News for you guys with pistol-carbine conversion kits...

[Diomed]

ATF has issued Ruling 2011-4.

The tl;dr is that a pistol may be converted into a rifle by installing a legal length barrel and shoulder stock, and then may be converted back into a pistol by removing the stock and long barrel without violating the NFA. Converting a rifle into a pistol is still illegal, as is putting a stock on a pistol.

Now we can look for the flood of people who didn't bother to actually read the whole thing making lots of unregistered short-barreled rifles.

[jdonovan]

Really, all they have done is expanded the old T/C ruling to apply to any other firearm.

Pistols can be in fully compliant rifle configuration, or pistol configuration, but things that were originally rifles can't be converted to a pistol config, as that would be making a SBR.

I'm sure people are going to get this wrong.... in many ways.

[gunderwood]

Now we can look for the flood of people who didn't bother to actually read the whole thing making lots of unregistered short-barreled rifles.

I'm sure people are going to get this wrong.... in many ways.

Got to love bureaucrats creating technicalities and criminals.

[jdonovan]

Got to love bureaucrats creating technicalities and criminals.

Naw, in this case, the ruling REALLY did help the situation.

BUT people always want to read the rules to favor their wants and desires, and someone will think the AR rifle they have, is now suddenly able to be converted to a pistol... which is not legal todo.

This like many other things you can get charged with, will be an add-on. There is essentially no way for the average patrol officer to look at a gun/serial number and quickly determine if it left the factory as a rifle or pistol.

So you'll have to do something major that causes the officer to confiscate the items, and then a full trace / investigation by the detectives will reveal that in addition to what ever other dumb-*** thing you did wrong, you were also in possession of a non-registered NFA item.

[gunderwood]

Got to love bureaucrats creating technicalities and criminals.

Naw, in this case, the ruling REALLY did help the situation.

BUT people always want to read the rules to favor their wants and desires, and someone will think the AR rifle they have, is now suddenly able to be converted to a pistol... which is not legal todo.

This like many other things you can get charged with, will be an add-on. There is essentially no way for the average patrol officer to look at a gun/serial number and quickly determine if it left the factory as a rifle or pistol.

So you'll have to do something major that causes the officer to confiscate the items, and then a full trace / investigation by the detectives will reveal that in addition to what ever other dumb-*** thing you did wrong, you were also in possession of a non-registered NFA item.

My objection is to the fact that it's illegal at all. Seriously, if you can legally possess a rifle/handgun there is no harm done in converting it either way. Perhaps someone under 21, but over 18 could purchase a rifle, convert it to a pistol, and thus have avoided the law without this ruling. However, the whole 21 law is also silly in the first place. These technicalities aren't helping or protecting society in anyway. They're just there to make sure that they can get on something if they want to. It's BS and inconsistent with the concepts this country was founded on.

I'm calling BS on your example too. I've seen multiple cases on gun forums where people accidentally violated one of these technicalities and posted it. Good people typically let them know, the error gets corrected and the posts get deleted, but it happens with regularity. 922r violations, vertical grips on pistols, etc. The BATFE has sent people to jail for less than that. I have no doubt that if those posts stayed up that they would eventually go knocking on the persons door.

Punish people for doing real harm, not for some silly technicality they they accidentally committed. There's no rational basis for silly technicalities in a free society.

[jdonovan]

I'm calling BS on your example too. I've seen multiple cases on gun forums where people accidentally violated one of these technicalities and posted it.

But did they get prosecuted for it?

Good people typically let them know, the error gets corrected and the posts get deleted, but it happens with regularity. 922r violations, vertical grips on pistols, etc. The BATFE has sent people to jail for less than that. I have no doubt that if those posts stayed up that they would eventually go knocking on the persons door.

Show me one case where a 922r violation was the PRIMARY charge, and not an also included charge.

[gunderwood]

I'm calling BS on your example too. I've seen multiple cases on gun forums where people accidentally violated one of these technicalities and posted it.

But did they get prosecuted for it?

AFAIK, no...but they corrected the error and the evidence was permanently delete ASAP.

Good people typically let them know, the error gets corrected and the posts get deleted, but it happens with regularity. 922r violations, vertical grips on pistols, etc. The BATFE has sent people to jail for less than that. I have no doubt that if those posts stayed up that they would eventually go knocking on the persons door.

Show me one case where a 922r violation was the PRIMARY charge, and not an also included charge.

Are you suggesting it's ok to have abusive technicalities so long as they aren't the primary charge? It's either legal or illegal as far as the law is concerned. The fact that they have not been using it as a primary charge is mostly like due to the 4th Amendment protections which would make it difficult to prove (and in the courts it's all about what you can prove, right?). It also doesn't preclude them from starting either.

Regardless if they are using it as a primary or secondary charge, the law is useless and abusive. It also doesn't change the fact that it's inconsistent with a free society. Don't tack on an additional 5 years to a murder sentence simply because of a technicality, just punish the murder sufficiently in the first place! There is very real harm laws like 922r do to the law-abiding citizens; the very fact I have to be aware of it and then have to purchase additional US made parts despite the fact that I may already have working foreign made parts is a real harm to me.

Edit: You're a lawyer and I know you know this. I highly doubt you have ever recommended to a client that they violate the law or continue violating it simply because the agency at the time probably won't prosecute them, eh?

[jdonovan]

Are you suggesting it's ok to have abusive technicalities so long as they aren't the primary charge? It's either legal or illegal as far as the law is concerned. The fact that they have not been using it as a primary charge is mostly like due to the 4th Amendment protections which would make it difficult to prove (and in the courts it's all about what you can prove, right?). It also doesn't preclude them from starting either.

The US code is FULL of crappy technicalities. I'm just glad that ATF has chosen not to aggressively enforce this technicality.

There is very real harm laws like 922r do to the law-abiding citizens; the very fact I have to be aware of it and then have to purchase additional US made parts despite the fact that I may already have working foreign made parts is a real harm to me.

Keep this in mind when you stand in the voting booth in November.

Edit: You're a lawyer and I know you know this. I highly doubt you have ever recommended to a client that they violate the law or continue violating it simply because the agency at the time probably won't prosecute them, eh?

I'm not a lawyer. I've never even played one on TV.

[gunderwood]

Are you suggesting it's ok to have abusive technicalities so long as they aren't the primary charge? It's either legal or illegal as far as the law is concerned. The fact that they have not been using it as a primary charge is mostly like due to the 4th Amendment protections which would make it difficult to prove (and in the courts it's all about what you can prove, right?). It also doesn't preclude them from starting either.

The US code is FULL of crappy technicalities. I'm just glad that ATF has chosen not to aggressively enforce this technicality.

There is very real harm laws like 922r do to the law-abiding citizens; the very fact I have to be aware of it and then have to purchase additional US made parts despite the fact that I may already have working foreign made parts is a real harm to me.

Keep this in mind when you stand in the voting booth in November.

Edit: You're a lawyer and I know you know this. I highly doubt you have ever recommended to a client that they violate the law or continue violating it simply because the agency at the time probably won't prosecute them, eh?

I'm not a lawyer. I've never even played one on TV.

I'm glad they don't aggressively enforce it, not because I have an violations but rather what it would imply for the 4th. Still think we should remove it and I do keep it in mind when I vote, that's one reason I won't vote for RINOs.

My bad, I thought you were.

[jdonovan]

I'm glad they don't aggressively enforce it, not because I have an violations but rather what it would imply for the 4th. Still think we should remove it and I do keep it in mind when I vote, that's one reason I won't vote for RINOs.

Yep, 922r, import points, GCA '86 are a few of the ones I'd like to see off the list of laws.

[Tweaker]

G-Wood, he ain't a lawyer, just an arsehole like you and me both! Common misconception.

My mother told me for years I should become a lawyer when I was growing up. She meant it as a put down of course, but I took it as both a compliment and career advice.

[gunderwood]

G-Wood, he ain't a lawyer, just an arsehole like you and me both! Common misconception.

My mother told me for years I should become a lawyer when I was growing up. She meant it as a put down of course, but I took it as both a compliment and career advice.

[Diomed]

Really, all they have done is expanded the old T/C ruling to apply to any other firearm.

That is a common misunderstanding of the Thompson/Center decision. The court only ruled that the kit as sold was not a SBR, they made no comment on what happened after the kit was built into one configuration or another. This ruling is ATF stating what their position is on what happens after the owner gets it home and starts putting it together.

Honestly, it looks like they didn't think this all the way through - they're opening a big can of worms that could have all sorts of unintended consequences. For instance, does this now mean you can take a Mossberg Cruiser, stick a stock on it, and then later turn it into an AOW? This ruling appears to open the door to that. Could a dealer take a handgun, turn it into a rifle, and sell it to an out-of-stater or adult under twenty-one, who could then revert it to pistol configuration? That would be very useful for Washington DC residents.

This very much looks like it could be a double-edged sword. Good for us and bad for us, good for ATF and bad for ATF.

[jdonovan]

For instance, does this now mean you can take a Mossberg Cruiser, stick a stock on it, and then later turn it into an AOW? This ruling appears to open the door to that.

Nope, this ruling deals with pistols and rifles, it is completely silent on shotguns.

Could a dealer take a handgun, turn it into a rifle, and sell it to an out-of-stater or adult under twenty-one, who could then revert it to pistol configuration? That would be very useful for Washington DC residents.

I really hadn't considered that angle, but.... ATF has said that adding the long barrel/stock is not the act of making a firearm, so IMO the receiver is still a pistol, and never ceases being a pistol.

What it does open up is the possibility of taking an AR-15 pistol, and getting it to legal rifle lengths and then I can use my CCW in VA to hide it under my trench coat.

This very much looks like it could be a double-edged sword. Good for us and bad for us, good for ATF and bad for ATF.

Agreed.

[Diomed]

Nope, this ruling deals with pistols and rifles, it is completely silent on shotguns.

A pistol gripped Cruiser isn't a shotgun, and neither is a smooth-bore pistol. See what I mean about opening doors that previously were locked tight?

I really hadn't considered that angle, but.... ATF has said that adding the long barrel/stock is not the act of making a firearm, so IMO the receiver is still a pistol, and never ceases being a pistol.

Where do they say that? This ruling only says that a NFA firearm is not made by removing the stock from a rifle made from a pistol - indeed, it acknowledges that when a pistol has a 16" barrel and a shoulder stock, it is a rifle.

What it does open up is the possibility of taking an AR-15 pistol, and getting it to legal rifle lengths and then I can use my CCW in VA to hide it under my trench coat.

I would be concerned about running afoul of Virginia law. The statute isn't particularly clear about rifles made from pistols, and I don't know if there's any caselaw on it.

[jdonovan]

A pistol gripped Cruiser isn't a shotgun, and neither is a smooth-bore pistol. See what I mean about opening doors that previously were locked tight?

I did some more research on the Cruiser, and have no idea how to read the ruling in regards to it.

I really hadn't considered that angle, but.... ATF has said that adding the long barrel/stock is not the act of making a firearm, so IMO the receiver is still a pistol, and never ceases being a pistol.

Where do they say that?

"Held further, a firearm, as defined by 26 U.S.C. 5845(a)(3) and (a)(4), is not made when parts in a kit that were 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 (e.g., as a pistol, or a rifle with a barrel of 16 inches or more in length)." (my emphasis added).

The other thing to consider here, is the phrase, when parts in a kit that were originally designed to be configured as both a pistol and a rifle. This might suggest, that if YOU went out and bought all the pieces, vs a vendor bundling then all into a single part number/package, that there could be a non-covered condition.

Its going to take quite a few clarifying statements from BATFE so we know whats covered here.

My arm-chair lawyering says, there are some things that are clearly intended to be covered in this ruling.

It is designed to accommodate the carbine kits currently available for pistols such as the Glock. Make sure to read that I said *carbine* kits and not SBR kits. The intent is to remove the uncertainty regarding re-configuring the weapons that are part of these kit "systems".

It looks like they are also clarifying the old Thompson Center case.

How and where this applies to other firearms/configurations we are going to have to wait and see.

Over at HK pro there was quite a bit of discussion, and one of the members has some contacts with ATF, and the folks that helped draft the ruling, and has provided some insider views. Its a good read.

http://www.hkpro.com/forum/hk-nfa-talk/ ... ost1065555

[Diomed]

"Held further, a firearm, as defined by 26 U.S.C. 5845(a)(3) and (a)(4), is not made when parts in a kit that were 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 (e.g., as a pistol, or a rifle with a barrel of 16 inches or more in length)." (my emphasis added).

That's just saying you're not making a SBR or WMFAR when you turn the rifle back into a pistol. Always pay attention to the definitions! They're calling it a rifle, indeed they say "designed to be configured as both a pistol and a rifle". It can't be both at the same time, of course, so it's either a pistol or a rifle. (This points to what I consider to be the critical flaw of the ruling, but that would be looking a gift horse in the mouth.)

The other thing to consider here, is the phrase, when parts in a kit that were originally designed to be configured as both a pistol and a rifle. This might suggest, that if YOU went out and bought all the pieces, vs a vendor bundling then all into a single part number/package, that there could be a non-covered condition.

The next paragraph of the holding deals with that, I think - "a firearm ... is 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)." In that respect, they covered some bases.

Its going to take quite a few clarifying statements from BATFE so we know whats covered here.

Oh certainly. Hence my referring to opening a can of worms since they announced it.

Over at HK pro there was quite a bit of discussion, and one of the members has some contacts with ATF, and the folks that helped draft the ruling, and has provided some insider views. Its a good read.

Man, lots of dumbassery in that thread. "Constructive intent", el-oh-el. The only thing of interest is the assertion that 922(r) does not apply to a carbine made from a pistol. If legit, that could mean people could make rifles out of Draco pistols and not have to swap parts. Or with rifles out of FAL pistols, man that would make things a lot easier.

[SHMIV]

Oh, holy crap. My brain hurts after reading this thread. That, of course, is the whole point of all these laws, to begin with; to confuse you with legal-eze, to the point that you are entirely discouraged from ever owning a gun to begin with.

[bill2111]

Well there you nothing like wasting money to re-invent the wheel. I guess someone needed to justify their existence.