|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
June 15, 2012, 10:43 AM | #1 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
ATF Backs Off on "Constructive Possesion" Nonsense
Ok, I might be the only gun owner who didn't hear about this ( I doubt it), but in July of last year ATF posted an explanation of their policies regarding assembling and reassembling of firearms such as AR-15s and TC Encore/Contenders between handgun and rifle configurations.
It has always been an understanding that, essentially, "once a rifle always a rifle" and converting a rifle (even if it started life as a handgun!) into a handgun amounted to creating a regulated, illegal "Short Barreled Rifle". This is no longer the case... http://www.atf.gov/regulations-rulin...ing-2011-4.pdf Much thanks to rjrivero for originally posting this link!
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
June 15, 2012, 11:22 AM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 1, 2009
Location: Stillwater, OKlahoma
Posts: 8,638
|
Wow, that is some word-heavy gobbeldygook,,,
Basically what I get out of this,,,
Is that my Beretta NEOS Carbine kit is legal,,, As long as I disassemble and reassemble in a certain order. If I were to inadvertently place the pistol barrel on the receiver before I removed the rifle stock I momentarily have made a Short Barreled Rifle. So the order of assembly I use is always: 1) Remove the carbine/pistol stock and barrel from the receiver. 2) Attach the barrel you want to use for this occasion. 3) Attach the appropriate stock to the receiver. But I also went a bit farther,,, I bought an extra NEOS pistol and sold the barrel,,, I assembled the carbine on that receiver and will never change it back. I forget the number of the ATF ruling that makes my NEOS Carbine Kit legal,,, But I do have a laminated printout of it packed in the case I keep my NEOS components in. Aarond .
__________________
Never ever give an enemy the advantage of a verbal threat. Caje: The coward dies a thousand times, the brave only once. Kirby: That's about all it takes, ain't it? Aarond is good,,, Aarond is wise,,, Always trust Aarond! (most of the time) |
June 15, 2012, 01:45 PM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,137
|
Deleted -- I misread the first post.
|
June 15, 2012, 03:20 PM | #4 | |||||
Senior Member
Join Date: February 10, 2010
Posts: 720
|
Perhaps I missed it reading the notice, but it seems to only apply to pistols converted to rifles, then returned to a pistol config, and also "kits" that are sold.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
ATF definitions. Quote:
Enjoy your day. Last edited by Fishing_Cabin; June 15, 2012 at 03:39 PM. |
|||||
June 15, 2012, 05:35 PM | #5 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
That's true but the ATF used to contend that if you built your Encore into a rifle, starting with a pistol, it was now and forever legally a rifle and could not be converted back to a pistol without a tax stamp.
That notice is the first time they have ever acknowledged otherwise.
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
June 16, 2012, 11:04 AM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 14, 1999
Location: Pittsburg, CA, USA
Posts: 7,417
|
Well they were first forced to recognize this in a court action involving the Thompson single-shots, but have now applied it to all handguns that have been up-converted (fully and legally) to rifle status.
They now realize you can go back to handgun as long as you go all the way into a legal handgun setup (mainly no "long stock, short barrel" setups, and no leaving a forward pistol grip on a handgun).
__________________
Jim March |
June 18, 2012, 01:28 AM | #7 |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,677
|
While its nice to have a ruling, and have this all cleared up.....
One cannot help but wonder how long it will be before they change their minds AGAIN!
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
June 18, 2012, 02:25 AM | #8 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 14, 1999
Location: Pittsburg, CA, USA
Posts: 7,417
|
One obvious note: if you sell such a gun, convert it back to handgun first. You can supply the rifle conversion parts, but you need to sell it as a handgun otherwise the new owner can't ever convert it back to handgun.
No rifle you buy can be legally converted to handgun without that ugly NFA/SBR paperwork.
__________________
Jim March |
June 18, 2012, 09:34 AM | #9 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 21, 2000
Posts: 4,193
|
What amazing stupidity. Like the ruling, but it should have never been needed in the first place.
__________________
Pilot |
June 18, 2012, 10:45 AM | #10 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 10, 2010
Posts: 720
|
Good point Jim,
One concern I do have, is for those that dont completely read this law, they may think if I can convert a pistol type ar-15 to a rifle, why cant I do the opposite, as in take a factory ar-15 rifle, and convert to a pistol? This may lead to someone creating an unregistered SBR. I think this may also become an issue that it is ripe for a challenge in court at some point. Since you can take, say a Remington xp100, Ruger Charger, Factory pistol ar-15, etc, and convert it to a rifle, and then return it to a pistol, the fact that the same receivers built into a factory rifle cannot be changed legally, except to convert to SBR. It kind of makes it unequal and out of balance, at least to me. Last edited by Fishing_Cabin; June 18, 2012 at 12:31 PM. |
June 18, 2012, 02:13 PM | #11 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
I'm no lawyer but I still see some vague concepts in there...
It talks about handguns "produced from a weapon originally assembled or produced only as a rifle". The way I read that, it would mean something like a Remington 700, a weapon with no pistol variant, not an AR-15, which is not "produced only as a rifle". Not likely their intent, but that's the way I'd see it. |
June 19, 2012, 07:30 PM | #12 |
Junior Member
Join Date: November 2, 2008
Posts: 10
|
While its nice to have a ruling, and have this all cleared up.....
One cannot help but wonder how long it will be before they change their minds AGAIN! __________________ Great point AMP! Hopefully not until they understand the meaning of "shall not be infringed." |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|