Had a long talk with ATF today

[*greenhorn*]

Called my local ATF field office today to talk about the differences in the AR-15 / AK platforms and the differences from a SBR and a pistol. This talk came about because a buddy of mine wants me to build him a AR style Pistol for him to carry in his truck.

(Before you go bashing on me or him, I have no intention to do this because he doesn't think he should have to pay me for my time because where "Buddys")


But in the conversation, i realized i didn't know the differences, and sense the question or the want never came up i decide i would look it up. Well my looking did not come as Black and White as i hoped, so i gave my local field office a call in Jacksonville.

What i was told that a rifel is required to be 16" or longer, a "SBR" is anything shorter, and requires the proper paper work, but a "pistol" in these configurations (ar-15, AK) is in the "gray" area. A pistol is classified as "meant" to be operated by 1 hand. so a platform with any size barrel with no stock and no forward vertical grip is classified as a "pistol".

i asked then, well if you mean 1 hand wouldn't the "handguard" come in to play, his reply is "no". I was confused but then her gave me the example of a "TEC-9" it is classified as a pistol but you can put your hand on the guard, as well you use and are trained to use a M92 or 1911 with 2 hands as the case with the "weaver" stance. and their is at this moment no cap on round compasity.

I replied with, "so with that said i can build a AR pistol with a 8-9inch barrel no stock and no forward grip im good, but as soon as i bolt a forward grip im no good?" he said, "no you can have a grip or a hand guard, but no vertical grip"

Is this true?

 

[mattj]

Re: Had a long talk with ATF today

That's my understanding...

To make your head hurt more:
I believe you could register said AR pistol as an AOW (Any Other Weapon)... which is only a $5 tax stamp instead of a $200 one, and be good with the forward vertical grip (at least re: the Feds, local laws may vary of course).

 

[Geronimo]

Re: Had a long talk with ATF today

uh yes, from what is here , no vertical grip on a stockless pistol, and you are
good.

 

[JoeyAld]

Re: Had a long talk with ATF today

check out ar15.com..they have a few threads in there about this; if i recall someone had an actual letter that the atf cleared up the vertical grip issue.

here's a link. http://www.ar15.com/forums/f_3/122_AR_Pistols.html

 

[LoneWolfUSMC]

Re: Had a long talk with ATF today

You have the gist of it.....and now know why a SBR tax stamp doesn't do anything for safety or security. A 10" AR pistol is ballisticaly identical to a 10" AR SBR.

 

[lencomatt]

Re: Had a long talk with ATF today

You can have the front grip as long as it has overall length of 26+ inches(allegedly). here's a link to a letter from the atf-

http://www.franklinarmory.com/XO-26_Letter__c_.pdf

 

[*greenhorn*]

Re: Had a long talk with ATF today

thax for the info, like i said i don't know if im going to do this for him. but im almost done with my 20" build last part should be here on Wednesday, then i might consider it but i don't know, i don't see them as practical for plinker, maybe if i was on a protection team, but then id rather have a mp-5 less recoil

 

[LibertyOptics]

Re: Had a long talk with ATF today

I think I'm with JPFO on this one...

 

[Wannashootit]

Re: Had a long talk with ATF today

To muddy the water for the hell of it...
Is the Magpul AFG a "vertical" grip???

 

[shane45]

Re: Had a long talk with ATF today

"What i was told that a rifel is required to be 16" or longer, a "SBR" is anything shorter"

Just want to clarify here thet the BARREL has to be 16" or longer, not the complete rifle. I think the oal for the rifle its self is 26" IIRC

 

[*greenhorn*]

Re: Had a long talk with ATF today

i believe the AFG is considered a vertical grip that's a good question i wish i would have thought to ask though, that's all i use. Those things are the "Bee's Knees"

 

[EL34]

Re: Had a long talk with ATF today

To "Make" a short barreled rifle is a $200 tax, to "Make" an AOW is a $200 tax. Transfer of the SBR is $200, transfer of the AOW is $5. Don't get your transfer, and making taxes mixed up!

 

[mattj]

Re: Had a long talk with ATF today

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EMG8185</div><div class="ubbcode-body">To "Make" a short barreled rifle is a $200 tax, to "Make" an AOW is a $200 tax. Transfer of the SBR is $200, transfer of the AOW is $5. Don't get your transfer, and making taxes mixed up!

</div></div>

Whoops, touche!

 

[*greenhorn*]

Re: Had a long talk with ATF today

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EMG8185</div><div class="ubbcode-body">To "Make" a short barreled rifle is a $200 tax, to "Make" an AOW is a $200 tax. Transfer of the SBR is $200, transfer of the AOW is $5. Don't get your transfer, and making taxes mixed up!

</div></div>

ATF told me I could make a AR with 8" barrel as lond as no butt stock and vertical grip no tax it's a pistol?? It's of a AOW

 

[gyz77]

Re: Had a long talk with ATF today

I have lots of C3 items and don't see te sense in tip toeing on going to prison for 10 years!! I have a 10.5" AR and love it. I am an LEO and do all the rifle/pistol quals and schools for my guys. I wanted to be able to keep my SBR if I ever left LE so I just reg it myself. It's not hard an I think 200 bucks is worth it as far as going to prison or not!!!

 

[*greenhorn*]

Re: Had a long talk with ATF today

I'm just saying what the ATF agent said as stated before I was just asking I really don't see the purpous of it but a SBR has a butt stock as said before a pistol does not and agin does not have a forward vertical grip.

I'm sure the LEO's would disagree with the ATF guy and agin I have no intrest in building this becouse it's not my style And I belive to own this stuff you fell you need to compensate for something.

Btw on the iPhone so I have no spelling check

Nothing implied most ppl who are not trained in implication of burst or full fire are dangerous and a waist of ammo. I can do more damage with 5 placed rounds then 30 sprayed

 

[LoneWolfUSMC]

Re: Had a long talk with ATF today

BTW....Don't "build" guns for anyone else unless you are registered as a Manufacturer. A FFL carrying gunsmith cannot even "build" a rifle or pistol unless they are licensed as a manufacturer and pay the excise tax for each item. I went through the fine points of this a couple months ago with the local field office while lining out what kind of FFL I need for what I want to do.

Sure you can claim all kinds of other stuff to try to get around the licensing, but that tax evasion charge is a real expensive one to defend against.

 

[*greenhorn*]

Re: Had a long talk with ATF today

yea he told me he would have to buy all the parts and i could "help" him assemble his own.

 

[Cobracutter]

Re: Had a long talk with ATF today

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Cowboy1978</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Called my local ATF field office today to talk about the differences in the AR-15 / AK platforms and the differences from a SBR and a pistol. This talk came about because a buddy of mine wants me to build him a AR style Pistol for him to carry in his truck.

(Before you go bashing on me or him, I have no intention to do this because he doesn't think he should have to pay me for my time because where "Buddys")



But in the conversation, i realized i didn't know the differences, and sense the question or the want never came up i decide i would look it up. Well my looking did not come as Black and White as i hoped, so i gave my local field office a call in Jacksonville.

What i was told that a rifel is required to be 16" or longer, a "SBR" is anything shorter, and requires the proper paper work, but a "pistol" in these configurations (ar-15, AK) is in the "gray" area. A pistol is classified as "meant" to be operated by 1 hand. so a platform with any size barrel with no stock and no forward vertical grip is classified as a "pistol".

i asked then, well if you mean 1 hand wouldn't the "handguard" come in to play, his reply is "no". I was confused but then her gave me the example of a "TEC-9" it is classified as a pistol but you can put your hand on the guard, as well you use and are trained to use a M92 or 1911 with 2 hands as the case with the "weaver" stance. and their is at this moment no cap on round compasity.

I replied with, "so with that said i can build a AR pistol with a 8-9inch barrel no stock and no forward grip im good, but as soon as i bolt a forward grip im no good?" he said, "no you can have a grip or a hand guard, but no vertical grip"

Is this true?

</div></div>
Why the fuck would you call the ATF to ask them about this. A. They are incompetent as fuck and change their minds every other day. B. What they tell you has no legal merit, unless its in writing, and then its still grey. C. You could have looked on your local gun board or on any gun site. I am assuming you don't give a shit about state laws since ATF is federal. All this info is already out there.

 

[EL34]

Re: Had a long talk with ATF today

As long as it's a stripped lower that has never been built into a rifle, or pistol, you can build it as either. As long as no buttstock or VFG is installed it's a pistol. If you add either, then you have to go NFA (barrel under 16", or OAL under 27").
To add to what's already been said, your local field office doesn't know shit. What one tells you, another will tell you different. This holds true even for ATF in VA, or DC where ever the F' they are located now.
If you wanna learn about NFA stuff start hanging out at www.subguns.com
Just to mess with you some more, a "maker", and a "manufacturer", are two differnet things to the ATF.

 

[Boomholzer]

Re: Had a long talk with ATF today

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EMG8185</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As long as it's a stripped lower that has never been built into a rifle, or pistol, you can build it as either. As long as no buttstock or VFG is installed it's a pistol. If you add either, then you have to go NFA (barrel under 16", or OAL under 27").
To add to what's already been said, your local field office doesn't know shit. What one tells you, another will tell you different. This holds true even for ATF in VA, or DC where ever the F' they are located now.
If you wanna learn about NFA stuff start hanging out at www.subguns.com
Just to mess with you some more, a "maker", and a "manufacturer", are two differnet things to the ATF. </div></div>

It depends on how is was specified on 4473. The stripped lower is no different than a complete firearm....one or the other. There is a grey area with the manufacturer's <implied> original intent. Form 1 or Form 4 is different as the intent is specified.

 

[Redcreek1]

Re: Had a long talk with ATF today

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Cowboy1978</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Called my local ATF field office today to talk about the differences in the AR-15 / AK platforms and the differences from a SBR and a pistol. This talk came about because a buddy of mine wants me to build him a AR style Pistol for him to carry in his truck.

(Before you go bashing on me or him, I have no intention to do this because he doesn't think he should have to pay me for my time because where "Buddys")


But in the conversation, i realized i didn't know the differences, and sense the question or the want never came up i decide i would look it up. Well my looking did not come as Black and White as i hoped, so i gave my local field office a call in Jacksonville.

What i was told that a rifel is required to be 16" or longer, a "SBR" is anything shorter, and requires the proper paper work, but a "pistol" in these configurations (ar-15, AK) is in the "gray" area. A pistol is classified as "meant" to be operated by 1 hand. so a platform with any size barrel with no stock and no forward vertical grip is classified as a "pistol".

i asked then, well if you mean 1 hand wouldn't the "handguard" come in to play, his reply is "no". I was confused but then her gave me the example of a "TEC-9" it is classified as a pistol but you can put your hand on the guard, as well you use and are trained to use a M92 or 1911 with 2 hands as the case with the "weaver" stance. and their is at this moment no cap on round compasity.

I replied with, "so with that said i can build a AR pistol with a 8-9inch barrel no stock and no forward grip im good, but as soon as i bolt a forward grip im no good?" he said, "no you can have a grip or a hand guard, but no vertical grip"

Is this true?

</div></div>

Yes, this is based on a published ATF ruling in 2008, which catagorized a pistol with a forward grip as "other" weapon, which puts it in the NFA catagory.

I can email you the actual print ruling, if you want to see that in writing.

 

[*greenhorn*]

Re: Had a long talk with ATF today

so this is considered a pistol? or a SBR??.....

and if i drove to Spikes Tactial and said i want a striped upper and lower to build a pistol id have to apply for a "SBR"???
can you send me the write on that Red plz

This is the one i would build my self if i was to build one at all


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CobraCutter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Why the fuck would you call the ATF to ask them about this. A. They are incompetent as fuck and change their minds every other day. B. What they tell you has no legal merit, unless its in writing, and then its still grey. C. You could have looked on your local gun board or on any gun site. I am assuming you don't give a shit about state laws since ATF is federal. All this info is already out there.
</div></div>

CobraCutter such built up rage, the reason i called them is my local sheriff told me too. and if this info all out their, why is it so hard to find, my local LEO's don't know, as most don't there the ones who told me to call.

 

[doc76251]

Re: Had a long talk with ATF today

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Cowboy1978</div><div class="ubbcode-body">so this is considered a pistol? or a SBR??.....

and if i drove to Spikes Tactial and said i want a striped upper and lower to build a pistol id have to apply for a "SBR"???
can you send me the write on that Red plz

This is the one i would build my self if i was to build one at all </div></div>

No that is a pistol by definition of the ATF. You don't need the NFA paperwork for it. IF you put a stock on it or a VERTICAL fore grip it would be an SBR. That being said those angled grips that look like little triangles can be added to the FFT and are still pistols. The trick is that as long as it's a pistol you are good. Once you put a stock on the lower to make it a rifle, it can never go back to a pistol. How they track that bit is beyond me but a tinfoil hat is in order

Cheers,

Doc

 

[*greenhorn*]

Re: Had a long talk with ATF today

thats what i thought and the ATF explained, he was quite clear about the stock and the forward grip as i said in my 1st post

 

[eight]

Re: Had a long talk with ATF today

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: doc76251</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Cowboy1978</div><div class="ubbcode-body">so this is considered a pistol? or a SBR??.....

and if i drove to Spikes Tactial and said i want a striped upper and lower to build a pistol id have to apply for a "SBR"???
can you send me the write on that Red plz

This is the one i would build my self if i was to build one at all </div></div>

No that is a pistol by definition of the ATF. You don't need the NFA paperwork for it. IF you put a stock on it or a VERTICAL fore grip it would be an SBR. That being said those angled grips that look like little triangles can be added to the FFT and are still pistols. The trick is that as long as it's a pistol you are good. Once you put a stock on the lower to make it a rifle, it can never go back to a pistol. How they track that bit is beyond me but a tinfoil hat is in order

Cheers,

Doc </div></div>

So, that's a little different than what I've read. I thought if you put a vertical grip only on a pistol, it becomes an AOW, not a SBR. A vertical grip on a Glock or other railed pistol, however retarded, certainly doesn't make it a rifle, does it?

 

[doc76251]

Re: Had a long talk with ATF today

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

So, that's a little different than what I've read. I thought if you put a vertical grip only on a pistol, it becomes an AOW, not a SBR. A vertical grip on a Glock or other railed pistol, however retarded, certainly doesn't make it a rifle, does it? </div></div>

I stand corrected, AOW not SBR, SBR would be a stock, and yes if you put a vertical grip on the "light rail" of a Glock it is now an AOW.

Cheers,

Doc

 

[kraigWY]

Re: Had a long talk with ATF today

Not to drift off topic too much, but don't we have the same questions about TCs. You buy a reciever, lets say it comes as a pistol and a varity of short pistol barrels, many in rifle calibers.

Would I be in trouble if I got a rifle stock and >16 barrel and convert my TC int a rifle?

Would there be a difference if I bought the TC as a rifle, then put a pistol grip and short barrel on it????

 

[Boomholzer]

Re: Had a long talk with ATF today

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: kraigWY</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Not to drift off topic too much, but don't we have the same questions about TCs. You buy a reciever, lets say it comes as a pistol and a varity of short pistol barrels, many in rifle calibers.

Would I be in trouble if I got a rifle stock and >16 barrel and convert my TC int a rifle?

Would there be a difference if I bought the TC as a rifle, then put a pistol grip and short barrel on it???? </div></div>
i think this is the correct link
LINK

 

[kraigWY]

Re: Had a long talk with ATF today

Thanks, that does answer my question.

If a TC is configured as a rifle (stock and >16 barrel, OAL =/> 26 inches,) its a rifle.

If a TC is configured as a pistol, (pistol grip & short barrel its a pistol.

As long as I don't mix them, I've got nothing to worry about.

 

[Boomholzer]

Re: Had a long talk with ATF today

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: kraigWY</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Thanks, that does answer my question.

If a TC is configured as a rifle (stock and >16 barrel, OAL =/> 26 inches,) its a rifle.

If a TC is configured as a pistol, (pistol grip & short barrel its a pistol.

As long as I don't mix them, I've got nothing to worry about. </div></div>

You can mix them if the manufacturer's intention was either in NFA approved form or from a pistol to a rifle.

Same as people entering a AR lower on the 4473 as a "pistol" to build "either" in the future.......However, per my previous post; one OR the other needs to be specified. Note that some interpretation suggests that *only the manufacture's original intent applies...however I do not know of any prosecution to the above.

Further exhibits to this are the kits to convert 45ACP frames to rifles and other simular kits.

If the intention was both in kit OR a pistol going to a rifle and all other legal limits are observed....then its generally OK;

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Held further, a firearm, as defined by 26 U.S.C. 5845(a)(3) and (a)(4), is <span style="font-weight: bold">not made</span> when parts in a kit that were <span style="font-weight: bold">originally designed to be configured as both a pistol and a rifle are assembled or re-assembled in a configuration not regulated under the NFA</span> (e.g., as a pistol, or a rifle with a barrel of 16 inches or more in length).

Held further, a firearm, as defined by 26 U.S.C. 5845(a)(3) and (a)(4), is <span style="font-weight: bold">not made when a pistol is attached to a part or parts designed to convert the pistol into a rifle with a barrel of 16 inches or more in length, and the parts are later unassembled in a configuration not regulated under the NFA (e.g., as a pistol).</span>

Held further, a firearm, as defined by 26 U.S.C. 5845(a)(4), <span style="font-weight: bold">is made when a handgun or other weapon with an overall length of less than 26 inches, or a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length, is assembled or produced from a weapon originally assembled or produced only as a rifle. </span></div></div>

 

[doc76251]

Re: Had a long talk with ATF today

So it would seem..... that if you have an ASSEMBLED pistol next to an ASSEMBLED rifle you are good. If you have a rifle upper next to an ASSEMBLED pistol with no rifle lower "in close proximity" yer screwed and verse vice a.

"Held, a firearm, as defined by the National Firearms Act (NFA), 26 U.S.C. 5845(a)(3), is made when unassembled parts are placed in close proximity in such a way that they:......

Serve no useful purpose other than to make a rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length

Convert a complete weapon into such an NFA firearm, including –
(1) A pistol and attachable shoulder stock; and
(2) A rifle with a barrel of 16 inches or more in length, and an attachable barrel of less than 16 inches in length."

In other words keep your pistol parts separate from your rifle parts if you only have two lowers (1 rifle & 1 pistol) and have multiple uppers. I don't think I'd like to have just one lower although they say it's legal if you take the stock off prior to bolting on the pistol parts or take the pistol upper off prior to putting the stock on.

Cheers,

Doc

 

[Boomholzer]

Re: Had a long talk with ATF today

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: doc76251</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So it would seem..... that if you have an ASSEMBLED pistol next to an ASSEMBLED rifle you are good. If you have a rifle upper next to an ASSEMBLED pistol with no rifle lower "in close proximity" yer screwed and verse vice a.

"Held, a firearm, as defined by the National Firearms Act (NFA), 26 U.S.C. 5845(a)(3), is made when unassembled parts are placed in close proximity in such a way that they:......

Serve no useful purpose other than to make a rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length

Convert a complete weapon into such an NFA firearm, including –
(1) A pistol and attachable shoulder stock; and
(2) A rifle with a barrel of 16 inches or more in length, and an attachable barrel of less than 16 inches in length."

In other words keep your pistol parts separate from your rifle parts if you only have two lowers (1 rifle & 1 pistol) and have multiple uppers. I don't think I'd like to have just one lower although they say it's legal if you take the stock off prior to bolting on the pistol parts or take the pistol upper off prior to putting the stock on.

Cheers,

Doc </div></div>
Doc,
The vice-versa is important.
The ATF does not care if you put a =>16" rifle upper on a pistol lower, which is defined/configured as a pistol. There is no law on maximum pistol barrel length. Bolting on a stock or forearm features is a different story.
For most interpretaions and presidence; you can configure this pistol lower into a rifle....Again, this is where manufactures' original intent and what the AR receiver was purchased as (pistol). The addition of a stock must also observe the OAL and barrel length requirements.

Assembling or "showing intent to assemble" a <16" upper on a rifle lower without the NFA route is obviously a big no-no.

 

[wakajawaka]

Re: Had a long talk with ATF today

ATF has determined a receiver that has never been assembled is neither a rifle, or a handgun. The manufacturers intent is a non issue. You can build which ever you want with it.

Any paper work (4473) stating one way or the other, has no bearing on the receivers status.

Until it's actually built, it's a firearm, not a pistol, or a rifle.

 

[Arbiter]

Re: Had a long talk with ATF today

To determine whether or not something is a rifle or a shotgun, look at it and ask "Does this have a buttstock, or is it intended to be fired from the shoulder?"

If a reasonably competent idiot, even one working for ATF, would answer said question in the affirmative, then you either have a: A. Rifle, B: Shotgun, C: Short-barreled rifle, or D: Short-barreled shotgun (Technically we could add in Destructive Device and Machinegun if we wanted, but that's a bit outside the scope of the discussion).

To determine if it's a short-barreled rifle or shotgun, you look at the overall length and the barrel length; if either is below the legal minimum than you have a short-barreled item of the appropriate category.

What's going to <span style="font-weight: bold">really</span> bake your noodle is the set of recent rulings from ATF that an AR with a barrel under 16" can be built, minus a buttstock, and have a vertical foregrip added...and it's not an NFA item so long as the overall length of the weapon is 26".

This weapon:

is neither an SBR, since it lacks a stock..nor is it an AOW, since it's not considered small enough to be concealable (OAL is over 26"). Thus it remains a Title 1 firearm, subject only to the federal and state laws governing firearms in general. You cannot buy one under the age of 21, since federal law states that an individual of 18 may purchase a <span style="font-style: italic">rifle</span> or a <span style="font-style: italic">shotgun</span>, not that an individual must be 21 to purchase a handgun.

Clear as mud?

 

[ChielScape]

Re: Had a long talk with ATF today

Actually a VFG makes it an SBR, iirc.

 

[sandwarrior]

Re: Had a long talk with ATF today

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dead-bird</div><div class="ubbcode-body">ATF has determined a receiver that has never been assembled is neither a rifle, or a handgun. The manufacturers intent is a non issue. You can build which ever you want with it.

Any paper work (4473) stating one way or the other, has no bearing on the receivers status.

Until it's actually built, it's a firearm, not a pistol, or a rifle.</div></div>

When did that ruling come about? It must've been pretty recent?

 

[springer01]

Re: Had a long talk with ATF today

Ok this shit is confusing the hell out of me. Here is my question and sorry it kinda deters a little from the OP. If I am building an SBR I need to register the lower and WAIT for the stamp before building any part of the upper. But I can have the upper components i.e. barrel, handguard, ext in my possession?

 

[Arbiter]

Re: Had a long talk with ATF today

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sandwarrior</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dead-bird</div><div class="ubbcode-body">ATF has determined a receiver that has never been assembled is neither a rifle, or a handgun. The manufacturers intent is a non issue. You can build which ever you want with it.

Any paper work (4473) stating one way or the other, has no bearing on the receivers status.

Until it's actually built, it's a firearm, not a pistol, or a rifle.</div></div>

When did that ruling come about? It must've been pretty recent?</div></div>

It's not really a ruling so much as a clarification of existing law. Technically, it's always been that way...just that most people didn't fully understand the exact rules controlling the status of a firearm as a particular class of weapon. The law doesn't say anything about 4473s or manufacturer intent..it simply states that the defining characteristic is whether it A: has a stock, or B: is intended to be fired from the shoulder, or C: at one point had said items installed.

If you take a Colt 6920, pull the upper off, pull the stock off, and attempt to make it a pistol, you've manufactured something from a rifle..and according to the letter of the law, that's a no-go. Could it be determined under casual examination? Not likely. Could someone in law enforcement conduct a firearm trace and determine that the receiver left the factory as an assembled rifle? Absolutely...at which point you'd be boned.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ok this shit is confusing the hell out of me. Here is my question and sorry it kinda deters a little from the OP. If I am building an SBR I need to register the lower and WAIT for the stamp before building any part of the upper. But I can have the upper components i.e. barrel, handguard, ext in my possession?</div></div>

You need to start with a rifle or a pistol or a lower. Then submit the form. Then engrave it with the "manufacturer's information" (ie, trust name and city/state). <span style="font-style: italic">Then</span> you can add the short barrel upper. Possession of the short upper by itself sans paperwork <span style="font-style: italic">could</span> be construed by law enforcement as constructive possession, thus it's recommended against by ATF and most people out there. On the other hand, if you own an AR pistol or some other legal non-NFA weapon that naturally utilizes that short upper, then you could have a valid claim that you're not intending to violate the NFA by possessing a disassembled unregistered SBR.

Slightly less muddy?

 

[sandwarrior]

Re: Had a long talk with ATF today

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Arbiter</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sandwarrior</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dead-bird</div><div class="ubbcode-body">ATF has determined a receiver that has never been assembled is neither a rifle, or a handgun. The manufacturers intent is a non issue. You can build which ever you want with it.

Any paper work (4473) stating one way or the other, has no bearing on the receivers status.

Until it's actually built, it's a firearm, not a pistol, or a rifle.</div></div>

When did that ruling come about? It must've been pretty recent?</div></div>

It's not really a ruling so much as a clarification of existing law. Technically, it's always been that way...just that most people didn't fully understand the exact rules controlling the status of a firearm as a particular class of weapon. The law doesn't say anything about 4473s or manufacturer intent..it simply states that the defining characteristic is whether it A: has a stock, or B: is intended to be fired from the shoulder, or C: at one point had said items installed.

If you take a Colt 6920, pull the upper off, pull the stock off, and attempt to make it a pistol, you've manufactured something from a rifle..and according to the letter of the law, that's a no-go. Could it be determined under casual examination? Not likely. Could someone in law enforcement conduct a firearm trace and determine that the receiver left the factory as an assembled rifle? Absolutely...at which point you'd be boned.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ok this shit is confusing the hell out of me. Here is my question and sorry it kinda deters a little from the OP. If I am building an SBR I need to register the lower and WAIT for the stamp before building any part of the upper. But I can have the upper components i.e. barrel, handguard, ext in my possession?</div></div>

You need to start with a rifle or a pistol or a lower. Then submit the form. Then engrave it with the "manufacturer's information" (ie, trust name and city/state). <span style="font-style: italic">Then</span> you can add the short barrel upper. Possession of the short upper by itself sans paperwork <span style="font-style: italic">could</span> be construed by law enforcement as constructive possession, thus it's recommended against by ATF and most people out there. On the other hand, if you own an AR pistol or some other legal non-NFA weapon that naturally utilizes that short upper, then you could have a valid claim that you're not intending to violate the NFA by possessing a disassembled unregistered SBR.

Slightly less muddy?

</div></div>

Now, to muddy the waters a bit more.

The ATF just came out with another 'clarification' that the Thompson Center PISTOL/HANDGUN's which were manufactured to interchange into rifle's and back again, can do that without any issues. T/C rifles must remain in full rifle configuration (no SBR's or AOW's). Unless there is a code number in the serial no. I don't see how they can do that.

Would that also extend to AR's? You buy a Pistol/Handgun configure it with a long barrel and buttstock for deer rifle season (separate upper of course). And then go back to your pistol configuration that you originally bought as. The concept of both systems being modular. However, the AR was never originally designed as a pistol. And when they did come out they were long past the GCA, unlike the Thompson Centers (g'father'd in?).

 

[Cobracutter]

Re: Had a long talk with ATF today

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: doc76251</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Cowboy1978</div><div class="ubbcode-body">so this is considered a pistol? or a SBR??.....

and if i drove to Spikes Tactial and said i want a striped upper and lower to build a pistol id have to apply for a "SBR"???
can you send me the write on that Red plz

This is the one i would build my self if i was to build one at all </div></div>

No that is a pistol by definition of the ATF. You don't need the NFA paperwork for it. IF you put a stock on it or a VERTICAL fore grip it would be an SBR. That being said those angled grips that look like little triangles can be added to the FFT and are still pistols. The trick is that as long as it's a pistol you are good. Once you put a stock on the lower to make it a rifle, it can never go back to a pistol. How they track that bit is beyond me but a tinfoil hat is in order

Cheers,

Doc </div></div>

Putting a stock on it would make it a SBR, but putting a foregrip would make it an AOW, not a SBR.

 

[wakajawaka]

Re: Had a long talk with ATF today

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sandwarrior</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Arbiter</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sandwarrior</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dead-bird</div><div class="ubbcode-body">ATF has determined a receiver that has never been assembled is neither a rifle, or a handgun. The manufacturers intent is a non issue. You can build which ever you want with it.

Any paper work (4473) stating one way or the other, has no bearing on the receivers status.

Until it's actually built, it's a firearm, not a pistol, or a rifle.</div></div>

When did that ruling come about? It must've been pretty recent?</div></div>

It's not really a ruling so much as a clarification of existing law. Technically, it's always been that way...just that most people didn't fully understand the exact rules controlling the status of a firearm as a particular class of weapon. The law doesn't say anything about 4473s or manufacturer intent..it simply states that the defining characteristic is whether it A: has a stock, or B: is intended to be fired from the shoulder, or C: at one point had said items installed.

If you take a Colt 6920, pull the upper off, pull the stock off, and attempt to make it a pistol, you've manufactured something from a rifle..and according to the letter of the law, that's a no-go. Could it be determined under casual examination? Not likely. Could someone in law enforcement conduct a firearm trace and determine that the receiver left the factory as an assembled rifle? Absolutely...at which point you'd be boned.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ok this shit is confusing the hell out of me. Here is my question and sorry it kinda deters a little from the OP. If I am building an SBR I need to register the lower and WAIT for the stamp before building any part of the upper. But I can have the upper components i.e. barrel, handguard, ext in my possession?</div></div>

You need to start with a rifle or a pistol or a lower. Then submit the form. Then engrave it with the "manufacturer's information" (ie, trust name and city/state). <span style="font-style: italic">Then</span> you can add the short barrel upper. Possession of the short upper by itself sans paperwork <span style="font-style: italic">could</span> be construed by law enforcement as constructive possession, thus it's recommended against by ATF and most people out there. On the other hand, if you own an AR pistol or some other legal non-NFA weapon that naturally utilizes that short upper, then you could have a valid claim that you're not intending to violate the NFA by possessing a disassembled unregistered SBR.

Slightly less muddy?

</div></div>

Now, to muddy the waters a bit more.

The ATF just came out with another 'clarification' that the Thompson Center PISTOL/HANDGUN's which were manufactured to interchange into rifle's and back again, can do that without any issues. T/C rifles must remain in full rifle configuration (no SBR's or AOW's). Unless there is a code number in the serial no. I don't see how they can do that.

Would that also extend to AR's? You buy a Pistol/Handgun configure it with a long barrel and buttstock for deer rifle season (separate upper of course). And then go back to your pistol configuration that you originally bought as. The concept of both systems being modular. However, the AR was never originally designed as a pistol. And when they did come out they were long past the GCA, unlike the Thompson Centers (g'father'd in?). </div></div>


I was knew about: http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/504/505/
(old news, I know)

I had not heard of any recent ruling that was specific to the T/C...

 

[Tengo1]

Re: Had a long talk with ATF today

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: springer01</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ok this shit is confusing the hell out of me. Here is my question and sorry it kinda deters a little from the OP. If I am building an SBR I need to register the lower and WAIT for the stamp before building any part of the upper. But I can have the upper components i.e. barrel, handguard, ext in my possession? </div></div>

I've considered building a pistol AR just for kicks, by purchasing a parts kit from one of the online dealers and then purchasing a lower and registering it as a pistol. I also pulled the trigger on a kit I found for a good price a while ago and would hold on to it tell I could buy the lower. A law enforcement friend highly discourged me from it and said I would be alot safer doing it the other way around, lower first, then the upper kit. With several other AR rifles in my home, If I was ever found to be in possession of a short barrel upper and no registered pistol lower, I would be considered to be in possession of an NFA item.

 

[Arbiter]

Re: Had a long talk with ATF today

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sandwarrior</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Arbiter</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sandwarrior</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dead-bird</div><div class="ubbcode-body">ATF has determined a receiver that has never been assembled is neither a rifle, or a handgun. The manufacturers intent is a non issue. You can build which ever you want with it.

Any paper work (4473) stating one way or the other, has no bearing on the receivers status.

Until it's actually built, it's a firearm, not a pistol, or a rifle.</div></div>

When did that ruling come about? It must've been pretty recent?</div></div>

It's not really a ruling so much as a clarification of existing law. Technically, it's always been that way...just that most people didn't fully understand the exact rules controlling the status of a firearm as a particular class of weapon. The law doesn't say anything about 4473s or manufacturer intent..it simply states that the defining characteristic is whether it A: has a stock, or B: is intended to be fired from the shoulder, or C: at one point had said items installed.

If you take a Colt 6920, pull the upper off, pull the stock off, and attempt to make it a pistol, you've manufactured something from a rifle..and according to the letter of the law, that's a no-go. Could it be determined under casual examination? Not likely. Could someone in law enforcement conduct a firearm trace and determine that the receiver left the factory as an assembled rifle? Absolutely...at which point you'd be boned.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ok this shit is confusing the hell out of me. Here is my question and sorry it kinda deters a little from the OP. If I am building an SBR I need to register the lower and WAIT for the stamp before building any part of the upper. But I can have the upper components i.e. barrel, handguard, ext in my possession?</div></div>

You need to start with a rifle or a pistol or a lower. Then submit the form. Then engrave it with the "manufacturer's information" (ie, trust name and city/state). <span style="font-style: italic">Then</span> you can add the short barrel upper. Possession of the short upper by itself sans paperwork <span style="font-style: italic">could</span> be construed by law enforcement as constructive possession, thus it's recommended against by ATF and most people out there. On the other hand, if you own an AR pistol or some other legal non-NFA weapon that naturally utilizes that short upper, then you could have a valid claim that you're not intending to violate the NFA by possessing a disassembled unregistered SBR.

Slightly less muddy?

</div></div>

Now, to muddy the waters a bit more.

The ATF just came out with another 'clarification' that the Thompson Center PISTOL/HANDGUN's which were manufactured to interchange into rifle's and back again, can do that without any issues. T/C rifles must remain in full rifle configuration (no SBR's or AOW's). Unless there is a code number in the serial no. I don't see how they can do that.

Would that also extend to AR's? You buy a Pistol/Handgun configure it with a long barrel and buttstock for deer rifle season (separate upper of course). And then go back to your pistol configuration that you originally bought as. The concept of both systems being modular. However, the AR was never originally designed as a pistol. And when they did come out they were long past the GCA, unlike the Thompson Centers (g'father'd in?).</div></div>

To the best of my knowledge (which is to say, I've never once seen mention from any of the usual sources anything to the contrary), ATF is interpreting the T/C as being the one "exception" of sorts to that rule. Basically, they don't plan on enforcing it, so long as you're not clearly trying to create an illegal SBR out of a T/C. They don't seem willing to extend the same logic out to ARs or other similar systems.

One of the little legal conundrums that I've always wondered about is this: what happens to the legal status of a weapon that's been partially disassembled? Say an AR that's had the barrel removed from the upper, but which still has the stock attached? Technically it's still a firearm, sporting a stock intended to be fired from the shoulder...but the overall length is certainly under 26 inches.

If ATF <span style="font-style: italic">really</span> wanted to nail someone badly enough there's probably something they could come up with, even if a judge threw it out in court later. Then again, that's just it - many of these issues wind up being sorted out by agency or court ruling in favor of a greater-good sort of ruling. ATF could legitimately rule tens of thousands of firearms to be unregistered NFA items tomorrow, but they won't for the simple fact that the political fallout would be catastrophic for them (And ultimately, it's not going to help anyone's career at ATF to do so).

 

[wakajawaka]

Re: Had a long talk with ATF today

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Tengo1</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I've considered building a pistol AR just for kicks, by purchasing a parts kit from one of the online dealers and then purchasing a lower and registering it as a pistol. I also pulled the trigger on a kit I found for a good price a while ago and would hold on to it tell I could buy the lower. A law enforcement friend highly discourged me from it and said I would be alot safer doing it the other way around, lower first, then the upper kit. With several other AR rifles in my home, If I was ever found to be in possession of a short barrel upper and no registered pistol lower, I would be considered to be in possession of an NFA item. </div></div>

Don't register your stripped lower as a pistol. Untill it is actually built into a pistol, rifle, or shotgun, it is neither.

You might talk your dealer into listing the stripped lower as a pistol on the 4473 but a sharp ATF compliance inspector will site them for a violation when he sees it. It's not enough for a warning conference or potential revocation but it's still a violation.

 

[*greenhorn*]

Re: Had a long talk with ATF today

ok ok got another hum dinger for you, buddy (Different) bought a upper and lower from the local gun shop a wile ago and they built him a pistol. now hes selling it, he put it on consignment at the local set of idiots that run a diffrent gun shop across town because they only charge 10% consignment in sted of 15%, the owner want to put a stock on it and sell it as a SBR because he believes the pistol wont sell. i told him i dont thinks that legal unless he registers it a SBR 1st... how about that????

 

[Arbiter]

Re: Had a long talk with ATF today

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Cowboy1978</div><div class="ubbcode-body">ok ok got another hum dinger for you, buddy (Different) bought a upper and lower from the local gun shop a wile ago and they built him a pistol. now hes selling it, he put it on consignment at the local set of idiots that run a diffrent gun shop across town because they only charge 10% consignment in sted of 15%, the owner want to put a stock on it and sell it as a SBR because he believes the pistol wont sell. i told him i dont thinks that legal unless he registers it a SBR 1st... how about that????</div></div>

Gun shop owner is an absolute idiot if he thinks he can just slap an upper on and sell it as an SBR without getting an approved Form 1 on it.

 

[wlwaldock]

Re: Had a long talk with ATF today

One easy way is buy a sig p556 and a sig 556. The long rifle with folding stock just has two pins to remove the upper. The pistol just has a pin in the back and a flat head screw in the front which can be removed. Then you can take the pistol upper and put it on the full size sig 556 lower push the pins in and bam you have a SBR that can be quickly converted back to regular pistol and regular ar.

 

[at4rxj]

Re: Had a long talk with ATF today

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Wannashootit</div><div class="ubbcode-body">To muddy the water for the hell of it...
Is the Magpul AFG a "vertical" grip???

</div></div>

I have a letter from the ATF telling me I can use a Magpul AFG on an AR pistol's handguard rail and not be in violation of their law. A true vertical grip would be violating the law without proper tax forms (AOW or SBR). I did not get into length over 26" as it was shorter.

 

[*greenhorn*]

Re: Had a long talk with ATF today

o by the way i would wright your own letter this is a friends i intend to wright my own as well but.......Florida law says this letter is not cool? i don't know why