Isn't This ILLEGAL


PDA






shotgunjoel
January 5, 2009, 09:51 PM
I was poking around youtube today and came across this little video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z26ca-Unr-k&feature=channel_page
Is this not considered a SBR because it is temporary like those rapid fire trigger cranks? Also is it not a forward pistol grip because it is temporary and a magazine? I'm just wondering.

If you enjoyed reading about "Isn't This ILLEGAL" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Auburn1992
January 5, 2009, 09:55 PM
IIRC, you are right. You can't add a stock to a handgun AT ALL unless it's registered as an SBR. Same with the foreward grip.

So unless this guy has it registered I am pretty sure it's illegal.

Jorg Nysgerrig
January 5, 2009, 09:58 PM
It's targeted to law enforcement and their website says all over it that NFA rules apply:
http://www.turn-keytactical.com/

So no, it's probably not illegal as it sounds like they know enough to register it.

But, I will confess your subject was very eye catching with the word "ILLEGAL" in all caps.

misANTHrope
January 5, 2009, 10:02 PM
Illegal? No.

NFA item? Yes.

shotgunjoel
January 5, 2009, 10:09 PM
misANTHrope, that's what I meant, sorry about leaving that out.

Hoppy590
January 5, 2009, 10:11 PM
well it seems to be the dealer/manufacturer demoing it so its legal for him to own. but yes that would constitute a SBR unless a 16 inch barrel was included

Prince Yamato
January 5, 2009, 10:11 PM
How much is the device?

jakk280rem
January 5, 2009, 10:15 PM
neet toy. if i were at all into the nfa stuff, i might put this on the wish list. although, i'm not to crazy about the idea of using a spare mag as a fore grip.

mljdeckard
January 5, 2009, 10:25 PM
I see little advantage of the idea. Rather than take the time to turn your pistol into a 'carbine', why not just grab your long arm?

shotgunjoel
January 5, 2009, 10:33 PM
mljdeckard, their site says this way you don't need waste money on a carbine. This sounds great so long as you don't care about velocity, range, penetration, and such things.

Loomis
January 5, 2009, 10:33 PM
You might be able to make the argument that the spare mag mounted to the accessory rail is NOT a forward grip, it's a spare mag holder. Kinda like the brass knuckles that have a hook soldered on for use as a belt buckle. It's not brass knuckles, it's a belt buckle.

I'm not sure I'd try it though...not worth the risk.

I don't see any argument for the shoulder stock though. Maybe put a belt loop on it and claim it's a holster?

LOL!

mljdeckard
January 5, 2009, 10:47 PM
Which is great for people who think that spending money for better range, velcity, and penetration is a waste of money and believe that handgun rounds are sufficient for self-defense.

UhKlem
January 5, 2009, 10:50 PM
Compared to a Keltec Sub2000 rifle this is slower to deploy, has a shorter sight radius, poorer sights (not a peep sight), poorer grip and ergonomics, more muzzle blast, more recoil, less muzzle velocity, and requires a $200 tax stamp in states where short barreled rifles are legal.

If this were practical the HK VP70z would be a more common piece of tactical tupperware carp amongst the 'only ones' for whom NFA restrictions are a minor hassle.

X9ballX
January 5, 2009, 10:53 PM
wow that is a niice toy. i cant seem to fiind one on the net that dosnt go to a red9 or a mauser broomhandle(red9 and broomhandle are pretty much the same gun just diffrent caliber)maybe i'm not looking in the right place. maybe he made it himself. or maybe he bought it before certain laws were passed to keep him from getting that nowdays.

any coments on getting one?
i dont plan on getting one i'm just curious

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
January 5, 2009, 10:56 PM
When part A is matched to part B, temporary or not, you've just "manufactured" an SBR - or so would be the BATFE's (probably winning) argument. Very illegal without proper paperwork / fees.

kingpin008
January 5, 2009, 11:00 PM
X9BallX - There's not one other than that guy's, because he seems to be the manufacturer/developer of the device.

If you're interested in getting one, the website linked on the youtube video is probably the best place to start.

rfurtkamp
January 6, 2009, 01:44 AM
That's actually fairly neat, tax stamps aside.

Not that buying tax stamps has ever stopped me from getting fun toys before.

PTK
January 6, 2009, 02:36 AM
Not that buying tax stamps has ever stopped me from getting fun toys before.

I hear that. I stopped caring at NFA item 10 or so... :)

BHP FAN
January 6, 2009, 03:40 AM
Looks like the old style SKS folding stock from Tapco.

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
January 6, 2009, 09:18 AM
I hear that. I stopped caring at NFA item 10 or so...

Wait a sec....you mean you're "on the grid" and the BATmen haven't come and shot you in your home for no reason in 10 years time? Well, my buddy would never believe you. This is why he won't get NFA items.

rfurtkamp
January 6, 2009, 03:54 PM
Wait a sec....you mean you're "on the grid" and the BATmen haven't come and shot you in your home for no reason in 10 years time? Well, my buddy would never believe you. This is why he won't get NFA items.


They've never even come to the door at 3 am with a riot squad demanding to see tax stamps.

I think I've had more contact with the state DMV over a car title.

WTB my very own JBTs.

PTK
January 6, 2009, 06:13 PM
ONCE, and only once, has a single tax stamp been requested by a government official, shortly after getting my first NFA item. Since then, zero requests from anyone about seeing the stamps.

I've owned NFA items for four years now, and I own quite a few at this point.

Gunnerpalace
January 6, 2009, 08:37 PM
"Ignorance of the law is no defense" - My Father said that, seems relevant for here,

That being said, I would get one of those, If You could get SBR's here, it is cool.

X9ballX
January 6, 2009, 09:11 PM
X9BallX - There's not one other than that guy's, because he seems to be the manufacturer/developer of the device.

If you're interested in getting one, the website linked on the youtube video is probably the best place to start.sorry i just watched the vid thats all

ServiceSoon
January 6, 2009, 09:16 PM
Of course with the ATF's illogical laws when you register your pistol receiver as an SBR it will forever be an SBR whether it has that attachement on it or not. This means you have to get permission to take it across state lines and state laws differ on NFA weapons.

rfurtkamp
January 6, 2009, 10:14 PM
This means you have to get permission to take it across state lines and state laws differ on NFA weapons.


Not when returned to original configuration - there's letters on this for SBR owners out there already.

jorb
January 6, 2009, 11:41 PM
Looks neat. Don't want one though. Probably better off with a pistol and a carbine.

Eightball
January 6, 2009, 11:48 PM
So, is the pistol the SBR, or is it that thing?

And, theoretically, if you owned more than one type of Glock, wouldn't you need to SBR ALL of them to avoid a "constructive intent" conviction? (or on whatever other base firearm is decided upon)? And couldn't that get you into trouble in some states for CCWing a SBR?

Not when returned to original configuration - there's letters on this for SBR owners out there already.So, once an SBR, not necessarily always an SBR, unlike an MG?

doberman
January 7, 2009, 01:24 AM
:confused:

This thread confused me.

I'm no "gun dummy" and even know a little bit about "gun laws", but I will admit I don't understand "NFA", "SBR", or tax stamps.

Seems to me the product in this video is a neat little tool. I guess I don't get all the "silly laws". Maybe it's just me.

:confused:

Furthermore, I'm even more confused by my excessive use of quotation marks
in this post! :D

BHP FAN
January 7, 2009, 01:28 AM
it STILL looks like an old SKS stock....

rfurtkamp
January 7, 2009, 05:52 AM
So, is the pistol the SBR, or is it that thing?


Would follow that the receiver of the pistol is still the firearm, not the stock.

Case in point, I have my MP5k clone. It's a pistol legally if no foregrip is attached, and no stock is present. With my handy dandy approved Form 1 and tax stamp, I can put on the stock and foregrip. The registered receiver is still what was on the pistol when it was made as a regular ol' pistol - not the stock.


And, theoretically, if you owned more than one type of Glock, wouldn't you need to SBR ALL of them to avoid a "constructive intent" conviction? (or on whatever other base firearm is decided upon)?


If you have a legal reason to have the device, you should be 100% fine.

It's if you don't have a legal reason that you get in trouble.

I can have a AR pistol and a AR rifle (not SBR in the house) - and uppers for both. I have reason for both, spares for the pistol and the rifle. I have no constructive intent to commit a crime, since I have a legitimate use for the items. This is hypothetical in my case, though, since I have no desire for another AR and my pistol is a novelty the old lady shoots more than me.


And couldn't that get you into trouble in some states for CCWing a SBR?


Depends on your state. Here rifles and shotguns require no permit to carry concealed - what that means if you want to carry a 'pistol' that's now magically a 'rifle' thanks to the tax stamp is one of those head-scratching moments here.


So, once an SBR, not necessarily always an SBR, unlike an MG?


Correct, can return SBR'd items to original configuation and remove from registry as well.

ServiceSoon
January 7, 2009, 12:36 PM
Correct, can return SBR'd items to original configuation and remove from registry as well.Not when returned to original configuration - there's letters on this for SBR owners out there already.I don't think you are right. Sure, you can write a letter to the ATF if you want to change it from a title II firearm, but you can't swtich back and forth at your discretion. I tried to search for the letter you speak of. Can you please locate it for me?

rfurtkamp
January 7, 2009, 05:00 PM
I don't think you are right.

I am.

Here, bottom of page, special attention to page 2. (http://www.top-notchparts.com/atf_nfa_letters.htm)

If you can transport it across state lines without requiring approval of NFA branch....

shotgunjoel
January 7, 2009, 05:20 PM
doberman, NFA is the National Firearms Act of 1934. It restricted things like machine guns, short barrel shotguns (SBS), short barrel rifles (SBR), silencers, and "destructive devices". Under the NFA there is a tax on these items and you show that you have paid this tax by having a tax stamp. Hope this helps.

shotgunjoel
January 7, 2009, 05:22 PM
Eightball, the pistol would be what is registered as a SBR. Oh plus the stock thing mounts via the rail system so it would fit most any pistol with a rail.

Strakele
January 7, 2009, 07:07 PM
I suppose I can see the twisted logic behind wanting all your evil SBR's registered, since if you put a really short barrel on your AR, it's "theoretically" making it more concealable.

But I can't fathom the logic behind making it illegal to make your pistol LONGER and LESS CONCEALABLE without paperwork and tax stamp.

Go figure.

ServiceSoon
January 7, 2009, 08:59 PM
I am.

Here, bottom of page, special attention to page 2.

If you can transport it across state lines without requiring approval of NFA branch....I stand corrected. Thanks!

shotgunjoel
January 7, 2009, 11:17 PM
Strakele, that is a great point. I never thought of that but it does seem very illogical. Wow maybe sometime in the future someone could get that changed to make it legal to put a stock on your pistol. That would be great, but I doubt it will ever happen.:(

misANTHrope
January 7, 2009, 11:27 PM
I suppose I can see the twisted logic behind wanting all your evil SBR's registered, since if you put a really short barrel on your AR, it's "theoretically" making it more concealable.

But I can't fathom the logic behind making it illegal to make your pistol LONGER and LESS CONCEALABLE without paperwork and tax stamp.

Go figure.

On the other hand, if the end result is approximately the same, why does the starting point make a difference, ie whether you start with a small firearm and make it longer, or start with a a long firearm and make it shorter?

Presumably, the presence of a shoulder stock is the item that makes a small, concealable weapon inherently more dangerous. Cartridge power clearly isn't the determining factor- after all, anyone can go out and buy a handgun in a high-power rifle cartridge, but not any can go out and buy, say a pistol-caliber carbine with a short barrel.

Please note that I am not saying that the overall stuff is reasonable. Just presenting an alternate viewpoint.

If you enjoyed reading about "Isn't This ILLEGAL" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!