PDA

View Full Version : Legality of Mech Tech upper for Glock


chris in va
November 1, 2010, 05:52 PM
I'm getting the run-around regarding a 45acp upper I'm interested in for my Glock.

Some people point out the installation of this kit will prevent you from reinstalling the Glock slide, legally per the BATFE.

I emailed the BATFE, still waiting on a response...usually takes a month.

Here's the response I got back from an independent entity working with Mech Tech.

Hello xxx-xxx - First issue: an SBR is a rifle with a barrel less than 16" long - when using the pistol lower attached to the CCU you do not have an SBR. Secondly, the issue of converting back and forth is addressed by an attorney Stephen Halbrook in the link below:

http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/tc.html

Also is attached a PDF which contains copies of the Halbrook case and a letter from the ATF. Careful reading of both documents may answer your questions.

Before proceeding further, we are not legal experts and cannot officially give any legal advice - the ball is in your court.
Here is our opinion:
1) there is no ATF rule against restoring to the original pistol. (I understand this not to be the case)
2) when installing a barrel equal to or longer than 16" to a pistol, the pistol can now be fitted with a shoulder stock without special licensing.
3) when #2 above has been assembled, you have a shoulder stocked pistol - not a rifle.
4) when switching barrels and stocks on a firearm frame, it matters how the frame began life from the factory - as a pistol or a rifle.
5) if the frame is registered as a pistol, it so remains.

Given the information provided by Stephen Halbrook it seems that everything is OK relative to the CCU. One fact in your favor is that the unaltered CCU cannot be used to assemble an SBR. The shoulder stock does not mount directly to the pistol frame.

I might point out that I am not an officer of Mech-Tech Systems corporation. I am an independent consultant hired on a contract basis for my engineering skills. I have been asked to address this issue because I also maintain the website.
If you are really concerned about switching back and forth, you might consider doing so in a non-public area.

Hope this helps,
Ray G. Herriott

Thoughts?

rjrivero
November 1, 2010, 06:57 PM
This thread. Post #19.

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=416934

The case you were directed to is specific to the Thompson Contender KITS. Per the Supreme Court ruling, the THOMPSON CONTENDER KITS, when bought in ONE KIT can be used to configure any weapon you choose. Rifle to pistol and pistol to rifle, as you choose.

YOU CAN NOT do this with a your glock or your 1911.

Once a Rilfe, ALWAYS a rifle. Unless you file a form 1 to make a SBR.

Goidel
January 8, 2011, 04:51 PM
Excuse my ignorance but "What is an Illegal SBR?"

I recently acquired a Mech Tech CCU chambered for a 1911 A1 .45acp and now looking for a .45 pistol and the OP is somewhat startling. My barrel is
16.25 inches long, which is a 1/4 inch over the minimum. Do I have a problem when converting and possibly reverting the pistol ?

Any comments will be appreciated.

Double Naught Spy
January 8, 2011, 05:19 PM
SBR = Short Barrel Rifle

An illegal SBR is one for which there isn't a proper tax stamp.

Toxdoc
January 8, 2011, 10:30 PM
I recently acquired a Mech Tech CCU chambered for a 1911 A1 .45acp and now looking for a .45 pistol and the OP is somewhat startling. My barrel is
16.25 inches long, which is a 1/4 inch over the minimum. Do I have a problem when converting and possibly reverting the pistol ?

I am not fully versed in the law, but my understanding is that once you take your pistol, add a long barrel and a stock, it becomes a rifle, for ATF purposes. When you revert it back to a pistol, it is now a pistol made out of a rifle and that requires ATF approval (and I believe a tax stamp for an SBR).

While the US v Thompson Center Arms case, would suggest that you can convert back and forth, the ATF has taken the position that this case applies only to the TC pistol kit (I'm sure someone with better search skills knows of a link to letters from the ATF which state this).

2ndChildhood
January 11, 2011, 10:55 AM
I have one of these (love it) and in looking over the Halbrook thing I see no reference to where the Supreme Court singles out the T/C Arms products as being the only ones to which their decision applies. IMHO the reasoning put forward by the court is generic in nature and must apply to everyone and serves as a general interpretation to BATF 'rules'. In any event the question is are you really 'creating' a rifle when you attach a shoulder stock to a pistol having a barrel equal to or greater than 16"? - according to the Halbrook decision you are not if you're doing this to what is indeed a pistol. There are several classic pistols which have been fitted with 16" barrels - artillery Luger - and have shoulder stocks which can be legally attached - but not legally removed? - nah! If you are really bothered by all this do as the post above suggests - 'convert in private'. Some overzealous bureaucrat in the BATF may be watching but I don't see it holding up in court. I'll be interested to see the response by the BATF to the email sent their way by 'chris in va' - maybe also email Halbrook.

gyvel
January 11, 2011, 11:19 AM
There are several classic pistols which have been fitted with 16" barrels - artillery Luger - and have shoulder stocks which can be legally attached - but not legally removed? - nah!

Au contraire. If the gun, with the shoulder stock removed, is not over 26" in length, you have created an SBS from a "rifle."

By my calculations, a Luger with a 16" barrel is going to be about 21 1/2" long. Put the stock on, you have created a rifle. Take the stock off and you now have an illegal SBS.

smince
January 11, 2011, 11:46 AM
I think you mean SBR, not SBS :rolleyes:

dogtown tom
January 11, 2011, 02:51 PM
2ndChildhood:...There are several classic pistols which have been fitted with 16" barrels - artillery Luger - and have shoulder stocks which can be legally attached - but not legally removed? - nah!...
Wrong.
You're getting your guns mixed up. ANY Luger with a 16" bbl and shoulder stock is a rifle by definition. The barrel is not removable (as in a 1911, Glock or Hi Power) so it cannot easily or readily be converted back to a pistol.

A Luger with a 12" bbl, on the other hand IS a handgun. It becomes a short barrelled rifle when a shoulder stock is attached. Remove the shoulder stock and it remains a SBR under the National Firearms Act of 1934 and requires an ATF tax stamp. Unless.......it is specifically exempted as many Artillery Lugers are.

Certain Lugers, Mausers and FN/Browning Hi Powers are exempt from NFA regulation due to their status as curios. Not all Lugers, Mausers or Hi Powers are exempt from the NFA....only a defined few.

See the list here:http://www.atf.gov/publications/download/p/atf-p-5300-11/atf-p-5300-11.pdf
See Section III SECTION III: "Weapons Removed From The NFA
As Collector's Items And Classified As Curios Or Relics Under The GCA" (pages 34-42)

The Bureau has determined that by reason of the date of their manufacture, value, design and other
characteristics, the following firearms are primarily collector's items and are not likely to be used as weapons
and, therefore, are excluded from the provisions of the National Firearms Act.

Toxdoc
January 11, 2011, 07:08 PM
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4161137&postcount=19

This post contains a copy of ATF's thinking.

gyvel
January 12, 2011, 12:43 AM
I think you mean SBR, not SBS

Yes. Bad eyes and bad typing.;)

skinnygun
January 12, 2011, 02:25 AM
I have a Mech Tech in .460 Rowland ,when I take the slide off my 1911 .45 and add the Mech Tech unit is becomes a rifle...When I remove the unit and attach the slide to my 1911 .45 it becomes a pistol..Leave the house with one or the other.No problem.

dogtown tom
January 12, 2011, 10:48 PM
skinnygun I have a Mech Tech in .460 Rowland ,when I take the slide off my 1911 .45 and add the Mech Tech unit is becomes a rifle...When I remove the unit and attach the slide to my 1911 .45 it becomes a pistol..Leave the house with one or the other.No problem.
Not quite.:eek:
When you remove the Mechtech from your rifle and reassemble with your 1911 sllide and barrel...........you have just manufactured "a firearm made from a rifle". That requires a SBR tax stamp.

No tax stamp?

BIG problem.

gyvel
January 13, 2011, 02:18 AM
I have a Mech Tech in .460 Rowland ,when I take the slide off my 1911 .45 and add the Mech Tech unit is becomes a rifle...When I remove the unit and attach the slide to my 1911 .45 it becomes a pistol..Leave the house with one or the other.No problem.

And it wasn't a problem until you went on a public forum and blabbed to the whole world about it.

skinnygun
January 13, 2011, 04:08 AM
Thanks for the warnings I have not removed the 1911 from the Mech Tech unit as it is a great little rifle compact fun to shoot, I intend to keep it that way.

Powderman
January 13, 2011, 04:19 AM
And, to the best of my knowledge, it still isn't a problem.

The Mech-Tech upper conversion is available for purchase via website. It has been for years. In all this time, they have sold numerous units. I have seen these units. I have fired these units. I have been on live ranges, and seen these units fired IN THE DIRECT PRESENCE of DEA and ATF enforcement agents, as well as other law enforcement personnel.

This is from the Mech-Tech website...

"The CCU is not a firearm and will not fire without a pistol lower in place. The CCU is simply an accessory such as a scope or grips. For State and local laws you are advised to become aware of them relative to where you live. As far as Mech-Tech is aware, the CCU in and of itself is legal in all States. We do know that in the case of California the combination of the CCU and a pistol lower becomes illegal under current law. If and when Mech-Tech becomes aware of any other special circumstances such as California, we will publish this information. Again, the customer has the responsibility to determine the legality of the combination in their circumstance. "

Perhaps this is what some of you are referring to.

Source:

http://www.mechtechsys.com/faqs.php#a0

dogtown tom
January 13, 2011, 02:32 PM
Powderman And, to the best of my knowledge, it still isn't a problem.
It sure as heck is.
Converting a pistol to a rifle...no problem.
Converting that rifle back to a pistol.......BIG problem unless you hold a tax stamp.


The Mech-Tech upper conversion is available for purchase via website. It has been for years. In all this time, they have sold numerous units. I have seen these units. I have fired these units. I have been on live ranges, and seen these units fired IN THE DIRECT PRESENCE of DEA and ATF enforcement agents, as well as other law enforcement personnel.
So what?:rolleyes:
No one is disputing that the MechTec upper is legal.....we all know it is.



This is from the Mech-Tech website...

"The CCU is not a firearm and will not fire without a pistol lower in place. The CCU is simply an accessory such as a scope or grips. For State and local laws you are advised to become aware of them relative to where you live. As far as Mech-Tech is aware, the CCU in and of itself is legal in all States. We do know that in the case of California the combination of the CCU and a pistol lower becomes illegal under current law. If and when Mech-Tech becomes aware of any other special circumstances such as California, we will publish this information. Again, the customer has the responsibility to determine the legality of the combination in their circumstance. "
Perhaps this is what some of you are referring to.
Source:
http://www.mechtechsys.com/faqs.php#a0

All the above is MechTecs marketing hype. They do a great job of never addressing the fact that converting your MechTec rifle back to a pistol requires a tax stamp. ATF could not be more clear regarding the status of a firearm made from a rifle.............it requires a $200 SBR tax stamp. When you register that firearm as an SBR it remains an NFA weapon....meaning that all future transfers will require the buyer to pay an NFA tax as well.

MechTec doesn't want you to know this because it would cause many buyers to reconsider the purchase of a conversion kit.

smince
January 13, 2011, 05:33 PM
I am aware of a couple of guys who wanted to SBR their Glocks and carry the gun CCW, with the Israeli/FAB stock in a Maxpedition-type bag to have available just in case.

After contacting ATF, their ruling was once the pistol is SBR'd it must be stored and transported in SBR configuration.

You can remove the stock and fire the gun in non-NFA (pistol) configuration for short periods of time at the range for fun, but before you leave the gun must be put back into SBR configuration (stock on). You also must store the gun in your safe in SBR configuration.

So, by the other ATF letter, once you 'legally' convert the Mechtech back to being a pistol (by SBRing it), then the pistol/SBR has to be carried in the SBR config (in the case of one letter, as a pistol).

But according to the letter the guys I know have, you can't carry an SBR as a pistol, it has to be in SBR configuration.

Unless in SBR config it is a pistol?

Now I fully understand....:eek:

(I won't even get into the fact that a semi pistol with a stock is considered an SBR (constructive possession) without NFA paperwork, but with paperwork it can't be carried that way because it isn't in SBR configuration - our tax dollars hard at work)

Powderman
January 13, 2011, 07:49 PM
So, a question...

How can this be an SBR with a barrel length of over 16"?

But, that's OK. I put a shout out to one of my old buddies in the Seattle ATF office. He should be getting back to me with the definitive answer, and I'll post it here.

Powderman
January 13, 2011, 07:55 PM
And, by the way...this is directly (again) from the Mech-Tech website...

At this point you have your pistol with a 16+" barrel 'top end'. The unit is ready to fire! Slip in a loaded magazine, rack the cocking handle to the rear and release it - this loads a round into the chamber in the same way as does the original pistol slide. The unit operates in semi-auto mode exactly as does the pistol with the original 'top end' in place. No modifications to the pistol 'lower' are necessary. No unusual wear occurs when using the new 'top end'. The assembly is totally reversible. As we understand things, now that you have a pistol with a 16+" barrel you can legally install a shoulder stock and what you have is a shoulder stocked pistol. 'Unique to this product is the fact that you cannot attach the shoulder stock itself directly to the pistol lower.

Now, I may be way off in my thinking, but I believe that a company that has been doing business as long as these guys have MUST have obtained some type of ruling from ATF concerning the legality of their conversion units. They're not hard to find, and they're NOT hiding.

Make of it what you will. I'll still post the info from ATF when I get it.

smince
January 13, 2011, 07:55 PM
How can this be an SBR with a barrel length of over 16"?It isn't. It becomes an 'SBR' (supposedly) when you take the CCU off and put the slide back on. You've made something 'less' from a 16" rifle :rolleyes:

rjrivero
January 13, 2011, 07:58 PM
Let me know if they tell you anything different than they told me in July.

LINK HERE. (http://thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4161137&postcount=19)

For the record, it's not a "SBR" when you take the Mech Tech upper off the frame, it's a "pistol made from a rifle." That's a no no.

smince
January 13, 2011, 08:17 PM
For the record, it's not a "SBR" when you take the Mech Tech upper off the frame, it's a "pistol made from a rifle." That's one definition. Can you show me specifics for "a pistol made from a rifle'? I couldn't find it in my book.

I did find

26 U.S.C. sec. 5845(a)
* * * *
(3) a rifle having a barrel or barrels less than 16 inches
in length;
(4) a weapon made from a rifle if such weapon as modified
has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or
barrels of less than 16 inches in length
But it's not specified as a pistol made from a rifle that I can find.

rjrivero
January 14, 2011, 08:31 AM
smince,

My previous post should read "weapon made from a rifle" instead of "pistol made from a rifle." My error.

It is indeed from the National Firearms Act (NFA), 26 U.S.C. ยง 5845(a),

Powderman
January 14, 2011, 02:03 PM
Well, I just got off the phone with the ATF Office in Seattle. Here is the official word:

There is NO--I repeat, NO--Federal restriction to using the Mech-Tech CCU Unit with a handgun lower (1911, Glock), then removing the carbine upper and reinstalling the pistol slide assembly.

The one caution that I got was to "check your State's laws as well".

So, check your State's laws.

And, when cleared, use with confidence and much fun.

PTK
January 14, 2011, 02:54 PM
I am aware of a couple of guys who wanted to SBR their Glocks and carry the gun CCW, with the Israeli/FAB stock in a Maxpedition-type bag to have available just in case.

After contacting ATF, their ruling was once the pistol is SBR'd it must be stored and transported in SBR configuration.

You can remove the stock and fire the gun in non-NFA (pistol) configuration for short periods of time at the range for fun, but before you leave the gun must be put back into SBR configuration (stock on). You also must store the gun in your safe in SBR configuration.


Incorrect. Modifications are perfectly permissible even for long periods of time as long as the firearm can be returned to the condition stated on the F1 or F4. The BATFE is very clear on that.

Well, I just got off the phone with the ATF Office in Seattle. Here is the official word:

There is NO--I repeat, NO--Federal restriction to using the Mech-Tech CCU Unit with a handgun lower (1911, Glock), then removing the carbine upper and reinstalling the pistol slide assembly.

The one caution that I got was to "check your State's laws as well".

So, check your State's laws.

And, when cleared, use with confidence and much fun.

Powderman, you just got an opinion from one employee. The law is quite clear. A 1911 or Glock with a rifle upper is a rifle, it has a stock. The law is quite clear that if a firearm designed or redesigned (such as with a CCU) to be fired from the shoulder must have a 16" or longer barrel and at least a 26" OAL or it is an NFA item. Period. If it, at any point, had a stock - it's a rifle or short barreled rifle (depending on barrel length).

If you could just convert things back and forth, there would be a LOT of people with MN 91/30 "pistols". Hey, no stock, so it's a pistol, right? Doesn't matter what it started as, a pistol or a rifle, if it EVER had a stock designed or redesigned to be fired from the shoulder, EVER, it's a rifle. If that is true and the barrel is now less than 16" and/or the overall length is now less than 26", it's a "weapon made from a rifle" - an SBR. Period.

smince
January 14, 2011, 03:55 PM
Incorrect. Modifications are perfectly permissible even for long periods of time as long as the firearm can be returned to the condition stated on the F1 or F4. The BATFE is very clear on that.Sorry, but these guys have an official letter stating the same as I posted, just as official as those letters saying that you can't return a CCU to a pistol without paying the tax.

No, I don't have a copy I can scan in an post, but I have seen it.

Another case of .gov bureaucracy left hand not knowing what the right is doing, IMO.

PTK
January 14, 2011, 03:59 PM
Funny, I have a letter saying what I posted, as do many other people that I've spoken to! BATFE.... ah well. :rolleyes:

smince
January 14, 2011, 04:01 PM
I guess it depends on who opens the mail, the time of day, the phase of the moon...

dogtown tom
January 14, 2011, 06:00 PM
Powderman Well, I just got off the phone with the ATF Office in Seattle. Here is the official word...
It's not official, it's not even correct.
Who did you speak to at Seattle ATF? Enforcement? Industry Operations?

I hope you got their name because you'll need that once you go to trial.
Verbal opinions from ATF, IRS, or any other government agency are worth the paper they are printed on.

PTK
January 14, 2011, 08:06 PM
dogtown tom,

Nicely done emphasis. Hopefully anyone reading this thread in the future will be well aware what a verbal opinion is worth, especially in the light of the fact that even the WRITTEN opinions constantly conflict. :(

dogtown tom
January 14, 2011, 09:02 PM
PTK dogtown tom,

Nicely done emphasis. Hopefully anyone reading this thread in the future will be well aware what a verbal opinion is worth, especially in the light of the fact that even the WRITTEN opinions constantly conflict.

How true.
I'm a fan of the Browning Hi Power. One of my favorites is a WWII era Inglis Hi Power made in Canada. It has a tangent rear sight and a slot cut in the backstrap for a detachable stock/holster.

ATF has exempted these particular HP's from the NFA when the stock is attached due to their status as a collectible firearm. The stock/holster attached to another Hi Power would result in a SBR.

ATF Technical Branch has issued at least two letters regarding the type of stock/holsters that may be used with the Inglis MkI Hi Power.....the first letter issued in 1991 said reproduction stocks "which duplicate or closely approximate the configuration of the original stock" were perfectly fine and did not require a tax stamp: http://www.panchogun.com/FVWebPhotos/FV-FN-HP35-Belgium-ATF-Docs-5x100px.jpg

A few years later ATF TB issued another letter where it stated only "original" stock/holsters were NFA exempt. So much for anyone who owned a copy:mad:.

Bureaucracy:mad:.

Ridge_Runner_5
January 14, 2011, 09:16 PM
Besides, if you put it on, then took it off, unless you took photos and posted them in a public place, the ATF could never prove you mounted it...

Powderman
January 14, 2011, 10:18 PM
OK. Let me do a quick recap...

1. Did anyone miss the post that I made earlier, where I mentioned that I had seen one of the units in use, fired, and reconverted to a pistol in front of Special Agents from the DEA and ATFE?

2. Second, the guy I talked to is from ATF Enforcement. In other words, he's one of the guys you would talk to if you DID make an SBR illegally.

3. I must point out that some of you guys have been wearing the tinfoil hats WAY too long. MechTech has been selling these units for a LONG time. Not only on line, but through other venues as well. They HAVE contacted--and have been contacted--by ATF who gave the OK to sell the units, as they are termed as ACCESSORIES. Do you think that a company would risk financial ruin and criminal charges by selling something that would be illegal OPENLY?

By the way, if you want to call these guys a fly-by-night operation, one of the companies that carried their units for many years was BROWNELL'S. Is Brownell's a fly by night company?

In closing, a challenge...Go ahead, someone, and post an official letter from ATF stating that the conversion cannot be removed, and the pistol reassembled.

One other thing...since some of you are so paranoid that you seem to be wrapped in tinfoil. On Monday, I believe I will call the ATF Compliance Office in Atlanta, GA--the main office for compliance matters, and get the word ONE MORE TIME. I may or may not post it here.

To the OP--check your State laws, and then purchase with confidence.

PTK
January 14, 2011, 11:12 PM
In closing, a challenge...Go ahead, someone, and post an official letter from ATF stating that the conversion cannot be removed, and the pistol reassembled.

Sure thing. Your scenario is clearly listed under "Question #1". Do I win a prize? :D

http://thefiringline.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=66202&stc=1&d=1295064677
http://thefiringline.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=66203&stc=1&d=1295064677
http://thefiringline.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=66204&stc=1&d=1295064677



In closing, I do hope you're sane and logical enough to publicly admit that you were incorrect and misled people. ;)

rjrivero
January 14, 2011, 11:13 PM
Powderman,

I highly suggest you talk to the "home office." Call the ATF-NFA branch, Technologies division. Let me know what they tell you. If you want to know about the NFA rules, call the NFA. You're local branch office isn't the correct "source."

If you will take a letter as "proof" perhaps a conversation with the folks who WRITE the letters will suffice?

ATF NFA branch: 304-616-4500

dogtown tom
January 14, 2011, 11:59 PM
Powderman OK. Let me do a quick recap...

1. Did anyone miss the post that I made earlier, where I mentioned that I had seen one of the units in use, fired, and reconverted to a pistol in front of Special Agents from the DEA and ATFE?
We didn't miss anything because that is not what you wrote in your earlier post. You failed to mention that the firearm was "reconverted" to a pistol.....only that a MechTech was fired in front of everyone but the Vatican Swiss Guard.

2. Second, the guy I talked to is from ATF Enforcement. In other words, he's one of the guys you would talk to if you DID make an SBR illegally.
Wrong department.


3. I must point out that some of you guys have been wearing the tinfoil hats WAY too long. MechTech has been selling these units for a LONG time. Not only on line, but through other venues as well. They HAVE contacted--and have been contacted--by ATF who gave the OK to sell the units, as they are termed as ACCESSORIES. Do you think that a company would risk financial ruin and criminal charges by selling something that would be illegal OPENLY?
One more time..........NO ONE has stated that the MechTech unit is illegal. You keep bringing this up but find one post where anyone said a MechTec is illegal. What IS illegal is converting a MechTech rifle back to a pistol without having an ATF tax stamp. Your undying love of MechTech is commendable..........but note that even MechTec does not address the legality of converting their rifle back to a pistol. And there is a reason for their failure to do so. Why don't you call MechTec and ask them why they dance around that question? Their answer (or failure to answer) may surprise you.

By the way, if you want to call these guys a fly-by-night operation, one of the companies that carried their units for many years was BROWNELL'S. Is Brownell's a fly by night company?
Stop. No one called anyone a "fly by night operation".


In closing, a challenge...Go ahead, someone, and post an official letter from ATF stating that the conversion cannot be removed, and the pistol reassembled.
Well.........there's one letter.

One other thing...since some of you are so paranoid that you seem to be wrapped in tinfoil. On Monday, I believe I will call the ATF Compliance Office in Atlanta, GA--the main office for compliance matters, and get the word ONE MORE TIME. I may or may not post it here.
One more time.......what ATF tells you on the phone doesn't mean squat. If you can't get it in writing it is worthless blather. It's not that I don't trust you would accurately report their answer.....it's that the folks that answer the phone.........they aren't the ones who are authorized to state official ATF interpretations. To get a determination you have to submit your question in writing.

chris in va
January 15, 2011, 03:30 AM
Still no word from the BATFE on the matter.

Seems there's another 'conversion kit' on the market, except it doesn't have a barrel...just gives your handgun a stock.

http://www.ematactical.com/viewProduct.asp?ID=267&catID=376

http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/6329/ronii.jpg (http://img338.imageshack.us/i/ronii.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

This product is regulated by NFA rules. Transfer of this product is regulated by NFA rules.

This product converts a pistol into a short barreled rifle (SBR). SBR are regulated under the laws of the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA). It is illegal to possess this product unless it is registered with Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives BATF&E (Form 1) or you are a Class 3 Dealer. It is illegal to transfer this product to anyone before they have registered this product with BATF&E.

Powderman
January 15, 2011, 05:24 AM
To PTK and others--problem solved. PTK, you might want to go back and read the letter in your own post--specifically the third image.

This is the part that says, "It is the position of ATF that if a multipurpose firearms kit is obtained as an assemblage of parts from a single source, the components of the kit can be assembled and re-assembled an unlimited number of times as a rifle or a pistol."

Moreover, I'm sure that you noted that the preponderance of the letter dealt with the Thompson/Center Contender.

No, I'm not a proponent of the Mech-Tech unit. I don't own one, and have no plans to buy one. Still, the answers are there--now posted in writing, and posted on this board.

And, I guess I'm done with this one. Bye, y'all.:)

smince
January 15, 2011, 06:29 AM
This is the part that says, "It is the position of ATF that if a multipurpose firearms kit is obtained as an assemblage of parts from a single source, the components of the kit can be assembled and re-assembled an unlimited number of times as a rifle or a pistol."If you re-read the letter, it also says "a frame or receiver that has never been assembled as a rifle or pistol".

The CCU kit does not include one of these. You provide your own from a pistol.

Powderman
January 15, 2011, 07:45 AM
OK, so I guess I'll come back to this one for a bit.

With regard to the last post, yes, I noted that. I also noted the part printed BEFORE that, which asked, "With regard to the Thompson/Center Contender pistol and carbine kit..."

The Contender differs in one significant way--you CAN attach a stock to the receiver of the firearm.

The Mech-Tech kit comes with a stock attached to the ACCESSORY, with no provision to attach it to the receiver of the Glock or 1911 pistol. That single factor is the most significant facet that makes the whole thing legal.

Or, so I was told by the ATF Agent....:)

PTK
January 15, 2011, 10:03 AM
Powderman, think and do what you want. You've been given definitive proof, cited the law, and had multiple people point out why exactly you're incorrect. There's nothing I can do that will change your mind, clearly.

One day, you might find that with your head in the sand on this issue, someone has put shiny bracelets on your wrists.:(

I'm done here.

rjrivero
January 15, 2011, 10:42 AM
chris in va....

I sent in a Form 1 for a glock 35 so I can put this on it and play with it! Just looks like FUN!

smince
January 22, 2011, 08:55 AM
Just add the new 'stockless' upper and treat it like an AR pistol:

http://www.mechtechsys.com/images/web/GLK%20basic%20with%20lower%20web%20size.jpg

:D:D:D

Cali-V
April 16, 2011, 02:13 PM
chris in va, did BATFE ever give you a response?

smince
April 16, 2011, 07:49 PM
As much as I like the CCU, I went with the Keltec S2K for a Glock-compatible carbine for just a little more than a tax stamp would cost.

tulsamal
April 24, 2011, 03:23 PM
I am aware of a couple of guys who wanted to SBR their Glocks and carry the gun CCW, with the Israeli/FAB stock in a Maxpedition-type bag to have available just in case.

After contacting ATF, their ruling was once the pistol is SBR'd it must be stored and transported in SBR configuration.

You can remove the stock and fire the gun in non-NFA (pistol) configuration for short periods of time at the range for fun, but before you leave the gun must be put back into SBR configuration (stock on). You also must store the gun in your safe in SBR configuration.


Incorrect. Modifications are perfectly permissible even for long periods of time as long as the firearm can be returned to the condition stated on the F1 or F4. The BATFE is very clear on that.

I have to go with PTK on this one. It's the whole reason I did my build in a certain order. Started with an AR pistol. Custom DI .357 SIG with 9" barrel. No problem, totally legal. Then got it certified as a SBR. Tax stamp came, changed buffer tube and put on a stock. But one of the big problems with any NFA item is the way you have to plan ahead to take them over state lines. You have to do the paperwork. But the rules clearly say that I can remove the stock, change back to a pistol buffer tube, and then travel where I like with no tax stamp. At that point it's just a pistol again.

Now it would be a different story if I had the stock and buffer tube in my car with me and the pistol!

Them's the rules!

Gregg

HKFan9
April 29, 2011, 10:22 PM
I have a few friends with them, two of which are police. You are not attaching the stock to the frame of the handgun... you are not altering the frame to accept the stock in any way. That frame is registered as a handgun, NOT a rifle. Like their website states, it is just an accessory. Think of a buying a .22 conversion kit for a 1911 and such. You are attaching a slide that has a longer barrel and stock, but the FRAME (IE the registered part) is still a pistol frame and registered as one. I purchased one used off a state trooper friend, then traded it back into a shop. I have watched them take 1911's and Glocks and field strip them to install the upper before a carbine match. I don't see the issue. Like others have stated... they have been around forever.

dogtown tom
April 29, 2011, 11:29 PM
HKFan9 I have a few friends with them, two of which are police. You are not attaching the stock to the frame of the handgun... you are not altering the frame to accept the stock in any way. That frame is registered as a handgun, NOT a rifle. Like their website states, it is just an accessory. Think of a buying a .22 conversion kit for a 1911 and such. You are attaching a slide that has a longer barrel and stock, but the FRAME (IE the registered part) is still a pistol frame and registered as one. I purchased one used off a state trooper friend, then traded it back into a shop. I have watched them take 1911's and Glocks and field strip them to install the upper before a carbine match. I don't see the issue. Like others have stated... they have been around forever.

It doesn't matter whether the stock attaches to the frame, the slide, the magazine, the grips or any other part..............you attach a shoulder stock to a handgun you have manufactured a short barrelled rifle. That makes the handgun an NFA item subject to a tax stamp.

I have no idea what internet lawyer told some of you that the frame must be altered. Once a handgun has had a shoulder stock attached in any way it is an NFA item whether the stock remains attached or not. Without the stock attached it becomes a "firearm made from a rifle" meaning it remains an NFA firearm.

Being around forever is immaterial. The manufacturers of the MechTech are not making an NFA item.....you are. They dance happily to the bank while you ignorantly violate Federal law.

Mind Bridge
July 25, 2011, 03:52 PM
I became concerned about my CCU in general when a range officer at a local range challenged me on it today.

Sorry to resurrect, but I found further information in my searches.

This was posted on AR15.com. Looks like it is ok afterall:

http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j85/koimprobable/guns/atfmechtech001.jpg - page 1

http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j85/koimprobable/guns/atfmechtech002.jpg - page 2

Original poster: http://www.ar15.com/mobile/topic.html?b=6&f=48&t=345636

I am going to send my own letter to the ATF and see if I get a similar response.

Further thoughts on this ... The whole thing demonstrates the insanity of our gun laws; the fact that a federal agency can't even interpret its own laws. Laws that are serious enough to result in felony convictions. I do fear that our inquiries into these inane matters justify the existence of the bureaucracy. I mean what would these ATF agents do if they didn't have to unravel these logical puzzles all day? Real jobs I suppose ... :-(

C0untZer0
July 25, 2011, 07:43 PM
Thank goodness we have a BATFE to mull over these complex matters and clarify things for us...

rjrivero
August 4, 2011, 09:54 PM
Well, looky here. The ATF has again contradicted itself and is now allowing a pistol to be converted to a rifle and back to a pistol. Mech Tech is legal.
LINK HERE. (http://www.atf.gov/regulations-rulings/rulings/atf-rulings/atf-ruling-2011-4.pdf)

Powderman
August 5, 2011, 03:05 AM
Powderman,

I highly suggest you talk to the "home office." Call the ATF-NFA branch, Technologies division. Let me know what they tell you. If you want to know about the NFA rules, call the NFA. You're local branch office isn't the correct "source."

If you will take a letter as "proof" perhaps a conversation with the folks who WRITE the letters will suffice?

Well, looky here. The ATF has again contradicted itself and is now allowing a pistol to be converted to a rifle and back to a pistol. Mech Tech is legal.

As I mentioned a few posts and pages ago.....

Skans
August 5, 2011, 08:28 AM
What's the difference between the Mech Tech kit and a barreled carbine upper receiver for a Mac10? There has never been any problem taking a Mac10 pistol and using the pistol receiver on a carbine kit. However, you cannot take a Mac10 Carbine (very few made) and LEGALLY put a pistol upper receiver on it.

PTK
August 5, 2011, 10:27 AM
As I mentioned a few posts and pages ago.....

...really. Your last post in this thread was in January.

Date approved: July 25, 2011

So you can travel in time? What's your secret? ;)

dogtown tom
August 5, 2011, 08:28 PM
Powderman....As I mentioned a few posts and pages ago.....
Well.........a few posts and pages ago you were flat, dead wrong about the MechTech and it's use.

The ATF about face happened this week, not in January. If you read the ruling http://www.atf.gov/regulations-rulings/rulings/atf-rulings/atf-ruling-2011-4.pdf you will note that EVERYTHING you were told in this thread was accurate.

2ndChildhood
October 27, 2011, 09:07 AM
Hello all - Powderman has it right and here is the definitive proof:
http://www.atf.gov/regulations-rulings/rulings/atf-rulings/atf-ruling-2011-4.pdf
(see bottom of last page)
Also in the Nov 2011 issue of American Rifleman (page 90 - ILA column) we have this excerpt:
"The ruling also states that a pistol can be made into a rifle (for example by adding a long barrel and a shoulder stock), and then turned back into a pistol, without making an NFA 'firearm' "
Also - this info is now posted on the Mech Tech forum:
http://mechtechsys.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=431

dogtown tom
October 27, 2011, 09:40 AM
2ndChildhood Hello all - Powderman has it right...
Nope. :rolleyes:
When Powderman first posted in this thread he was wrong.
ATF did not reverse their opinion until August 4th, 2011.

If you'll read my post directly above yours you'll see where the link to ATF's new ruling was posted the same day it appeared on the ATF website.

Powderman
October 27, 2011, 12:22 PM
Hello all - Powderman has it right and here is the definitive proof:
http://www.atf.gov/regulations-rulin...ing-2011-4.pdf
(see bottom of last page)
Also in the Nov 2011 issue of American Rifleman (page 90 - ILA column) we have this excerpt:
"The ruling also states that a pistol can be made into a rifle (for example by adding a long barrel and a shoulder stock), and then turned back into a pistol, without making an NFA 'firearm' "
Also - this info is now posted on the Mech Tech forum:
http://mechtechsys.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=431

When Powderman first posted in this thread he was wrong.
ATF did not reverse their opinion until August 4th, 2011.

No, 2nd Childhood. I'm wrong. Just like the other folks here have said, I'm wrong. Even when I post the correct information, after research, I'm wrong.

By the way, once again--I'm wrong.

So are the following people:

ATF Compliance-Seattle
ATF Enforcement-Seattle
ATF Compliance-Atlanta

Assorted Special Agents from DEA and ATF-Enforcement--who shall remain unnamed here for obvious reasons

Mech-Tech Systems--heck, they're so illegal that they're still in business, and were in business for YEARS before this post was started.

Brownell's Inc.--a gunsmith's supply shop, who has a sterling reputation for following the law--as evidenced by their dealing in repair parts for NFA firearms, and who would NOT jeopardize their business by selling illegal items (who, by the way, carried the Mech-Tech systems CCU (Carbine Conversion Unit) for a few YEARS before this even became a controversy).

In closing--yep, I guess I'm as wrong as a two-dollar bill. (Hey, wait--we have those....) ;)

dogtown tom
October 27, 2011, 12:41 PM
You were wrong until ATF issued their determination letter on August 4th, 2011. If you believe you were correct before that date.......ATF disagrees.;)

Why in the heck do you think they issued the ruling?:rolleyes: