Semi-auto Rifle in your car. Once you convert to a SBR and the Stock is temporally removed (placed in your bag-trunk) does not change that it is a Short Barreled rifle (SBR) You can have a SBR, just not carried in your car/on your person like a Revolver loaded ready to use for personal defense!! You can travel with your weapon to and from the gun range unloaded (best in the trunk). For Legality purposes (No finds & getting your property back) if you are carring in your car/person loaded, it better be just a pistol and not a SBR! |
|
Quoted:
<snip>You can only carry a semi-auto self loading PISTOL in your car or on your person if you have a CHL (Conceal Hangun License - for those not in TX). <snip> part in red –– false you do not have to have CHL for pistol in car....if you are a law abiding citizen then car carry is lawful as long as it remains concealed on your person –– yes, you have to have CHL as to the rest, i believe its been asked in Tx hometown forum, but too lazy too look it up right now. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
<snip>You can only carry a semi-auto self loading PISTOL in your car or on your person if you have a CHL (Conceal Hangun License - for those not in TX). <snip> part in red –– false you do not have to have CHL for pistol in car....if you are a law abiding citizen then car carry is lawful as long as it remains concealed on your person –– yes, you have to have CHL as to the rest, i believe its been asked in Tx hometown forum, but too lazy too look it up right now. You need to check Texas law (it only a Revover) that you can carry without a CHL, not a semi-auto pistol in your car. If that's the case then anyone can carry a semi-auto Pistol like a AR/AK in their automobile. You must have a CHL to carry these type of pistols (loaded - for defense) in your car. Call & check with your local PD/Sheriff dept! |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
A pistol that is converted to a short barreled rifle is not a rifle. It is a short barreled rifle. And there is nothing in the National Firearms Act that prevents converting a short barreled rifle into a pistol. ... After a further reading of the NFA I think that you are correct, but your definitions are a bit off. A Short Barreled Rifle is a rifle and it is clearly defined as such in the NFA. When you remove the stock on your SBR you are not making it into a pistol. You are making it into a Weapon Made From a Rifle (same definition as SBR) and it is still a NFA firearm. However, a Weapon Made from a Rifle falls under the same definition as Short Barreled Rifle and thus shouldn't require any further registering since you would not be making a new type of NFA firearm. The ATF confuses this issue a bit by trying to define "Weapon Made From a Rifle" differently than "Short Barreled Rifle", even though they are legally the same thing. Now, if you were to change to a longer barrel then you would be converting into a non-NFA firearm, but simply removing the stock doesn't accomplish that. A quote from US Code TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 44 > § 921 - Definitions "The term “short-barreled rifle” means a rifle having one or more barrels less than sixteen inches in length and any weapon made from a rifle (whether by alteration, modification, or otherwise) if such weapon, as modified, has an overall length of less than twenty-six inches." Nope. The ATF treats it as a pistol. There is no requirement to notify them when crossing state lines. Since they don't require notification, it's not an NFA firearm. Hopefully this thread won't be archived by the time I find the ATF letter or someone else posts it. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: <snip>You can only carry a semi-auto self loading PISTOL in your car or on your person if you have a CHL (Conceal Hangun License - for those not in TX). <snip> part in red –– false you do not have to have CHL for pistol in car....if you are a law abiding citizen then car carry is lawful as long as it remains concealed on your person –– yes, you have to have CHL as to the rest, i believe its been asked in Tx hometown forum, but too lazy too look it up right now. You need to check Texas law (it only a Revover) that you can carry without a CHL, not a semi-auto pistol in your car. If that's the case then anyone can carry a semi-auto Pistol like a AR/AK in their automobile. You must have a CHL to carry these type of pistols (loaded - for defense) in your car. Call & check with your local PD/Sheriff dept! You are misinformed, there is no differentiation between revolver and semi/auto for non CHLs, loaded or unloaded does not matter either. Also, the Motorist Protection Act passed a few years ago allows certain LAC's without CHL to carry a handgun in their car under most circumstances. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
A pistol that is converted to a short barreled rifle is not a rifle. It is a short barreled rifle. And there is nothing in the National Firearms Act that prevents converting a short barreled rifle into a pistol. ... After a further reading of the NFA I think that you are correct, but your definitions are a bit off. A Short Barreled Rifle is a rifle and it is clearly defined as such in the NFA. When you remove the stock on your SBR you are not making it into a pistol. You are making it into a Weapon Made From a Rifle (same definition as SBR) and it is still a NFA firearm. However, a Weapon Made from a Rifle falls under the same definition as Short Barreled Rifle and thus shouldn't require any further registering since you would not be making a new type of NFA firearm. The ATF confuses this issue a bit by trying to define "Weapon Made From a Rifle" differently than "Short Barreled Rifle", even though they are legally the same thing. Now, if you were to change to a longer barrel then you would be converting into a non-NFA firearm, but simply removing the stock doesn't accomplish that. A quote from US Code TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 44 > § 921 - Definitions "The term “short-barreled rifle” means a rifle having one or more barrels less than sixteen inches in length and any weapon made from a rifle (whether by alteration, modification, or otherwise) if such weapon, as modified, has an overall length of less than twenty-six inches." Nope. The ATF treats it as a pistol. There is no requirement to notify them when crossing state lines. Since they don't require notification, it's not an NFA firearm. Hopefully this thread won't be archived by the time I find the ATF letter or someone else posts it. OK. Hopefully the letter you are referencing provides some good clarification, because a reading of the actual law seems to imply otherwise. By reading the NFA there does not appear to be anyway to actually make a "pistol" out of a "rifle". Any weapon under 26 inches made from a rifle is automatically a "Weapon Made From a Rifle". If you are saying that one of the ATF Technology Branch guys thinks there is a way to do it, then I'll happily defer to their interpretation of the law. Of course the way the NFA is written is confusing in itself, and the way the BATFE chooses to interpret and enforce it is just plain random at times. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: <snip>You can only carry a semi-auto self loading PISTOL in your car or on your person if you have a CHL (Conceal Hangun License - for those not in TX). <snip> part in red –– false you do not have to have CHL for pistol in car....if you are a law abiding citizen then car carry is lawful as long as it remains concealed on your person –– yes, you have to have CHL as to the rest, i believe its been asked in Tx hometown forum, but too lazy too look it up right now. You need to check Texas law (it only a Revover) that you can carry without a CHL, not a semi-auto pistol in your car. If that's the case then anyone can carry a semi-auto Pistol like a AR/AK in their automobile. You must have a CHL to carry these type of pistols (loaded - for defense) in your car. Call & check with your local PD/Sheriff dept! Hi, local PD here. You're wrong. No distinction between revolvers and autoloaders. They're both handguns and legal to carry concealed in your car so long as you are not committing a crime other than a minor traffic violation and you are legally able to own the handgun in question. Long guns aren't covered at all, and we have laws of exclusion, not inclusion. It's technically legal to walk down Main St. in downtown Houston with a loaded AK over your shoulder. I promise that you will go to jail for one of a number of various offenses, though. Disorderly conduct comes to mind (42.01(a)8). Read 46.02. Specifies carrying a HANDGUN, not a revolver, in a vehicle which you own or is under your control is not an offense UNLESS it is in plain view or you're committing a crime, can't legally possess it, or are a member of a criminal street gang. 46.01(5): "Handgun" means any firearm that is designed, made, or adapted to be fired with one hand. That's what the law says, but I'm executive branch, not judicial, and sure as shit not a lawyer, so don't take it on my word, go look it up. |
| Most of the stuff floating around the net is wrong. In fact the vertical pistol tac is wrong. In that case it clearly states in the code that any weapon with a rifled bore is not an AOW. People get confused in the fact that because something does not fit in one catagory it must fit in another. This is wrong because in order for something to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt it must fall into the code not be tacked in with the opinion of the executive branch. I suggest everone actually READ their local code before doing anything. Just like self defence CCW it is the owners responsibility to know what he or she can or cant do. |
|
Quoted:
Most of the stuff floating around the net is wrong. In fact the vertical pistol tac is wrong. In that case it clearly states in the code that any weapon with a rifled bore is not an AOW. People get confused in the fact that because something does not fit in one catagory it must fit in another. This is wrong because in order for something to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt it must fall into the code not be tacked in with the opinion of the executive branch. I suggest everone actually READ their local code before doing anything. Just like self defence CCW it is the owners responsibility to know what he or she can or cant do. Not that I think this has anything to do with the current discussion, but... I think you need to re-read the definition of an AOW. The first line pretty much says any guns small enough to be concealed are AOWs. The last sentence specifically excludes pistols and revolvers with rifled bores and shoulder fired weapons that don't fire fixed cartridges. That's not the same as "any weapon with a rifled bore". If a pistol with a VFG doesn't meet the legal definition of "Pistol" (because it clearly isn't intended to be fired with one hand) and it is small enough to conceal, then it's an AOW. The only real sticking point is that the NFA itself doesn't define a "pistol" so they rely on the Code of Federal Regulations to define it (27 CFR § 479.11) ...which brings me to the second point, The executive branch can sometimes tack in their opinion and it will have the same legal force as statutory law, so long as it is reasonable. That's basically what the CFR is for. Some ATF lawyer came up with that pistol definition, but you are going to have a heck of a time convincing a judge that it isn't applicable just because congress itself didn't pass it as part of the NFA. Congress routinely grants executive agencies the authority to define the more technical parts of the laws they pass. |
|
Quoted:
The NFA absolutely defines pistol. Pistol is not defined anywhere else. And there is no requirement in the definition that a pistol be designed to be fired by one hand. OK. My bad. Could you reference the NFA definition of a pistol? I couldn't find it anywhere. I know that whenever the ATF references the definition of a pistol they use the CFR definition. |
|
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=23b6b88da956b2daad8ea2744a8d7cb2&rgn=div5&view=text&node=27:3.0.1.2.4&idno=27#27:3.0.1.2.4.7.27.1
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:
<snip>You can only carry a semi-auto self loading PISTOL in your car or on your person if you have a CHL (Conceal Hangun License - for those not in TX). <snip> part in red –– false you do not have to have CHL for pistol in car....if you are a law abiding citizen then car carry is lawful as long as it remains concealed on your person –– yes, you have to have CHL as to the rest, i believe its been asked in Tx hometown forum, but too lazy too look it up right now. You need to check Texas law (it only a Revover) that you can carry without a CHL, not a semi-auto pistol in your car. If that's the case then anyone can carry a semi-auto Pistol like a AR/AK in their automobile. You must have a CHL to carry these type of pistols (loaded - for defense) in your car. Call & check with your local PD/Sheriff dept! Hi, local PD here. You're wrong. No distinction between revolvers and autoloaders. They're both handguns and legal to carry concealed in your car so long as you are not committing a crime other than a minor traffic violation and you are legally able to own the handgun in question. Long guns aren't covered at all, and we have laws of exclusion, not inclusion. It's technically legal to walk down Main St. in downtown Houston with a loaded AK over your shoulder. I promise that you will go to jail for one of a number of various offenses, though. Disorderly conduct comes to mind (42.01(a)8). Read 46.02. Specifies carrying a HANDGUN, not a revolver, in a vehicle which you own or is under your control is not an offense UNLESS it is in plain view or you're committing a crime, can't legally possess it, or are a member of a criminal street gang. 46.01(5): "Handgun" means any firearm that is designed, made, or adapted to be fired with one hand. That's what the law says, but I'm executive branch, not judicial, and sure as shit not a lawyer, so don't take it on my word, go look it up. If it is technically legal for someone to walk down the street in Houston with a loaded AK, then why would you promise to arrest them on a charge of disorderly conduct if they were doing nothing illegal. That right there is BS. Seems like you are a bit confused and you think you can legislate on the spot. You need to enforce the laws as written, not as you think they should be. If someone is walking down the street with a loaded AK and it is legal, you should NOT arrest them. If someone is being disorderly, arrest them. If they have an AK while being disorderly, you know what to do. |
|
Quoted:
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=23b6b88da956b2daad8ea2744a8d7cb2&rgn=div5&view=text&node=27:3.0.1.2.4&idno=27#27:3.0.1.2.4.7.27.1 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). Figjam, thanks. I understand that is the definition used by the ATF, but that is not from the NFA. That is from the CFR. The CFR is administrative law. It was not part of any law passed by congress. I'm not saying that administrative law is less valid than statutory law (although I think it's arguable). I was just pointing out that technically the National Firearms Act (NFA) does not define "pistol". The only definition is found in the CFR and thus was "tacked in with the opinion of the administrative branch", as the poster I was originally replying to had put it. This is a quote from the main page of the website you linked to... The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) is the codification of the general and permanent rules published in the Federal Register by the executive departments and agencies of the Federal Government
|
|
Today I finally shot my 9mm AR Pistol. This is my new favorite gun. What a hoot.
I had been contemplating making it into an SBR, but have put that waaay on the back burner. Advantage to SBR: Easier to shoot from the shoulder when you have a stock Disadvantages: $200 You have to do paperwork to take it out of state Not legal in some states You cannot let someone use it unless you are "right there" with them I would add that carrying a copy of the Form 1 might be a hassle, but I already carry a form 4 for the silencer so it makes no difference to me. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=23b6b88da956b2daad8ea2744a8d7cb2&rgn=div5&view=text&node=27:3.0.1.2.4&idno=27#27:3.0.1.2.4.7.27.1 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). Figjam, thanks. I understand that is the definition used by the ATF, but that is not from the NFA. That is from the CFR. The CFR is administrative law. It was not part of any law passed by congress. I'm not saying that administrative law is less valid than statutory law (although I think it's arguable). I was just pointing out that technically the National Firearms Act (NFA) does not define "pistol". The only definition is found in the CFR and thus was "tacked in with the opinion of the administrative branch", as the poster I was originally replying to had put it. This is a quote from the main page of the website you linked to... The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) is the codification of the general and permanent rules published in the Federal Register by the executive departments and agencies of the Federal Government Oh boy. You need to start with codification because it's clear you have no understanding of the term. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codification_%28law%29 Then you can go here and be amazed and delighted with yourself. http://www.keepandbeararms.com/laws/nfa34.htm |
|
Quoted:
Oh boy. You need to start with codification because it's clear you have no understanding of the term. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codification_%28law%29 Then you can go here and be amazed and delighted with yourself. http://www.keepandbeararms.com/laws/nfa34.htm OK. I'm being polite here but I asked if you could reference where the term "pistol" was in the NFA. You then posted a link to the CFR. The CFR is not the NFA. It's that simple. The second link you posted above includes a definition of "pistol" but it is also a reference to the Federal Register, not the US Code. The US Code does not include any definitions of "pistol" that I could find. Title 18 does have a definition of "handgun", but that's not exactly relevant to this discussion. I understand that by being in the CFR the definition can be applied to the NFA, but that doesn't mean that the definition was actually generated by an act of the legislative branch of government. I believe (and I might be wrong) the definition in question was actually added over 40 years after the NFA was passed by congress. Most of the stuff in the CFR gets there when the executive branch agency involved in the enforcement of the relevant law goes through a "rule-making process" where the regulations are proposed and left open to public comment. The rules are then eventually added to the Federal Register if they are found to be reasonable. My one and only point is that the definition exists due to an act by the administrative branch of government. That was what the original post I commented on referred to. I'm not trying to get into a pissing match with you over a fairly irrelevant point. I was only trying to clarify an incorrect statement made by another poster. The administrative branch can and does "tack" things onto laws passed by congress. All of our tax laws (including the ones relating to firearms) are excellent examples of this. **Edit to add** For people who are unfamiliar with the technical details, the National Firearms Act is found in Title 26 (subsection e) Chapter 53 of the US Code (*LINK HERE* It's almost all the way at the bottom of the page) It's part of the Internal Revenue Code. It was passed by congress in 1934 and is also called Title II. Another relevant law is the Gun Control Act of 1968, which is found in Title 18 of the US Code and is called Title I of the Federal Firearm Laws. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Oh boy. You need to start with codification because it's clear you have no understanding of the term. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codification_%28law%29 Then you can go here and be amazed and delighted with yourself. http://www.keepandbeararms.com/laws/nfa34.htm OK. I'm being polite here but I asked if you could reference where the term "pistol" was in the NFA. You then posted a link to the CFR. The CFR is not the NFA. It's that simple. The second link you posted above includes a definition of "pistol" but it is also a reference to the Federal Register, not the US Code. The US Code does not include any definitions of "pistol" that I could find. Title 18 does have a definition of "handgun", but that's not exactly relevant to this discussion. I understand that by being in the CFR the definition can be applied to the NFA, but that doesn't mean that the definition was actually generated by an act of the legislative branch of government. I believe (and I might be wrong) the definition in question was actually added over 40 years after the NFA was passed by congress. Most of the stuff in the CFR gets there when the executive branch agency involved in the enforcement of the relevant law goes through a "rule-making process" where the regulations are proposed and left open to public comment. The rules are then eventually added to the Federal Register if they are found to be reasonable. My one and only point is that the definition exists due to an act by the administrative branch of government. That was what the original post I commented on referred to. I'm not trying to get into a pissing match with you over a fairly irrelevant point. I was only trying to clarify an incorrect statement made by another poster. The administrative branch can and does "tack" things onto laws passed by congress. All of our tax laws (including the ones relating to firearms) are excellent examples of this. **Edit to add** For people who are unfamiliar with the technical details, the National Firearms Act is found in Title 26 (subsection e) Chapter 53 of the US Code (*LINK HERE* It's almost all the way at the bottom of the page) It's part of the Internal Revenue Code. It was passed by congress in 1934 and is also called Title II. Another relevant law is the Gun Control Act of 1968, which is found in Title 18 of the US Code and is called Title I of the Federal Firearm Laws. There is no definition of pistol in the NFA because pistols are not an NFA firearm. There is a definition for rifle and shotgun so as to clarify the NFA weapons that are "made from a rifle" or "made from a shotgun". You can't have a firearm made from a rifle if you don't define a rifle. When you put a stock on a pistol you have "remade" as per the NFA rifle definition, a rifle. And if it has a barrel shorter than 16", you have made a short barreled rifle which you better have paid the tax on. Put another way, you can take a pistol , which is not a NFA firearm, and add a barrel greater than 16" then add a stock and you have made a rifle, which too is not an NFA firearm. You may then take the stock off the rifle and as long as the overall length is greater than 26" it is still not a NFA firearm. But drop below the 26"LOA or cut the barrel to less than 16" and you have made a NFA firearm. (because it is made from a rifle) On a side note, you can take a PG shotgun, that is a shotgun that came from the factory with a pistol grip installed, and cut the barrel down to whatever length you like as long as the overall length of the firearm is greater than 26". Why? because the NFA does define a shotgun. That definition states that a shotgun is designed to be fired from the shoulder. Therefore a shotgun which has only a pistol grip from the manufacturer is not a shotgun at all and therefore cannot be a short barreled shotgun. |
|
OK. This is my last post on this topic.
The definition of Pistol was added to the Federal Register by the BATFE after the NFA was passed by congress. The last update was decades after the NFA was passed. Because the definition of "pistol" exists in the Federal Register it can be altered by the ATF without any action by congress (there is a separate "rule-making" process required). The National Firearms Act has several definitions of firearms (not including "pistol") that were passed by congress and codified in the United States Code. The stuff found in the USC can not be added to or changed by any executive agency. While the definition of "pistol" found in the Federal Register is applicable to the NFA, it is not a part of the National Firearms Act of 1934. No one should get confused and think that this somehow makes the definition of "pistol" less applicable to the NFA. It absolutely is. It's also potentially applicable to other federal laws. It is standard practice for Congress to delegate this kind of authority to executive branch agencies. The stuff found in the Federal Register is effectively law. It just wasn't passed by congress. It's a sneaky little way the federal government works that they didn't talk about in your high-school civics class. |
|
If it is technically legal for someone to walk down the street in Houston with a loaded AK, then why would you promise to arrest them on a charge of disorderly conduct if they were doing nothing illegal. That right there is BS. Seems like you are a bit confused and you think you can legislate on the spot. You need to enforce the laws as written, not as you think they should be. If someone is walking down the street with a loaded AK and it is legal, you should NOT arrest them. If someone is being disorderly, arrest them. If they have an AK while being disorderly, you know what to do. It comes down to the disorderly conduct statute. PC 42.01 defines disorderly conduct with this: (8) displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm; While in some places, walking down the street with an AK would not cause calculated alarm, in downtown Houston it most likely would. That said, one of the local activists marched in the streets of downtown Houston a few years ago and his "body guards" open carried loaded rifles with no problem, but that was also a "scheduled" protest. |
|
Quoted:
OK. This is my last post on this topic. The definition of Pistol was added to the Federal Register by the BATFE after the NFA was passed by congress. The last update was decades after the NFA was passed. Because the definition of "pistol" exists in the Federal Register it can be altered by the ATF without any action by congress (there is a separate "rule-making" process required). The National Firearms Act has several definitions of firearms (not including "pistol") that were passed by congress and codified in the United States Code. The stuff found in the USC can not be added to or changed by any executive agency. While the definition of "pistol" found in the Federal Register is applicable to the NFA, it is not a part of the National Firearms Act of 1934. No one should get confused and think that this somehow makes the definition of "pistol" less applicable to the NFA. It absolutely is. It's also potentially applicable to other federal laws. It is standard practice for Congress to delegate this kind of authority to executive branch agencies. The stuff found in the Federal Register is effectively law. It just wasn't passed by congress. It's a sneaky little way the federal government works that they didn't talk about in your high-school civics class. If there was a problem with the BATFE defining pistols, it would have been codified in law by Congress a long time ago. I have no problem with the way the BATFE defined 'pistol' and 'revolver'. Neither must the NRA or GOA. The terms 'rifle and shotgun' were defined by Congress back in the 1950s I believe because there was confusion over whether a muzzleloading rifle should be subject to the NFA. Congress determined they should not be and defined rifle to exclude old time muzzleloaders. |
Armory Sponsor