Got a reply from the ATF about pistol to rifle interchangabilities

[expeditionx]

The letter above is from oct 26, 2007.

There is a much older letter from the subguns forum
that says the same regarding pistol to rifle and back.

 

[Zoogster]

Same issue different type of gun.

Not exactly the same as the OP's reply. In that reply they say a kit can be converted back and forth. Closer to the precedent set in the SCOTUS ruling in the Thompson case, and something that may actually stand up to review.
Can you point to another SCOTUS case deciding on the legality of something under the law which did not set precedent in any similar situations? It would be impossible for the case to only apply to the Thompson kit and no other firearms.
The SCOTUS decisions over hundreds of years have not worked that way. Yet they do in the Thompson case?
No.
The issue at hand was the application of the law, the same law that went through the appeals process. Then determining how that applied in the Thompson case. Which would then set precedent for the application of the law in the future.



However the most recent letter seems to have switched thier legal position that it applies to kits specifically.
Something I still don't believe is true, the SCOTUS was addressing how the NFA's SBR portion related to all pistols.

Yet the ATF could at least plead ignorance and play dumb on the new view that it only applies to kits in general.
They could not realistically hold that a SCOTUS decision set no legal precedent and only applied to a specific kit when the case was about the law in question and how it applied to such a kit, not the kit itself.
The court specifically addressed customers having both a pistol and a rifle in the same kit, and the utility of such a product.

 

[expeditionx]

I can't see where on the 2007 letter that denial is made
of the legal ability of the specified kit from the TC Supreme Court case
to be reconfigured back and forth. However, they only prohibit the uzi
pistol from having the same applicability as was specified in the TC case.
If there is any gray area to interpretively determine, they seem to limit
it to the least possble undesired outcomes.

 

[FIVETWOSEVEN]

speaking of T/C, i live 5 minutes away from them in the next town over.

maybe glock should make a deal with mec tech and sell the conversion with some of their pistols

 

[MAKster]

If someone started selling an AR rifle/pistol kit I bet the ATF would reinterpret the regulation and ban these kits. I think they are allowing the TC kit because they are viewed as traditional hunting guns.

 

[freakshow10mm]

I seriously doubt that.

 

[Kernel]

Based on this the BATF’s Mr. John R. Spencer, Chief, Firearms Technology Branch is empower to over-rule Supreme Court decisons. Wonder how he feels about Roe v. Wade.

 

[expeditionx]

Atkins marketed his device without full approval of the ATF and they shut him down
after he sold plenty of the devices. Marketing an AR15 kit without their blessing
might only end in confiscation where agents show up at your door. The people that bought the atkins stocks never got a refund either.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

That is a bull**** interpretation. The ATF is effectively trying to rewrite Thompson Centerfire by taking the most narrow possible interpretation you could dubiously squeeze out of that decision. To even challenge their questionable interpretation, all you have to do is put your future, your freedom, and your firearms rights for life on the table.

Personally, I doubt the ATF has the balls to actually prosecute that violation; but I hope they do. Stupid rulings like that ultimately help us because they can't be logically defended.

 

[kanook]

Atkins marketed his device without full approval of the ATF and they shut him down
after he sold plenty of the devices.

That's odd. I recall seeing the approval form, then the "hold on a minute, we need to investigate this further". Last but not least "these are no longer approved and we want them all"

 

[Zoogster]

Atkins marketed his device without full approval of the ATF and they shut him down
after he sold plenty of the devices.

That's odd. I recall seeing the approval form, then the "hold on a minute, we need to investigate this further". Last but not least "these are no longer approved and we want them all"

You did see the approval, because he sent them a sample, and received complete approval. As well as letters.
They did not just approve of the design concept, but approved it when they had a fully functional sample in thier hands.

Later they changed thier mind, it was in fact an illegal machinegun. They then acquired a list of every one of the customers who purchased the stocks and rounded them up.


So get a firearm idea. Ask permission of the proper regulatory agency, and receive permission. Go through all the expensive steps to take it from idea to production. Go into debt setting up a business hoping to pay it all back with product sales in the future. Begin selling the product.
Then have the regulatory agency that originally approved it come shut you down. Not only shut you down, but obtain a list of every one of your customers and make them sorry they were ever your customers.

He sued them over it, and he lost.

The ATF can tell you something is legal or illegal one year, and the opposite the next year. Both will be enforced as the law at the time, because they are the ones who enforce it.

 

[PLRinmypocket]

What bothers me is that the words "Pistol", "Rifle", and "Firearm" have legal definitions under the GCA and NFA but the phrase "Multipurpose Firearm Kit" does not.

And NO, it is not on the form 4473. Though they have recently added "receiver" as an option, but there is no designation for "multipurpose firearm kit".....maybe that will come on the next form update.



One plus though is they officially stated that if the original manufacturer makes a "multipurpose firearm kit", it can legally go back and forth. This is good news for those home gun builders who can now manufacture a "multipurpose firearm kit" and know it is legal (since the home builder would be the original manufacturer).

 

[freakshow10mm]

No, the 4473 has "other firearm" as an option.

If the firearm is a rifle or shotgun, the dealer marks the "Longgun" box.

If the firearm is a handgun, the dealer marks the "Handgun" box.

If the fierarm isn't one of those above, the dealer marks the "other firearm" box.

All NFA weapons are "other firearms".

 

[Dannix]

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.

I sometimes wonder what would happen (long term ramifications) if a guy went through a "gun-free" zone with an antique over his shoulder or OCing a cap and ball revolver.

"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.

An your response would then be asking him if his job entails the defense of the Constitution, if he knows what the Constitution states, and whether he has chosen to be a traitor. Something tells me employment as a police officer would be short lived for me, though ironically may of my friends are in law enforcement.

 

[expeditionx]

Dejavu......

 

[smince]

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

Hopefully, ATF will see the CCU as "an assemblage of parts obtained from a single source".

The only potential thing I see coming from this is the .gov forcing another small business to close it's doors. Hope I'm wrong...

 

[freakshow10mm]

The 4473 does not change what type of firearm is being transferred. It is recording the exact data from the log book. If the dealer writes "rifle frame" or "pistol frame" in the log book and on the 4473, the ATF will recognize that firearm as a "FRAME ONLY".

The manufacturer of the frame or receiver cannot make any determination as to what the frame will be assembled into. If I cut an AR lower and mark in my manufacturing book "rifle receiver" the ATF will see it's a "RECEIVER ONLY". They do not differentiate between pistol frames and rifle frames. A frame is a frame and will always be a generic frame until it is assembled into a complete working firearm and then that configuration is what it is.

My company is an 07 FFL and the ATF made this part very clear to me during the compliance interview.

 

[22-rimfire]

My rule of thumb has always been... once a handgun, always a handgun and once a rifle always a rifle. You won't go wrong by mistake this way. Yes, TC will tell you what it's original configuration was as I understand it.

If I want the other configuation, I'll just buy it that way.

 

[Dannix]

They do not differentiate between pistol frames and rifle frames. A frame is a frame and will always be a generic frame until it is assembled into a complete working firearm and then that configuration is what it is.

So a dude could buy a frame, make a rifle out of it, then disassemble it and sell the frame at a gun show and if you bought it and made a pistol out if it unwittingly your nose is still clean as far as the ATF is concerned?

Now if the dude had registered it as a SBR and then partsed it out later for whatever reason and you bought the receiver and made a pistol/rifle with it, could you theoretically get slammed for not transferring a SBR properly?

 

[Acera]

Yeah, I am still worried that an original TC was assembled and sold originally as a carbine, then changed and resold as a pistol.

Buyer beware in this case I guess. Probably not as big a concern as I am making it out, but I would be hard pressed to buy a used TC now. Just not worth what little risk there is.

 

[freakshow10mm]

So a dude could buy a frame, make a rifle out of it, then disassemble it and sell the frame at a gun show and if you bought it and made a pistol out if it unwittingly your nose is still clean as far as the ATF is concerned?

No. If they can prove the receiver was previously assembled into a rifle and you made a pistol out of the same receiver without filing a Form 1, that's illegal.

Now if the dude had registered it as a SBR and then partsed it out later for whatever reason and you bought the receiver and made a pistol/rifle with it, could you theoretically get slammed for not transferring a SBR properly?

Well if he made a legal SBR complying with the NFA, the receiver would be engraved as such and it would be readily apparent that this was an NFA weapon.

 

[MM60]

Let's say you bought a T/C pistol frame and installed a pistol barrel and pistol grip on it. Then you took it apart and installed a rifle barrel and rifle stock on it. Then you took it apart and sold all of the parts separately at a gun show, on GunBroker.com, through a pawn shop, etc. The frame would require a NICS (National Instant Criminal background check System) background check to be transferred, since it is a pistol frame.

-How would anybody go about declaring that it was illegal to use this pistol frame to make a pistol, since the buyer had to buy the frame alone as a pistol frame?

-How would anybody know that this pistol frame had ever been used to make a rifle without the person who made it into a rifle specifically stating so?

(Please note: No paperwork gets filed when a pistol is turned into a rifle. The frame is always serial numbered as a pistol frame - it never changes. If the BATFE were to call T/C to inquire about your pistol frame - configured as a pistol - T/C will state that it is a pistol frame. If the BATFE were to call T/C to inquire about your pistol frame - configured as a rifle, T/C will state that it is a pistol frame. The pistol frame will always be a pistol frame - it will never become a rifle frame.)

The BATFE has made a ridiculous and narrow interpretation of the Supreme Court ruling, but how are they possibly going to enforce it? How can they prove anything?

BTW: I am not suggesting that anybody should break the law. I am suggesting that this "law" is unlawful. It is 100% groundless, unnecessary, and undesired by we the people, and it is in direct violation of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The BATFE is breaking the law any time it attempts to pass, interpret or enforce any sort of legislation regarding firearms, as is every other branch, agency, or office of our government that does the same. So, for anybody who is a legalist and wishes to debate the issue; how do you justify telling people on this forum to obey the BATFE's misinterpretation of already-illegal firearms legislation when the BATFE does not obey the Constitution that was written specifically to prevent the government from creating such agencies and legislation in the first place?

 

[PLRinmypocket]

well put MM60

Unfortunately, the prosecutorial might of the ATF and their constant stating of their view of the law has put fear in many gun owners eyes who just want to re-configure their gun how the like it. It's unfortunate, but this fear of possibly being prosecuted is often more powerful at shaping peoples actions, than the actual constitution Of the USA.

The fear of litigation has effectively allowed the ATF to make firearms law. Even though it is not the law, we are all expected to follow the ATF's rulings, even if it is wrong.

(sorry to go off-topic, but it is somewhat related)

 

[MM60]

Not off topic at all, PLR. Thanks for an intelligent response!

 

[expeditionx]

Does anyone else see the conflict of the government's position in the first post versus TC's customer advisement position shown in the letter below?
Would it be ethical to advise your customers to do that which could potentially land them in prison? The last time I spoke to a TC customer service agent I was advised I could reconfigure either a rifle or a pistol in either direction back and forth without consequences.There is a major conflict of legalty with this advice. That sounds like a do as you please and as long as its a TC product you have a get out of jail card. That is very irresponsible on their part. I think TC has taken the KIT exemption and is blindly assuming it can be applied to the non-kit pistol or carbine. This is where the problem exist. The DOJ is not allowing the KIT exemption to apply to the regular pistol or regular carbine. The end user is the only one as risk in this situation. Sad