Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

I need proof that it's legal

Discussion in 'Legal' started by flightsimmer, Jan 16, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. flightsimmer

    flightsimmer Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2008
    Messages:
    307
    Location:
    S.E. Indy
    Hi Guy's and Girl's;

    A discussion has come up (again) about the legality of a certain kind of firearm and I am searching for proof.

    I have tried the manufacturer and they said they would send me proof (to share with all of you) but I have to give them time to send it.

    I have tried the BATFE web site (I don't think it will do any good to talk to them) but no luck there.

    I have tried the NRA web site but I still haven't heard back from them yet.

    I have read the Class lll regs and it sounds like it is illegal but the manufacturer claims their product is exempt and has the BATFE's blessing.

    The manufacturer claims sales of over 20,000 units so a lot of people could be at risk here.

    The weapon is a carbine conversion unit (not an M-1 Carbine), one piece with a 16-1/2" barrel and an attached (welded on) stock with an overall length of 33", well in excess of the required 26" AOL. It was manufactured with the intent to attach it too a 1911 or a Glock frame and then when desired, re-install the 1911 or Glock slide assembly. But if you read the BATFE rules it appears to be illegal but many say it is legal. I think we need proof in writing one way or the other. Anybody know where we can find the truth for sure?

    As Mulder of the X-Files said "The truth is out there". Help me find it, please.

    Have a great week everybody, Brrrrrr it's cold out.
     
    Last edited: Jan 17, 2009
  2. deadin

    deadin Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2005
    Messages:
    2,125
    Location:
    Ocean Shores, WA
    Just where in the BATFE rules do you think this is illegal?
    The frame is the firearm and there is nothing that says you can't convert a pistol to a rifle as long as all of the various length requirements are met.
    From what you described, it sounds like these requirements are being met.
    What you can't do is take the buttstock portion of a rifle conversion and attach it before removing the pistol barrel. You also can't convert a rifle receiver into a pistol with out special paperwork.
     
  3. Ridgerunner665

    Ridgerunner665 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,400
    Location:
    Upper East Tennessee
    I'm no lawyer...but it sounds legal to me.

    That may vary from state to state though.
     
  4. cuervo

    cuervo Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2005
    Messages:
    820
    You're talking about something like this:
    [​IMG]

    By itself, this is not even a firearm, so BATFE doesn't care about it and it is not illegal on a Federal level. Chances are no states have it banned either.

    Attaching the frame of your 1911 to it makes a rifle, which is legal, too. Removing your frame does not change the fact that the barreled stock is now just a part again, just like an AR15 upper. [edit: based on letter below: but the pistol frame may now be considered a rifle and can only be used as such if there were ever any proof that you had attached said pistol frame to said device in the first place. Or, in other words, when it comes to BATFE rulings, "proof that it's legal" is a moving target that goes only as far as they want it to until they decide to issue a new ruling.]
     
    Last edited: Jan 16, 2009
  5. Jim K

    Jim K Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2002
    Messages:
    17,751
    That is the same idea as the old Astra carbine where a .22 pistol with the barrel removed was placed into a stock which had the longer barrel and stock attached.

    Without the pistol the thing was a nothing, legally. The pistol was just a pistol. You couldn't attach the pistol to the stock without also attaching the long barrel.

    Like the one pictured, it was more a novelty than a practical item, but sort of fun. And it was unquestionably legal.

    Jim
     
  6. Zoogster

    Zoogster Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    5,096
    This argument's logic is likely in response to a very confusing ATF statement.

    The SCOTUS ruling in the Thompson case clearly states it is legal.
    They were dicussing a conversion kit to do exactly that in that case. The kit allowed someone to freely switch back and forth between rifle and pistol (with a firearm originaly sold as a pistol.)
    The court addresses the "utility" of having such a handy adaptable firearm that can go from pistol to rifle and back, fully understanding the implications of thier ruling.


    One ATF statement sounded as if it could be in complete denial. Interpreted as potentialy meaning adding a stock and a long barrel is manufacture of a legal rifle. Removing them is then manufacture of a pistol from a rifle, an illegal act under the NFA.

    If that is the case then the ATF is absolutely wrong under the Thompson ruling, and in direct opposition to the Supreme Court of the United States, whos rulings exceed thier authority.
    Yet they are the men with guns and SWAT teams at thier disposal, tasked with enforcing the law, issuing FFLs, and filing criminal charges. They are the men who have "expert witnesses" the court will use.


    So it is a confusing issue. It is legal, but then the agency tasked with enforcement may have said that it is not.
     
    Last edited: Jan 16, 2009
  7. BADUNAME37

    BADUNAME37 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2008
    Messages:
    4,434
    When in doubt, don't do it.

    Be on the safe side.:p
     
  8. Zoogster

    Zoogster Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    5,096
    Of course if everyone does that for enough years then it practicly becomes defacto law, and people simply lose those rights and freedoms by not excercising them.
    Then rather than being a common legal thing many people do it becomes something the rare individual is punished for because since nobody has done it for so long it is believed to be illegal.

    You see that with open carry in some places where it is perfectly legal. Since nobody has done it for so long people think it is illegal, including a number of police officers.
    Then they are so used to the way things have been for so long they often try to apply other statutes to enforce thier defacto sense of "normal". Laws against brandishing or inciting a panic, or going about armed to the distress of the sheeple, etc are attempted to be applied.
    While if people had just carried on a regular basis from the start what was and is legal would still be seen as normal and legal without the confusion.


    Most of your current gun rights were and are in fact decided by people doing things the higher courts then rule on. They would have never ruled on them if someone didn't inccorectly declare thier actions illegal.
    The very case the OP's question is handled by is such an example. The Thompson case. It was expensive, Thompson had to fight to achieve success. They did achieve success, handgun of great "utility" that can be used as either a handgun or rifle with the help of a kit to fit numerous circumstances is perfectly legal.
    Allowing that ruling to be trashed so that someone then has to repeat the hard work all over would be foolish. It went all the way to the SCOTUS, which few gun cases do. There is no question it is legal under the wording of the court.
     
    Last edited: Jan 16, 2009
  9. Smithiac

    Smithiac Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2008
    Messages:
    189
    Carbine conversions are legal. All you are doing is turning you pistol into a carbine, and both pistols and carbines are legal. nothing wrong with it.
     
  10. barnetmill

    barnetmill Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2006
    Messages:
    583
    I would not worry too much if it it is true that there are 20,000+ units and they are openly advertised and sold via internet order.

    The question appear to be the assembly of rifle to pistol and then back to pistol. The thompson case if I remember correctly was based on that it was possible to assemble the pistol barrel with a rifle stock attached ending up with an illegal shoulder arm of less than 26 inches. If you look at this conversion you can see that the shoulder stock is attached to the rifle barrel. You cannot assemble one without the other so the assembly of an illegal short barreled rifle is not possible.

    I have seen in past years .22 semiauto rifle/pistol setups in catalogs that could be either pistol or rifle and it appears that it was legal.

    Here is the case; I am not sure how to go about pulling it up.

    United States v. Thompson/Center Arms Co., 504 U.S. 505, 112 S.Ct. 2102, 119 L.Ed.2d 308 (1992), aff'g. 924 F.2d 1041 (Fed. Cir. 1991), rev'g 19 Cl.Ct. 725 (1990). Earlier proceeding, Thompson/Center Arms Co. v. Baker, 686 F.Supp. 38 (D.N.H. 1988).
     
    Last edited: Jan 16, 2009
  11. shotgunjoel

    shotgunjoel Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,572
    Location:
    illinois
    I recently asked a similar question but the item in my thread was basically just a buttstock without the longer barrel. Here' that thread, I don't think it directly applies to this case because of the barrel part on your item. http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=417893
     
  12. Zoogster

    Zoogster Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    5,096
    Well according to the wrong (the Thompson case was clear, and since when do such precedents apply only to a specific brand) ATF opinion conversion to rifle is perfectly fine.
    It is converting your pistol back into a pistol that requires NFA paperwork.

    A letter posted here on the same topic:

    Convert1.gif
    Convert2.gif

    Your Glock or 1911 pistol would legaly be no different than the legal semi auto Uzi pistol the letter refers to. They are both simply semi-auto pistols. In the last paragraph of the second page you see they say they would need NFA paperwork to remove the barrel and stock from the UZI pistol as it had become a rifle by attaching them, and since creating a handgun from a rifle is illegal under the NFA you can not remove what you just attached without breaking the law.


    They claim that the Thompson ruling only applies to the Thompson kit exclusively, and that the same exact type of kit or parts for other guns is not covered.
    Clearly that is extremely wishful thinking as the Supreme Court has never operated that way before.
    Imagine many other decisions interpreted that way and it would be interesting. I guess Brown vs Board of Education only applied to the city of Topeka, Kansas, only to that specific school, and that racial segregation is still legal in schools everywhere else.
    The ATF is clearly wrong.

    The ATF fought hard against Thompson. Thompson prevailed, showing it was legal to sell a kit to convert a pistol to a rifle, and the court recognizing the great UTILITY of a gun that could be BOTH a pistol and a rifle in legal configurations, and that it is outside the scope of the NFA.
    The ATF then decides to declare that Thompson prevailed only in the way the ATF says and that it has no effect on what they already declared for anyone else.

    Essentialy the ATF lost, but then declare they won anyways by redefining what the court had already defined.
    Anyone notice a conflict of interest there? A lack of checks and balances? Or just a rogue agency that declares what is and is not at will and chooses to ignore the checks and balances that already exist?


    Totaly different, that is clearly an NFA item without question. It is the very definition of a Short Barreled Rifle and does not apply whatsoever to the op's question. To be legaly non NFA it has to be both 26" or longer AND have a barrel over 16", and in your situation was not.
    There is no federal limit on how long (or short) a barrel on a pistol can be. So someone can first install a barrel over 16" (just a pistol with a 16 inch barrel) and then attach a buttstock and if the end result is over 26" it is a legal firearm that fires from the shoulder (rifle).
    By never attaching a barrel over 16" (and likely being under 26" total as well) it was always illegal, unlike the OP's conversion.
     
    Last edited: Jan 16, 2009
  13. natman

    natman Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2007
    Messages:
    3,533
    This letter is inconsistent with ATF's definition of a pistol. For example, identical 10/22 receivers can be used in a rifle 10/22 or a 10/22 Charger pistol. The difference is that the Charger receiver was registered as a pistol when it was made.

    What is illegal under NFA is making a pistol from a rifle that wasn't originally a pistol. In this case the receiver was a pistol to begin with and temporarily putting a stock and 16" barrel on it just makes it a pistol with a stock and a long barrel. It does not make the receiver a rifle legally, despite ATF's opinion to the contrary.

    What a mess.
     
  14. akodo

    akodo Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2005
    Messages:
    2,778
    it depends on where the serial number is.

    At the 2009 SHOT show there is such a device for a ruger 22LR pistol.

    the deal is the 'conversion unit' is the receiver, is serial numbered, and must be bought from a FFL.

    The grip, trigger, and magazine of the ruger handgun is just 'parts'

    This means you have 2 'guns' but only 1 gun can function.


    This is different from what Cuervo posted. IN that case, the 1911 frame is the 'receive' and has the serial number. The barrel is just 'parts'. However, once you convert the gun from pistol to rifle, then the 1911 frame is a 'rifle' forever more...and it would be illegal to put a standard 1911 slide back on it.
     
  15. TAB

    TAB Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2007
    Messages:
    2,475
    try again... while not illegal to own in CA, it is to instal it.
     
  16. akodo

    akodo Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2005
    Messages:
    2,778
    Logically I agree with you

    Based on the Thompson decison, SCOTUS also agrees with you.

    However, the BATF put it's blinders on and ONLY thinks that way regarding the Thompson because it is forced to.

    For everything else BATF is being ignorant and illogical. However, BATF would go after you if they knew you took your receiver from your challenger pistol, put it in a fullstock 10/22 and then put it back in the challenger pistol
     
  17. cuervo

    cuervo Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2005
    Messages:
    820
    Figures
     
  18. gunlocators1

    gunlocators1 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2008
    Messages:
    57
    MecTech has sold tons of their conversion units I personally were one of thier largest dealers in the US until they were paid for a several units and miraculaously was sold out after return from shot show and had me wait 3 weeks to deliver the goods. When you say you have something in stock and are thier largest dealer from what they always told me, then you should make darn sure you have qnty on hand or disclose your out. Anyway thats another issue entirely. Anyway they use to send a letter that stated it was OK by the ATF to convert back and forth however I have no idea if they still have that letter. It use to come with the units.
     
  19. BHP FAN

    BHP FAN Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2008
    Messages:
    5,810
    Location:
    Northern California
    Tab,I've seen guys at the range with the Mectec here in California,I think you may be mistaken...
     
  20. TAB

    TAB Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2007
    Messages:
    2,475
    Well it depends on rather or not you meet what a "AW" is under CA law, if you change a few things, then yes it would be legal. as it comes from the factory= felony.


    strait from thier website

    http://www.mechtechsys.com
     
  21. 209

    209 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2007
    Messages:
    265
    Location:
    Northeastern US
    Just might illegal be in CT.

    It'd probably be construed to be an assault weapon since the "new rifle" would be a:

    A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least two of the following:

    (i) A folding or telescoping stock;

    (ii) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;

    (iii) A bayonet mount;

    (iv) A flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and

    (v) A grenade launcher.

    If that is a flash suppressor and/or the barrel is threaded, it'd make three bad evil things according to CT.
     
  22. BHP FAN

    BHP FAN Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2008
    Messages:
    5,810
    Location:
    Northern California
    Wow,thanks.They did not used to have that on the websight,and I WAS considering getting either one of those,or,one of the ''board'' stocks and 16'' barrel kits from Sportsman's guide.Good thing we had this little talk.
     
  23. Zoogster

    Zoogster Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    5,096
    Many websites do not tell you what your state laws are and how to follow them, they cover themselves legaly. It is up to you to know the law.
    Under CA law it is legal to have the upper by itself since it is not even a firearm. However creating such a firearm would be creation of an assault weapon and felony possession.

    It has both a pistol grip and the ability to accept a detachable magazine, so as soon as it becomes a "rifle" (under state law) it becomes an assault weapon.
    It could be possible to create a severely nuetered gun like people do with offlist ARs, but since the pistol grip is essentialy the handgun frame that is a feature you are stuck with. As a result you can only remain legal by both having a non threaded muzzle, or the attachment permanently attached in some way so there is no threaded barrel, and primarily no "detachable magazine" as defined by law.
    You cannot have a detachable magazine since it has the evil feature of a pistol grip unless it is permanently attached.
    Meaning you would need a way that complies with a "permanent" as legaly defined, like a button that requires a tool to release the magazine.

    So you would really have to screw over your 1911 to even attempt to legaly use one of those.

    Probably all commiting felonies, perhaps without even knowing as the object itself is perfectly legal to buy, just a felony to assemble and use in the normal fashion.
     
  24. BHP FAN

    BHP FAN Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2008
    Messages:
    5,810
    Location:
    Northern California
    Not worth trashing my RIA G.I...again,thanks guys,for the heads up.I'm guessing they'd have to make a bolt action or pump variant for it to be legal here.
     
  25. holdencmc

    holdencmc Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2009
    Messages:
    1
    Location:
    Travel Frequently Worldwide
    holdencmc

    you can convert a pistol reciever to a carbine but it must have at least 16" barrell and some form of stock, Folding or telescopic stock allowed, if you put a stock on a pistol with a barrell lemght of less than 16" it must be registered with BATF as a short barreled rifle, that cost $200, it is the same ;ega; requirements for possesing a silencer, and you must have that form on you at all time you are transporting or using that weapon, you must store that form with the weapon you may not loan that weapon to anyone for use unless you are directly supervising it. Alot of Crap if you ask me. I have several Carbine conversions for my 1911's including a mech tech I have a couple of the Para blocks so I can use my P14's with 20 round clips and I have several 16" 1911 barrel's and buttstocks grafted onto the mainspring housing cover. the mech tech conversion takes less than 2 minutes on a slow day and withe the collapsible wire stock you have a 23 1/2 " length (collapsed) unit that is a great shoulder rig and I have a Bushmaster Carbon 15 Pistol in Nato 5.56 that I also an M4 stock and a 4 rail upper for with a 20 "match grade barrel.

    I have a freind that manufactures shortbarrel M16's with silencers that look like a match grade unit when the silencer is attached it is the the same diameter and has a flash supressor on the silencer that actually makes it look like match gradebarrel witha floating guard.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page