AK Pistol legal question

Status
Not open for further replies.
zignal_zero

zignal_zero

Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2008
Messages
598
Location
Kansas
ok, need to know whether not something is legal. don't need opinions on whether or not it's a good idea, need to KNOW from anybody who does KNOW.

an AK Pistol that is built on a receiver flat intended for an underfolder. the receiver has the hole and the rear trunion is an underfolder trunion. HOWEVER, there is absolutely none of the necessary hardware for the stock, nor the stock itself AND the receiver is built from a flat, so it was never on a rifle and never had a stock attached to it. it's a pistol, right? not a SBR? the person posessing this is legal, correct? i mean in the total absence of a stock, not one ANYWHERE near it, the owner of the pistol doesn't even own a stock that would fit it.
 
I'm just a dumb redneck but I think your good. You could always add a strategic rivit that would make it impossible to bolt on an under folder to the receiver.
 
well, the idea is that it will be a pistol until i'm ready to pay the stamp and wait the wait, then it'll be a SBR. but if i'm going with an underfolder, i have to use the appropriate receiver flat and trunion, from the begining (there's no changing it later). i'm going to cover up the holes with a sticker on each side of the reciever. in fact, they'll probably be some type of LE sticker that spark a conversation about "the job" (i've got several years in LE). it's extremely doubtful that i would ever have a problem with the locals, but i just want to make sure that it is technically legal in case i find that ONE d-bag cop or it gets used in SD and seized.

i honestly can not see how any existing law could be stretched to cover this, but if anybody does, PLEASE lemme know :)
 
To the best of my knowledge such a thing already exists and it is indeed legal. If you're familiar with the draco pistols from Romania then you know that they come in a couple different varieties, 3 or 4 as I recall. Anyway I know that one of them is built using an underfolder receiver. I've seen one myself that was imported in that configuration and was still legally considered a pistol. You should be good to go with your project.
 
By analogy, consider AR pistols . . . if you buy or build a stripped AR lower which was never assembled into a rifle, and the 4473 only lists it as "receiver" (not "rifle receiver") you're good to go if you want to assemble an AR pistol on it, as far as the Feds are concerned. (State/local laws vary.)

I don't see why assembling an AK-based pistol built on a virgin receiver made from a flat would be any different - even if there's provision for a stock, so long as you don't actually have a stock. ("Constructive possession") It would be a pistol, not an SBR.

I think 922(r) would still apply, and you wouldn't want to attach a forward grip which would turn the pistol into an AOW.
 
Draco with underfolder rear trunion?!?!?! i have never seen such a thing. i'm not saying you didn't, just saying it's darn sure news to me. it was a commercial (Century) job? and not a home build? speaking of Draco's, i have no clue how they are legal anyway considering they have NO serial number on the receiver. i'm baby sitting a Romanian Draco, right now, and i started looking it over. dang thing has like six serial numbers on it. they put 'em everywhere: under the sight leaf, receiver cover, trunion. HOWEVER, not ONE number on the receiver itself. the closest is the number on the front trunion. if you have access to one, check it out, it's mind boggling that they have gotten away with this for so long. i really don't understand it. BATFE is clear that the receiver is the firearm and the serialized portion and Draco's flat do not have serial numbers on the receiver. it's weird, but another topic all together.

well, thank you guys for easing my mind. as far as i knew, it was totally straight, i just wanted to double check and make sure there wasn't something i was missing. and, yes, i am 922 concious :) lots of American goodies on my creation.

i might never get around to SBR'n it. plus, with wait times with what they've been lately, even if i do, it might take BATFE forever to stamp my form. i'm coming up on 6 months pending for an unrelated form 4 and i think that times are going to get longer :( so, there is a good chance that this build is going to stay a pistol and just have underfolder holes in the receiver. that's why i wanted to be totally sure that it was not a "no no" somehow.

thanks again, now i'm really excited about finishing this thing :D
 
Not legal. I did extensive research on this issue when I had a Yugo m92 krinkov kit and if the receiver had the holes for the stock but had no stock IT WAS STILL AN SBR, hence regulated.
 
Wow, can't believe all the wrong advice here. Totally wrong. Even if the holes were somehow permanently sealed it is still an SBR. I'll go out on a limb here and tell you that is my legal opinion as a lawyer for 16 years too.

In all fairness tho, one would think this would be a pistol and legal. Cops even prolly would miss it. It is in AG opinions where you'll find this nuance, so only BATFE agents would likely catch it, and probably not every agent is aware of this. But it is SBR, NOT A PISTOL.
 
Last edited:
Many (most) Draco pistols have a "virgin" un-drilled underfolder rear trunnion. Some (my Mini Draco for example) Have an underfolder rear trunnion (with the holes) but there are no holes for it on the receiver.

Seems to me it'd be a lot more difficult to mill the holes in the flat and then have everything come out right after its bent. Milling the receiver and trunnion after you've got your stamp would seem safer from a legal standpoint and easier from a one of build standpoint.
 
baylorattorney said:
Wow, can't believe all the wrong advice here. Totally wrong. Even if the holes were somehow permanently sealed it is still an SBR. I'll go out on a limb here and tell you that is my legal opinion as a lawyer for 16 years too.

In all fairness tho, one would think this would be a pistol and legal. Cops even prolly would miss it. It is in AG opinions where you'll find this nuance, so only BATFE agents would likely catch it, and probably not every agent is aware of this. But it is SBR, NOT A PISTOL.
Click to expand...
Most of the Draco pistols I have seen have the underfolder trunnion in them. (I have three of my own.) The receiver itself is undrilled and the stock cannot be directly attached, but there is a significant thread on ar15.com under 'AK>>>AK pistols' about the process for opening up the holes...once the Form 1 is in hand. Nothing at all illegal about having the Draco. And the BATFE has already ruled on the legality. Anyone who thinks differently needs to be educated. There is also a thread about attaching a stock or side-folding (not underfolding) stock to the rear of the pistol and that requires much less work. It is also the preferred approach for many given the preference for more solid stocks. I personally have no issue with underfolders having carried a Polish AK in Iraq and other places. Makes for a nice compact weapon if you are doing mounted patrols.
 
Wow! Really? Crazy, but OK. Yea I'm not talking about just having the trunion, I meant having the trunion AND the holes in the receiver just no stock or hardware that facilitates its attachment. I can see how this would be a no go, though, in a sense its the same as taking a M92, pulling off the stock, and saying it's a pistol. I'm just confused because I have owned "pistols" that had mounting holes for a stock (MPA 930) has a hole on the bottom of the receiver that a stock can be bolted to, BUT the hole can also be used for a sling mount whereas the holes in the sides of the AK receiver can not. I bet that would be addressed when/if it went to court - the fact that the holes are meant SOLELY for the attachment of a shoulder stock and serve NO other (pistol related) purpose. Hmmmm.... might have to go a differently route with this choppa :(
 
Just wait until you get your stamp to bend the flat and rivet in the trunnion. Only legal and practical way unless you are good at changing AK barrels (far from easy!) and build it as an under-folder rifle first.
 
Sorry...didn't catch the nuance of actually drilling the receiver. Wally is correct in his advice.

Conversely, you CAN build an AR pistol and use a carbine or rifle buffer tube, although most folks that do that wrap something around the buffer tube to ensure it won't 'inadvertently' fall into a stock of some sort. Not real different from drilling extra holes in the AK pistol receiver you are building and covering them with My Little Pony stickers. If you don't actually have an underfolding stock in your possession, it might be hard to make a case against you. Not something I would recommend doing, however.
 
I wouldn't be drilling the holes, the flat I would bend comes configured for an underfolder, not sure if that makes a difference or not just wanted to make that clear.

I'm wondering if I DID have an attachment that used the holes in the receiver to attach a sling mount or other non stock related accessory, if that would change anything.
 
I hear you. Sorry if I misunderstood. The best way to make sure is get a letter from the BATFE if u have any doubt. Good luck. God bless.
 
Baylorattorney- no, dude, u understand perfectly. MasterSgt made the comment that he didn't catch the part about "drilling the holes" and I was just letting him know (not hat it makes a difference) that they were already drilled, I would just be bending the receiver.

I do see what others meant though, I popped open a commercially produced Draco and, yep, it definitely has an underfolder trunion that hasn't been drilled out. However this is miles from what I want, I want a "pistol" with a big gaping stock hole that u can look right through.

No,yer opinion (Baylorattorney) sealed it for me. Not just the 16 yr as a lawyer, but the fact that you had a M92 kit and already went on a quest for answers. If "No" is what you say you came up with, then "No" is what it is (as far as I'm concerned) and in case I didn't already say it - THANK YOU for preventing me from committing a crime (albeit inadvertently)
 
You are welcome. These laws make no sense, but violating them will get you ten years federal and $250,000 fine. However, they don't effect the bad guys from going ahead and putting guns together anyway they see fit like full auto and sbr without any stamps. It only effects us, law abiding citizens.
 
That's a good point they made about drilling the holes. The Draco's I saw were set up for it but not actually punched through. As for your M92, that's kind of a specialty case. Those parts kits are demilled military rifles so as far as the BATFE is concerned that receiver has already been a rifle. I believe the rule is "once a rifle, always a rifle" which is why you can't put a short barrel on one without registering it, even without a stock.
 
As for your M92, that's kind of a specialty case. Those parts kits are demilled military rifles so as far as the BATFE is concerned that receiver has already been a rifle.
Click to expand...
Actually not so. What the rifle parts once were has no bearing on whether the ATF considers the current receiver a rifle or handgun or "other." This is a new manufactured receiver, and thus a brand new firearm -- a handgun.

I believe the rule is "once a rifle, always a rifle" which is why you can't put a short barrel on one without registering it, even without a stock.
Click to expand...
The "once a rifle, always a rifle" ruling went away last year. As long as a firearm started out as a pistol or "other" it can now be configured either as a Title I rifle or a Title I handgun, and you may swap back and forth. As this IS a handgun, it could be modified to be a rifle, and then back again.

The problem that I think is somewhat unclear still since this new change, is that in order to convert it to a Title I rifle (which was ALWAYS perfectly legal) you'd be making some allowance for affixing a stock (drilling holes for the UF stock parts, or drilling and tapping for a folding stock adapter, etc.). But returning it to pistol form would seem to require more than simply removing the stock and leaving the holes open. I've not seen how the BATFE is currently interpreting that issue.
 
zignal_zero ok, need to know whether not something is legal. don't need opinions on whether or not it's a good idea, need to KNOW from anybody who does KNOW.

an AK Pistol that is built on a receiver flat intended for an underfolder. the receiver has the hole and the rear trunion is an underfolder trunion. HOWEVER, there is absolutely none of the necessary hardware for the stock, nor the stock itself AND the receiver is built from a flat, so it was never on a rifle and never had a stock attached to it. it's a pistol, right? not a SBR? the person posessing this is legal, correct? i mean in the total absence of a stock, not one ANYWHERE near it, the owner of the pistol doesn't even own a stock that would fit it.
Click to expand...
Absolutely legal.
A pistol is a pistol until it has a shoulder stock attached. It doesn't matter if it designed to easily accept a stock (ie holes predrilled). What matters is that it becomes a rifle once the stock is attached and an SBR if the barrel is less than 16" or OAL is less than 26".

baylorattorney Not legal. I did extensive research on this issue when I had a Yugo m92 krinkov kit and if the receiver had the holes for the stock but had no stock IT WAS STILL AN SBR, hence regulated.
Click to expand...
Please post that extensive research, because it is counter to ATF regulations.:scrutiny:

Even if the holes were somehow permanently sealed it is still an SBR. I'll go out on a limb here and tell you that is my legal opinion as a lawyer for 16 years too.
Click to expand...
Ever seen a Browning Hi Power pistol with the backstrap cut for a shoulder stock? Thats no more an SBR than a Draco or Krink pistol with holes drilled in the receiver.:rolleyes:
 
So If yours wasnt originally a rifle, am I reading that its ok as a pistol as long as you don't have other rifle components aka stock in close proximity?
 
So If yours wasnt originally a rifle, am I reading that its ok as a pistol as long as you don't have other rifle components aka stock in close proximity?
Click to expand...

Actually, since the recent ruling reversing the "once a rifle" policy, this isn't an issue. If you have a receiver that was a pistol (or other) then you can build it as a pistol, then as a rifle, then go back to a pistol, etc. (Just don't get the steps out of order and build an SBR!) So it follows that you can't be prosecuted for any kind of "constructive possession" nonsense for having all those parts.

This follows with other rulings which say that the fact that you COULD build an illegal SBR from your pile of parts doesn't convict you, so long as there is some lawful configuration you could assemble those parts into. Sooo... pistol AR, buttstock, and rifle-length upper would be ok. Pistol AR, buttstock, and no >16" upper? Maybe suspect.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Trent
  • Locked
AK Pistol SBR (Advice)
2
Replies
26
Views
2K
Kurt_D
K
M
  • Locked
Help with SBR: Legality, Semantics, etc.
2
Replies
28
Views
2K
Aaron Baker
A
C
  • Locked
AR Pistol, Proto-SBR Legality Question
Replies
10
Views
2K
Arizona_Mike
A
H
  • Locked
AK-100 Series Folding Stock Question
Replies
2
Views
817
Raygun
R
G
  • Locked
M85NP PAP Pistol
Replies
1
Views
637
wally
wally
Back
Top