AR pistol question

[Ed Ames]

This may not be answerable but I'm curious what people think.

I am putting together a stripped lower with an ACE ultralight stock. The ACE is basically a clamp-on buttplate that goes on the end of a buffer tube. It comes with a foam sleeve for the tube.

If I install the buffer tube without clamping on the buttplate first, what is your opinion of whether that counts as having originally built the firearm in a pistol configuration allowing me to later remove the buttplate (so it no longer has a shoulder stock) and mount a short barrel upper to have an AR pistol?

It might look a little bit something like this:
View attachment 230527

If it does count as having originally been built as a pistol, is any documentation possible/useful?

What do you think?

 

[Theohazard]

You have to assemble the whole firearm to make it be a pistol; an assembled lower by itself isn't a pistol (or a rifle). See this ATF open letter to dealers from 2009:

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/o...ing-or-delivering-firearms-frames-or/download

There is no federal length limit for a pistol (as long as there's no vertical foregrip involved), so -- in theory -- an AR-15 built without a stock would be a pistol until you installed the stock (but I have a concern about this; see my last paragraph in this post). And as far as proving it with documentation, as long as you bought it as a new lower receiver and there's no evidence you assembled it as a rifle first, I can't see how there's any evidence you didn't assemble it as a pistol first. But I'm not a lawyer, so you might want to ask one if you're concerned about it.


The whole thing about assembling a firearm as a pistol first (and therefore allowing it to be assembled as either a rifle or a pistol at will) came from the Supreme Court case United States v. Thompson-Center Arms Co., a decision that was further clarified in ATF Ruling 2011-4:

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/r...red-rifles-rifles-configured-pistols/download

That ATF ruling also lays out the requirements for having constructive possession of a firearm even when the parts are disassembled (also based on the Supreme Court case). This means it's possible to be in possession of a specific type of firearm even if you haven't put it together, the parts just need to be in "close proximity" to each other, and you must have no "useful purpose" for having those parts.

And that brings up a question I have for the lawyers on this forum: Does the Supreme Court decision and subsequent ATF ruling leave open the possibility that the OP could be considered to be building his AR-15 as a rifle first if he assembled it as a pistol but he had a stock in "close proximity" and he had no other "useful purpose" for that stock?

 

[Ed Ames]

Needing to assemble it fully into a firearm to count was my understanding, yes.

I have another AR that is a rifle (sold as such, so no arguing it isn't a rifle) with a standard A2 rifle length buffer tube. This buttplate can clamp to it, so I have another useful purpose, but that is an interesting question.

The main reason for my question is that I don't want to bother getting a pistol length buffer tube or buying anything extra if the rifle length tube without an actual buttplate is "good to go" as a pistol configuration. It looks to me like it should be, but maybe someone knows better....

 

[hdwhit]

Since I don't care to spend my retirement savings paying lawyers to keep me out of jail over a question such as this, I would not proceed until I had applied for and received a ruling from the agency. And if the agency wouldn't rule, I would finish out the receiver as a rilfe or pistol based on how it was described when originally purchased.

 

[Theohazard]

Since I don't care to spend my retirement savings paying lawyers to keep me out of jail over a question such as this, I would not proceed until I had applied for and received a ruling from the agency.

There have already been rulings on this subject by both the Supreme Court and by the ATF: If you build a receiver as a pistol first, then it can always be either a pistol or a rifle (see the second link in my previous post). The only question I can think of that would need clarification is the one I addressed in the last paragraph of my previous post.

And if the agency wouldn't rule, I would finish out the receiver as a rilfe or pistol based on how it was described when originally purchased

But if he bought the receiver new (even if it was a fully built receiver complete with a buffer tube) it's not a pistol or a rifle, it's simply a receiver. If the dealer erroneously sold it as a pistol or a rifle then that's a mistake, and a paperwork mistake doesn't change the fact that a receiver is not a pistol or a rifle. See the first link in my previous post.

 

[Theohazard]

The main reason for my question is that I don't want to bother getting a pistol length buffer tube or buying anything extra if the rifle length tube without an actual buttplate is "good to go" as a pistol configuration. It looks to me like it should be, but maybe someone knows better....

A receiver with a rifle or carbine buffer tube can still be assembled into a pistol as long as you don't attach the stock. Since the federal definition of a rifle involves a stock, an AR pistol that uses a rifle or carbine buffer tube can't be considered a rifle without a stock.

However, keep in mind that possessing a stock that can readily attach to that buffer tube can cause you to be in constructive possession of a rifle (or short-barrel rifle) if that stock is in close proximity and you have no useful purpose for having it (per ATF Ruling 2011-4). Here's an article by a lawyer about the ATF's take on carbine and rifle buffer tubes used on AR pistols:

https://johnpierceesq.com/which-buffer-tubes-can-i-use-on-my-ar-pistol/

That article references just one of many ATF letters that give the same answer: A rifle or carbine buffer tube doesn't necessarily make that firearm into a rifle. (Side note: That article is from 2014, but the ATF letter it references is from 2004, which is before the 2011 ruling I linked to above where the ATF finally accepted the 1992 Supreme Court case as applying to all firearms and not just the Thompson-Center firearm in question, therefore changing the ATF's longstanding stance of "once a rifle, always a rifle", so some of the phrasing in that letter alludes to that outdated opinion. There are more recent ATF letters on this subject that reflect the 2011 ruling.)