So what are the rules now???

[sirhrmechanic]

So Hermosa Beach posted this over in Motivational... and it is funny. But also raises some interesting questions.

I bring this up for serious discussion because a few weeks ago, I bought a pistol upper (Sig Virtus piston). I went to my local FFL which stocks bare lowers and asked for a 'pistol' lower. One that would be sold as a pistol... for assembly with a pistol upper. Their answer was that there are no more 'pistol' lowers and that the guns are treated as 'pistols' as long as they comply with not having a stock but a 'brace.'

Right now, until I find out the 'correct' status I am reluctant to assemble my gun. Because once upon a time, putting a shorty upper on a lower 'not' initially manufactured and sold as a pistol was an NFA violation and you had an SBR.

But according to my FFL (and the are a big police dealer, a Class III dealer... they know their stuff. Always have. So I do trust what they say. But, as the saying goes: "Trust but verify."

So when did that change? And is there anything 'official' about that? I can see that there are now so many guns, braces, combos, uppers, etc. out there that policing lowers would be darn near impossible. So maybe the common sense is that it is on the owner to build legally. Personal responsibility. I like that. But is that what happened?

Also, how does this apply on non-AR platforms. If one were to take an AK platform and put on a Krink-length barrel and remove the folding stock (or the whole stock) does that then become a legal pistol??? How about HK-94-style? Or Uzi's? Or is this only applied to AR-style platforms?

Is it now a pistol and 'ok' according to BATFE if it meets the standard of having a short barrel, but no stock and/or only a brace)

Curious if anyone knows the actual details at this point.

Cheers,

Sirhr

 

[FS1]

No matter what you own, if the Govt wants you...it will be illegal.

 

[Charger442]

regardless of how you feel about the NFA laws in this country, but knowing what they actually are, it completely defies any and all logic that pistol "braces" are not considered a stock.

We as gun owners have for years tried to get ATF and anti-gunners to operate within a realm of common sense, logic, and facts. Then when they go off the rails and do something non-nonsensical, because it "benefits" us, then we are like "fuck yeah!! non-sense is awesome".

im sure ill get lit up for this, but im just being honest.

 

[timesublime]

Bare (stripped) receiver is listed as 'other' on the 4473. Rifle or pistol status depends on what is attached to it.

 

[david walter]

There is a thread on this over on the 'fire.

It's not a pistol or a rifle until you assemble it. However, since the purchase of a "pistol" is more restrictive in some states, some states default to that.

see

https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbt...er/13317217/gonew/1/ar-pistol-vs-rifle#UNREAD

 

[Gunfighter14e2]

So what are the rules now???
Depends upon which way is the wind blowing today,... Threads like this only end one way, and we are the losers every time.

 

[Lucky Se7en]

I have a hard time seeing anyone in a branch of the government being okay with allowing a firearm to be either a rifle or pistol depending on how it’s setup since most states have different laws associated with purchasing one over the other. If a rifle is simple to buy in one state but additional requirement are required for a pistol, I’d imagine they’d force you to go the most conservative route for purchasing it rather than buying a rifle and simply switching it to be a pistol

 

[oldfatguy]

Ok, so no more AR “pistol” lowers. So where did CMMG find the lower for my 9mm AR pistol ?

OFG

 

[powerspc]

View attachment 7033467

So Hermosa Beach posted this over in Motivational... and it is funny. But also raises some interesting questions.

I bring this up for serious discussion because a few weeks ago, I bought a pistol upper (Sig Virtus piston). I went to my local FFL which stocks bare lowers and asked for a 'pistol' lower. One that would be sold as a pistol... for assembly with a pistol upper. Their answer was that there are no more 'pistol' lowers and that the guns are treated as 'pistols' as long as they comply with not having a stock but a 'brace.'

Right now, until I find out the 'correct' status I am reluctant to assemble my gun. Because once upon a time, putting a shorty upper on a lower 'not' initially manufactured and sold as a pistol was an NFA violation and you had an SBR.

But according to my FFL (and the are a big police dealer, a Class III dealer... they know their stuff. Always have. So I do trust what they say. But, as the saying goes: "Trust but verify."

So when did that change? And is there anything 'official' about that? I can see that there are now so many guns, braces, combos, uppers, etc. out there that policing lowers would be darn near impossible. So maybe the common sense is that it is on the owner to build legally. Personal responsibility. I like that. But is that what happened?

Also, how does this apply on non-AR platforms. If one were to take an AK platform and put on a Krink-length barrel and remove the folding stock (or the whole stock) does that then become a legal pistol??? How about HK-94-style? Or Uzi's? Or is this only applied to AR-style platforms?

Is it now a pistol and 'ok' according to BATFE if it meets the standard of having a short barrel, but no stock and/or only a brace)

Curious if anyone knows the actual details at this point.

Cheers,

Sirhr

A stripped received is not a pistol or a rifle it is a receiver and transferred as such. Once assembled into a pistol it becomes a pistol. It can then be assembled as a rifle and then back to a pistol if you so choose. However, if the lower was originally configured and transferred as a rifle it will remain forever a rifle and cannot be converted or assembled as a pistol.

 

[sirhrmechanic]

So if the bare lower was sold as a rifle... it cannot be assembled as a pistol??? Or is there a new space on the transfer form (4473 or whatever it is called now) for receiver only?

I have not noticed... the dealer fills out that section.

Cheers, Sirhr

 

[timesublime]

 

[powerspc]

So if the bare lower was sold as a rifle... it cannot be assembled as a pistol??? Or is there a new space on the transfer form (4473 or whatever it is called now) for receiver only?

I have not noticed... the dealer fills out that section.

Cheers, Sirhr

On the 4473 it would be logged as "Other" (Frame, Receiver, etc.). A new stripped receiver wouldn't have been sold as a rifle, it would have been sold/transferred as "Other". If you bought a rifle, took the receiver off and made it into a pistol that would not be allowed.

 

[MtnCreek]

If the 4473 is properly filled out, the dealer would check the box for "other firearm". What you do with it after that determines whether it is a rifle (once a rifle always a rifle) or pistol (can be configured as a rifle after being originally configured as a pistol).

 

[FUNCTIONAL]

If it was sold complete as a rifle it cannot be a pistol. If it was sold complete as a pistol it can become a rifle. Every place I have gone to buy a bare lower has sold it and filled out the 4473 as describing the lower as a Firearm which allows you to assemble it however you want (within the laws of your state/ATF).

When you buy a stripped lower just make sure they list it as a firearm on the paperwork and youll be ok assembling it as a pistol (again within the other laws).

 

[david walter]

Doesn't matter how it was "sold" according to ATFE, it matters how it was first assembled.

This is how ATF answered this exact question.

Scroll down to page #2.

https://www.typicalshooter.com/atf-putting-a-stock-on-an-ar-15-lower-does-not-make-it-a-rifle/

 

[sirhrmechanic]

Other... got it. I do recall that as it is how they sell my sideplates when I have done 1919, Maxim and Vickers builds.

Thanks!

Cheers, Sirhr

 

[W54/XM-388]

Just remember, the ATF only recently allowed this whole "Pistol Brace" business and the associated front barrel shrouds, under the Obama administration, using the EXACT same reasoning for the "Bump Stocks"..... That they were enabling devices for handicapped or otherwise infirm / less able bodied shooters....

Now with a stroke of the pen "our" Trump suddenly said of bump stocks.... turn them all in or destroy them... no compensation or anything... or you are a felon.... For no other reason than a bunch of bitching Communist democrats and their supporters that hate him anyways were demanding "action" because a few were strategically left in the room in a nice staged pile when "supposedly" yet another democrat shot a bunch of people from a window, supposedly using one to make sure they did plenty of wild shots & not any aimed ones.

So.... What do you want to bet one day not too far away.... "Something needs to be done" and it's either rebuild them into something else, destroy them, pay tax and register them, turn them in, or become a felon...

I think that was actually the plan all along, and Hillary was supposed to do the rug pulling but no problem they got Trump to do it instead so even more win points for Communists.

 

[sirhrmechanic]

Doesn't matter how it was "sold" according to ATFE, it matters how it was first assembled.

This is how ATF answered this exact question.

Scroll down to page #2.

https://www.typicalshooter.com/atf-putting-a-stock-on-an-ar-15-lower-does-not-make-it-a-rifle/

So I read that... but it is still 'equivocal' as far as whether you can swap back and forth. The letter indicates that as long as the lower has never been barreled as a rifle, it can be a pistol.

But that raises the question about a receiver sold stripped (as 'other')... that has had a rifle barrel on it even one time! Since you can swap uppers in seconds, the way the letter is written, it implies that if a lower has EVER had a rifle upper on it, then it cannot be swapped back to a pistol. I don't think that's the intent... but it certainly seems tosay in the letter that once it has had a rifle barrel on it, it can't go back to pistol. How it could ever be enforced? No idea.

Also, I asked my FFL when I was in today how the Contender dealt with this... and apparently T/C has a waiver that allows their pistols to be swapped back and forth as carbines and pistols. As long as the 'configuration' is correct. In other words, make sure you put the pistol grip on before putting on the short barrel!

As for my thoughts about AK's or HK's, etc... if it was sold as a rifle... it is a big no-no to make any alterations without an SBR stamp.

Again, there are enough holes in all this stuff to fly a 747 through... But there ya go. Oh and WX... I am not quite as conspiratorial as you on the issue. but the same effect can be true if things are fuzzy... and it makes it difficult for the law-abiding to... abide.

Cheers,

Sirhr

P.S. After a year of waiting... my new 'can got released from ATF jail today! "Yay!" 12 months... things are very backed up!

 

[Waorani]

But that raises the question about a receiver sold stripped (as 'other')... that has had a rifle barrel on it even one time! Since you can swap uppers in seconds, the way the letter is written, it implies that if a lower has EVER had a rifle upper on it, then it cannot be swapped back to a pistol. I don't think that's the intent... but it certainly seems tosay in the letter that once it has had a rifle barrel on it, it can't go back to pistol. How it could ever be enforced? No idea.

You're right it doesn't make sense but that's my current understanding - once a rifle, always a rifle. And it can't be enforced. It's all part of the silliness in ATF rulings that have become even more convoluted as the industry has evolved. Probably doesn't matter now but I picked up a couple of "pistol" marked lowers a few years ago just because I wanted them to say pistol. I don't even see any of them for sale anymore.

Side plates are less confusing (or at least used to be).

 

[MtnCreek]

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/can-i-lawfully-make-pistol-rifle-without-registering-firearm

 

[sirhrmechanic]

You're right it doesn't make sense but that's my current understanding - once a rifle, always a rifle. And it can't be enforced. It's all part of the silliness in ATF rulings that have become even more convoluted as the industry has evolved. Probably doesn't matter now but I picked up a couple of "pistol" marked lowers a few years ago just because I wanted them to say pistol. I don't even see any of them for sale anymore.

Side plates are less confusing (or at least used to be).

View attachment 7033797

Nice Maxim and Sokolov!!! Mine is an imperial "Brass Jacket..." but is largely the same. Passed on a snow-cap a few years ago and regret not buying that, too.

Maxim's are the tractors of belt feds!

Nice build!

Cheers,

Sirhr