Hypothetical

[gbw]

Just curious:

Assume I own a complete 5.56 20” AR, with an adjustable brace instead of a stock - maybe that’s all the stock store had the day I went stock shopping. Red dot sight. I’ve had it for 2 years.

Now I purchase a 10” 5.56 barrel, gas block and appropriate gas tube, and a short rail & nut.

Thats all. I now posses everything I need to assemble an AR SBR or pistol.

Am I in violation of any Federal law? Either before or after my recent purchases?

 

[AlexanderA]

You're certainly safe if you also go ahead and purchase a virgin lower receiver. That way you have the components to assemble a legal pistol.

Otherwise, you might have constructive possession of a "pistol made from a rifle," an NFA item. The question is how rigorously the authorities would enforce this.

 

[Texas10mm]

Once a rifle, always a rifle. If you put that short barreled upper on your RIFLE lower you've created a SBR.

As AA said right now you're edging VERY close to the constructive possession line. I'd either get that short barreled receiver out of the house or find a virgin lower.

 

[WestKentucky]

You're certainly safe if you also go ahead and purchase a virgin lower receiver. That way you have the components to assemble a legal pistol.

Otherwise, you might have constructive possession of a "pistol made from a rifle," an NFA item. The question is how rigorously the authorities would enforce this.

From the sounds of it he is likely safe anyways. If the gun was originally fitted with the pistol brace then it has been set up as a pistol the whole time, just a pistol with an abnormally long barrel. If the reciever was first fitted with a true stock then OP needs a virgin reciever.

Realistically I think I would go ahead and buy a reciever, stock, and LPK. The pistol lower is already built and it sounds like OP wants a rifle lower too, so that gives one of each. Pistol uppers are not cheap to buy, but they can be very cheap to build. The last one I built I had about $200 in and that was with paying $75 for a stripped a2 upper just to get the sight setup I wanted.

 

[AlexanderA]

I don't think an AR rifle (20" barrel) becomes a pistol merely because it doesn't have a rifle buttstock mounted on it. The OP's hypothetical was pretty clearly originally built as a rifle.

 

[Texas10mm]

From the sounds of it he is likely safe anyways. If the gun was originally fitted with the pistol brace then it has been set up as a pistol the whole time, just a pistol with an abnormally long barrel. If the reciever was first fitted with a true stock then OP needs a virgin reciever.

Realistically I think I would go ahead and buy a reciever, stock, and LPK. The pistol lower is already built and it sounds like OP wants a rifle lower too, so that gives one of each. Pistol uppers are not cheap to buy, but they can be very cheap to build. The last one I built I had about $200 in and that was with paying $75 for a stripped a2 upper just to get the sight setup I wanted.

AA has it right again.

The brace doesn't make it a pistol. If the first upper on the receiver is a rifle receiver then it's a rifle for life.

When I build a new AR the first thing I do is put a pistol upper on it, put a brace on it, then take pictures and note on my serial number list that this receiver was built as a pistol.

 

[WestKentucky]

AA has it right again.

The brace doesn't make it a pistol. If the first upper on the receiver is a rifle receiver then it's a rifle for life.

When I build a new AR the first thing I do is put a pistol upper on it, put a brace on it, then take pictures and note on my serial number list that this receiver was built as a pistol.

Bull. The lower is the serialized firearm which essentially makes the upper nothing more than an accessory. The upper has nothing to do with the lower. The difference between rifle, carbine, and pistol lowers is the buffer tube and the item attached to the buffer tube. If it is designed as a stock then it fits criteria of being a long gun. If it is designed to be a pistol part then it’s a pistol.

 

[dogtown tom]

Just curious:

Assume I own a complete 5.56 20” AR, with an adjustable brace instead of a stock - maybe that’s all the stock store had the day I went stock shopping. Red dot sight. I’ve had it for 2 years.

Now I purchase a 10” 5.56 barrel, gas block and appropriate gas tube, and a short rail & nut.

Thats all. I now posses everything I need to assemble an AR SBR or pistol.

Am I in violation of any Federal law? Either before or after my recent purchases?

No one can give an accurate answer because you left out some very important details.
What was the "20" AR" to begin with? If it was originally a rifle, it cannot be made into a pistol.
"Constructive possession" is the term ATF and the courts will use if you have no lawful configuration for that 10" barrel.
If the AR was first built as a pistol, it may be reconfigured as a rifle and later back to a pistol as often as you wish.

 

[dogtown tom]

Once a rifle, always a rifle....

Nonsense.
That saying should have died NINE YEARS AGO, but keeps being repeated as fact.
The Thompson Center ruling by the US Supreme Court in 1992 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Thompson-Center_Arms_Co.
and
ATF Ruling 2011-4 https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/r...red-rifles-rifles-configured-pistols/download have both been discussed in this gun forum and others for years.

 

[dogtown tom]

I don't think an AR rifle (20" barrel) becomes a pistol merely because it doesn't have a rifle buttstock mounted on it. The OP's hypothetical was pretty clearly originally built as a rifle.

It doesn't. As long as the firearm has an OAL of at least 26" and bbl length of 16" its still a rifle. You could attach anything you want to that gun.

 

[dogtown tom]

The brace doesn't make it a pistol. If the first upper on the receiver is a rifle receiver then it's a rifle for life.

Please stop.
There is no "rifle receiver" or "pistol receiver"....just receiver. What matters is whether that receiver was first assembled as a rifle or pistol. "First a rifle, always a rifle" means that receiver cannot be reassembled, reconfigured or made into a pistol.....ever. Shorten the barrel less than 16" or OAL less than 26" and its a Short Barrelled Rifle, not a pistol. It may look IDENTICAL to someone elses AR pistol, but because it was made from a rifle, cannot ever be a pistol.

 

[dogtown tom]

.... The difference between rifle, carbine, and pistol lowers is the buffer tube and the item attached to the buffer tube. If it is designed as a stock then it fits criteria of being a long gun. If it is designed to be a pistol part then it’s a pistol.

Not true.
All firearm frames or receivers are just firearm frames or receiver......."rifle, carbine, pistol lowers? Ain't no such thing.
What type od buffer tube? Irrelevant. You can use any buffer tube you want.
What determines whether an AR lower+barrel+stock is a rifle or SBR? OAL and bbl length.
ATF has definitions for pistol, rifle, SBR right here: https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-i...ade08a56&mc=true&node=se27.3.478_111&rgn=div8

 

[RickD427]

Please stop.
There is no "rifle receiver" or "pistol receiver"....just receiver. What matters is whether that receiver was first assembled as a rifle or pistol. "First a rifle, always a rifle" means that receiver cannot be reassembled, reconfigured or made into a pistol.....ever. Shorten the barrel less than 16" or OAL less than 26" and its a Short Barrelled Rifle, not a pistol. It may look IDENTICAL to someone elses AR pistol, but because it was made from a rifle, cannot ever be a pistol.

The OP posed his hypothetical asking about federal law. What you wrote above may well be an accurate summary of federal law, but you've stated it in a universal way.

What you have stated above is very much untrue for folks living in California. Under California law, a bare receiver can be either a long gun or a handgun, and is defined as either by the manner in which it was registered in the state.

The difference is significant because a person who builds a pistol from a bare receiver that was not registered as a handgun, violates California's Short Barrel Rifle statute, even if they are in compliance with the federal Short Barrel Rifle statute.

 

[dogtown tom]

The OP posed his hypothetical asking about federal law. What you wrote above may well be an accurate summary of federal law, but you've stated it in a universal way.
What you have stated above is very much untrue for folks living in California. Under California law, a bare receiver can be either a long gun or a handgun, and is defined as either by the manner in which it was registered in the state.
The difference is significant because a person who builds a pistol from a bare receiver that was not registered as a handgun, violates California's Short Barrel Rifle statute, even if they are in compliance with the federal Short Barrel Rifle statute.

1. Federal law and ATF regs apply equally to Californians.
2. If California or any other state has a law that calls a goat a chicken, it doesn't change Federal law or ATF regs.
3. If California or any other state, county, city, town, HOA has their own laws......it doesn't change Federal law or ATF regs.
4. Most importantly, you have to abide by the laws of your place you are. ALL OF THEM.

 

[WestKentucky]

It doesn't. As long as the firearm has an OAL of at least 26" and bbl length of 16" its still a rifle. You could attach anything you want to that gun.

I’m still disagreeing. I think BATFE would disagree as well. You accurately describe the minimum lengths for a rifle, but nowhere in the definition for a “pistol” is a stated a maximum in any measurement.

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/firear...on-firearms-gun-control-act-definition-pistol

so theoretically, a TC contender, single action army, or AR-15 frame can be fitted with a barrel miles long and still be a handgun because the frame itself Was designed to be used as a pistol as in being held with 1 hand and fired without using a stock.

 

[RickD427]

1. Federal law and ATF regs apply equally to Californians.
2. If California or any other state has a law that calls a goat a chicken, it doesn't change Federal law or ATF regs.
3. If California or any other state, county, city, town, HOA has their own laws......it doesn't change Federal law or ATF regs.
4. Most importantly, you have to abide by the laws of your place you are. ALL OF THEM.

Nope. California has the ability to enforce laws more stringent than the federal law and has done so in many cases, particularly with regard to firearms.

I'm kinda confused by your point #4, it seems inconsistent with your first three points.

California defines a SBR differently than does the feds, for the purpose of applying California laws. That don't change the federal laws, it just means the state will prosecute differently.

California also defines Short Barrel Shotguns differently, and that becomes significant with weapons like the Taurus Judge. That weapon is perfectly legal under federal law, but bring it into California, and it's a felony because California defines it as a SBS for the purpose of California law.

 

[JohnKSa]

Nope. California has the ability to enforce laws more stringent than the federal law and has done so in many cases, particularly with regard to firearms.

Of course it does. But that "doesn't change Federal law or ATF regs."

California defines a SBR differently than does the feds, for the purpose of applying California laws. That don't change the federal laws, it just means the state will prosecute differently.

Correct.

California also defines Short Barrel Shotguns differently, and that becomes significant with weapons like the Taurus Judge. That weapon is perfectly legal under federal law, but bring it into California, and it's a felony because California defines it as a SBS for the purpose of California law.

But that "doesn't change Federal law or ATF regs". They remain unchanged regardless of what CA decides to do within its borders.

I'm kinda confused by your point #4, it seems inconsistent with your first three points.

No, they're all consistent as written.

A state can have (and enforce) laws that are more restrictive, less restrictive, or identical to federal laws. REGARDLESS of the situation, the state laws "do not change federal law or ATF regulations".

Persons in a state are responsible to follow all local, county, state & federal laws.

No one can give an accurate answer because you left out some very important details.

Which is going to make some aspects of this discussion confusing and create apparent contradictions.

The OP is free to try again but needs to specify more details so the question can be answered accurately.