SBR question.


PDA






The-Reaver
January 20, 2011, 08:53 PM
Extending the barrel of a pistol is Ok as long as one does not put a stock on it correct?

If you enjoyed reading about "SBR question." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
nalioth
January 20, 2011, 09:11 PM
Yep.

hirundo82
January 20, 2011, 09:15 PM
If it is "a firearm which has a short stock and is designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand" it is a handgun. It doesn't matter how long the barrel is.

An essential part of the definition of a rifle or shotgun in NFA law is that it be designed to be fired from the shoulder. Even if you were to extend the barrel so it is longer than 16 inches (ie Title I rifle length) it would still be a handgun. If you then added a stock to it, it would be forever a rifle and couldn't legally be changed back to handgun configuration without getting an SBR stamp.

nalioth
January 21, 2011, 12:16 AM
If you then added a stock to it, it would be forever a rifle and couldn't legally be changed back to handgun configuration without getting an SBR stamp.Please hold your "Obama absolutes".

This law that covers the situation you describe has not changed in decades, yet the revenuers conveniently reversed their decades-long opinion on it after the current administration came into office.

If it was illegal to pistol => rifle => pistol, then why has Mech-Tech Industries got instructions for doing so on their website? They've been selling carbine uppers for pistol frames for over a decade and none of their customers have become felons.

If it was illegal, how did Mech-Tech even get the go-ahead to sell them?

dogtown tom
January 21, 2011, 01:14 AM
nalioth:..... why has Mech-Tech Industries got instructions for doing so on their website? They've been selling carbine uppers for pistol frames for over a decade and none of their customers have become felons.

If it was illegal, how did Mech-Tech even get the go-ahead to sell them?

Note that MechTec dances around any questions regarding what happens if you remove the pistol from their carbine assembly. They know that it is a long held ATF interpretation of the NFA that a firearm made from a rifle is an NFA firearm and requires a tax stamp.

It is immaterial that MechTec has been selling carbine uppers for years....there is nothing illegal or regulated about those types of conversion kits. There is nothing for MechTec to get a "go-ahead" from anyone as their carbine conversion kits are not firearms and therefore not regulated by ATF or federal law.

What IS regulated is a "firearm made from a rifle".......and has been since 1934. When you attach a MechTech, HERA, or RONI carbine conversions with a 16" barrel you have manufactured a rifle. Remove the pistol and you have a "firearm made from a rifle". The NFA requires a tax stamp to possess such a firearm.

Pistols which can have a shoulder stock attached are also NFA items....attach a buttstock to your Beretta 92 or 1911 and you better have a tax stamp. Remove that buttstock and the firearm is still an NFA registered firearm. Unfortunately it doesn't simply go poof! and become a pistol again.

Although Thompson Center sued ATF over their carbine conversion and the US Supreme Court found in TC's favor......ATF considers that ruling as affecting only that single model of Thompson Center and not applicable to other carbine conversions.

MechTec fanboys need to discover why MechTec does not address the legality of converting their rifle back to a pistol.

nalioth
January 21, 2011, 01:38 AM
Although Thompson Center sued ATF over their carbine conversion and the US Supreme Court found in TC's favor......ATF considers that ruling as affecting only that single model of Thompson Center and not applicable to other carbine conversions.Which is a total pool of stockyard effluvia.

One brand of "firearm made to be used with one hand" gets a pass to convert to a rifle and then back again, but all the others do not?


The law doesn't work that way, no matter what the ATF "opines".

ETA: As recently as 2008, Mech-Tech advertised "reversibility" (http://web.archive.org/web/20080822192953/http://www.mechtechsys.com/).

dogtown tom
January 21, 2011, 10:22 PM
nalioth Quote:
Originally Posted by dogtown tom
Although Thompson Center sued ATF over their carbine conversion and the US Supreme Court found in TC's favor......ATF considers that ruling as affecting only that single model of Thompson Center and not applicable to other carbine conversions.
Which is a total pool of stockyard effluvia.

Tell that to ATF. While you may disagree, that IS their current interpretation. Whine and moan and pontificate about "effluvia" all you want........the fact is ATF will continue to enforce NFA regs as they did prior to the Thompson Center case. You are welcome to become a test case.

One brand of "firearm made to be used with one hand" gets a pass to convert to a rifle and then back again, but all the others do not?
Nope, I didn't write that. I'll let you dig up the Supreme Court decision but the decision isn't applicable to only the Thompson Center brand....it applies only to the single TC firearm in that case. Often, such decisions become precedent, but ATF is pretending it wasn't a precedent and they intend to stick to their original interpretation.

The law doesn't work that way, no matter what the ATF "opines".
Again, I encourage you to become the next test case. I would love to be able to convert handgun to rifle and back without a silly tax stamp....but ATF says I need one. I'm not willing to pay the $$$$ to fight ATF....are you?

ETA: As recently as 2008, Mech-Tech advertised "reversibility". Again, so what? Did you ever stop to think why they have not advertised "reversibility" since 2008? And when they do mention reversibility make sure it's not just functional reversability but reversable without needing a tax stamp.

If you enjoyed reading about "SBR question." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!