AR15 PISTOL legal stock questions!

[chuck plissken]

would like to build a AR pistol. I already have a complete assembled AR15 lower with collapsible stock. Its a was a stripped lower,not a rifle or pistol when sold. We don't register guns in AZ unless class 3 items.

CAN I REMOVE THE BUTT STOCK AND KEEP THE BUFFER TUBE ONLY? Or do I have to buy a buffer tube with no provisions to put on a butt stock? Like a dedicated pistol buffer tube?

I don't want a SBR. But is there a rubber/foam cover to slide over the buffer tube? Should i just get a pistol buffer tube or does it matter?

 

[TurtlePhish]

Get a pistol buffer tube and ditch the old tube and stock, otherwise you could get in trouble for constructive intent of an NFA firearm.

There are "socks" for pistol tubes.

 

[BemidjiDweller]

As far as I can remember, the BATFE has a saying "once a rifle, always a rifle".
I would get a virgin receiver and do a pistol build on that. That is my 2 cents, and I can't support the rifle saying I quoted, take with a grain of salt.

 

[dogtown tom]

BemidjiDweller As far as I can remember, the BATFE has a saying "once a rifle, always a rifle".

That ATF determination disappeared last August:http://www.atf.gov/regulations-rulings/rulings/atf-rulings/atf-ruling-2011-4.pdf

If the firearm is a handgun it may be made into a rifle and then later converted back to a handgun.

A "complete" AR lower has a buttstock........but is not yet a "rifle" until a barrel has been attached. Until that happens it is just an "Other Firearm".

 

[chuck plissken]

great thanks guys. I was concerned because i want to build a tactical pistol and then have another AR for target/range/hunting use as a RIFLE only.

I will probobly just build the rifle first being i already have it set-up that way. it was just a reciever to begin with.

 

[rjrivero]

That ATF determination disappeared last August:http://www.atf.gov/regulations-rulin...ing-2011-4.pdf

If the firearm is a handgun it may be made into a rifle and then later converted back to a handgun.

A "complete" AR lower has a buttstock........but is not yet a "rifle" until a barrel has been attached. Until that happens it is just an "Other Firearm".

The bold is the big caveat to the 2011-4 ruling. For the AR example in this thread, you must build it into a complete pistol FIRST, then you can re-configure it into a legal rifle, and then you are free to switch back and forth between pistol and rifle configurations at will.

If you have already built it as a rifle, FIRST, then you run into problems. How would anyone be able to PROVE you built the rifle first and then converted that rifle into a pistol? Hell if I know. When I built my latest AR, I took a short video showing it in pistol configuration on top of the day's USA TODAY to prove it was a pistol prior to being built into a rifle, showing the date of the paper and the serial number as well as the overall configuration.

Sometimes the hardest thing we do is to stay legal.

great thanks guys. I was concerned because i want to build a tactical pistol and then have another AR for target/range/hunting use as a RIFLE only.

I will probobly just build the rifle first being i already have it set-up that way. it was just a reciever to begin with.

By the letter of the law, you want to do exactly the opposite. Build it into a PISTOL FIRST, then into a Rifle. If you don't have a short barrel upper, it's not a big deal. There is no law that states that a pistol has to have a short barrel. In fact, it could be argued that you don't need a specific pistol buffer tube on it, either.
See letter attached to post 7 in this thread on arf.com

So, the bare minimum you would "need" to do is build your firearm without the buttstock and you have technically made a "pistol" first. Then you can add the buttstock and you made a rifle. I would document the "pistol" build first with a short video as described above.

I know this is splitting hairs, but "technically" I believe this to be your "most safe" course of action if you want to build a pistol again at a later date. I am NOT a lawyer, and this in no way constitutes legal advice.