Got a reply from the ATF about pistol to rifle interchangabilities

[highorder]

I have a letter specifically to address the Mec Tec issue dated 9/1/09 and am waiting for ATF response.

Thank you sir. That is just the infomation I was looking for.

Please do us the favor of sharing the response when it arrives!

 

[Zoogster]

We lost a lot in these ATF decisions.

We as a community won the freedom to take something originally a pistol and use it in different legal configurations. We won that through a rare firearm case that made its way all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States, and was then decided in our favor.
Firearm cases rarely ever are heard by the Supreme Court, especially on such specific matters, and now some of that victory has been allowed to slip away through ATF re-interpretation. After winning a victory, re-interpretation by the loser in the case, also tasked with enforcing the law, has made the decision mean what they want.


This is exactly what the ATF was claiming in the Thompson case, in addition to merely selling the components together was sales and possession of an NFA item.


The court addressed the issue in the Thompson case.

The packaging of pistol and kit has an obvious utility for those who want BOTH a pistol and a regular rifle,

Not one or the other. BOTH.


However if the agency tasked with enforcement, says thier loss in court means something different, and then enforces that, it still has the power of law.
They can re-interpret any loss into a partial victory. They can defy the rulings of SCOTUS, and then get away with it by saying they are not actually defying the SCOTUS.
Then requiring an additional and unlikely SCOTUS decision to affirm a freedom that already had been gained in a previous decision.
So you need to win multiple times on the same issue to retain your gains.
Yet you only need to lose once for it to forever be upheld and enforced against you.

 

[Owen Sparks]

It is important to remember why these crazy regulations exist. Handguns were originally included in the National Firearms Act of '34 but were removed from the bill due to public pressure. The idea was to prohibit all concealable firearms. In the absence of legally obtainable handguns, a bank robber might saw the barrel off of a legal shotgun or rifle and hide it under a rain coat. The kicker is that handguns remained available and are much more practical and concealable than any home made modification that a criminal might attempt in order to make a "handgun" out of a rifle or shotgun.

Handguns were removed from the bill but the provisions to keep long guns from being cut down into handguns remained and became law. That is why these quirky regulations exist.

 

[HKUSP45C]

I wonder how they'd respond if someone were to send a letter, simply asking them to explain the purpose of the laws around this.

Probably in much the same way ANY law enforcement agency would ....

"ours is not to reason why" .... If you don't like the laws we're enforcing get someone to change them, this is YOUR government, after all. Until then, I have to do my job.

I think it also bears pointing out that, though we certainly don't speak like it, the BATFE is not a "round table" agency where eight people make all of the decisions for the interpretation of rulings, rules, regulations and minutia. It's a huge beuraucracy where things happen on one end with no input from the other ... much like every other office of Government.

It isn't like the Cabal sat down one night and decided as a collective to screw gun owners.

Just a little perspective, mostly mine.

 

[Zoogster]

I should add that I actually think the ATF's interpretation makes more "sense" (with laws that make no sense) in sticking with what has been enforced under similar NFA situations on this issue than the SCOTUS ruling that changed it. It is simply easier to follow the "logic" of the ATF (anti-logic?) from a legal perspective when combined with other ATF viewpoints and declarations on different issues.
However the SCOTUS still changed it, thier decision is supposed to be binding on the ATF, and the ATF has chosen to instead say the SCOTUS decision meant something less than it did.
They feel thier perspective makes more sense, and simply chose to re-interpret the SCOTUS decision to be consistent with thier long standing logic.

That would be like an employee, with a boss that only spoke once every decade or century (like they do on specific gun issues in the SCOTUS), simply declaring thier boss actually meant something different if they disagreed with them. No they are not defying the boss, the boss really meant what they chose to do.


According to the ATF any parts which may be used illegally were possession of the illegal item that could be assembled.
In the Thompson case that was greatly reduce for short barreled rifles, but not for machineguns:

We can only say that the notion of an unassembled machine gun is probably broader than that of an unassembled rifle.

Yet the ATF still prosecutes people for possession of items that can be used to illegally assemble a SBR, even if it is not "made", in defiance of the Thompson case.
Yet the Thompson case says they must be assembled or "made" into the restricted NFA item, not merely possessed.


So if they ignore the primary issue addressed by the Thompson case, why should we expect them to adhere to secondary issues addressed by the SCOTUS decision?
Such as the decision addressing "the obvious utility of people wanting BOTH a rifle and a pistol."

 

[swagner89]

How did it come to pass that a department of the executive branch sets and interprets policy and law? isn't that reserved for the legislative and judicial branches?

 

[mgregg85]

It seems they are saying that in order to change back and forth from rifle to pistol you must have bought everything as a kit.

 

[deadin]

I seem to remember that the Court ruled very narrowly concerning only the case that was before them. (i.e. Thompson Center kits.)
There was no "et al" involved regardless of how bad we wanted it to be.:banghead:
It looks like the BATFE is enforcing exactly what was handed down and not an iota less. Only T/C Kits, sold as kits are exempt.

 

[CoRoMo]

I personally don't think that they'd care to venture into the purpose of the laws they enforce. They'll stick to interpreting the boundaries of those laws, in ways that benefit the enforcement and facilitates convictions.

The ambition of the laws make no difference to the agency. The agency would only concern themselves with the boundaries that they have to operate within. They'll interpret where those boundaries lay.

 

[snorko]

Ref Question #3. Someone needs to start selling a "kit" with a complete AR-15 lower receiver, a complete M4 upper and shoulder stock, and a complete pistol length upper and buffer tube.

 

[deadin]

How did it come to pass that a department of the executive branch sets and interprets policy and law? isn't that reserved for the legislative and judicial branches?

Legslative branches make the law, Agencies are responsible for interpreting and enforcing the law. SCOTUS decides if the law or the agencies interpretation and enforcement of the law is within the Constitution. (If you can get it to them.)

 

[Owen Sparks]

I'm sure that the BATF agent assigned to monotoring this forum could shed some light on the subject, but then that would blow his cover.

 

[freakshow10mm]

Someone needs to start selling a "kit" with a complete AR-15 lower receiver, a complete M4 upper and shoulder stock, and a complete pistol length upper and buffer tube.

Yes I'm working on doing just that. What do you want and I will quote you a price. My company is an 07 FFL.

 

[expeditionx]

The only thing I can think of that might exempt mech tech is the fact that the stock attaches to an upper and not the main receiver. If I am wrong, mechtech has unintentually created a serious problem for all of it's customers.

 

[Zoogster]

I seem to remember that the Court ruled very narrowly concerning only the case that was before them. (i.e. Thompson Center kits.)
There was no "et al" involved regardless of how bad we wanted it to be.
It looks like the BATFE is enforcing exactly what was handed down and not an iota less. Only T/C Kits, sold as kits are exempt.

No.
SCOTUS decisions address the law at hand and its Constitutionality. They are then binding on the law addressed, and can further change other issues the court addresses in the majority opinion.

The law which was being originally addressed was what was handled by a lower court of appeals resulting in further appeal to the SCOTUS. That being what the definition of "made" was within the NFA and how it applied to a SBR.

The points and counter points argued by both sides then centered around why "made" did or did not apply in the specific case. However the final decision is binding on what the definition of "made" is.
Setting firearm case law precedent.

Were they talking about kits or about application of the NFA as it pertains to short barreled rifles in general is therefore the proper question, not if it is specific to the Thompson kit.

Much of the decision would point to the latter, that how the NFA pertains to "made" for short barreled rifles in general is what precedent was set for.

For example these passages in the decision show the issue originally being decided upon quite clearly:

the company brought this suit in the United States Claims Court under the Tucker Act, 28 U. S. C. § 1491, arguing that the unit registered was not a firearm within the meaning of the NFA because Thompson/Center had not assembled a short-barreled rifle from its components.

The Claims Court entered summary judgment for the Government, concluding that the Contender pistol together with its conversion kit is a firearm within the meaning of the NFA. 19 Cl. Ct. 725 (1990).

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed, holding that a short-barreled rifle "actually must be assembled" in order to be "made" within the meaning of the NFA. 924 F.2d 1041, 1043 (1991). The Court of Appeals expressly declined to follow the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in United States v. Drasen, 845 F.2d 731, cert. denied, 488 U. S. 909 (1988), which had held that an unassembled "complete parts kit" for a short-barreled rifle was in fact a short-barreled rifle for purposes of the NFA. We granted certiorari to resolve this conflict. 502 U. S. 807 (1991).

The conflict to be resolved? What does "made" mean under the NFA passages regarding a "short-barreled rifle".
How does that then apply to the Thompson case in particular.

We think the language of the statute provides a clear answer on this point. The definition of "make" includes not only "putting together," but also "manufacturing ... or otherwise producing a firearm." If as Thompson/Center submits, a firearm were only made at the time of final assembly (the moment the firearm was "put together"), the additional language would be redundant. Congress must, then, have understood "making" to cover more than final assembly, and some disassembled aggregation of parts must be included. Since the narrowest example of a combination of parts that might be included is a set of parts that could be used to make nothing but a short-barreled rifle, the aggregation of such a set of parts, at the very least, must fall within the definition of "making" such a rifle.

So possession of parts which can only be used to assemble an NFA item is still possession of that item but...

Here, however, we are not dealing with an aggregation of parts that can serve no useful purpose except the assembly of a firearm, or with an aggregation having no ostensible utility except to convert a gun into such a weapon. There is, to be sure, one resemblance to the latter example in the sale of the Contender with the converter kit, for packaging the two has no apparent object except to convert the pistol into something else at some point. But the resemblance ends with the fact that the unregulated Contender pistol can be converted not only into a short-barreled rifle, which is a regulated firearm, but also into a long-barreled rifle, which is not. The packaging of pistol and kit has an obvious utility for those who want both a pistol and a regular rifle, and the question is whether the mere possibility of their use to assemble a regulated firearm is enough to place their combined packaging within the scope of "making" one.

Neither the statute's language nor its structure provides any definitive guidance. Thompson/Center suggests guidance may be found in some subsections of the statute governing other types of weapons by language that expressly covers combinations of parts. The definition of "machinegun," for example, was amended by the Gun Control Act of

We get no more help from analyzing the machinegun definition's reference to parts. It speaks of "any combination" of them in the possession or control of anyone person. Here the definition sweeps broader than the aggregation of parts clearly covered by "making" a rifle. The machinegun parts need not even be in any particular proximity to each other. There is thus no conflict between definitions, but neither is much light shed on the limits of "making" a short-barreled rifle. We can only say that the notion of an unassembled machine gun is probably broader than that of an unassembled rifle. But just where the line is to be drawn on shortbarreled rifles is not demonstrated by textual considerations.

After applying the ordinary rules of statutory construction, then, we are left with an ambiguous statute. The key to resolving the ambiguity lies in recognizing that although it is a tax statute that we construe now in a civil setting, the NF A has criminal applications that carry no additional requirement of willfulness. Cf. Cheek v. United States, 498 U. S. 192, 200 (1991) ("Congress has ... softened the impact of the common-law presumption [that ignorance of the law is no defense to criminal prosecution] by making specific intent to violate the law an element of certain federal criminal tax offenses"); 26 U. S. C. §§ 7201, 7203 (criminalizing willful evasion of taxes and willful failure to file a return). Making a firearm without approval may be subject to criminal sanction, as is possession of an unregistered firearm and failure to pay the tax on one, 26 U. S. C. §§ 5861, 5871. It is proper, therefore, to apply the rule of lenity and resolve the ambiguity in Thompson/Center's favor. See Crandon v. United States, 494 U. S. 152, 168 (1990) (applying lenity in interpreting a criminal statute invoked in a civil action); Commissioner v. Acker, 361 U. S. 87, 91 (1959).9 Accordingly, we conclude that the Contender pistol and carbine kit when packaged together by Thompson/Center have not been "made" into a short-barreled rifle for purposes of the NF A.lO The judgment of the Court of Appeals is therefore Affirmed.

with other potential uses it is not automatically possession of that item in an unassembled state, because it must be assembled as a SBR to demonstrate that is the intent.

Because it is a tax issue, and because Congress had made a requirement of "specific intent to violate the law an element of certain federal criminal tax offenses", they decided that the benefit of the doubt must be given in such cases.
That if there is a potential legal use, absent proof of illegal use or intent, the assumption must be that the product will be used legally.
Or
'In construing an ambiguous criminal statute, the court should resolve the ambiguity in favor of the defendant.'


So if a person has 1 AR pistol, 49 AR rifles, and 50 AR pistol barrels, absent any demonstrated intent or assembly of a short barreled rifle, they are still supposed to receive the benefit of the doubt.

If they have 49 AR pistols, 1 AR rifle, and 50 AR stocks the same is also true.
In fact in a more realistic circumstance, it would be quite common for someone to have several times more stocks or other accessories for thier firearm intended for legal use than total firearms that can use those accessories.
They could have a different stock for different environments or uses, all for use on the same rifle.
Or likewise to have multiple barrels, perhaps for some replacements, and others in different calibers or with different twist rates.
If there is a legal potential use, then the benefit of the doubt must be given.



Where that gets extra tricky is if you have 1 AR rifle, 1 AR pistol, and decide to sell one, (but may even wish to purchase a replacement in the future.)
You may for example have 5 different stocks, with a sizable investment in some you wish to retain for the future firearm or sell seperately for greater profit, but once you sell that AR rifle a case can be made that the only use for them is on the AR pistol, in violation of the NFA.
So you practically are forced under the law to purchase more weapons which can use any accessories you do not dispose of before selling a firearm which can use them if they can also be used in combination with any other firearm to create an NFA item. Or to dispose of accessories before or with the firearm, even if you would want those accessories for legal use in the future.

 

[bigalexe]

So can someone explain in SIMPLE terms because I have a hard head; how this relates to the GSG-5 weapon currently being sold in 2 configurations.

Does it say that whether its sold as a rifle, or as a pistol I cannot change it.

 

[freakshow10mm]

You can take a pistol and make it a rifle.

You cannot take a rifle and make it a pistol.

You can take a kit firearm, with at least one rifle and pistol barrel and shoulder stock and pistol grip and make a rifle or pistol out of those parts as many times as you want, so long as the short barrel and shoulder stock are not attached at the same time unless you first file to make an SBR on ATF Form 1 + $200 making tax.

The last paragraph is simplified here:

AR15 lower receiver with parts kit installed
AR15 16 inch barreled upper (rifle)
AR15 14.5 inch barreled upper (pistol)
AR15 M4 shoulder stock assembly with buffer tube
AR15 pistol buffer tube assembly

Combine all those in a kit bought from a licensed firearm manufacturer (07 FFL) and you can make an AR rifle or pistol out of that receiver as many times as you like, swap uppers and stocks as many times as you like, it's not an SBR unless you put a short barrel and shoulder stock on the receiver at the same time.

 

[expeditionx]

What is keeping Bushmaster or some other manufacturer from producing such a kit?

 

[CoRoMo]

Fears of litigation in their legal teams?

Think about it. If a manufacturer were to dance along the border of the law, and one of their customer's gets busted for something rather innocent, that customer could come back and sue the manufacturer for making available a product that so easily got the customer in trouble. I'm sometimes a little surprised that companies like Mec Tec have the plums to do what they do.

 

[freakshow10mm]

What is keeping Bushmaster or some other manufacturer from producing such a kit?

The big manufacturers don't see it as a marketable product.

Small guys like myself that would do it don't have the money to stock up on all the parts necessary. If someone wants to make it a special order and pay up front, I can make a pistol/carbine kit as my company is a licensed 07 FFL.

 

[gym]

They probablly have to say something, so they did, who knows if next year they will answer the same question in a different way

 

[expeditionx]

I called TC arms customer service dept
and was told you could reconfigure their rifles into a pistol and vice versa. To be certain,
they no longer offer any kind of kit probably because their legal council misunderstood
the resulting circumstances and applied the decision way to broadly to their products.
Unfortunately, they are not in agreement with the ATF on this issue. I think they will not get in trouble for passing bad advice to their customers. The customer will. Same might be true with mech tech. If TC arms is mistaken, any other company could fall into the same trap.

 

[Zoogster]

What is keeping Bushmaster or some other manufacturer from producing such a kit?

They probablly have to say something, so they did, who knows if next year they will answer the same question in a different way

There is of course the ability of the ATF to change its mind at any time, reversing previous statements.

Like happened with Akins and the Akins accelerator.
Someone could assemble these kits, sell them, and then a year later have the ATF come along and say all of those kits were in fact SBRs sold illegally, 'request' the list of all customers, etc

Just because they say something is legal once does not mean they cannot say the opposite in the future. Akins learned that the hard way. After tooling up and spending a considerable amount of money to take his product from concept and prototype to production on a large scale the ATF then came along and told him it was illegal, after promising him it was legal previously. He had already sold the product to people across the nation.
The ATF even had a sample to test, so they knew exactly what they were deciding on each time.
They just changed thier mind.
He was denied reimbursement by the courts for all the expenses.

A year from now they could have changed thier mind again.

 

[expeditionx]

The Mike Belm TC gunsmith website has a fairly similar letter replied to 5 years ago.

http://bellmtcs.com/store/index.php?cid=239

 

[expeditionx]

Same issue different type of gun.