The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Hide > NFA Guns and Gear

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old June 15, 2009, 11:30 PM   #26
freakshow10mm
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 23, 2008
Location: MI
Posts: 1,398
Explain me the Mech Tech conversion thingies. How are those legal?
freakshow10mm is offline  
Old June 16, 2009, 07:02 AM   #27
MisterPX
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 25, 2006
Location: Amerika's Doyleland
Posts: 809
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.
MisterPX is offline  
Old June 16, 2009, 08:46 AM   #28
freakshow10mm
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 23, 2008
Location: MI
Posts: 1,398
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.
freakshow10mm is offline  
Old June 16, 2009, 01:40 PM   #29
Bill DeShivs
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 7, 2006
Posts: 6,888
You haven't created a "rifle." You have a pistol with 16+ inch barrel and shoulder stock-which is legal.
__________________
Bill DeShivs
www.billdeshivs.com
Bill DeShivs is offline  
Old June 16, 2009, 02:10 PM   #30
freakshow10mm
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 23, 2008
Location: MI
Posts: 1,398
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.
freakshow10mm is offline  
Old June 17, 2009, 02:40 AM   #31
Bill DeShivs
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 7, 2006
Posts: 6,888
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.
__________________
Bill DeShivs
www.billdeshivs.com
Bill DeShivs is offline  
Old June 17, 2009, 08:47 AM   #32
freakshow10mm
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 23, 2008
Location: MI
Posts: 1,398
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.
freakshow10mm is offline  
Old June 17, 2009, 09:16 AM   #33
Trapp
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 5, 2004
Location: KTN
Posts: 1,221
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)
__________________
HDR Ban!?
It's a shame all of my guns sank with my boat last week...
Time to catch up.....like mayonnaise
Trapp is offline  
Old June 17, 2009, 09:21 AM   #34
Trapp
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 5, 2004
Location: KTN
Posts: 1,221
Here is another good site to find opinions, rulings, and court cases dealing with NFA.


http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wba...ist/index.html
__________________
HDR Ban!?
It's a shame all of my guns sank with my boat last week...
Time to catch up.....like mayonnaise
Trapp is offline  
Old June 17, 2009, 10:13 AM   #35
freakshow10mm
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 23, 2008
Location: MI
Posts: 1,398
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 is offline  
Old June 17, 2009, 10:25 AM   #36
freakshow10mm
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 23, 2008
Location: MI
Posts: 1,398
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.
freakshow10mm is offline  
Old June 17, 2009, 06:46 PM   #37
dogtown tom
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 23, 2006
Location: Plano, Texas
Posts: 1,471
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.
__________________
Need a FFL in north Dallas/Plano/Allen/Frisco/McKinney ? Just EMAIL me.

$20 transfers ($10 for CHL, active military,police,fire or schoolteachers)
dogtown tom is offline  
Old June 17, 2009, 09:59 PM   #38
freakshow10mm
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 23, 2008
Location: MI
Posts: 1,398
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
freakshow10mm is offline  
Old June 19, 2009, 09:13 AM   #39
Trapp
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 5, 2004
Location: KTN
Posts: 1,221
Freakshow

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.
__________________
HDR Ban!?
It's a shame all of my guns sank with my boat last week...
Time to catch up.....like mayonnaise
Trapp is offline  
Old June 19, 2009, 10:12 AM   #40
freakshow10mm
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 23, 2008
Location: MI
Posts: 1,398
No harm done. SBRs aren't allowed in MI, even though my company is a Class 2. I get asked a lot.
freakshow10mm is offline  
Old September 10, 2009, 03:14 PM   #41
madmike
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 5, 2000
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 556
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.
__________________
CONTACT WITH CHAOS, Apr 09, Baen Books
BETTER TO BEG FORGIVENESS..., Nov 07, Baen Books
http://www.MichaelZWilliamson.com
http://www.SharpPointyThings.com
madmike is offline  
Old September 10, 2009, 06:41 PM   #42
HellBillySuperstar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 9, 2009
Location: Kansas
Posts: 116
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?
__________________
Si vis pacem, para bellum
HellBillySuperstar is offline  
Old September 10, 2009, 08:20 PM   #43
mustang_steve
Member
 
Join Date: September 6, 2009
Posts: 31
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.
mustang_steve is offline  
Old September 11, 2009, 02:21 AM   #44
KD5NRH
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 25, 2006
Location: Stephenville TX
Posts: 175
Quote:
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 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.

Last edited by KD5NRH; September 11, 2009 at 02:40 AM.
KD5NRH is offline  
Old September 11, 2009, 07:48 AM   #45
21CFA
Junior member
 
Join Date: September 19, 2005
Posts: 146
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. 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?
21CFA is offline  
Old September 11, 2009, 08:11 AM   #46
Kiawah
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2009
Location: NC
Posts: 119
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_in...fab512fa39cc0d

http://www.simpsonltd.com/product_in...fab512fa39cc0d

You can find shooter grade.

Last edited by Kiawah; September 11, 2009 at 08:40 AM.
Kiawah is offline  
Old September 14, 2009, 08:44 PM   #47
Tamara
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: March 11, 2000
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 15,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by 21CFA
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...
__________________
MOLON LABE!
2% Unobtainium, 98% Hypetanium.
The Arms Room: An Online Museum.
Tamara is offline  
Old September 16, 2009, 11:53 AM   #48
21CFA
Junior member
 
Join Date: September 19, 2005
Posts: 146
Very early Glock

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-"
21CFA is offline  
Old September 16, 2009, 12:46 PM   #49
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,598
Freakshow, your conundrum is answered in Revenue Ruling 61-203.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old September 17, 2009, 07:49 AM   #50
Tamara
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: March 11, 2000
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 15,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by 21CFA
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.
__________________
MOLON LABE!
2% Unobtainium, 98% Hypetanium.
The Arms Room: An Online Museum.
Tamara is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:50 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2013 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.14931 seconds with 7 queries