expeditionx
-
Content Count
453 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Blogs
Calendar
Store
Posts posted by expeditionx
-
-
Keep in mind that the laws have not changed in years. For years, the opinion was "once a pistol - always a pistol, so long as you keep your assembly order legal". It was obviously a long time, as the various manufacturers successfully brought their wares to market.
Also keep in mind that the revenuers have only recently started shipping this "once a pistol, and thence a rifle, always a rifle it'll be" opinion. Prior to that, there was no issue at all with the Mech-Tech units (or similar).
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.
-
There was one piece of information in that letter which is new to me.
"It is the position of the ATF that if a multipurpose firearm kit containing the above-listed
components is obtained as an assemblage of parts from a single source, the components of the
kit may be assembled and subsequently reassembled an unlimited number of times as a rifle or
a pistol."
That is a useful thing to know.
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.
-
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:
-
Pretty good read on the TC ruling
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
-
-
.The same ATF decision that allows a long barrel and stock to turn a TC pistol into a carbine also states that once a rifle always a rifle
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.
-
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.
-
Granted an exception from the whole rifle-to-pistol-to-rifle thing for the TC contender that is.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
-
Invalid link posted. Here is a good one: http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=118574686
As far as that receiver goes, so long as it's never been completely built, it can be built into anything.
"Pistol" markings don't mean sh** on a virgin AR15 receiver unless you are unfortunate and live in some commie locale.
+1
If they actually start cracking down on this stuff, Bubba is going to have
several new girlfriends.
-
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.
-
Expeditionx,
The TC contender case confirms that position.
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.
-
Expeditionx,
thanks for the letter, however it still does not answer the question of if i can take a manufactured pistol, put a stock and 16 inch barrel on it, and then go back to pistol configuration. This letter only addresses when making a receiver into a pistol FOR THE FIRST TIME! And I 100% agree you cannot take a receiver that started off as a rifle ( or in the case of an AR receiver, registered as a rifle and built into a rifle first.), and make a pistol out of it without the paperwork.
I would argue that If i own the gun purchased as a pistol, registered as a pistol, i am NOT a manufacturer just because i changed the barrel and stock. I'm not a manufacturer when i change the barrel and stock on 10/22 that i own. The fact that i converted from one legal form to another does not make it a manufacturing process. I may be temporarily changing the configuration but i am not re-manufacturing the the gun. The TC contender case confirms that position.
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.
-
So even if a virgin reciever was papered and then home built originally into a pistol, if changed to a rifle it can not be switched back to pistol.
I stand corrected.
So even if a virgin reciever was papered and then home built originally into a pistol, if changed to a rifle it can not be switched back to pistol.I stand corrected.
That would be correct according to how the feds see things.
That would be correct as to the last interpretation of the revenuers.
Before about 6 months ago, it was okay with them to go from handgun to rifle back to handgun.
The law hasn't changed, just the revenuers interpretation of it.
Y'all keep this in mind.
This 2004 letter posted on gunco.net declares a pistol can be made
from a receiver that has never been stocked. According to them,
if it has ever had a buttstock on it can not be made into a pistol
without a tax stamp. I'm still wondering if the mech tech company
gets around this policy by making sure the stock itself is connected
to the upper receiver and not the actual pistol frame.
HMMMMMMMM
http://www.gunco.net/forums/f3/ak-pistol-q...150/index2.html
-
What is the bid deal with the Russian 8 round mag besides being 922 compliant?
They do not count for 922 compliance parts, and using them in a stock saiga
is a violation of 922r. 14 total import parts and not importable with the
8 rounder. 13 parts if without the muzzle attachment/thread protector.
-
Is this why the MD arms drums are limited to 2 3/4 inch loads?
-
VERY same thing happend to me on the 19th with a never before fired 2nd gen AGP....
Keven at AGP stands by his stuff.. I have yet to contact him... I'm sure he will make it right....
Question was it real cold???? it was about 14 deg... I'm wondering if it's a "cold" thing....
Has anyone ever known a 5 round mag to break like this?
-
By the way, Gunsmoke Firearms is a supporter of white supremacy. Don't give them your money:
I hope that no members of this forum will stoop down to that level.
What a surprise! Yeah I guess things do change after 3 years.
-
I like the saiga gas block better than the standard akm gas blocks.
Can a saiga gas block work on an akm barrel without modification?
Will it work with a standard akm length gas piston?
Anyone know who might sell just the Saiga gas block online?
-
well....items like this sure do muddy the waters even more.
This would be available also
but the manufacturer will not get in trouble.
According to the feds, its legally irreversible.
-
The way I see it, this is just a gray area now. Being that it is NOT law, only one reviewers opinion, I would do whatever you want with it within *actual* law. Don't do stupid things to get their attention in the first place, and you won't have to be the legal guinea pig.
If they don't know you're doing it, they can't bend and twist the law to get you for it.
Tony R. and Bob Ash are in a business that requires careful detail to laws
such as these. Hopefully, they chime in and comment on retro-configuring
a pistol to rifle then back to pistol.
-
So even if a virgin reciever was papered and then home built originally into a pistol, if changed to a rifle it can not be switched back to pistol.
I stand corrected.
That would be correct according to how the feds see things.
-
What about all those people who've built AK pistols on Nodak receivers?
I'm starting to smell something here.
Thats fine if you want to believe that a 4473 establishes whether
a gun is legally a rifle or pistol, but the ATF letter posted on this
link at a credible gunsmith's website says on page 2
http://www.bellmtcs.com/store/index.php?cid=239
that listing it on a 4473 when sold is not itself a legal classification.
If Nodak lists them as just receivers, then once they are built into
pistols they are legally pistols, and likewise as rifles.
You can't make a pistol into a rifle and then back to a pistol wit
in General Discussion - Any topic is welcome here!!!
Posted
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.