nalioth 405 Posted December 18, 2008 Report Share Posted December 18, 2008 I don't have any of these types of guns or kits, but i've always wanted to do an AR pistol and be able to put a stock and 16+ inch barrel on it if i wanted to. This really fucks with my plans if the ATF is changing their minds again.Just wait a few more months, and they'll change their minds again. As far as all these "letter wavers", the letters are not "law", and are intended to be a guide for the person who wrote it, not everyone. I can guarantee you that if I or RangerM9 write a letter, we'll get a completely different answer than the one shown above. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
FenderFreek 0 Posted December 18, 2008 Report Share Posted December 18, 2008 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. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
expeditionx 1 Posted December 18, 2008 Report Share Posted December 18, 2008 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. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
RangerM9 1 Posted December 20, 2008 Report Share Posted December 20, 2008 well....items like this sure do muddy the waters even more. 1911 carbine conversion Quote Link to post Share on other sites
BobAsh 582 Posted December 20, 2008 Report Share Posted December 20, 2008 Tony R. and Bob Ash are in a business that requires careful detail to lawssuch as these. Hopefully, they chime in and comment on retro-configuring a pistol to rifle then back to pistol. I really can't comment on the legality of converting back and forth. I've never tried it and I wouldn't recommend it. I know that some of you like to push the envelope, and you're welcome to it. Personally, I don't like "pistols" made from rifle receivers. It's legally ambiguous and functionally deficient compared to an SBR. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
expeditionx 1 Posted December 20, 2008 Report Share Posted December 20, 2008 well....items like this sure do muddy the waters even more. 1911 carbine conversion This would be available also http://www.mechtechsys.com/ but the manufacturer will not get in trouble. According to the feds, its legally irreversible. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
nalioth 405 Posted December 20, 2008 Report Share Posted December 20, 2008 well....items like this sure do muddy the waters even more. 1911 carbine conversion This would be available also http://www.mechtechsys.com/ but the manufacturer will not get in trouble. According to the feds, its legally irreversible. According to the ATF's latest "interpretation", it's legally irreversible. You guys need to quit pouring the concrete on everything the revenuers say - it has been shown they reverse themselves often. When (if) you get into court over your MechTech conversion, do you think a jury is gonna find for them, as up until a few months ago it was fine? The law hasn't changed. Their interpretation has. There is a Supreme Court decision that says that it IS reversible. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
csspecs 1,987 Posted December 21, 2008 Report Share Posted December 21, 2008 The 1911 kit from sportsmans guide is possibly questionable because you can leave off the long barrel and just use the stock.. The Magtech kit is unlikely to get you much trouble as you are not able to make a SBR with it, the stock is part of the upper and barrel setup and does not look to be usable as a stand alone. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
nalioth 405 Posted December 21, 2008 Report Share Posted December 21, 2008 The 1911 kit from sportsmans guide is possibly questionable because you can leave off the long barrel and just use the stock.. The 9 knife kitchen set sold at Wal-Mart is possibly questionable becaue you might kill another human being with any one ot them. The new Chevrolet Corvette is possibly questionable because you might drive at at 150 mph and kill someone with it. That Home Depot hammer is possibly questionable because it has a sharp and a blunt end that can kill. Where's the personal responsibility? This is why we had a stupid "assault weapons" ban and still do in some states. "Appearance" and "possibilities" don't hurt anyone. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
csspecs 1,987 Posted December 21, 2008 Report Share Posted December 21, 2008 What I was saying is that if your going for a carbine kit it may be a good idea to get one cannot have the stock attached without the 16 inch barrel, that way they could never say that you planned to use it as a SBR. Like if you had this in your pistol case with a glock-17 and did not have a longer barrel with it.. It could get you more attention than you want. http://www.sportsmansguide.com/net/cb/cb.aspx?a=383702 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
nalioth 405 Posted December 21, 2008 Report Share Posted December 21, 2008 What I was saying is that if your going for a carbine kit it may be a good idea to get one cannot have the stock attached without the 16 inch barrel, that way they could never say that you planned to use it as a SBR. . . . and then they walk out into your garage and take the hacksaw off the pegboard and allege you meant to cut the barrel. So long as these guys perjure themselves and flip flop on "interpretations", nobody is safe if they come to their attention. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
RangerM9 1 Posted February 20, 2009 Report Share Posted February 20, 2009 anyone see that this was recently addressed in the latest NRA magazine? I'll have to find it and post it if i can. New rules....again Quote Link to post Share on other sites
banshee 69 Posted February 21, 2009 Report Share Posted February 21, 2009 you can legally do this way. Canadian WWII Inglis Hi-Power with WWII Canadian made stock. The ATF Removed them from the NFA. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jrance@iacwds.com 716 Posted February 21, 2009 Report Share Posted February 21, 2009 It was stated that the ATF does not make law but interprets it. Technically this may be true, but what about regulations they write like 922r that carry the same force & penalty as law? 1911 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
nalioth 405 Posted February 21, 2009 Report Share Posted February 21, 2009 It was stated that the ATF does not make law but interprets it. Technically this may be true, but what about regulations they write like 922r that carry the same force & penalty as law? 1911 Everything contained in US Code Title 18 Section 922 is law. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
alumaliteusaxxxx 3 Posted February 21, 2009 Report Share Posted February 21, 2009 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
RangerM9 1 Posted February 24, 2009 Report Share Posted February 24, 2009 As i understand things, the BATFE finally realized that AR receivers needed some clarification and acted. The receiver can now be registered by the FFL dealer as just that, a receiver. Not pistol, not rifle...just receiver (no you cannot re-designate the pile of receivers you may be sitting on), allowing it to be either pistol or rifle so long as it is in the proper configuration, ie no SBR without the stamp....swap back and forth as much as you want. A dealer at the last gun show told me this and personally i thought he was bullshitting me, but kept my eyes open for confirmation. It's in the latest American Rifleman....gotta go get me another AR lower....registered right this time. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
expeditionx 1 Posted March 6, 2009 Report Share Posted March 6, 2009 (edited) 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 Edited March 6, 2009 by expeditionx Quote Link to post Share on other sites
RangerM9 1 Posted March 6, 2009 Report Share Posted March 6, 2009 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. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
expeditionx 1 Posted March 6, 2009 Report Share Posted March 6, 2009 (edited) 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. Edited March 6, 2009 by expeditionx Quote Link to post Share on other sites
expeditionx 1 Posted March 6, 2009 Report Share Posted March 6, 2009 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. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
RangerM9 1 Posted March 6, 2009 Report Share Posted March 6, 2009 Thanks, have not seen that last one posted anywhere before. But again, that is just one interpretation in, would still like to see this addressed on an AR platform. and there is likely to be a hell of a lot of trouble with these then. http://www.midwayusa.com/eproductpage.exe/...leitemid=418332 available soon from Midway http://www.glockguy.com/Item.aspx?PID=957 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
expeditionx 1 Posted March 6, 2009 Report Share Posted March 6, 2009 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. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
clifton 354 Posted March 6, 2009 Report Share Posted March 6, 2009 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 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
expeditionx 1 Posted March 6, 2009 Report Share Posted March 6, 2009 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. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
nalioth 405 Posted March 6, 2009 Report Share Posted March 6, 2009 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 . . . Quote Link to post Share on other sites
expeditionx 1 Posted March 6, 2009 Report Share Posted March 6, 2009 (edited) 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. Edited March 6, 2009 by expeditionx Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.