I'm writing a letter to the atf regarding ruling 2011-4
http://www.atf.gov/regulations-rulings/rulings/atf-rulings/atf-ruling-2011-4.pdf

Basically, they say a pistol can be converted into a rifle using a kit, and back into a pistol, so long as it never has a stock while the pistol barrel is on (making it an illegal sbr)

My question is if this applies to homemade pistols (parts kits built from 80% receivers assembled as pistols by an individual (uzi's, sterlings, stens's, ect.) since they have easily removable barrels and stocks readily available.  (but not technically ever a "manufacture produced "kit")

If it does apply, how would an authority know if it was originally a pistol or rifle? Do you engrave the word"pistol" into your build

Anyways, here's my letter, let me know what you think.....







Hello. I have a question regarding specifics of ATF ruling 2011-4.

It is to my understanding, that under ATF ruling 2011-4, one is able to add a stock and barrel to their pistol, so long as the barrel is atleast 16" in legnth, and the firearm has a minimum overall length of 26". The pistol in it's "rifle" form, is also then legally able to be made back into a pistol again by removing components. It is also to my understanding, that a stock must never be on the pistol when a barrel of under 16" in length is on the pistol (which would make an NFA firearm).  Lastly, I also understand this only applies to pistols, and that rifles cannot have a barrel under 16" (and overall length of 26") without being a registered NFA firearms.

Atf ruling 2011-4 was originally made as a result of a manufacture made "Kit" available to a pistol.

My question is whether or not 2011-4 still applies if the pistol was originally legally made by an individual, and not a maufacture? Also, if the components to bring the pistol to "rifle length" are not a manufacture made kit, but simply parts available.

For example:
An individual can rebuild certain demilled military firearms "parts kits"  on Blank receivers (an unfinished receiver that is not yet considered a firearm) in legal semi-auto only BATEF approved configurations and for personal use only. Since the individual finishes the receivers construction (making it an operational firearm) they are considered the manufacture in this case. It would also be up to their decision, whether their firearm will fall under the definition of pistol or rifle.
Since it is common for some of these military firearms (legally built from part kits) to have removable stock and barrels, would ATF 2011-4 still apply, assuming the assembler of the "parts kit firearms"  originally created it as a pistol? If 2011-4 does apply, does the original builder of the pistol need to engrave the word "pistol" on the frame ? (since these parts kits are commonly built as both rifle and pistol)

And lastly, since an undocumented NFA firearm is possible to create with having these parts on hand, how does one make sure "constructive intent" to assemble an NFA firearm never applies to them? Must respective pistol and "rifle kit" parts be separated physically in their respective pairs?

wtf are you asking? You would have the same constructive intent as myself owning a hacksaw, dremil, or any cutting tool in the house. If somebody is looking so close at your shit that they are giving you grief over a home build pistol going back and forth between a pistol and rifle legally, than you have bigger issues to worry about.

It's not grief I'm worried about, It's making sure I am complying by the law fully.

Also, as you said, I'm looking to be sure a homebuild CAN go back and forth legally with off the shelf parts and not a "kit".

Don't ask the ATF to clear anything up, you won't like the answer. And you could possibly make it worse for everyone. Ask Gemtec how well it works out.

I would not write a letter. All they will do is print the standing law and let you draw your own conclusions or ask that you submit a sample so they can test it. Keep the ATF out of your life as much as you can. I used to be an LEO.

Of course the ruling applies to home made pistols. I wouldn't get hung up on the kit word; putting a stock on a pistol with barrel <16" is making an SBR, and if you don't have a form 1 with a stamp or are a properly papered SOT/manufacturer, is highly illegal.

If you look at the example of the AR and AK, both offered in pistol and rifle, you should be able to figure out what is acceptable and what isn't.


Also, you don't have to engrave pistol or rifle on a home built title 1 firearm (or anything unless you plan to part with it).

When in doubt, fill out the form 1, spend the $200 and have ident or orion engrave it.

Why do people absolutely insist on kicking at hornet's nests? We have a reasonable directive which implements the SCOTUS decision in the Thompson Center case across the board, and it's reasonably straightforward.


If it's homemade, you are the maker.  You can make a kit as well.  The water is not muddy.

Like he said the waters are not muddy.

Sending the letter opens up a Pandora's box of cans of worms and will invite some creative re interpretations.

Yes ..............

A "letter" lead to the demise of the "Akins Accelerator" and BRP XMG MG-34 conversion for the M-16.        

I used to work for USDA as an administrative hearing officer.  We dealt with this kind of interpretation all the time.  Even if ATF gives you a gold plated letter signed by the President himself, it will do you no good if they later decide they were wrong.  You are supposed to know what the law is, even if they don't.  One of the issues our director wrestled with is, if USDA argued two opposite things about the same law in two different cases, did one of those arguments have to be wrong?  He could never decide, I kid you not!  ATF and the government are not your friend.

You are making this unnecessarily complicated.

ATFs ruling is based entirely on US v Thompson Center Arms Co where SCOTUS ruled that "Constructive Possession" ( there's no such thing as constructive intent) cannot be applied where there is a pathway to the legal use of the NFA-applicable part. In the case of the TC Contender,  because each NFA-applicable part has both a legal and an illegal use, there could be no CP construct applied to the disassembled parts. In this case, they applied the Rule of Lenity which forces the assumption of legality where there is ambiguity.

Other such pathways could be a registered MG or SBR. With no such pathway present, there is a CP condition.

A parts kit with a stock and short barrel could be a CP condition, assuming there is an actual firearm receiver present (not a demilled or 80%, which are not "firearms").

Sending letters to the ATF never works out as intended.  They do not have our best interests in mind.

Please don't do it.

This.

It seems this may be the best way to go I guess.

The situation is I got a deal on a bunch of sten parts.

Of course it would be nice to be able to build the sten as a pistol, and be able to switch to rifle form, but it might just be worth it to make the thing authentic as possible, and do a from 1. Maybe somday I'll get the real deal..........

I do have enough parts to build a pistol and rifle, but I dont see spending the extra 100-200 to build either extra when I could have both with a sbr sten.