The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old July 15, 2017, 05:55 PM   #1
mrt949
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 16, 2008
Posts: 1,553
Can i put a 16 1/2 " barrel on my charger

I have a take down charger and want to put A 16 1/2 " or longer without paper work it's a pistol.
__________________
No Gun Big Or Small Does It All
mrt949 is offline  
Old July 15, 2017, 06:34 PM   #2
Pahoo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 16, 2006
Location: IOWA
Posts: 6,962
The Charger is a pistol

I do not completely understand your question and can only add that you cannot convert a 10/22 rifle into a pistol. The "Charger is issued or classified, as a pistol" I believe there is a warming on the underside of the barrel. .....

Be Safe !!!
__________________
'Fundamental truths' are easy to recognize because they are verified daily through simple observation and thus, require no testing.
Pahoo is offline  
Old July 15, 2017, 06:48 PM   #3
zoomie
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 23, 2006
Location: GA
Posts: 1,794
If you're asking about NFA stuff, then you're ok.

There's no maximum pistol barrel length.
zoomie is offline  
Old July 15, 2017, 06:48 PM   #4
TheDevilThatYouKnow
Member
 
Join Date: November 22, 2015
Posts: 75
As a pistol, you can put any length barrel you desire on it; from 2 inches to 2 foot. There are no legal impediments to putting a Ruger 10/22 Takedown's barrel on your Charger pistol (assuming it fits mechanically).

What you cannot do is add a buttstock with a barrel under 16 inches or an overall length under 26 inches as that would convert your pistol to a short-barreled rifle.
TheDevilThatYouKnow is offline  
Old July 16, 2017, 11:36 AM   #5
weblance
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 3, 2012
Posts: 1,060
Can i put a 16 1/2 " barrel on my charger

YES
weblance is offline  
Old July 16, 2017, 02:22 PM   #6
FrankenMauser
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 25, 2008
Location: 1B ID
Posts: 10,089
Under Federal law, there is no problem with that concept.

But, check your state and local laws.
Some places - even gun-friendly states like Utah - have strange definitions and funky laws that place limits on barrel length or overall length for handguns; or have definitions that can turn your 16.5" Charger into a short-barreled rifle under state law.
Much discussion of some of these dumb laws and definitions in recent months, due to the Mossberg Shockwave being technically illegal, completely undefined, or in a grey area wasteland in at least a dozen states.

Check your local laws...
__________________
"Such is the strange way that man works -- first he virtually destroys a species and then does everything in his power to restore it."
FrankenMauser is offline  
Old July 17, 2017, 06:10 PM   #7
eldos1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: July 16, 2017
Location: Colorado
Posts: 3
The case that went to the Supreme Cort was Thompson/Center vs. United States. This is were we now get our direction in that a pistol can become a rifle and returned to a pistol without necessarily becoming a SBR.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-suprem...t/504/505.html
eldos1 is offline  
Old July 18, 2017, 12:29 AM   #8
FrankenMauser
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 25, 2008
Location: 1B ID
Posts: 10,089
eldos1, The world and the ATF have moved on since that T/C decision.
Use current ATF opinions/determinations, if you want to keep up with the current state of affairs.
And... that's not really applicable here, anyway.

State/local law is separate from Federal law.
Federal law says it's still a pistol.
State/local law may differ.
__________________
"Such is the strange way that man works -- first he virtually destroys a species and then does everything in his power to restore it."
FrankenMauser is offline  
Old July 18, 2017, 10:44 PM   #9
Theohazard
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 19, 2012
Location: Western PA
Posts: 3,501
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankenMauser
eldos1, The world and the ATF have moved on since that T/C decision.
Use current ATF opinions/determinations, if you want to keep up with the current state of affairs.
Actually, it's just the opposite: It took the world and the ATF many years to finally come to terms with that decision. After the SCOTUS decision in 1992, the ATF and most of the gun world figured it just applied to that specific situation. But after well over a decade of constant questions, the ATF issued Ruling 2011-4. That ruling directly references that case and it follows its decision. 2011-4 is the most recent ATF ruling we have on the subject.

US v. Thompson-Center Arms Co. guides our current understanding of the rules for constructive possession and also directs us in when it's OK to go from being a pistol to a rifle and vice-versa.
__________________
0331: "Accuracy by volume."

Last edited by Theohazard; July 19, 2017 at 08:54 AM.
Theohazard is offline  
Old July 19, 2017, 03:17 PM   #10
FrankenMauser
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 25, 2008
Location: 1B ID
Posts: 10,089
Exactly my point.
2011-4 matters, not the original decision.

And, even then... it's only at a Federal level.
__________________
"Such is the strange way that man works -- first he virtually destroys a species and then does everything in his power to restore it."
FrankenMauser is offline  
Old July 19, 2017, 07:48 PM   #11
Theohazard
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 19, 2012
Location: Western PA
Posts: 3,501
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankenMauser
Exactly my point.
2011-4 matters, not the original decision.
No, that wasn't your point at all, at least not as you stated it. The world and the ATF haven't "moved on" since that decision like you claimed. In fact, the world and the ATF have done just the opposite; they've adapted their understanding of federal law to follow that decision. Like I said, 2011-4 is directly derived from that decision. So how can you claim that everyone has "moved on" from it when that decision directly guides federal policy to this day?

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankenMauser
And even then... it's only at a Federal level
True, but federal firearm laws supercede state firearm laws, and most states don't have specific firearm definitions that are stricter than federal laws. So federal laws are far from irrelevant here.
__________________
0331: "Accuracy by volume."
Theohazard is offline  
Old July 19, 2017, 11:57 PM   #12
FrankenMauser
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 25, 2008
Location: 1B ID
Posts: 10,089
2011-4 is what matters (primarily) here.
And if 2011-4 is what matters, then my words made the point exactly:
Quote:
Use current ATF opinions/determinations, if you want to keep up with the current state of affairs.
2011-4 (and its references) would be the current state of affairs - not T/C vs U.S., verbatim, from 1992.


Quote:
True, but federal firearm laws supercede state firearm laws, and most states don't have specific firearm definitions that are stricter than federal laws. So federal laws are far from irrelevant here.
I didn't say they were irrelevant.
I said local law may differ.
And IF there ARE local/state laws/definitions in place, they they DO matter.


Federal law does not supplant local law, as your statement implies with the use of "supercedes" (sic). It is the over-reaching, 'universal' law. But local law can be more restrictive, in addition to Federal law.
__________________
"Such is the strange way that man works -- first he virtually destroys a species and then does everything in his power to restore it."
FrankenMauser is offline  
Old July 20, 2017, 08:27 AM   #13
Theohazard
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 19, 2012
Location: Western PA
Posts: 3,501
OK, I'll admit that supersede wasn't the best word to use to describe how local laws can't be less restrictive than federal laws, but my point simply was that federal law is the primary and most important thing to understand in this case considering local laws usually don't differ from federal laws on this subject.

And you're starting to sound like a politician here. The first sentence of your original statement to Eldos1 was incorrect. You stated this: "The world and the ATF have moved on since that T/C decision." Well, that's flat-out wrong and it shows a misunderstanding of where Ruling 2011-4 came from. You can parse words and point out flaws in my wording all you want, but it won't change the fact that the ATF and did exactly the opposite of "move on" from the T/C decision, they actually ended up applying it universally after many years of claiming it only applied to the specific T/C situation.
__________________
0331: "Accuracy by volume."
Theohazard is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

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 01:06 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2016 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.07966 seconds with 10 queries