Ruger Charger On 10/22 Stock


PDA






HelpUsRonPaul
November 17, 2009, 12:44 AM
1- will a charger fit on a 10/22 stock without modification?
2- is it legal to do that, would it be considered a short barreled rifle?
3- will a charger take 10/22 barrels?
4- is it legal to have a barrel over 16 inches on a pistol?

If you enjoyed reading about "Ruger Charger On 10/22 Stock" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
hatchetbearer
November 17, 2009, 12:49 AM
1- yes, its a 10/22 action and should fit in any .920 dia stock.
2- yes, it would make an SBR if you used a full length stock and the charger barrel
3- i dont see why it wouldnt
4- no, but I dont know why you would want it.

Sam1911
November 17, 2009, 06:55 AM
is it legal to have a barrel over 16 inches on a pistol?
It is illegal.


This is completely false. There us no legal limit on the length of a pistol barrel.

What you need to watch out for is the following:

If you have a Ruger Charger pistol, it would be ILLEGAL to add a 10/22 stock without first registering the gun as a Short Barreled Rifle.

If you have a Ruger Charger pistol, it would be LEGAL to add a 10/22 barrel AND stock, thus making it into a RIFLE.

However, if you convert your Charger pistol into a rifle, ONCE, it is now -- and forevermore -- a RIFLE. If you decide to make it back into a pistol, using the factory parts, it will have to be registered as a Short Barreled Rifle FIRST. This is because of the National Firearms Act ('34) language that makes it illegal to create any unregistered firearm "made from a rifle." The ATF says that once you've made a rifle from a pistol, the gun IS a rifle, period so you can't make anything else out of it without registering it under Title II of the NFA.

This is the current ATF interpretation of the NFA '34 and of the Thompson Center vs. US supreme court case from '92.

Here is the ATF letter that explains it: http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=5941067&postcount=1

Here are some recent threads on the matter:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=477943
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=481930
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=482787

As converting the Charger becomes a one-way-trip, it probably isn't something you really want to do. It would be cool to be able to swap back and forth between pistol and rifle, but, unless you register the gun as an SBR, that isn't legal, according to ATF. You could go ahead and register it, but as an SBR there are some hassles about storage, access, and transport of that gun accross state lines that you might not want to deal with.

Be safe, and be legal!

-Sam

highorder
November 17, 2009, 09:34 AM
However, if you convert your Charger pistol into a rifle, ONCE, it is now -- and forevermore -- a RIFLE. If you decide to make it back into a pistol, using the factory parts, it will have to be registered as a Short Barreled Rifle FIRST. This is because of the National Firearms Act ('34) language that makes it illegal to create any unregistered firearm "made from a rifle." The ATF says that once you've made a rifle from a pistol, the gun IS a rifle, period so you can't make anything else out of it without registering it under Title II of the NFA.


Absolutely true.

And ridiculous.

Sam1911
November 17, 2009, 10:37 AM
Absolutely true.

And ridiculous.

The worst part is, I'm starting to think that the ATF is more or less right about their interpretation. The NFA says just what they say it does. It is not supposed to be legal to make any firearm from a rifle without registering it first, according to the wording of the law. T/C and MechTech, etc, play with fire a bit by encouraging, or not expressly dissuading their customers from making these swaps in ways that violate the NFA.

When the Supremes made an exception for the Contender in the TC vs. US case, it would seem to most of us that they basically recinded that portion of the law. But the ATF doesn't see it that way and stuck to their position by saying that the SCOTUS ruling only applied to a few guns that were sold and transferred as kits with both rifle and pistol status.

We might looks at the decision and say, yaaay, the SCOTUS has declared (part of) NFA null and void -- and what's good for one gun is good for all. But SCOTUS didn't quite say that, and the law stands as written.

The ATF can't change the law, only enforce it. And, unfortunately, the NFA '34 is written in such an odd way that this is the law that ATF has to enforce.

Just like having a federal law that says big guns are legal and small guns are legal, but in-between guns (SBRs) are ILLEGAL, makes no sense -- having a law that says there is an inherant social ill in being able to swap a firearm between a pistol and a rifle configuration -- when both guns would otherwise be totally legal -- makes no sense. But that's the NFA. A badly worded law which is a derelict piece of poor legislation left over from an era when we threw assinine restrictions at society in reaction to the social misbehavior of a few. (Meaning 1930's Prohibition-era gang warfare -- which really didn't affect many people, but scared the pants off of everyone.)

Don't forget, NFA '34 was supposed to prohibit ALL concealable guns, pistols and revolvers included. The sawed-offs were added because it was realized that if they only outlawed handguns, gangsters could just cut down hunting guns to make more handgun-like concalable weapons. The handgun language was stripped out before the bill became law, and logic would say that most of the rest of the bill should have been scrapped as it no longer made much sense. But it was passed, and we've still got to live by it.

Unfortunately, until that law is repealed by Congress, it is likely to stand. The Supreme court pretty rarely will rule to strike down a law if they can find a way to answer the complaint without interfering in the business of the legislature. If the NFA doesn't violate the Constitution, and so far they've not found the guts to say that it does, then they will simply interpret it as written. The ATF really doesn't have a choice but to enforce the law as written.

-Sam

highorder
November 17, 2009, 11:29 AM
So because so few Americans are affected by this quirk in the NFA, it's not likely that the law will ever be examined, amended, or repealed.

With handguns exempt from the NFA, SBR/SBS provisions are pointless, and unnecessary.

But the NFA exists, and it takes no effort to leave it unchanged. So here we are.

Sam1911
November 17, 2009, 12:05 PM
So because so few Americans are affected by this quirk in the NFA, it's not likely that the law will ever be examined, amended, or repealed.Another way to look at it is: There are millions of T/C Contenders and Encores out there. You'd have to speculate that at least many hundreds of thousands of them have been converted back and forth between rifle and pistol configuration many times. Regardless of the NFA's text, or the ATF's views on it, I've never heard of anyone being charged with violating the NFA by doing this.

A two-edged sword. On the one hand, there are (presumably) vast numbers of owners who don't know how the law really applies and are violating it regularly. But that is countered by the fact that the "crime" is very hard, or at least unlikely to be, proved. And the ATF really hasn't shown much desire to expend effort in nailing folks for it. So, a "victimless" problem.

On the other hand...it is a federal felony. And that's not good, and there's no reason that the ATF couldn't decide tomorrow to sting 1,000 T/C owners for this.

With handguns exempt from the NFA, SBR/SBS provisions are pointless, and unnecessary. And that's the humorous part! The original legislators responsible for this mess saw handguns as the primary evil they were trying to stop. The SBR and SBS bit was just to stop folks from taking an end run around the legislation by creating pretty poor substitutes for those handguns. But, after 70 years of those SBRs and SBSs being registered Title II weapons, "Sawed-Off" rifles and shotguns have developed a mistique as though they are somehow vastly more dangerous than the much more purposeful Title I firearms they were derived from or were meant to replace.

But the NFA exists, and it takes no effort to leave it unchanged. So here we are. Yup. It would take such a carefully crafted case to make it all the way to the SCOTUS and actually be decided on the Constitutionality of the law, instead of the application of a technicality as TC vs. US seems to have been -- and would take so much time and money to get there -- that the Judicial review option seems very unlikely. Now, imagining a situation in which the US Congress would vote to repeal the federal registration of "sawed-off" shotguns, etc., is a pretty wild dream, too. So, it just seems unlikely that this daft set of laws will be struck down. Who knows, maybe some of the fallout of Heller will someday drift that way? I'm not enough of a legal scholar to argue how, but maybe...

-Sam

If you enjoyed reading about "Ruger Charger On 10/22 Stock" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!