Jump to content

expeditionx

Member
  • Content Count

    453
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About expeditionx

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  1. I tried to find an earlier example of what your saying but can't find one in writing. If you know of any documented on any website, please let me know to compare it.
  2. I can't imagine what mech tech is going to do now. Just recently the ATF stopped allowing virgin receivers from being sold to people under 21 because they can be made into a pistol.
  3. TC arms once had such a kit they sold like that. The kit was defended in the supreme court case. I know of no other such kits.
  4. This is not any thing new. I think there has been much misinformation in the past about this concept. I sent out a letter to othe BATF asking for clearification of the following Question 1. Would it be a violation of the law to change a Contender pistol (purchased originally as a pistol from the manufacturer in 1995) from a pistol configuration to a rifle configuration (with a shoulder stock and 18 inch barrel) and then back to a pistol configuration (no stock and 10 inch barrel)? Question 2. Would it be a violation of the law to change a Contender rifle (purchased originally as a rifle from the manufacturer in 1995) from a rifle configuration (shoulder stock and 18 inch barrel) to a pistol configuration (no shoulder stock and 10 inch barrel)? Question 3. My 3rd question relates to the Contender pistol and carbine kit specifically addressed in the 1992 U.S. Supreme Court case United States v. Thompson/Center Arms. Would it be a violation of the law to assemble the this specific kit as a rifle (shoulder stock and barrel over 16 inches) and then to later reconfigure this same rifle into a pistol configuration (no shoulder stock and barrel shorter than 16 inches)? Question 4. Would it be a violation of the law to change an Encore pistol (purchased originally as a pistol from the manufacturer in 2005) from a pistol configuration to a rifle configuration (with a shoulder stock and 18 inch barrel) and then back to a pistol configuration (no stock and 10 inch barrel)? Question 5. Would it be a violation of the law to change an Encore rifle (purchased originally as a rifle from the manufacturer in 2005) from a rifle configuration (shoulder stock and 18 inch barrel) to a pistol configuration (no shoulder stock and 10 inch barrel)? Their reply came today:
  5. I read the actual court published transcript on another website and no where does it define what you can and can't do. The case was about whether TC can distribute a frame, pistol grip, short barrel, shoulder stock, and long barrel in the same box. The ATF has held the opinion that going from a pistol to a rifle is ok, but reversing that is illegal according to all the online ATF letter sources I have seen. Many are well familiar with the stockless receiver is ok for an AOW same is true for a pistol build. paragraph 2 line 1 "A rifle receiver that has never been stocked as a rifle may be utilized in the manufacture of a pistol." Clearly a once stocked receiver cannot be made into pistol without the proper legal steps such as a tax stamp. Turning a stock saiga into a pistol falls under the same ruling. Somehow, if I stamp TC arms on my Saiga I can magically do this pistol conversion with no worries. http://www.gunco.net/forums/f3/ak-pistol-q...150/index2.html
  6. I agree 100 percent with what your saying I can't understand how TC does not have this concept in their legal policy. I have seen many bardwell subguns letters and other letters that state once a rifle always a rifle no exceptions generally.
  7. From the letter: Oct 30, 2003 converting a new contender or encore rifle to a pistol ... results in making an NFA firearm. Someone hasn't bothered to let the tech branch in on the case outcome. If someone gets caught, doing this I don't think TC is going to pay their legal fees.
  8. Why is the ATF stating that it's not ok to swap back and forth from Rifle to pistol in the letter on the link I provided? The letter on that link is dated far after the TC supreme court case. Can anyone possibly point out the exact wording from the case that actually says its now ok to make a TC rifle into a pistol? If this is true, it can be argued that we have equal protection under the constitution to do the same to non-TC rifles.
  9. I contacted TC arms about what they recommend as far as interchangability between original pistols and rifles ,and vice versa. They basically said swap back and forth all you want it's legal for either pistols or rifles to go in either direction. First the email: "Gail Lynch" <GLynch@tcarms.com> Send me you mailing address and I will send you some paperwork on this matter. It is not illegal to go back and forth Gail Thompson/Center Arms Then I called and spoke to Customer Service and was told it's ok to make one of their rifles into a pistol. She said she can send me paperwork on the matter. Complete BS according to our most beloved government agency that proclaims our rights http://www.bellmtcs.com/store/index.php?cid=239 Am I missing something here? Who should I believe TC Arms or the 3AM door breachers? Rhetorical question obviously no need to answer. The real question is how did this mess happen? TC Arms is opening Pandoras Box with their policy. I have met too many people at the range that swap and don't care if they happen to violate the NFA law. The TC court case that is often cited did not authorize more than marketing a box of parts that could be first assembled into either a pistol or rifle. That is what many are using to justify what TC is claiming. Its not like I care what others are doing, but what TC is irresponsible about in their communication to fellow gun owners.
  10. You are confusing the AR15 "drop in go-fast parts" with AK military surplus FCG parts. You can have all the US legal AKs you want and all the 'full auto AK FCG parts sets" you want under your roof. Until you perform certain mechanical operations to a major component of your AKs, they won't work at all in "go-fast" mode (this is why you see them for sale everywhere - they don't work until you punch your own ticket to Club Fed). If you want to wrap the tinfoil tighter, having a hacksaw and a long gun under your roof is 'constructive intent' to create an unregistered SBS/SBR. If you want to wrap the tinfoil tighter, having a dremel and a firearm under your roof is 'constructive intent' to create and unregistred machine gun. Let's stop channelling Chicken Little, ok? If the federales are sniffing up ways to pin "constructive intent" on you, you've obviously stepped off into a Grade-A supersized fresh cow patty somewhere along the way . . . Funny that you mention tinfoil hat. I figure you guys might find this insane. http://www.beemans.net/silencers_on_airguns.htm 0.45" bullet @730 ft/sec wait til the full auto version comes out In x-raying postal packages for dangerous materials, the federal authorities detected the defendant's legally owned .44 caliber Sam Yang pneumatic rifle - not even one of the infamous black guns. A warrant allowed Postal Inspectors to search the package and they found a "sound moderator" in a pocket of the case for this airgun. There were no aggravating circumstances and no evidence that violence of any kind was intended or involved. This device had been specifically built for use on a Sam Yang air rifle and was specially built with fabric insides so that it would be destroyed by use on a firearm. The manufacturer wrote that "It was made for AIR only. It cannot handle the flash of a firearm." However, the ATF laboratory tested it on a Ruger .22 firearm - and it did reduce the sound for one shot - thus meeting the definition of a firearm silencer.
  11. +1 If they actually start cracking down on this stuff, Bubba is going to have several new girlfriends.
  12. 5 pc. Full Auto Fire Control Parts Set IIRC there can also be trouble if someone owns the set above and any ak weapon that can use them under the same roof based on constructive intent. Maybe I am wrong, but aren't these completely legal to sell to anyone and the end user is liable for what may happen. Maybe this isn't relevant , but there is a guy that is in prison from a recent ATF case against him involving possession of an airgun noise suppressor. It was clearly made to work only with airguns, but they insisted it still constituted a firearms noise suppressor. Anyway, this issue is settled for myself. I will not be doing what the letters suggest is illegal.
  13. The TC case was about whether a box of parts can be sold that could potentially be configured as a short barrel rifle. TC won the case that they can sell the same parts in a box and that does not constitute constructive intent as it might if you have a full auto drop in sear and a gun that can utilize that sear. There is no ambiguity in that case. The Supreme Court decided that since a legal firearm configuration could be achieved with a box of parts from TC the box of parts would not automatically constitute constructive intent as the ATF suggested. The end user can still get in trouble for configuring the gun in a way that is not legal. So, you can make a rifle from a handgun, but you can not turn it back to a rifle. This falls back to the fact that only a virgin receiver can be used to make a handgun. In the first letter above, this is quite clear. The second letter clearly says you can't turn a handgun into a long gun, and then back to a handgun.
  14. A pistol can only be configured from a receiver that has never had a stock on it. They consider configuring the same as assembly. Read the extra letter below. When a stock is placed on a pistol, it becomes a rifle. Reversing this cannot be done without a tax stamp. That's their rules. Anyway you cut it, you can't swap back and forth.
×
×
  • Create New...