Got a reply from the ATF about pistol to rifle interchangabilities

[expeditionx]

I sent out a letter to othe BATF asking for clearification
of the following

Question 1. Would it be a violation of the law to change a
Contender pistol (purchased originally as a pistol from the
manufacturer in 1995) from a pistol configuration to a
rifle configuration (with a shoulder stock and 18 inch barrel)
and then back to a pistol configuration
(no stock and 10 inch barrel)?

Question 2. Would it be a violation of the law to change a
Contender rifle (purchased originally as a rifle from the
manufacturer in 1995) from a rifle configuration
(shoulder stock and 18 inch barrel) to a
pistol configuration (no shoulder stock and 10 inch barrel)?

Question 3. My 3rd question relates to the Contender pistol and carbine kit
specifically addressed in the 1992 U.S. Supreme Court case United States v. Thompson/Center Arms. Would it be a violation of the law to
assemble the this specific kit as a rifle (shoulder stock and barrel
over 16 inches) and then to later reconfigure this same rifle into
a pistol configuration (no shoulder stock and barrel shorter
than 16 inches)?

Question 4. Would it be a violation of the law to change an
Encore pistol (purchased originally as a pistol from the
manufacturer in 2005) from a pistol configuration to a
rifle configuration (with a shoulder stock and 18 inch barrel)
and then back to a pistol configuration
(no stock and 10 inch barrel)?

Question 5. Would it be a violation of the law to change an
Encore rifle (purchased originally as a rifle from the
manufacturer in 2005) from a rifle configuration
(shoulder stock and 18 inch barrel) to a
pistol configuration (no shoulder stock and 10 inch barrel)?

Their reply came today:

 

[Eightball]

Question #3 seems to refute their answers in the other ones; what if you bought an Encore rifle with all of the rifle equipment, in addition to all of the pistol equipment, at the same time?

 

[Z-Michigan]

It seems they are allowing the absolute minimum that they think is compelled by the Supreme Court decision. I doubt that the Court would agree with them, but it's your buck and 2-3 years of your life to try and find out.

Just another reason to repeal the NFA. Maybe Tinkerbell will come help us with that.

 

[PT1911]

translation... buy the kit or you are breaking the law if you change ANYTHING.

How is it known what the original configuration was.. is it etched into the side..RIFLE or PISTOL?

 

[expeditionx]

Serial number trace to the manufacturer will define what it started as.

They stopped selling the kits long ago. I have never seen one for sale

in the past 10 years.

 

[rbernie]

How is it known what the original configuration was.. is it etched into the side..RIFLE or PISTOL?

It's entered onto the 4473.

 

[gunnutery]

I was curious if the ATF was at least timely in their response.

 

[Prince Yamato]

So this means that once you install one of those Mec-Tec uppers on a Glock, you cannot convert the weapon back into a pistol. That sucks...

 

[Deltaboy1984]

More Proof that the BATF has no common sense!

 

[expeditionx]

I was curious if the ATF was at least timely in their response.

I sent the original request for clearification on May 4 this year

 

[ants]

I think their responses are clear.
One may or may not like them, but one cannot criticize their clarity.

It does not appear to me that any answers refute any others, since they were clear that they addressed a Multipurpose Firearm Kit. We can object all we want, but they are clear about their point of view regarding a Kit. Buying the parts separately, even at the same time and place, is not a Multipurpose Firearm Kit assemblage in their view.

 

[Oyeboten]

The 'B of ATF & now E' is obliged to adhere to various letters-of-the-Law...and, to whatever absurdity, conflict, contradictions and insults to common sense, this entails.


They are in an awkward position having to clearify or enforce idiocy, and unintended consequences of arbitrary pronouncements.


The so-called 'Franfurt School' of Marxist/Bolshevic mischief, knew/knows very well the use and power beaurocracy, and, of absurd, arbitrary laws and letters-of-the-law, and, appreciates how useful these are to insult and degrade and victimize and discourage a Population subject to it, and, gradually, to condition them to tolerating lots more of it.


Too bad our instituions and Agencies et al, are not more hip and alert to this, or, worse; too bad they are gradually becomeing it.


However, and whyever, would a Pistol having a Shoulder Stock, or, a 'short' otherwise 'Rifle', be of any worry or interest to the Federal Government, anyway?


Are they worried someone may be better able to make a long distance shot with a Pistol? Instead of using a Rifle?

Or, a short distance shot, with a Rifle? Instead of using a Pistol?


Yeeeeeeeeeeeesh...

 

[mp510]

I was curious if the ATF was at least timely in their response.

My most recent experience with FTB saw a response in (about) 3 months. I've never had a response take more than 8 (they needed more information to process it).

 

[Acera]

That makes me very unlikely to buy a used T/C pistol.

Only if it is new can I reasonably assume that no one has made it into a rifle, and then changed it back creating a violation of the law.

Last thing I would want is to buy a pistol and then be confronted with the fact the previous owner had made it into a rifle. This could be an unnecessary risk and could get someone in trouble.

 

[middy]

That makes me very unlikely to buy a used T/C pistol.

Only if it is new can I reasonably assume that no one has made it into a rifle, and then changed it back creating a violation of the law.

Last thing I would want is to buy a pistol and then be confronted with the fact the previous owner had made it into a rifle. This could be an unnecessary risk and could get someone in trouble.

How could anyone prove that it was once configured as a rifle? Even if it could be proved, the person who reconfigured it would be culpable, not the current owner.

No, the real worry is that it started as a rifle and is now illegally configured as a pistol. I would definitely check the serial number with TC to ensure that it came from the factory as a pistol.

 

[CoRoMo]

It seems they are allowing the absolute minimum that they think is compelled by the Supreme Court decision.

This.

 

[Justin]

However, and whyever, would a Pistol having a Shoulder Stock, or, a 'short' otherwise 'Rifle', be of any worry or interest to the Federal Government, anyway?


Are they worried someone may be better able to make a long distance shot with a Pistol? Instead of using a Rifle?

Or, a short distance shot, with a Rifle? Instead of using a Pistol?

The original intention of the National Firearms Act was to regulate firearms that were generally considered to be the choice of bank robbers and gangsters at the time. This included things like sawed-off shotguns and cut-down rifles. Presumably, by regulating the overall length of the weapon, it meant that it would be more difficult to acquire firearms that would be easily concealed.

As I understand it, the original proposal for the NFA would have included handguns as well.

Fast-forward to the 21st century, and the result is a bureaucracy that must enforce regulations based on a law that was passed 70+ years ago.

It's a stupid law, but there it is. The answer in the letter seems quite clear in light of the law, and, unfortunately, there's no "get out of jail free" card for getting busted breaking a law that is inherently irrational.

 

[jfh]

I think there was a court decision about this issue some years ago--e.g., specifically, the T-C handgun / rifle conversion issue. IIRC, it was even construed as a "victory" for gunnies.

IOW, has the BATF(E) rewritten their regulations to reflect that case?

Does anyone else remember this case? What do you know about it?

Jim H.

 

[highorder]

So this means that once you install one of those Mec-Tec uppers on a Glock, you cannot convert the weapon back into a pistol.

Sorry for the drift, but does anyone have a letter/response from BATFE regarding the Mec-Tec uppers?

It appears that the "letter-of-the-law" does indeed say that this is a permanent conversion.

How many accidental felons swapped their carbine conversions out yesterday? Last Week?

 

[berettaprofessor]

You know, no matter how much we bash or disagree with the BATFE, you have to give them big kudo's for even responding. How many other government agencies at the Federal level would provide a personal response to every Tom, Dick and Harry who bothers to write them with a question? I'm thinking not very many. This is a government bureaucracy that actually hears and responds to the constituents!

 

[kanook]

but does anyone have a letter/response from BATFE regarding the Mec-Tec uppers?

It appears that the "letter-of-the-law" does indeed say that this is a permanent conversion.

It makes you wonder if they included a letter that stated "once converted to carbine it has to stay a carbine" how many they would sell.

 

[freakshow10mm]

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

 

[jfh]

Somebody should chase the Mec-Tec info down. I am 99% certain they got a letter years ago.

Jim H.

 

[CoRoMo]

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.

 

[kingpin008]

How could anyone prove that it was once configured as a rifle?

As RBernie stated earlier, it's recorded on the 4473 at the time of sale.