AR-15 Pistol to Rifle, and later NFA SBR'd?

[Sam1911]

For the sake of those of us who might build both rifles and pistols, when is the original build considered a "pistol"? Let's say you have 5 brand new stripped lowers lying around and don't want to keep track of each one's history, so you decide to initially build each as a pistol.

When the pistol extension is attached to receiver is that enough? When the upper is attached? BCG? Magazine? Sights? Does it need to be "used" as a pistol (ie, fired) before it would be considered a pistol? Can one use the same parts for all 5 builds or does each require its own parts?

We aren't laughing AT you, we're laughing WITH you...

Yeah, it's about that dumb, trying to sort it out. No, there isn't a ruling that says you have to have gone and fired the thing in order for it to have "first been" a pistol. Or that it has to have sights, or a mag.

If you wanted to be REALLY REALLY secure, I guess you could complete each build and go fire a round through it on video while holding a copy of today's paper or something. But then how would that prove you didn't FIRST, secretly build it into a RIFLE in your basement?!?! Oooh! Maybe you'd better build it and shoot it with a notary and two witnesses?

Yeah...in the end this stuff gets pretty absurd. Like I said, there's what the ruling says, on one hand, and then there's what might actually be enforceable ... or worth bothering to try and enforce ... on the other.

 

[Jlr2267]

We aren't laughing AT you, we're laughing WITH you...

Yeah, it's about that dumb, trying to sort it out. No, there isn't a ruling that says you have to have gone and fired the thing in order for it to have "first been" a pistol. Or that it has to have sights, or a mag.

If you wanted to be REALLY REALLY secure, I guess you could complete each build and go fire a round through it on video while holding a copy of today's paper or something. But then how would that prove you didn't FIRST, secretly build it into a RIFLE in your basement?!?! Oooh! Maybe you'd better build it and shoot it with a notary and two witnesses?

Yeah...in the end this stuff gets pretty absurd. Like I said, there's what the ruling says, on one hand, and then there's what might actually be enforceable ... or worth bothering to try and enforce ... on the other.

Sam I appreciate your patient responses, I really do. I guess I never really worried too much about running afoul of the law back in the days when a 22 rifle, a 12ga and *maybe* a nightstand revolver was the most an average man had and used regularly. I used to think my state hunting regulations were overly complicated...man, how I long for that simplicity now!

With all the new technology and gun rights comes a new set of responsibilities...not the least of which is to try to understand the subtle legal aspects. Seems years ago if you broke the law you knew it...right and wrong were somewhat clear...today, one could easily commit a felony without even knowing he did so, even with the most mundane of actions (e.g., that receiver you salvaged from a rifle 12 years ago got mixed in with the pistol parts and you built a new pistol with it).

I've probably got only a few good years of gun ownership left. I pity future generations if this insanity does not get addressed by a sane congress and executive.

 

[USAF_Vet]

It gets even more confusing. You can buy a complete lower, with stock attached from the manufacturer, transferred as a 'firearm', and still use that receiver to build a pistol. All you have to do is remove the stock, and attach the pistol upper. Voila, pistol. Stripped lower, virgin lower, complete lower with stock or not, all transfer as a 'firearm' on the 4473. As such, you can build them into any configuration you please.

 

[MistWolf]

1. There is no such thing as "rifle lower" or "pistol lower".

Seriously? The part of the AR considered a firearm is the lower. The BATF has said that a receiver becomes a rifle or a pistol according how it it's originally configured. Put a rifle stock and a rifle upper on an AR lower that has not yet been built into something and it becomes a rifle lower. Put a pistol upper on an AR lower that has no rifle stock on it and it becomes a pistol. That ruling is from the BATF

2. There is no such thing as "Constructive Intent"

I ain't no lawyer but I'm passing on what the BATF has said will keep you out of legal trouble. Maybe it's not called "Constructive Intent" but if you are found with a pistol upper and a rifle lower or a pistol lower equipped with a rifle stock or an OTHER lower equipped with a rifle stock and no rifle upper, you could find yourself in legal trouble. That does not mean you're guaranteed to go to jail, but it could still lead to trouble

 

[dogtown tom]

MistWolf

Quote:
Originally Posted by dogtown tom View Post
1. There is no such thing as "rifle lower" or "pistol lower".

Seriously? The part of the AR considered a firearm is the lower.

Yes, seriously.
Read the instructions to Question 18 "Type of Firearm" on the Form 4473 and the definitions in CFR 478.

The BATF has said that a receiver becomes a rifle or a pistol according how it it's originally configured.

Wrong.
ATF is darned clear that a "receiver or frame" is just that...not a handgun or long gun UNTIL completed as a long gun or handgun.

Put a rifle stock and a rifle upper on an AR lower that has not yet been built into something and it becomes a rifle lower.

Wrong again.
A rifle is required to have both a shoulder stock and a rifled barrel. If you assemble an AR lower with a barreled upper receiver you now have a RIFLE....not a "rifle lower".

Put a pistol upper on an AR lower that has no rifle stock on it and it becomes a pistol. That ruling is from the BATF

Wrong. Attaching the upper receiver does nothing. To be a "Pistol" it must have a barrel and a grip intended to be used with one hand.
You need to read the rulings, definitions and 4473 instructions because you are writing a mishmash of stuff that is not correct.

Quote:
2. There is no such thing as "Constructive Intent"

I ain't no lawyer but I'm passing on what the BATF has said will keep you out of legal trouble. Maybe it's not called "Constructive Intent" but if you are found with a pistol upper and a rifle lower or a pistol lower equipped with a rifle stock or an OTHER lower equipped with a rifle stock and no rifle upper, you could find yourself in legal trouble. That does not mean you're guaranteed to go to jail, but it could still lead to trouble

It's called "Constructive Possession".
Huge difference.

 

[coloradokevin]

FOLLOW UP QUESTION:

I went to the local gun store today to look at lower receivers for my upcoming build. Multiple employees of this location said that they thought the only problem with my plan is that: "All pistol lowers now need to be marked as a 'pistol' on the lower receiver".

This information didn't jive with what I've heard so far, but I thought I'd verify that information here. And, yes, I've been on the gun scene long enough to know that accurate information rarely flows from one side of the gun store counter to the other…

EDITED TO ADD:

I'm 99% certain that the well-meaning employees of this shop were wrong in this instance, but I felt some clarification from some of you might make me feel more confident in my opinion. After all, there's no way that any of us can know all of the laws!

 

[dogtown tom]

coloradokevin FOLLOW UP QUESTION:

I went to the local gun store today to look at lower receivers for my upcoming build. Multiple employees of this location said that they thought the only problem with my plan is that: "All pistol lowers now need to be marked as a 'pistol' on the lower receiver".

It may be a Colorado requirement.
No such requirement under Federal law.

 

[Aaron Baker]

Chiming in to say that all the info you've been provided so far is correct, and your plan seems fine, but just one thing to add:

Consider using a trust to make this SBR. Then you can use eForms, which has approval times running around a month to a month and a half. Sure beats waiting 5-7 months for your paper form to come back. With wait times that short, there's almost no reason to build as a pistol first (except the rule that if you build as a pistol first, you can always convert back into a pistol).

Aaron

 

[coloradokevin]

Consider using a trust to make this SBR. Then you can use eForms, which has approval times running around a month to a month and a half. Sure beats waiting 5-7 months for your paper form to come back. With wait times that short, there's almost no reason to build as a pistol first (except the rule that if you build as a pistol first, you can always convert back into a pistol).

Wow… are e-forms working for the Form 1? I have a trust set up already, and used it for my last suppressor purchase. But, the e-file system went down right before I bought my suppressor, and I was told that it still isn't working (Form 4, of course).

I'd love to e-form an SBR, it just wasn't an option for my suppressor last time I checked!

It may be a Colorado requirement.
No such requirement under Federal law.

Definitely no Colorado requirement of that sort. I know that. I was told it was an ATFE thing. But, it didn't sound right to me, and apparently wasn't!

 

[Arizona_Mike]

Basically there is no intersection between the two questions (pistol-->rifle-->pistol) and SBR later (since you can SBR anything).

I went the SB-15 route for my first SBR with 11-month wait (post-Dorner peak) when it was unambiguously legal (things are less clear now). You are just going the extra-barrel route.

Mike

 

[tepin]

Exactly what I did. All my lowers I purchased stripped and consider them all pistols, one of which I later converted to an SBR. Something else to know, when you go SBR, by adding a 16" upper or removing the stock from the tube, the gun is no longer under the purview of the NFA. Good to know if you ever move somewhere where short barrel rifles aren't allowed.

 

[tepin]

The only folks charged with constructive possession are those whose homes are raided for drugs etc.. And Your guns and parts are found and the cops want to stack up the charges. Other than that I wouldn't worry about constructive possession... Just don't travel with your pistol and stock.

 

[coloradokevin]

Thanks, everyone. I have my receiver and will be submitting the Form 1 paperwork just as soon as I make sure everything is to spec on this receiver. I've had some friends suggest just adding a normal carbine buffer tube in this build, and waiting to add the stock until the stamp comes back. Others have suggested doing a pistol buffer tube and later replacing it with the carbine buffer tube when the stamp comes back.

There doesn't seem to be a clear cut legal answer to that question. The safe bet seems to be buying the second buffer tube, but I have to admit that having a rifle with no stock available makes it kind of hard for someone to claim that you had an SBR.

These laws are so silly that even those of us in LE (like myself) often have trouble unravelling the intricacies of the regulations.

I'll be submitting the Form 1 via an eform (trust). As such, I'm hoping that the stamp will come back before I even figure out all of the parts I want to use to build the upper… if that's the case I won't have to worry about figuring out all of that other nonsense.