Isn't This ILLEGAL

[rfurtkamp]

This means you have to get permission to take it across state lines and state laws differ on NFA weapons.

Not when returned to original configuration - there's letters on this for SBR owners out there already.

 

[jorb]

Looks neat. Don't want one though. Probably better off with a pistol and a carbine.

 

[Eightball]

So, is the pistol the SBR, or is it that thing?

And, theoretically, if you owned more than one type of Glock, wouldn't you need to SBR ALL of them to avoid a "constructive intent" conviction? (or on whatever other base firearm is decided upon)? And couldn't that get you into trouble in some states for CCWing a SBR?

Not when returned to original configuration - there's letters on this for SBR owners out there already.

So, once an SBR, not necessarily always an SBR, unlike an MG?

 

[doberman]

This thread confused me.

I'm no "gun dummy" and even know a little bit about "gun laws", but I will admit I don't understand "NFA", "SBR", or tax stamps.

Seems to me the product in this video is a neat little tool. I guess I don't get all the "silly laws". Maybe it's just me.



Furthermore, I'm even more confused by my excessive use of quotation marks
in this post!

 

[BHP FAN]

it STILL looks like an old SKS stock....

 

[rfurtkamp]

So, is the pistol the SBR, or is it that thing?

Would follow that the receiver of the pistol is still the firearm, not the stock.

Case in point, I have my MP5k clone. It's a pistol legally if no foregrip is attached, and no stock is present. With my handy dandy approved Form 1 and tax stamp, I can put on the stock and foregrip. The registered receiver is still what was on the pistol when it was made as a regular ol' pistol - not the stock.

And, theoretically, if you owned more than one type of Glock, wouldn't you need to SBR ALL of them to avoid a "constructive intent" conviction? (or on whatever other base firearm is decided upon)?

If you have a legal reason to have the device, you should be 100% fine.

It's if you don't have a legal reason that you get in trouble.

I can have a AR pistol and a AR rifle (not SBR in the house) - and uppers for both. I have reason for both, spares for the pistol and the rifle. I have no constructive intent to commit a crime, since I have a legitimate use for the items. This is hypothetical in my case, though, since I have no desire for another AR and my pistol is a novelty the old lady shoots more than me.

And couldn't that get you into trouble in some states for CCWing a SBR?

Depends on your state. Here rifles and shotguns require no permit to carry concealed - what that means if you want to carry a 'pistol' that's now magically a 'rifle' thanks to the tax stamp is one of those head-scratching moments here.

So, once an SBR, not necessarily always an SBR, unlike an MG?

Correct, can return SBR'd items to original configuation and remove from registry as well.

 

[ServiceSoon]

Correct, can return SBR'd items to original configuation and remove from registry as well.

Not when returned to original configuration - there's letters on this for SBR owners out there already.

I don't think you are right. Sure, you can write a letter to the ATF if you want to change it from a title II firearm, but you can't swtich back and forth at your discretion. I tried to search for the letter you speak of. Can you please locate it for me?

 

[rfurtkamp]

I don't think you are right.

I am.

Here, bottom of page, special attention to page 2.

If you can transport it across state lines without requiring approval of NFA branch....

 

[shotgunjoel]

doberman, NFA is the National Firearms Act of 1934. It restricted things like machine guns, short barrel shotguns (SBS), short barrel rifles (SBR), silencers, and "destructive devices". Under the NFA there is a tax on these items and you show that you have paid this tax by having a tax stamp. Hope this helps.

 

[shotgunjoel]

Eightball, the pistol would be what is registered as a SBR. Oh plus the stock thing mounts via the rail system so it would fit most any pistol with a rail.

 

[Strakele]

I suppose I can see the twisted logic behind wanting all your evil SBR's registered, since if you put a really short barrel on your AR, it's "theoretically" making it more concealable.

But I can't fathom the logic behind making it illegal to make your pistol LONGER and LESS CONCEALABLE without paperwork and tax stamp.

Go figure.

 

[ServiceSoon]

I am.

Here, bottom of page, special attention to page 2.

If you can transport it across state lines without requiring approval of NFA branch....

I stand corrected. Thanks!

 

[shotgunjoel]

Strakele, that is a great point. I never thought of that but it does seem very illogical. Wow maybe sometime in the future someone could get that changed to make it legal to put a stock on your pistol. That would be great, but I doubt it will ever happen.

 

[misANTHrope]

I suppose I can see the twisted logic behind wanting all your evil SBR's registered, since if you put a really short barrel on your AR, it's "theoretically" making it more concealable.

But I can't fathom the logic behind making it illegal to make your pistol LONGER and LESS CONCEALABLE without paperwork and tax stamp.

Go figure.

On the other hand, if the end result is approximately the same, why does the starting point make a difference, ie whether you start with a small firearm and make it longer, or start with a a long firearm and make it shorter?

Presumably, the presence of a shoulder stock is the item that makes a small, concealable weapon inherently more dangerous. Cartridge power clearly isn't the determining factor- after all, anyone can go out and buy a handgun in a high-power rifle cartridge, but not any can go out and buy, say a pistol-caliber carbine with a short barrel.

Please note that I am not saying that the overall stuff is reasonable. Just presenting an alternate viewpoint.