The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post

tgreening · January 22, 2013, 09:43 PM

Maybe I'm missing something here but...what problem exactly does this solve? I understand the underlying concept, but I don't see how a picture takes care of the issue.

Ok, you have a picture of it as a "pistol". So? All that shows is that at sometime or the other it was in a pistol configuration. It doesn't prove that it was a pistol first. Shoot, that thing could have been an SBR rifle for 6 months, or 6 minutes, prior to this picture being taken. If no one in an official position (that matters) saw it and took note of the fact that it was either a pistol or rifle, and when, I don't see what good a picture does. Truthfully, I don't see what good a picture does period when it comes to proving anything.

How can you legally argue to the BATF that "this particular firearm was built as a pistol first, so I can switch back and forth at my will so long as I never fall under NFA rules"?

It seems to me that the only way to be legally covered was if you purchased it as a pistol and it was registered "somewhere" as such, then you could convert it to a rifle and back AND be able to verifiably cover your butt.

I could build one of the lowers I have right now as your standard vanilla flavored AR, play around with it for YEARS then covert it to a pistol which legally I'm not supposed to do and play around with it for years again, and then switch back. How is anyone going to prove it?

January 22, 2013, 09:43 PM	#33
tgreening Senior Member Join Date: February 7, 2011 Location: NE Ohio Posts: 251	Maybe I'm missing something here but...what problem exactly does this solve? I understand the underlying concept, but I don't see how a picture takes care of the issue. Ok, you have a picture of it as a "pistol". So? All that shows is that at sometime or the other it was in a pistol configuration. It doesn't prove that it was a pistol first. Shoot, that thing could have been an SBR rifle for 6 months, or 6 minutes, prior to this picture being taken. If no one in an official position (that matters) saw it and took note of the fact that it was either a pistol or rifle, and when, I don't see what good a picture does. Truthfully, I don't see what good a picture does period when it comes to proving anything. How can you legally argue to the BATF that "this particular firearm was built as a pistol first, so I can switch back and forth at my will so long as I never fall under NFA rules"? It seems to me that the only way to be legally covered was if you purchased it as a pistol and it was registered "somewhere" as such, then you could convert it to a rifle and back AND be able to verifiably cover your butt. I could build one of the lowers I have right now as your standard vanilla flavored AR, play around with it for YEARS then covert it to a pistol which legally I'm not supposed to do and play around with it for years again, and then switch back. How is anyone going to prove it?