The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old September 19, 2009, 01:01 AM   #51
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 11,738
I could be wrong (and it has happed before)...

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.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old September 20, 2009, 04:28 AM   #52
PTK
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 20, 2008
Posts: 442
Reading threads like this led me to obtain a C96 with stock... I should get it this week by mail (hooray for C&R!)




Thanks, I really didn't need the money, or time, or guns that I'm trading for this....
PTK is offline  
Old September 21, 2009, 09:34 AM   #53
gyvel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 30, 2009
Location: Northern AZ
Posts: 5,229
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?
gyvel is offline  
Old September 21, 2009, 10:03 AM   #54
freakshow10mm
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 23, 2008
Location: MI
Posts: 1,398
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.
freakshow10mm is offline  
Old September 21, 2009, 11:19 AM   #55
prestigegunleather
Member
 
Join Date: July 28, 2009
Posts: 38
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
prestigegunleather is offline  
Old September 21, 2009, 12:10 PM   #56
Willie Lowman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 5, 2009
Location: Uh-Hi-O
Posts: 2,455
Quote:
5.oo tax stamp as an "any other weapon"
It transfers on $5 It will cost $200 to make on form 1

Quote:
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.

Quote:
(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"
__________________
Proudly using insults and ad hominems in T&T since 2009

Last edited by Willie Lowman; September 21, 2009 at 12:36 PM.
Willie Lowman is online now  
Old September 22, 2009, 11:27 AM   #57
prestigegunleather
Member
 
Join Date: July 28, 2009
Posts: 38
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
prestigegunleather is offline  
Old September 22, 2009, 11:51 AM   #58
Willie Lowman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 5, 2009
Location: Uh-Hi-O
Posts: 2,455
Quote:
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.
Willie Lowman is online now  
Old September 22, 2009, 11:55 AM   #59
prestigegunleather
Member
 
Join Date: July 28, 2009
Posts: 38
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
prestigegunleather is offline  
Old September 22, 2009, 12:23 PM   #60
Willie Lowman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 5, 2009
Location: Uh-Hi-O
Posts: 2,455
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.
Willie Lowman is online now  
Old September 22, 2009, 12:30 PM   #61
freakshow10mm
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 23, 2008
Location: MI
Posts: 1,398
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
freakshow10mm is offline  
Old September 22, 2009, 04:01 PM   #62
prestigegunleather
Member
 
Join Date: July 28, 2009
Posts: 38
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 is offline  
Old September 22, 2009, 04:13 PM   #63
prestigegunleather
Member
 
Join Date: July 28, 2009
Posts: 38
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
prestigegunleather is offline  
Old September 22, 2009, 05:23 PM   #64
Hkmp5sd
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 15, 2001
Location: Winter Haven, Florida
Posts: 4,303
Recommended reading for those interested in NFA items. NFA FAQ

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.
__________________
NRA Certified Instructor: Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, Home Safety, Personal Protection, Range Safety Officer

NRA Life Member

Last edited by Hkmp5sd; September 22, 2009 at 05:30 PM.
Hkmp5sd is offline  
Old September 22, 2009, 07:46 PM   #65
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,718
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).
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old September 22, 2009, 08:57 PM   #66
PTK
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 20, 2008
Posts: 442
Quote:
Originally Posted by prestigegunleather
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 is offline  
Old September 22, 2009, 08:59 PM   #67
PTK
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 20, 2008
Posts: 442
Quote:
Originally Posted by prestigegunleather
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.
PTK is offline  
Old September 22, 2009, 09:45 PM   #68
Bill DeShivs
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 7, 2006
Posts: 7,167
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.
__________________
Bill DeShivs
www.billdeshivs.com
Bill DeShivs is offline  
Old September 23, 2009, 01:48 AM   #69
gyvel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 30, 2009
Location: Northern AZ
Posts: 5,229
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?

Last edited by gyvel; September 23, 2009 at 02:12 AM.
gyvel is offline  
Old September 23, 2009, 04:06 AM   #70
Willie Lowman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 5, 2009
Location: Uh-Hi-O
Posts: 2,455
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.
Willie Lowman is online now  
Old September 23, 2009, 10:48 AM   #71
prestigegunleather
Member
 
Join Date: July 28, 2009
Posts: 38
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."

Last edited by prestigegunleather; September 23, 2009 at 11:38 AM.
prestigegunleather is offline  
Old September 23, 2009, 12:31 PM   #72
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,718
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.

Quote:
(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.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old September 23, 2009, 04:46 PM   #73
prestigegunleather
Member
 
Join Date: July 28, 2009
Posts: 38
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."
prestigegunleather is offline  
Old September 23, 2009, 05:00 PM   #74
PTK
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 20, 2008
Posts: 442
Quote:
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.
PTK is offline  
Old September 23, 2009, 05:08 PM   #75
Hkmp5sd
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 15, 2001
Location: Winter Haven, Florida
Posts: 4,303
Quote:
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.
__________________
NRA Certified Instructor: Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, Home Safety, Personal Protection, Range Safety Officer

NRA Life Member
Hkmp5sd 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 10:01 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.13769 seconds with 7 queries