NFA question on "firearms"

[Sam1911]

Hi all,

Here's a question for the real brains on NFA issues:

"Any other weapon" is usually thought to encompass a few specific types of items: pen guns, cane guns, wallet guns, smooth bore handguns, pistols with a vertical grip.

But it was posed to me the other night that "Any Other Weapon" SHOULD encompass ANY other weapon, beyond those described in Title I and Title II.

Specifically, the question was raised of belt-fed semi-autos.

They are NOT rifles, per the written opinion of the ATF who agrees with the NFA in saying that these are not designed to be "fired from the shoulder". The ATF has stated clearly that belt-fed semi-autos are not required to adhere to the 16" barrel length requirement because they are NOT rifles. (Still have to be 26" oal, though...why?)

And yet, they clearly aren't Title I handguns. They aren't shotguns. They aren't machine guns. Are they "ANY other weapon?"

Same question applies to PGO shotguns. The definition of shotgun includes "…designed or redesigned to be fired from the shoulder…" Sooo... PGOs are not Title I shotguns. Not handguns. Not rifles. Not machine guns. Seems to me that they must be "ANY other weapon."

It also seems to be that, since they aren't legally "shotguns," then cutting one down below 18"/26" wouldn't produce a firearm "made from a shotgun" but would probably make an "ANY other weapon."

But if so...what was it BEFORE it was cut down?

I've heard folks say that these are "just firearms." But if neither of these fits into any of the Title I named firearms, OR into any of the other descriptions of Title II firearms ... how do they NOT then be "Any Other Weapons?"

This question was posed to me a few nights ago and I really fell flat trying to answer.


...

I'd assume in box 18 of the 4473 form you'd check "Other Firearm" for either instead of handgun or long gun. But isn't that "ANY" other firearm?

 

[dogtown tom]

Sam1911:...Same question applies to PGO shotguns. The definition of shotgun includes "…designed or redesigned to be fired from the shoulder…" Sooo... PGOs are not Title I shotguns. Not handguns. Not rifles. Not machine guns. Seems to me that they must be "ANY other weapon."

A PGO shotgun is listed as an "Other" firearm on the 4473, not as "Any Other Weapon". Receivers, frames, AR lowers are also considered "Other" firearms as they are neither long guns or handguns.

It also seems to be that, since they aren't legally "shotguns," then cutting one down below 18"/26" wouldn't produce a firearm "made from a shotgun" but would probably make an "ANY other weapon."

Cutting the barrel of a PGO shotgun below 18" would make it an AOW under the NFA, requiring a Federal tax stamp to manufacture or transfer. It would not be a "short barreled shotgun" as it did not have a buttstock. These little shotguns (such as the Serbu Shorty) can transfer on a $5 AOW stamp because they were never a long gun. Cutting a regular shotgun barrel to 12" and attaching a pistol grip makes a short barreled shotgun requiring a $200 stamp.

But if so...what was it BEFORE it was cut down?

It was an "Other Firearm".

I've heard folks say that these are "just firearms."

They are correct. But as a pistol grip shotgun cannot be fired from the shoulder it is not a shotgun under the ATF regulations. This is why ATF added the category of "Other Firearm" on the 4473 two years ago.

But if neither of these fits into any of the Title I named firearms, OR into any of the other descriptions of Title II firearms ...

They do.........they are "Other Firearms" on the 4473.

how do they NOT then be "Any Other Weapons?"

AOW is for NFA firearms only.

This question was posed to me a few nights ago and I really fell flat trying to answer.

So does the ATF

I'd assume in box 18 of the 4473 form you'd check "Other Firearm" for either instead of handgun or long gun.

Correct. The instructions for Form 4473 Question 18 reads: "Other" refers to frames, receivers, and other firearms that are not either handguns or long guns (rifles or shotguns) such as firearms having a pistol grip that expel a shotgun shell, or National Firearms Act (NFA) firearms."

But isn't that "ANY" other firearm?

Nope, although AOW's are also "Other" Firearms on the 4473 (like all NFA toys), the PGO shotgun is not an AOW.

 

[Sam1911]

Yes, that all makes sense, and I completely understand that it works this way -- in practice.

However, under Titles I and II of the NFA '34 (and/or GCA'68), what are "Other firearms?"

And why?

As I read through TITLE 26, Subtitle E, CHAPTER 53, Subchapter B, PART I, § 5845, I don't seem to see the phrase "Other Firearm" anywhere.

This is the crux of my question.

 

[Freedom_fighter_in_IL]

Welcome to the mind screw known as the ATF Sam!!!

 

[dogtown tom]

Sam1911: ...I don't seem to see the phrase "Other Firearm" anywhere...

You won't find it in the actual law.
It came about through a "determination letter" or ruling from ATF. It took them until 2008 to figure out a stripped lower is not a rifle or a pistol until it's been assembled. Yet it is a firearm so they have to call it something.


While I heartily disagree with 99% of ATF's ruling I'm starting to understand how they make some of these rulings.

 

[Sam1911]

...is not a rifle or a pistol until it's been assembled. Yet it is a firearm so they have to call it something.

And yet, reading the text of Chapter 53, types of firearms are clearly defined. When someone makes a list of things, and then says "(e) Any Other Weapon," it would seem that things that don't fit into the definitions of the other categories would fall clearly into the "Any Other" bucket.

I agree that this would be onerous (isn't the rest of the Title II silliness onerous, though?) and that perhaps bare receivers MIGHT still defy that classification, but I don't see how PGO shotguns (and PGO rifles, in theory) and belt-fed semi-auto copies of crew-served weapons do not fall into the "Any other" category.

 

[CleverNickname]

It's simple. The definition of 'AOW' in 26 USC 5845(e) includes the phrase 'capable of being concealed on the person.' The ATF considers this to mean 'under 26" OAL'. If it's over 26" OAL then it's not an AOW.

 

[Sam1911]

It's simple. The definition of 'AOW' in 26 USC 5845(e) includes the phrase 'capable of being concealed on the person.'

It includes that phrase, but I'm not sure that that phrase covers everything that could be an AOW. There are some strategic commas which seem to indicate a list of things being described which includes that first phrase, and then some other things. For example, "weapons with combination shotgun and rifle barrels 12 inches or more, less than 18 inches in length, from which only a single discharge can be made from either barrel without manual reloading," -- note that it does NOT say that those weapons have to be sub-26" OAL.

(e) Any other weapon
The term “any other weapon” means any weapon or device capable of being concealed on the person from which a shot can be discharged through the energy of an explosive, a pistol or revolver having a barrel with a smooth bore designed or redesigned to fire a fixed shotgun shell, weapons with combination shotgun and rifle barrels 12 inches or more, less than 18 inches in length, from which only a single discharge can be made from either barrel without manual reloading, and shall include any such weapon which may be readily restored to fire. Such term shall not include a pistol or a revolver having a rifled bore, or rifled bores, or weapons designed, made, or intended to be fired from the shoulder and not capable of firing fixed ammunition.

Your answer could be correct. But I'm not sure that it is. And if it IS, then it still leaves out PGO smoothbores over 26" and rifled firearms over 26" not intended to be fired from the shoulder.

Still confused.

 

[CleverNickname]

Your answer could be correct.

It is correct, because that's how the ATF currently interprets the law and until someone takes them to court over it, that's how it will be enforced.

But it'd be a really stupid person to take the ATF to court over the fact that that the plaintiff was able to buy a particular firearm as title I instead of title II. They'd effectively be arguing that the court should find them guilty of tax evasion.

 

[Prince Yamato]

So, the belt-feds are like Non-NFA AOWs (in theory)?

 

[CleverNickname]

They're just "firearms". They're not title II, nor one of the defined types of title I firearms.