Rifle to handgun: do I have the basic understanding right?

[TXAZ]

I've read various statutes, ATF letters and the ATF website regarding building your own handgun. I'm nowhere near serious enough to go forward, but wondering if I have this right:
IF you bought a rifle, an XYZ123 for all the parts EXCEPT the receiver, then fully disassembled it, tossed the receiver, made your own receiver, even it it was an identical copy, (again that had never been part of a rifle before,) re-assembled it without a stock, shortening the barrel to something much less, AND met the 1 hand rule, and the 75 point rule, and didn't violate any state laws, that would be a legal handgun, correct?

In contrast, taking the same XYZ123, taking the stock off, sawing off the barrel to the same length as above but using the same receiver that came with the rifle, gets you 5-10 in the federal hospitality suite and a big fine.

Do I have the basic understanding right?
If so, am I the only one who sees no logic in this rule?

[Sharkbite]

Short version...

You can make a handgun into a rifle and back. A rifle can not be made into a handgun. You can apply and build it into a SBR, but that requires a Form 1 and a $200 tax

[Aguila Blanca]

TXAZ -

If we can extrapolate from the AR-15 universe to other firearms, I believe you are correct. If I buy a complete AR-15 rifle or carbine, if I put on an upper with a barrel less than 14 inches I will have created an SBR.

If I purchase a bare receiver, it is not transferred to me as a "long gun" or as a "handgun," it is transferred as "other - receiver." I can then build that receiver into either a handgun or a rifle. If I build it first as a rifle, I cannot later convert it to a handgun unless I go the SBR route.

However, it is my layman's (IANAL) understanding that if I build it first as a handgun, I can later make it into a rifle and then revert to a handgun without violating the law.

Does it make sense? Of course not -- but we're dealing with the feral government, and the BATFE, so it isn't supposed to make sense. Remember, these are the same people who once determined that a shoelace was a machine gun.

[TXAZ]

Thanks White Eagle, who said

...these are the same people who once determined that a shoelace was a machine gun

Why am I not surprised? Sometimes I think overt, published or intentional stupidity or lying to the American Citizens by bureaucrats should be a capital crime. (And I'm a bureaucrat)
Thanks for the excellent explanation.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Originally Posted by TXAZ

IF you bought a rifle, an XYZ123 for all the parts EXCEPT the receiver, then fully disassembled it, tossed the receiver, made your own receiver, even it it was an identical copy, (again that had never been part of a rifle before,) re-assembled it without a stock, shortening the barrel to something much less, AND met the 1 hand rule, and the 75 point rule, and didn't violate any state laws, that would be a legal handgun, correct?

The gun that you bought and threw away (silly you) is completely irrelevant. Your not doing anything to that gun except throw it away.

The 75 point rule is also irrelevant, as your gun is not an import.

You are building a gun. The feds couldn't care less, so long as you are not a prohibited person and you aren't building it for the purpose of selling it. You can sell it at a later date, but you can't build it for the purpose of selling it.

The feds don't care if you make it a rifle or a handgun or whatever, so long as it doesn't meet the statutory (or ATF opinion) of one of their restricted weapons. If you build it as a handgun, it's a handgun.

[carguychris]

TXAZ, since Sharkbite has already shared the short version, here's the long version straight from the horse's mouth:

https://www.atf.gov/files/regulation...ing-2011-4.pdf

I recommend that you ignore the parts of the letter that concern kits. The federal courts and the ATF have not extended these provisions to cover anything other than Thompson/Center pre-packaged kits. Don't be misled or make any rash assumptions; remember, logic does not necessarily apply.

I'd also like to add one little itty bitty clarification...

Originally Posted by Brian Pfleuger

The 75 point rule is also irrelevant, as your gun is not an import.

This is true assuming that TXAZ makes his/her own receiver, as discussed in post #1, and does so in the USA.

[TXAZ]

Thanks Sharkbite, Chris, Pizza and Aguila.

It sounds like the easiest and legal way to proceed, assuming the example would be to:
Buy the full rifle version of the pistol you want
Fully disassemble the rifle
Take the RIFLE receiver to a CNC duplicator system (or you could manually mill a new one from a metal blank)
(A CNC duplicator mills a duplicate block of metal by sensing a bizillion points on the original then cutting / milling the blank to the same shape)
The resulting receiver, having never been a rifle, is now officially a Pistol receiver
Any mods to the former rifle components are made
The handgun is assembled.

At this point it's all legal.

Did I miss something?

[dakota.potts]

The easiest way is just to buy a receiver blank that has never been barrelled and simply make that your handgun. No need for duplication or anything