PDA

View Full Version : Legality of a Removeable Rifle Stock on a Pistol?


Stoic
August 30, 1999, 08:56 AM
Legality of a Removeable Rifle Stock on a Pistol? Does anyone know the answer to this question?

John Lawson
August 30, 1999, 09:47 AM
Actually, it depends on the pistol; if it is pre-1898 or whether the ATF has declared it to be a curio or relic and whether the stock is of the original style.
For instance, you may posess an original rounded stock for a Navy Luger, but you can't have the flat board "artillery" stock with it. You should keep the components cased together. Nothing in the law says you can shoot the gun with the stock attached, however. The ATF will send you a list of pistols and revolvers you can posess stocks for.

Jeff OTMG
August 30, 1999, 12:11 PM
You will need to check the laws in your state to make certain that there are no further restrictions. Under federal law you may add a removable or fixed stock to any handgun, you may use a folding or collapsable stock on a non-semiautomatic pistol, like a revolver, by completeing the paperwork, paying $200 for a NFA tax stamp, and having the firearm registered as a short barrelled rifle, or SBR. You may not add the collapsable or folding stock to a semiautomatic pistol as that you put you in violation of 922(v), manufacturing a semiautomatic assault weapon, and yes it does apply to SBR and SBS.

Stoic
August 30, 1999, 01:53 PM
Thanks for the replies. Stoic. :)

James K
August 30, 1999, 04:32 PM
Hi Folks,

OTMG, I am not sure where you get the idea that attaching a shoulder stock to a pistol (like the Luger) is manufacturing an assault rifle. (It is, of course, a short barrel rifle.) An assault rifle is defined as having (among other things) a folding or collapsible stock; a detachable pistol stock is not mentioned because it is covered elsewhere. I think that combination could only be an assault rifle if the pistol also had two other "bad" features.

FYI, I am reading from Title 18, USC, so if I am wrong, would appreciate your citing the section.

In other words, I don't think there is a difference between a shoulder stocked revolver or single shot, and a shoulder stocked (ordinary) pistol.

Jim

James K
August 30, 1999, 04:37 PM
Please permit a couple of other comments.

If the combination is either registered as a short barrel rifle or has been removed from the purview of the act in one way or another, there is no reason in the world you cannot shoot it (other than needing high quality ear protection). (You can shoot an illegal gun, too, but it does tend to call attention to yourself.)

If you want to buy a stock and a pistol and put them together legally, buy the gun, then apply for and obtain the tax stamp BEFORE acquiring the stock.

Jim

Jeff OTMG
August 30, 1999, 11:37 PM
Jim, no, attaching a fixed or detachable stock to a semiautomatic pistol is a SBR. To attach a folding or collapsable stock to a semiauto take you to two qualifying 'evil' features, the pistol grip and the folding stock. Not really going to use a Luger because I think using an original stock on it still allows it to qualify for C&R classification. To qualify to be a semiauto AW: if it is of foreign manufacture (semiauto w/ detachable magazine) it is allowed ZERO evil features, for domestic manufacture there is only one evil feature allowed. You don't have to have the folding stock, pistol grip, flash hider, bayonet lug, threaded muzzle, and grenade launcher to qualify, two will do it. So there is no way to attach one of those side folding stocks that replace the grip panel on a Ruger Mk II .22 pistol because although it qualifies as a SBR, the pistol grip and folding stock qualify it as a SAAW as well. If you attach a folder to a revolver then you do not go into the test criteria of an SAAW. Same as if you put a collapsable stock on an AR-15 with an 11' barrel IF the magazine has been welded in place OR it is manually operated. That would be a SBR but would not qualify for the test of SAAW.

John Lawson
August 31, 1999, 11:04 AM
Rather than relying on faulty memory and endless speculation, you can call the ATF in D. C. and ask for a clarification. They take into account Statutory Law (the way it was) case law, or judicial rulings and ATF rulings. You will find that the Navy Luger is classified as a curio/relic with shoulder stock ONLY if it is cased with accessories in a permanent gun collection. Remove it from the collection and it becomes a class 4 weapon. Only 30 some states allow these. This is also true for the H&R line throwing gun (12 ga with 10" barrel. You must case it with a complete set of weights, canot remove it w/o class 4 status taking over. Sorry, it isn't an assault rifle, its a machine gun.

Bob S
August 31, 1999, 08:15 PM
You need to be very carefull about adding a stock to any handgun, for fear you may create a short barreled rifle. The Thompson contender, for example, is a single shot pistol. This is truly a sporting weapon and no reasonable person could argue that such a weapon could be deamed an assult weapon. However a person could concievably purchase the optional stock for the weapon (which is designed to be used with 16 inch barrels) and then attatch a shorter 8 inch barrel. In doing so, he would have assembled an illegal weapon with a fixed stock and a barrel of less than 16 inches, at least that is my understanding. Be aware that you need to meet both federal AND state guidelines... and every state law is different. Good luck. If you have an attorney friend locally, you should have him do a bit of research on your state laws.

SRMA63
June 1, 2009, 11:51 AM
I would be interested in comments on the legality of a non-attachable shoulder stock. I have such a device. It's a wire stock, the end of which is curved to conform to the rear strap of a Ruger Mk II. The gripping hand is placed through the stock, holding the stock firmly against the rear strap. I suppose one could more accurately describe this as a "steady rest" rather than a "stock", as it is immediately separated from the pistol when one releases their grip on the butt.:confused:

Doodlebugger45
June 1, 2009, 03:53 PM
Hmmm.. I have never given it any thought but I didn't realize there were legal issues. So, let's say I had a Ruger Blackhawk with a 7.5" or 10.5" barrel. If I were to somehow fashion a device which clamped onto the regular hand grips that allowed me to have the device pressed up against my shoulder, I might have violated a law? I think I remember seeing some similar device in an old Clint Eastwood western.

Tamara
June 1, 2009, 06:00 PM
If I were to somehow fashion a device which clamped onto the regular hand grips that allowed me to have the device pressed up against my shoulder, I might have violated a law?

You would be committing a federal felony (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/search/display.html?terms=short%20barreled&url=/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000921----000-.html) the moment you attached it

SRMA63
June 1, 2009, 07:31 PM
Please remember that I said this pistol stock is "on-attachable", as in it does not clamp onto, grip, or screw onto any part of the pistol. Rather, it is held to the pistol only by the shooters gripping hand.:rolleyes:

robhof
June 1, 2009, 07:38 PM
As said above; Curios and relics are exempt from the laws. On a similiar note The Sportsmans guide occasionally sells kits for the 1911, consisting of a stock and a 15" barrel with capitalized warning that both the barrel and stock must be on the gun to be legal.

Tamara
June 1, 2009, 08:28 PM
Please remember that I said this pistol stock is "on-attachable", as in it does not clamp onto, grip, or screw onto any part of the pistol. Rather, it is held to the pistol only by the shooters gripping hand. :rolleyes:

Yeah, I read that the first time.

Let me throw a question back at you: Is "gripping" a shoulder stock that "does not clamp onto, grip, or screw onto any part of the pistol" something you want your lawyer to explain to a judge? Does it do something special for you that is worth risking time in Club Fed?

What are the odds?

What are the stakes?

How much is a tax stamp?

These are questions only you can answer...

Jim Watson
June 1, 2009, 08:46 PM
There used to be such a gadget made and advertised in the 1970s. The maker and such customers as they then had thought it was legal.

BUT: As Tamara said, there is so much more stuff to keep abreast of, using one now might get you the opportunity to pay a lawyer to explain the difference in Federal court. He might get it right, he might not.

aroundlsu
June 2, 2009, 02:45 PM
I think it should be said again in very simple terms:

You can not attach any type of stock or vertical foregrip to a pistol in the United States.

KD5NRH
June 2, 2009, 04:14 PM
As said above; Curios and relics are exempt from the laws. On a similiar note The Sportsmans guide occasionally sells kits for the 1911, consisting of a stock and a 15" barrel with capitalized warning that both the barrel and stock must be on the gun to be legal.

So...what is it if only the barrel is attached?

Willie Lowman
June 2, 2009, 04:54 PM
So...what is it if only the barrel is attached?

Stupid. A .45 with a 16" (not 15" that would be a SBR with the stock in that add) barrel is just stupid.

AroundLSU said it best. Please everyone reread that post, write it down, memorize it.

KD5NRH
June 3, 2009, 02:29 AM
Stupid. A .45 with a 16" (not 15" that would be a SBR with the stock in that add) barrel is just stupid.

But is it legal? The language of the ad seems to imply that it isn't without the stock.

Willie Lowman
June 3, 2009, 10:10 AM
Yes it would be legal with out the stock. Old G.O. from sportsman's guide can't be bothered to explain the ins and outs of creating a SBR. It is easier and safer legally for G.O. to let you think you have to use that stock and barrel together... Like I said, you can use just the long barrel but that would be stupid. (I wonder if the gun would cycle correctly.)

The barrel length isn't an issue without the stock. Follow me?

Snow Fox
June 8, 2009, 08:16 PM
To add to this the local range/gun shot recently let me play with an Ingram. It was so rediculous. You can't shoot from the hip with anything like a hope of accuracy. I was working with holding it like a pistol I could just feel how it was going to be all out of balance. I commented this to them "Yeah it looks cool but I'd have to attached a stock to make it work. The laughed and said yeah, but that would make it illegal.

dogtown tom
June 10, 2009, 10:44 AM
aroundlsu: I think it should be said again in very simple terms:

You can not attach any type of stock or vertical foregrip to a pistol in the United States.

This is simply not true.

All you have to do is pay a $200 tax and fill out a form for SBR.

ATF regulations CLEARLY allow certain Lugers, Mausers and Browning Hi Powers to have an attached stock WITHOUT the owner having a tax stamp.

aroundlsu
June 10, 2009, 04:21 PM
This is simply not true.

All you have to do is pay a $200 tax and fill out a form for SBR.

ATF regulations CLEARLY allow certain Lugers, Mausers and Browning Hi Powers to have an attached stock WITHOUT the owner having a tax stamp.

If you pay a $200 tax for the SBR it's no longer a pistol and my comment is still accurate. ;)

The OP and others reading this thread are not interested in attaching a stock to a very specific model relic gun. They want to attach stocks to their Glock and other modern automatics. So I felt it was important to clearly state that you simply can't do it rather than continue to bog down the thread with NFA regulations and perhaps give some kid the idea that maybe he can attach the stock to his Glock.

dogtown tom
June 15, 2009, 11:25 PM
aroundlsu Quote:
This is simply not true.

All you have to do is pay a $200 tax and fill out a form for SBR.

ATF regulations CLEARLY allow certain Lugers, Mausers and Browning Hi Powers to have an attached stock WITHOUT the owner having a tax stamp.


If you pay a $200 tax for the SBR it's no longer a pistol and my comment is still accurate.
The OP and others reading this thread are not interested in attaching a stock to a very specific model relic gun. They want to attach stocks to their Glock and other modern automatics. So I felt it was important to clearly state that you simply can't do it rather than continue to bog down the thread with NFA regulations and perhaps give some kid the idea that maybe he can attach the stock to his Glock.

Wrong again.

With the stock attached it requires a tax stamp. Without the stock attached it is still a handgun and requires no tax stamp.

What you cannot comprehend is that the rules for attaching a stock to a Glock are the same as with any other handgun. IT CAN BE DONE LEGALLY, AND IS DONE ALL THE TIME. As I stated before, you pay a tax, you can attach a stock.

It is interesting that you believe regulations "bog down" this thread. Ignorance of those regulations will send you to jail.










.

freakshow10mm
June 15, 2009, 11:30 PM
Explain me the Mech Tech conversion thingies. How are those legal?

MisterPX
June 16, 2009, 07:02 AM
First, if you SBR your pistol, it's no longer a pistol, it's a SBR, irregardless if there's a stock on it or not; unless you have your SBR removed from the registry.

As far as teh mectec kinda stuff, you install 16" barrel on pistol (still a pistol), install stock (now a rifle with 16" barrel). If you stick the stock on with teh factory 4-5" barrel, you create a SBR.

freakshow10mm
June 16, 2009, 08:46 AM
Once you attach a shoulder stock and a 16 inch barrel to the frame, you create a rifle. Once you remove the stock you attach the short barrel. You are creating a firearm with a short barrel out of a rifle, which is in the definition of a short barreled rifle. Both statutes for the SBR and SBS contain the phase "or a weapon made from a rifle" and "or a weapon made from a shotgun". That is what I don't get.

TC v US established there is no constructive possession for SBR in that the weapon has to be made and not an aggregation of parts like a suppressor or machine gun. It also said their carbine/pistol kit was not a SBR unless the stock and short barrel were attached at the same time.

Bill DeShivs
June 16, 2009, 01:40 PM
You haven't created a "rifle." You have a pistol with 16+ inch barrel and shoulder stock-which is legal.

freakshow10mm
June 16, 2009, 02:10 PM
Let's define handgun, pistol, revolver, and rifle. 478.11 in the USC states:

Handgun. (a) Any firearm which has a short stock and is designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand; and

(b) Any combination of parts from which a firearm described in paragraph (a) can be assembled.

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).

Revolver. A projectile weapon, of the pistol type, having a breechloading chambered cylinder so arranged that the cocking of the hammer or movement of the trigger rotates it and brings the next cartridge in line with the barrel for firing

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.

Short-barreled rifle. A rifle having one or more barrels less than 16 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 26 inches.

So if a handgun/pistol/revolver ("handgun") has a shoulder stock attached it is then a rifle, since a rifle is a weapon redesigned or made/remade to be fired from the shoulder.

Now take off the stock and put a barrel on it that makes the weapon shorter than 26 inches OAL, it is now a SBR since the weapon was made a rifle by attaching a shoulder stock and a barrel 16" long (or more) thus making a rifle. Now take the rifle and reconfigure it to be shorter than 26 OAL by what appears to be any means, it is now a SBR since you took a rifle and now made it to be shorter than 26 inches OAL.

What am I missing here? A pistol with shoulder stock and 16" barrel is a rifle because it is a weapon that has been redesigned or remade and intended to be fired from the shoulder.

Bill DeShivs
June 17, 2009, 02:40 AM
You are missing several ATF rulings that it is OK to stock a pistol with a legal length barrel, and take it back to pistol configuration.
Stop trying to make sense of gun laws.

freakshow10mm
June 17, 2009, 08:47 AM
Do you have a link to these ATF rulings?

I'm not trying to make sense of gun laws I'm trying to find the answer.

Trapp
June 17, 2009, 09:16 AM
After taking less than 5 seconds to google "thompson Contender v. US" http://supreme.justia.com/us/504/505/ (here's your homework;))
and reviewing it, whether or not it is legal to convert a pistol to a rifle and back again wasn't even the question. Heck, it isn't even in question.

The ruling was about whether or not there was "contructive presence" in the kits thompson sells. It contained a 10" bbl, a 21"bbl, a pistol grip, a buttstock, and a receiver assembly. Ruled legal. If you read the other thread about this I also provide a letter from the ATF (to me), while it does not address that exact question it alludes to it in the question about not allowing conversion into a rifle. (which is legal)

Trapp
June 17, 2009, 09:21 AM
Here is another good site to find opinions, rulings, and court cases dealing with NFA.


http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/public/nfalist/index.html

freakshow10mm
June 17, 2009, 10:13 AM
Trapp, I'm well aware of TC v US and that it addressed the constructive possession of a SBR. I don't find anywhere in that case where it said you can swap from a pistol to rifle and it's not an SBR, since the case dealt with constructive possession.

freakshow10mm
June 17, 2009, 10:25 AM
Ok I've read your letter which doesn't address the issue I'm asking about.

Take a virgin receiver. Make a pistol out of it.

Take the barrel off and replace it with a 16 inch or longer barrel. Add a shoulder stock. It is now a rifle since it is a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder.

Now remove the shoulder stock and 16 inch barrel. Install the short barrel. You have now made a weapon less than 26 inches OAL, from a weapon that was previously a rifle (made by adding shoulder stock and 16" barrel) as defined by 478.11: any weapon made from a rifle, whether by alteration, modification, or otherwise, if such weapon, as modified, has an overall length of less than 26 inches.

That fits the definition of a SBR, since you took a pistol and made it into a rifle by adding shoulder stock and 16" barrel making OAL longer than 26" OAL, finally reverting back to a short barrel and no stock reducing the OAL to less than 26" thus is a SBR.

Where am I going wrong here? It seems to be very clear to me. If you add a shoulder stock and barrel to increase the OAL of a pistol to 26" or longer OAL it's a rifle. Shortening the OAL of that newly made rifle (as defined) to an OAL of less than 26" by any means, in this case short barrel and no stock, you create a SBR.

dogtown tom
June 17, 2009, 06:46 PM
When you place a 16" barrel on a PISTOL it does not change the fact that it is a PISTOL. Add a shoulder stock and you have NOT created a SBR, as the FIREARM is not an NFA firearm at this point.

You must not attach the stock unless the 16" barrel is in place and you must remove the stock prior to removing the 16" barrel. At no point have you created a SBR.

If you leave the stock on the firearm and replace the 16" barrel with a barrel of less than 16" (such as a 5" barrel) then you have created a firearm subject to NFA regulation. It is a SBR at that point.


I don't think any reply that will be posted here will satisfy you.

I highly recommend contacting your local ATF guy. Even then he will only recite the same language as has already been posted.

freakshow10mm
June 17, 2009, 09:59 PM
When you place a 16" barrel on a PISTOL it does not change the fact that it is a PISTOL.
Yes, I know that. That is not what I'm asking.

Add a shoulder stock and you have NOT created a SBR, as the FIREARM is not an NFA firearm at this point.
I know you have not created a SBR. You have created a RIFLE.

Riddle me this: does placing a shoulder stock on a pistol with 16" barrel create a rifle? That is the question that no one here has answered with evidence. I say according to the definition of "rifle" that it does.

Now if someone can show me where in the law it says that this is not creating a rifle, then I'm good.


I don't think any reply that will be posted here will satisfy you.
Perhaps if someone actually answered the question I would be satisfied. So far I've received nothing but double talk and attitude.

I highly recommend contacting your local ATF guy. Even then he will only recite the same language as has already been posted.
The ATF in the nearest field office is not versed in NFA. I'm the only 07 FFL and only Clas 2 SOT in the UP. They do not deal with this stuff. The NFA branch can't give me a straight answer on this issue either.

Trapp
June 19, 2009, 09:13 AM
Getting a little frustrated? I know I didn't address that exact question. The point I was making is that it isn't even a question. It has never been a question or the question in question.

One day, one of the alphabet boys are going to ask that question. When they do I believe you have predicted their response. Until the right/wrong person askes the question it is perfectly legal in the eyes of the BATFE as proven by the kits out there.

Compose a letter to the NFA/technologies branch as I did. I predict initially they will say it is ok. Unless, of course, you provide that arguement for them.

Remember this is the internet....Weed out the Hot Garbage and use your analytical skills. Once you provided the sound, solid arguement you did, I knew right away no one was going to be able to answer your question with solid evidence.

My apologies if you contrued my posts as doubletalk or attitude. I just wanted to provide what I know of the situation.

freakshow10mm
June 19, 2009, 10:12 AM
No harm done. SBRs aren't allowed in MI, even though my company is a Class 2. I get asked a lot.

madmike
September 10, 2009, 03:14 PM
According to ATF (I have seen recent letters), the convert pistol to rifle and back ONLY applies to the Thompson Contender, since that's what the courts ruled on. They specifically state so.

You CAN convert your GLOCK or 1911 to a carbine with a 16" barrel and a stock. It then becomes a rifle. If you then remove the stock and barrel and go back to pistol, you have created a weapon made from the RIFLE you converted it to. This is a felony. In other words, it's a one-time conversion to a rifle.

Please don't argue that this makes no sense. It is ATF policy.

I would gather that any stock that holds, grips, sticks into or around a grip would be "attached." If you hold it in hand, it would count like a monopod. The question is, can an ATF agent convince a jury that he knows more about the law than you do and what you did is illegal? Probably.

Write to them. Get a ruling. Laminate it. Scan it online. Carry it with you.

HellBillySuperstar
September 10, 2009, 06:41 PM
Before I bring down a poop storm on myself, let me say that I have no idea at all about this, just a little additional question.

I have an AK with a thumbhole stock and I am replacing it with a synthetic one, the website says that since it is a thumbhole stock is compliant.

http://www.ultimak.com/CHOS-B.htm <---according to this.

So if you were to put a thumbhole stock on a pistol, would it be legal?

mustang_steve
September 10, 2009, 08:20 PM
BoB S,

Thanks for the mention of the T/C Contender. I am getting one of those soon, and it's good to know I'll definately need to do the NFA paperwork on it, as I do want to have the ability to use a stock on it. I was going to ask about that when I acutally get mine.

KD5NRH
September 11, 2009, 02:21 AM
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).

Revolver. A projectile weapon, of the pistol type, having a breechloading chambered cylinder so arranged that the cocking of the hammer or movement of the trigger rotates it and brings the next cartridge in line with the barrel for firing

Only a government agency could come to the conclusion that the Pfeifer Zeliska (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pfeifer_Zeliska_.600_Nitro_Express_revolver) was intended to be fired one-handed.

Edit to add: forgot the discussion that had me interested in this thread in the first place. A couple of us were trying to decide the legality of getting a virgin (never stocked) barreled action for a .357 lever action carbine and either cutting down a stock (before mounting) or making a mare's leg stock from scratch. Thus, the gun would never have been a rifle, despite still having the full (carbine) length barrel, and therefore would be a pistol from time of "manufacture." The goal would be to make a very portable "brush gun" in a caliber that would easily take deer at the 100-150yd max range typically available around here, without so much recoil as to be unmanageable in the "long mare's leg" configuration.

21CFA
September 11, 2009, 07:48 AM
Totally pre-ban -- or at least that word hadn't popped up yet.
I was at a flea market in Elwood, Indiana. Didn't want any fleas, but had payday cash smoldering in my pocket. I saw a G-21, and the lump in my pants changed positions. Glocks were as new as a lightning-bolt. Even the local newspapers wer hollering about the "torture-test, won't ever rust, can't be seen on x-ray, etc." I saw one, last day of the sale, on a local gun-dealer's table, laying ontop of the ATF "yellow-pages." "$449.95" I still have it. Got a holster of some new space-age stuff called Kydex, $12. I also bought a brand new Israeli army contraption that plugged into the blank spot in the grip, making it a rifle. $30. I didn't know nutin'! I was carrying the setup one summer up on lake Michigan, showing it off. And the stock fell off into the lake, somewhere. But if I find it, is all I need to do is get the tax-stamp, and it's legal? Is the new under-rail magazine base-plate conversion for G-xs with light-mounts EVER able to be legal, tax-stamp or whatever?? Were the full-auto 9s ever sold in the U.S., or are all of them I see imports, or illegal conversions?

Kiawah
September 11, 2009, 08:11 AM
Just go buy yourself an old Mauser Broomhandle to have a little fun, and be legal. Stock has a groove, and attaches to the handle.

http://www.simpsonltd.com/product_info.php?cPath=156_170&products_id=2399&osCsid=eddd9bf433e91bc3e7fab512fa39cc0d

http://www.simpsonltd.com/product_info.php?cPath=156_170&products_id=5026&osCsid=eddd9bf433e91bc3e7fab512fa39cc0d

You can find shooter grade.

Tamara
September 14, 2009, 08:44 PM
It was in 1975
Totally pre-ban -- or at least that word hadn't popped up yet.
I was at a flea market in Elwood, Indiana. Didn't want any fleas, but had payday cash smoldering in my pocket. I saw a G-21, and the lump in my pants changed positions. Glocks were as new as a lightning-bolt.

If you bought a Glock 21 in 1975, that thing's a real collector's item, since they weren't released on the market for another fifteen years... :confused:

21CFA
September 16, 2009, 11:53 AM
Let me check with the Fire Marshall. That flea market burned down the next year. I'll get the pricise year. But the pistol, holster and stock were definitely all offered together when the theoretical "transaction" took place. "21-"

Bartholomew Roberts
September 16, 2009, 12:46 PM
Freakshow, your conundrum is answered in Revenue Ruling 61-203.

Tamara
September 17, 2009, 07:49 AM
Let me check with the Fire Marshall. That flea market burned down the next year. I'll get the pricise year. But the pistol, holster and stock were definitely all offered together when the theoretical "transaction" took place. "21-"

Well, the first 9mm Glock prototypes appeared in the Austrian army pistol trials of 1982, and the first .45ACP Model 21s appeared at SHOT Show '91 in Dallas.

44 AMP
September 19, 2009, 01:01 AM
But I believe that each manufacturer registers the frame as either a rifle or a handgun, during the mfg. process. And from that point on, it is legally one, or the other. It does not get changed.

The practical side of this is clear with the TC Contender. You may add a rifle length barrel and a buttstock to a "handgun" registered frame. You have not legally made a rifle, you have just added a rifle length barrel and stock to a handgun, and my switch it back, at will.

If you add an under 16" barrel and stock to the handgun frame, you have not made a SBR, you have made a stocked pistol (also regulated). If you put a short barrel on a rifle registered frame, you have made a SBR, whether it has a buttstock or not.

The intent is that if it has a buttstock, it must have a barrel 16" or longer. Anything else is a regulated weapon, and a federal felony if you make one before getting govt approval. It may technically be a stocked pistol, or it may be a SBR, depending on how the frame was registered during the manufacturing process.

This is my understanding, and may not be fully correct. The ultimate arbiter of the laws in question is the ATF, and the courts.

Also, devices that are not physically attached to the pistol are considered braces, not stocks. You can hold the handgun against the brace with your hand, and it is legal. If there is any mechanical attachment between the handgun and the brace, then it becomes a stock, and is regulated under law.
At least, that's my understanding.

PTK
September 20, 2009, 04:28 AM
Reading threads like this led me to obtain a C96 with stock... I should get it this week by mail (hooray for C&R!)

http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/2461/boloc96forcain.jpg


Thanks, I really didn't need the money, or time, or guns that I'm trading for this.... :p

gyvel
September 21, 2009, 09:34 AM
Not quite to the letter of the OP, but here's another question about the 1911 16" barrel/shoulder stock combos:

IF you have the stock itself, and you have one or more 1911's around, but DON'T have the 16" barrel and also DON"T have the slotted mainspring housing required to attach it to the pistol, are you then still in violation of the law?

freakshow10mm
September 21, 2009, 10:03 AM
44 AMP, that is not correct. The manufacturer must record the type of firearm and these are the accepted nomenclature:

rifle
pistol
revolver
frame
receiver
machine gun
short barreled rifle
short barreled shotgun
silencer (also accepts "muffler" and "suppressor")
destructive device
any other weapon

There is no pistol/rifle receiver listing. If the manufacturers do it in their log book, that's their deal and it doesn't make a difference to the ATF. They see it as "frame or receiver".

Another interesting thing I've been reading. In order for a rifle to be a rifle it must have a shoulder stock and be capable of firing fixed ammunition through a rifled bore.

478.11

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 in order for a firearm to be a rifle it must have or previously had simultaneously:

shoulder stock creating intention to fire from shoulder
use the energy of a metallic cartridge to propel a single projectile with a single manipulation of a trigger/firing mechanism
have a rifled bore


This was brought out by the AR lower with a stock is a rifle sold to 18-20yo. ATF says no it's not a rifle because it has no rifled barrel. It is simply a receiver with a shoulder stock, is classified as an other firearm, must be 21yo to purchase as it is neither a rifle or shotgun.

So you can take an AR lower with no barrel attached and can swap out a pistol buffer and shoulder stock to your heart's content without ever making a rifle, since there is no rifled barrel.

Finally an answer.:eek:

prestigegunleather
September 21, 2009, 11:19 AM
to all,

fyi, i've recently been through this with the BATFE.
(i'm planning to build a Remington 870, 4 shot, PISTOL from an "old stock"/UNUSED receiver. it will have a 10" barrel.)

turns out that:
1. a pistol REMAINS a PISTOL, if so registered at the time of assembly/construction/first transfer, regardless of size/configuration.
2. IF you buy a receiver (for example a new M-16 stripped receiver) & register it as a PISTOL receiver, you may switch it back & forth to a rifle at your option, provided that you NEVER have the short barrel on at the same time as you have the shoulder stock mounted.
3. my proposed "pickup truck monster" is NOT a "weapon made from a rifle or shotgun" & it must have a 5.oo tax stamp as an "any other weapon". - it is NOT a "sawed-off shotgun" & once "taxed" is as PERFECTLY legal to own/carry (at least in MY state = check YOUR state out before making an "any other weapon"), concealed or openly as any other PISTOL is. = i'm having a "bountyhunter" holster & gunbelt made for it.
4. PISTOLS do NOT have to abide by the "not more than ten imported parts" rule. - this means that you can MAKE yourself a lawful "AK-style" pistol with a "80% completed receiver flat", a Krinkov kit & be perfectly lawful IF you NEVER assemble it with a shoulder stock.
(don't forget to put a "serial number" on your "homemade weapon". police are NERVOUS about weapons that don't have "markings". = my 7.62x39 AK-47 pistol has my driver's license number as it's "serial number".)

yours, PG

Willie Lowman
September 21, 2009, 12:10 PM
5.oo tax stamp as an "any other weapon" It transfers on $5 It will cost $200 to make on form 1

perfectly lawful IF you NEVER assemble it with a shoulder stock. And remember to never put a stock on that AOW or you will have unlawfully constructed a short barreled shotgun.

(don't forget to put a "serial number" on your "homemade weapon". police are NERVOUS about weapons that don't have "markings". Forget about "nervous," the ATF requires a SN engraved on the gun that matches what is on the form1. Failure to do so is what we scientists call "illegal"

prestigegunleather
September 22, 2009, 11:27 AM
willie lowman,

oddly enough, the BATFE letter says that AOW "manufacturers" (in this case, that's me.) pay 5.oo per AOW. = they are charging me 5.oo to make "the pickup monster" - i'm awaiting my tax stamp.
(i was told that IF i decided to "make" more than one AOW per year, that i would have to be licensed as a FIREARMS MANUFACTURER, which is 150.00 for 3 years. ====> presuming that i can get some more "old stock" stripped 870 receivers, i'm "considering" doing that, as i know several LEOs locally, who have heard about my "little friend" & want one too.)

further, individually made weapons (which are otherwise lawful) are NOT required to be serial numbered, according to the technical branch of BATFE. -
the "techie" that i talked to tells me that the fact that numerous firearms were manufacturered "in the old days" (Sears was still selling single barrel shotguns & 22 rifles W/O serial numbers in the 1960s.) without serial numbers, so that it is still "lawful" BUT "not a good plan".

regardless of what is/is not "technically lawful", i (as a retired LEO) most heartily agree with him. = had i run into a "modern weapon" being carried "on the street" (when i was a marshal) that was NOT serial numbered, i would have immediately thought: STOLEN GUN.
i would think that nobody needs that particuliar "hassle" with a LEO, just to keep from having to have a trophy shop (the local trophy-shop guy is going to charge me "about 5 or 6 bucks" to do mine.), or another similar place, engrave a serial number on your AOW/AK pistol/etc.

my proposed "pickup monster" would be REALLY hard to put a shoulder stock on, as the handgrip will be attached with a heavy "through-bolt" & the hole will be filled with a "glued in" plug. = for those who have never actually fired a 12guage PISTOL, i can tell you that the recoil is "considerable".

NOTE: when i was a city marshal, i had a "sawed-off 870", that i carried in the truck - just taking it out from under my Tuffy jacket QUICKLY STOPPED many a fight in one of the "joints out on the county line", W/O bloodshed. - i never had to shoot it "in anger" a single time.

yours, PG

Willie Lowman
September 22, 2009, 11:51 AM
further, individually made weapons (which are otherwise lawful) are NOT required to be serial numbered, according to the technical branch of BATFE. -
the "techie" that i talked to tells me that the fact that numerous firearms were manufacturered "in the old days" (Sears was still selling single barrel shotguns & 22 rifles W/O serial numbers in the 1960s.) without serial numbers, so that it is still "lawful" BUT "not a good plan".


The old days are past.

Read the instructions on your ATF 5320.1 form 1.

prestigegunleather
September 22, 2009, 11:55 AM
Willie Lowman,

did you bother to read what the "techie" & the letter confirming what i was told (and that i'm pending receipt of) said???

sadly, the "rules" change constantly. i'm not at all sure that the form instructions is "up to date".

yours, PG

Willie Lowman
September 22, 2009, 12:23 PM
I haven't seen this letter. You have not posted it. From where I sit, the information I have from the BATF&E is the law. What you have is chit-chat on the internet.

When you get this letter, I would very much like to see it, as would many other people in the NFA community.

As you said, rules change all the time.

This conversation is useless with out that letter.

freakshow10mm
September 22, 2009, 12:30 PM
Making tax on an NFA weapon is $200 for all NFA weapons, including AOWs. All NFA weapons transfer on a $200 tax, accept AOWs transfer for $5.

i was told that IF i decided to "make" more than one AOW per year, that i would have to be licensed as a FIREARMS MANUFACTURER, which is 150.00 for 3 years.
False. You can make an unlimited number of firearms, including NFA firearms, for personal use.

a pistol REMAINS a PISTOL, if so registered at the time of assembly/construction/first transfer, regardless of size/configuration.
False again. A firearm is what configuration it currently is. Put a stock on a pistol and you have a SBR.

IF you buy a receiver (for example a new M-16 stripped receiver) & register it as a PISTOL receiver, you may switch it back & forth to a rifle at your option, provided that you NEVER have the short barrel on at the same time as you have the shoulder stock mounted.
False yet again.

Wow you have no clue what you are talking about.

prestigegunleather
September 22, 2009, 04:01 PM
freakshow10mm,

tell me, "oh, great oracle", WHAT are your qualifications to be so "ALL-knowing" & evidently filled with hubris & ignorance of the law???
(fyi, you post like a lawyer & that is NOT a compliment.)

inasmuch as you seem to have posted no such verifiable qualifcations, i'll happily accept your opinion as just that = personal opinion.

yours, PG

prestigegunleather
September 22, 2009, 04:13 PM
Willie Lowman;all,

inasmuch as i previously told you that i have NOT received the letter, your response is fully considered & dismissed as more blather & fact-free nonsense.

when i receive the letter from technical branch, i'll post it.
(i have no reason to believe that the 'techie" lied about sending the letter.)

note to all: one of the several things that "gets on my nerves" as i enter my seventh decade of life are "self-appointed internet experts", who try to convince others on "the worldwideweird" of their "expertise", W/O having any qualifications.
ABSENT verifiable qualifications, the "experts" just (to me at least) look clownish, blustering, impotent, arrogant & SELF-important & they make me gag.

yours, PG

Hkmp5sd
September 22, 2009, 05:23 PM
Recommended reading for those interested in NFA items. NFA FAQ (http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/nfa_faq.txt)

prestigegunleather, the "$5" fee for an AOW is the transfer tax on an existing AOW that is already registered. If you create your own AOW on a Form 1, the manufacturing tax is $200. I am not a lawyer, did not stay at a Holiday Inn Express and do not have a dog in this fight, but I have been collecting NFA weapons for over 20 years and it really does cost $200 to make your own AOW on a FORM 1.

Bartholomew Roberts
September 22, 2009, 07:46 PM
I am a lawyer and prestigegunleather is either putting out bad info or is the very first person to discover both a dramatic change in BATF policy as well as the reversal of several provisions of the 1968 GCA.

As far as what anybody at BATF told you, get it in writing or it doesn't mean a thing. I've gotten three different answers to the same question from ATF (and for that matter, ATF letters aren't always that consistent either; but at least you can rely on them in court).

PTK
September 22, 2009, 08:57 PM
ABSENT verifiable qualifications, the "experts" just (to me at least) look clownish, blustering, impotent, arrogant & SELF-important & they make me gag.

Certainly the irony of this statement hasn't escaped you. ;)

PTK
September 22, 2009, 08:59 PM
freakshow10mm,

tell me, "oh, great oracle", WHAT are your qualifications to be so "ALL-knowing" & evidently filled with hubris & ignorance of the law???
(fyi, you post like a lawyer & that is NOT a compliment.)

inasmuch as you seem to have posted no such verifiable qualifcations, i'll happily accept your opinion as just that = personal opinion.

He's the holder of an 02/07 FFL/SOT. He deals with NFA items and the laws thereof literally every single day of work.

I don't care much for your attitude, sir - you're giving all retired peace officers a very bad name with your flagrant and repeated ignorance of law.

Bill DeShivs
September 22, 2009, 09:45 PM
Regarding the title of the thread-
Perhaps rulings have changed, but there were guns manufactured that had removeable stocks/barrels that were legal to change from rifle to pistol. One was made by the French firm of Unique. It was a .22 LR pistol that came with a full rifle stock and barrel, that you inserted the pistol action into.

gyvel
September 23, 2009, 01:48 AM
So, if I understand one of the previous posts, if you take your 1911, install a 16" barrel, install the slotted mainspring housing, and put the shoulder stock on, it now becomes a rifle and can never be "unconverted" back to its original configuration as a pistol (to include removal of the slotted mainspring housing)? (Meaning that it will now become an SBR coverted from a rifle???) All this according to BATF regs? Or am I getting really confused?:D:confused::eek::mad::(

Willie Lowman
September 23, 2009, 04:06 AM
I don't see what part of my last post could even be regarded as fact free nonsense.

There was only one fact in my last post and I will repeat it here.

Without that letter, your posts Mr. Prestigegunleather, are nothing more than mine. Just posts on a web site.

When you get that letter from the ATF, please post it for us all to see.

prestigegunleather
September 23, 2009, 10:48 AM
to all,

one wonders WHY any of you (particuliarly "PTK" & "freakshow10mm") seem to think that i LIED about what a BATFE technical branch employee (absent his consent, i will not give his name) told me on the phone AND that he promised to mail me a letter (confirming the information in our phone conversation) about.
i am NOT an "expert" & do not claim to be (3+ decades of being a LEO makes you "expert on" mostly being "tired", being disgusted with the government/"the judicial system" & physically "beat-up".). thus "PTK's " comment about "the irony" is considered & also dismissed as "SILLY".

to Bartholomew Roberts: counselor, my contact with technical branch was at the urging of my attorney. he didn't know the answers & neither did i.
finding out the FACTS (rather than asking for the UNknowing/ignorant/personal OPINIONS of "FFL holders"/"know it alls"/"internet experts"/police officials) was precisely why i asked for a ruling on my proposed "pickup monster".
not only am i NOT "an expert" (of "the worldwideweird" sort or any other kind) but i do know, from my years of being "pinned to the badge", that federal regulations/laws/adminstrative findings/court decisions CONSTANTLY change.
would you agree with Fred T__________ (my attorney) that once i have the letter "in hand" that i am reasonably well-protected from civil/criminal/administrative actions & harrassment by BATFE???


yours, PG
"Don't blame me. i voted for the American."

Bartholomew Roberts
September 23, 2009, 12:31 PM
Prestigegunleather, since you aren't my client and I don't know all of the facts, I cannot speak to your situation. I would advise my own clients not to rely on ATF legal opinions unless they are in writing and directed to them personally regarding their specific question.

However, like the others, I would certainly appreciate you posting that letter when you receive it. From a legal standpoint, that would be quite a switch in ATF policy.

(Meaning that it will now become an SBR coverted from a rifle???) All this according to BATF regs? Or am I getting really confused?

You are confused. See Revenue Ruling 61-203 for the explanation on carbine kits for pistols.

prestigegunleather
September 23, 2009, 04:46 PM
Bartholomew Roberts,

oh, what a "lawyerly answer" in #72. = chuckle.

forget my specific case & simply answer my underlying question ====> in your opinion as an attorney & from your own professional experience, will the BATFE "stand behind" a decision that they have rendered in writing, in response to a question from a member of the public
OR
do you find them to be as underhanded/dishonest/scheming/"wishy-washy" as the late/lamented Neal Knox, GOA, JPFO, TSRA, NRA & other gunowner groups claim?
(i worked with ATF agents a number of times over the years "down on the border" & most of the agents were OK guys/gals, when working cases. i have ZERO experience with the agency as a whole & frankly fear that under the "leadership" of BHO that the political types may be "doing strange & wonderful things".)

yours, PG
"politicians are like diapers. they should be frequently changed & for the same reason."

PTK
September 23, 2009, 05:00 PM
forget my specific case & simply answer my underlying question ====> in your opinion as an attorney & from your own professional experience, will the BATFE "stand behind" a decision that they have rendered in writing, in response to a question from a member of the public

Not a chance, they've directly reversed what letters have stated in the past, complete with confiscation of "legal by the letter" items.

Hkmp5sd
September 23, 2009, 05:08 PM
BATFE "stand behind" a decision that they have rendered in writing, in response to a question from a member of the public


This is the same group that issued a written ruling that a shoestring was a machinegun. They later reversed that ruling.

gyvel
September 23, 2009, 10:43 PM
You are confused. See Revenue Ruling 61-203 for the explanation on carbine kits for pistols.

I've read that ruling before and understand it. However, given what some of the posters in this thread have opined, just the opposite seems to be the case.

Bartholomew Roberts
September 24, 2009, 06:48 AM
forget my specific case & simply answer my underlying question

I don't have a per question rate. Would you like my hourly rate for people on the Internet who I don't know from Adam or should we discuss a flat fee?

As far as ATF, in my experience, the people who handle the day to day business of ATF are often not as familiar with firearms laws as they would be in an ideal situation. Since many of the questions they are asked to opine on confuse even lawyers and there is no overall principle of logic guiding most gun control laws, you can and do get different answers depending on who you ask.

This is why it is important to get those answers in writing. Frankly, I estimate your chances of getting the letter from ATF you described in your posts as only slightly above my chances of being Emperor of the world before the day is out (in fact without the first happening, I wouldn't count on your letter).

Willie Lowman
September 24, 2009, 08:32 AM
I've read that ruling before and understand it. However, given what some of the posters in this thread have opined, just the opposite seems to be the case. Trust what you have seen in writing from the ATF. They are the ones that will ruin your life for not doing as per their whim.

All opinions on the internet are to be considered & also dismissed as "SILLY".

prestigegunleather
September 24, 2009, 10:10 AM
HKmp5sd;all,

the "shoestring decision" is not a bit more stupid than the city attorney of Washington, DC deciding that a double-barreled 16 guage shotgun that "doubled" (as a result of a wornout trigger mechanism) was "constructively a machinegun".
(one wonders what the "effective cyclic rate" of a two-shot, manually loaded, MG is???)

fwiw, i was stationed at the Pentagon at that time (working for the National Guard Bureau) & the laughter directed at the city attorney's office was deafening. as a result of the continuing/mounting ridicule (including in the local newspaper editorial pages) directed at the whole city government, the city "quietly" dropped the case & returned "the machinegun" to the owner for repair.

note to all: currently, ordinary semi-automatic .22 rifles ARE classed as machineguns by the DC government because such weapons "could be remanufactured to become machine weapons".
(may i point out that a Honda Civic could be "remanufactured" into a dumptruck with enough parts/money/labor?)


yours, PG

prestigegunleather
September 24, 2009, 10:28 AM
Bartholomew Roberts,

sorry, counselor, "i ain't buying any".

btw, it's "non answers" like yours that remind me WHY i keep Fred T______________ "on retainer" for the various family businesses:
1. he gives answers to questions in "plain English" that we can use for making business plans/decisions,
2. he answers the question that we asked, rather than some other question
AND
3. if he has no knowledge of the subject (like solving some of my aged mother's complex tax problems) and/or no experience to rely on, he openly says that we need a different sort of lawyer & (at least) can usually tell us who we ought to contact for that sort of work/information.

yours, PG

Willie Lowman
September 24, 2009, 10:36 AM
I had heard about the SxS "machinegun." It is good to know nothing ever came of that.

{thread drift!} I was talking to a man who built his own Gatling gun. He said that the ATF advised him that if he attached a drill motor to the gun where the crank should be he would have crated a post-sample machinegun. I wonder if any 07/02 has ever registered a drill for these purposes? Any post-sample shoestrings out there? {end thread drift, we now return you to your regularly scheduled bickering and brow beating}

Bartholomew Roberts
September 24, 2009, 11:13 AM
Yes, I am a lawyer; but not YOUR lawyer. When you show up at the office with money in hand you tend to get more satisfactory answers than you do when asking for free legal opinions over the Internet. :D

Free legal advice is almost always worth less than you paid for it for a reason.

TRguy
September 24, 2009, 01:30 PM
I think this is on the NC Dept of Wildlife Website....hummmmm:D

Rule for Hunting Attorneys

North Carolina

1. Any person with a valid North Carolina State hunting license may harvest attorneys.

2. Taking of attorneys with traps or deadfalls is permitted. The use of currency as bait is prohibited.

3. Killing of attorneys with a vehicle is prohibited. If accidentally struck, remove dead attorney to roadside and proceed to nearest car wash.

4. It is unlawful to chase, herd, or harvest attorneys from a snow machine, helicopter, or aircraft.

5. It shall be unlawful to shout "whiplash", "ambulance", or "free Perrier" for the purpose of trapping attorneys.

6. It shall be unlawful to hunt attorneys within 100 yards of BMW dealerships.

7. It shall be unlawful to use cocaine, young boys, $100 bills, prostitutes, or vehicle accidents to attract attorneys.

8. It shall be unlawful to hunt attorneys within 200 yards of courtrooms, law libraries, health spas, gay bars, ambulances, or hospitals.

9. If an attorney is elected to government office, it shall be a felony to hunt, trap, or possess it.

10. Stuffed or mounted attorneys must have a state health department inspection for AIDS, rabies, and vermin.

11. It shall be illegal for a hunter to disguise himself as a reporter, drug dealer, pimp, female legal clerk, sheep, accident victim, bookie, or tax accountant for the purpose of hunting attorneys.

BAG LIMITS

1. Yellow Bellied Sidewinder 2
2. Two-faced Tort Feasor 3
3. Back-stabbing Divorce Litigator 5
4. Big-mouthed Pub Gut 2
5. Honest Attorney EXTINCT
6. Cut-throat 2
7. Back-stabbing Whiner 2
8. Brown-nosed Judge Kisser 2
9. Silver-tongued Drug Defender $100 bounty

Hkmp5sd
September 24, 2009, 02:53 PM
note to all: currently, ordinary semi-automatic .22 rifles ARE classed as machineguns by the DC government because such weapons "could be remanufactured to become machine weapons".

Someone, I can't recall the name, it may have been John Browning, turned a lever action rifle into a machinegun by putting a flapper just under the muzzle to catch some of the muzzle blast and linking it back to cycle the action.

I guess DC also classifies a bag of fertilizer as a bomb.

prestigegunleather
September 25, 2009, 10:11 AM
HKmp5sd,

YEP. i knew that someone did that.

during WWI, "the Pederson pistol" changed a '03 Springfield to a semi-auto, to be used as a "trench broom". - that "device" could have easily been made into a machine weapon.

also, in the early days of WWII, an Australian figured out how to convert a MKIII SMLE .303 British bolt-action rifle to a MG. the "re-inventor" also came up with a 20 round magazine to replace the 10 round SMLE mag.
(i'm told by an "old soldier" from that period, who had service in AUS/NZ/CBI, that it worked "fairly well, but it was clumsy & had significant recoil".)

and finally, the French converted a relative few 1907 Winchester carbines in .351WSL to full-auto during WWI.
(i'm told that those were "a flop".)

the truth is that MOST pistols/carbines/rifles can be made to function as a MG to some degree of success, with enough time/labor/money.

otoh, it is so easy to make a submachine gun from scratch that it seems silly to convert something else to full-auto. for example, the Irgun in 1946 Palestine made "homebrew copies" of the STEN for less than 5.oo each, which worked well.

yours, Otter

PTK
September 25, 2009, 02:56 PM
the truth is that MOST pistols/carbines/rifles can be made to function as a MG to some degree of success, with enough time/labor/money.

otoh, it is so easy to make a submachine gun from scratch that it seems silly to convert something else to full-auto. for example, the Irgun in 1946 Palestine made "homebrew copies" of the STEN for less than 5.oo each, which worked well.


Absolutely, 100% true. :)

prestigegunleather
September 25, 2009, 04:53 PM
PTK,

they don't have to worry about me buying up the "registerable MGs" however, as i spent a great deal of time as a MRO for the ARNG & as a scout leader for the 72d Heavy IN Bde, TXARNG. i got my fill of shooting machine weapons with the M-14E3, grease guns, M1A1 TSG, M-60 & especially "Ma Deuce" , in those long ago days.

the ONLY machine weapons that i truly crave is/are a SA War-vintage Maxim and/or a Colt's "Tater Digger" & i was told in a PM (by a senior forum member) that those are essentially unobtainable.:(:(:
(fwiw, i wrote my first thesis on military opns of the Boxer Rebellion.)

a .30-40US gatling of the SA would be FUN too, if one of those was available at a price that i could afford.

yours, PG

prestigegunleather
September 25, 2009, 04:58 PM
PTK,

fwiw, i was told by one of our "allied officers" (Zaire) during the IOAC in '74 that his army was STILL "homebrewing" STENs in both 9mm parabellum & in .45ACP.

Stephen said that their cheap SMGs worked JUST FINE, thank you very much.
(they were made out of muffler pipe, sheet metal & "surplus barrels, obtained at scrap metal prices".)

yours, PG

PTK
September 25, 2009, 11:23 PM
I know where to get a Colt transferrable MG, the old "potato digger", as well as various flavors of OLD Maxims, the "newest" being an Mg/08. PM me if you want me to pass the info along, though they're VERY expensive indeed.

prestigegunleather
September 26, 2009, 03:07 PM
PTK,

i failed to tell you to whom the "homebrew" STENs were issued in Zaire.= "La Garde Civile", i.e., the local defense militia of the national/provincial armies.

Stephen said that the "STEN clones" were "quite well liked" by those who carried them.
(like most educated African officers, Stephen was "more British than the British" - fyi, Zaire/Democratic Republic of the Congo (the former Belgian Congo) has "adopted" many of the forms/rituals/traditions of the British forces. = for example, the Belgians & the Zaire paratroopers use ENGLISH for "jump commands" & have done so since the Brits trained the Belgians during WWII.)

fyi, the regular army personnel (at least in 1974) who are issued SMGs receive Sterlings (British-made).

yours, PG

freakshow10mm
October 2, 2009, 08:10 AM
Someone on THR wrote into the ATF FTB in May and just received a response.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=477943

I'm looking to start building and selling AR15 rifle/pistol kits. you can swap it out as much as you want.:D

gyvel
October 3, 2009, 02:46 AM
Someone on THR wrote into the ATF FTB in May and just received a response.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=477943


This letter answers my original question as well: If you put a 16" barrel onto your 1911, add the slotted mainspring housing and the shoulder stock, you have created a rifle. According to their ruling, you're stuck with it. No going back to pistol configuration. Right?

freakshow10mm
October 3, 2009, 07:04 AM
Yes.

Put a stock and 16" rifled barrel on a firearm, that's a rifle and will always be a rifle.

Put a shoulder stock on an AR15 lower receiver, it's still a receiver since it has no rifled barrel and is not a rifle.

Dealers who have been putting a shoulder stock on an AR lower and transferring it to 18-20yo have been getting in trouble with the ATF because it's not a rifle or shotgun so you must be 21yo.

gyvel
October 3, 2009, 07:26 AM
Put a stock and 16" rifled barrel on a firearm that's a rifle and will always be a rifle.

???????????:confused:

Did you mean to say: "Put a stock and 16" rifled barrel on a firearm that's a pistol and [it] will always be a rifle?"

Bartholomew Roberts
October 3, 2009, 08:04 AM
Yes, that is the official ATF answer. Once you convert a pistol to a rifle, it may never be converted back unless it was originally purchased from the manufacturer as a "Multipurpose Firearms Kit" containing all of the relevant components.

Basically, that answer is the result of telling a lawyer somewhere "Interpret the Supreme Court's decision in Thompson Center-Fire in the most narrow fashion possible." Since that case turned on the definition of "making" a firearm, the ATF has decided that once a firearms is "made" (as a pistol or rifle), it is subject to their previous rulings. Because the manufacturer does not "make" a rifle or a pistol in the multipurpose firearms kit, AYF had to let that slide because to do otherwise would go from implicitly denying the Supreme Court to outright thumbing their nose at them.

The next question is will the ATF prosecute someone over this questionable interpretation? From a legal strategy standpoint, I don't think the ATF really wants that case; because it will be tough to look at SCOTUS precedent from Thompson Centerfire and make the argument that it is OK only if it is a "multipurpose firearms kit".

In order to even get to the question, ATF would have to go after someone who wasn't otherwise prohibited from owning firearms - so we are looking at a guy with a fairly clean legal record. Too bad for ATF that Olafson didn't do this - he would be the perfect guy for a case like this if they did want to prosecute (from a long-term strategy perspective). Either that or ATF will limit its prosecution to people who can't afford to fight them in court.

freakshow10mm
October 3, 2009, 08:24 AM
Did you mean to say: "Put a stock and 16" rifled barrel on a firearm that's a pistol and [it] will always be a rifle?"
The comma didn't type out. I fixed it.

Put a stock and 16" rifled barrel on a firearm, that's a rifle [as in now that's a rifle, ie you just made one] and will always be a rifle.

gyvel
October 3, 2009, 08:52 AM
Got it Freakshow. Thanks.

I'm still not clear on whether having a 1911 and a shoulder stock, but NO 16" barrel and NO slotted mainspring housing is "constructive whatever."

freakshow10mm
October 3, 2009, 09:05 AM
There is no constructive possession for federal SBR laws. TC v US addressed that issue. An SBR must be completely assembled in order for it to be a SBR.

Willie Lowman
October 3, 2009, 10:01 AM
Really, tell that to this guy.

http://blog.princelaw.com/2009/9/1/florida-man-arrested-for-constructive-possession-of-an-sbr

freakshow10mm
October 3, 2009, 10:33 AM
He was convicted under STATE law, not federal law. States can have constructive possession laws and they are legal and upheld. Big difference.:rolleyes:

Bartholomew Roberts
October 3, 2009, 10:45 AM
There is constructive possession under the 1934 NFA. All Thompson said was that if there is a possible legal use and a possible illegal use, then the rule of lenity says that the court will assume the possessor was going to do the legal thing and not the illegal one.

However, if you have no legal use for the parts in question (example: a 1911 pistol, a 1911 shoulder stock and only a pistol barrel), that is pretty much a textbook case of what ATF considers constructive possession of an SBR.

Another common occurence that ATF also considers constructive possession of an SBR (or at least they have written letters to that effect) is as follows:

1. You have a single legally registered NFA-compliant SBR AR15.
1. You have a single non-NFA AR15 rifle.
3. You have more than one short barrelled SBR upper for the AR15.

gyvel
October 3, 2009, 09:11 PM
However, if you have no legal use for the parts in question (example: a 1911 pistol, a 1911 shoulder stock and only a pistol barrel), that is pretty much a textbook case of what ATF considers constructive possession of an SBR.

Okay, granted. However, in my example, only the 1911 pistol and the shoulder stock are present. What is missing (besides the 16" barrel) is the slotted mainspring housing, without which, there is no means of attaching the stock to the pistol.

Is that still considered "constructive possession?"

Bartholomew Roberts
October 4, 2009, 09:08 AM
Well, I would argue no since you do not control all of the parts to "make" a short-barrelled rifle. I'm not sure what ATF would argue since there seems to be a complete lack of logic in some of their decisions.

gyvel
October 4, 2009, 11:16 AM
Finally! An answer! Thanks!:D

Bartholomew Roberts
October 4, 2009, 05:13 PM
Like I said, that is an answer; but it may not be the same conclusion ATF reaches. You should ask ATF for an answer in writing to be sure.

mapsjanhere
October 5, 2009, 04:22 PM
One question - what determines the barrel length for a revolver by ATF SBR definition? A friend of mine has a (probably Italian copy of ) Colt Buntline and was thinking about putting a stock on it. If you measure the "traditional" way, the round part sticking out of the frame, you get 15 3/4 inch, if you measure from the air gap it's 16 1/4. SBR or not, that is the question.

freakshow10mm
October 5, 2009, 05:54 PM
Revolvers are weird but I think they go from firing pin to muzzle with action closed.

A lot of game departments use this for barrel length measurements, which actually benefits wheelguns because the industry only includes the rifled portion whereas the DNR includes the cylinder itself, getting an additional 1.6 inches or so of "barrel" length. States that have a 5.5 inch barrel on pistols means you can use a .357 Mag wheelgun with 4 inch barrel because of the measurement criteria; 1.6+4=5.6 and you're good to go.:cool:

PTK
October 6, 2009, 12:26 AM
Federally, most barrels are measured from breechface with the action closed (and cocked if applicable) to the end of the muzzle (including any permanent attachments, with permanent being welded, blind pinned, etc., not just threaded on)


I'm honestly unsure of how to measure a revolver, by Federal standards.


mapsjanhere

The way you describe "traditional" measurement is just plain wrong - the barrel continues into the receiver. Measured conservatively (not into the cylinder) it's still over 16" for the barrel. As long as overall length is 26" or more with the stock, it's good to go.

gyvel
October 8, 2009, 06:55 PM
Revolvers are measured from the beginning of the forcing cone to the end of the muzzle. The chambers are not included

This was one of the arguments that the Germans used after WWI to circumvent the Treaty of Versailles, i.e. that since chambers of revolvers were not included in the measurement of barrel length on a handgun, it should not be so on an auto either.