Question about converting AR postol lower to SBR LATER

[pjeski]

So if your interpretation is correct and you are not allowed to put it back to a pistol. What would they charge you with after say, removing the stock? (Which is all I would need to do to put mine back to a pistol).

They can't charge you with having an illegal SBR because you've already paid the tax stamp. I just don't see how you could be in violation of NFA law.

Edit: Of course now that they ruled how you use an item is "redesigning" it even without changing components, it's all a complete mess.

It would still be an SBR and wouldn't be able to be sold or transferred as a title 1 weapon. (Which is the subject of the discussion. As you say, there is nothing wrong with a registered SBR that would otherwise be a pistol)

I want to be clear that I believe you can make a pistol into an SBR and return it to a title 1 configuration. I just do not believe ATF ruling 2011-4 says so. I think it's possible it would have to be argued in court if there isn't a ruling that supports this.

 

[pjeski]

It would be a stockless rifle.

The Form 1 states that you are "making" a rifle. You have to engrave your info on it (name, city, and state of "manufacture"). Once the NFA weapon is "made," it is no longer a pistol. It is a rifle. If you stick a 16" barrel on it and sell it, it is a Rifle, not a Pistol.

The same could be said for making a title 1 rifle out of a pistol, but 2011-4 says otherwise. If you get too wrapped up in the word "making", realize that on the subject of 922r ATF has argued that changing a magazine does constitute "making". 2011-4 seems to be based mostly on the word "originally" in the definition of pistol, and that should IMHO apply to a pistol made into an SBR as well. I have no support for that, just my opinion.

The act of "making" prevents you from going back to a pistol.

Do you have anything to cite in support of that?

 

[Arizona_Mike]

The Form 1 states that you are "making" a rifle. You have to engrave your info on it (name, city, and state of "manufacture"). Once the NFA weapon is "made," it is no longer a pistol. It is a rifle. If you stick a 16" barrel on it and sell it, it is a Rifle, not a Pistol.

The act of "making" prevents you from going back to a pistol.

Absolutely not true. NFA weapons are only NFA for as long as they are in an NFA configuration. If the pre-NFA configuration was first a pistol you can revert the configuration back to a Title I pistol.

Mike

 

[pjeski]

Absolutely not true. NFA weapons are only NFA for as long as they are in an NFA configuration. If the pre-NFA configuration was first a pistol you can revert the configuration back to a Title I pistol.

Mike

If you've been following the thread, 2011-4 doesn't say so. Do you have a reference that does? I believe you are correct that you can, but I don't know of a ruling or determination on the subject.

 

[Theohazard]

NFA weapons are only NFA for as long as they are in an NFA configuration. If the pre-NFA configuration was first a pistol you can revert the configuration back to a Title I pistol.

The first part of this is true, but nobody knows for sure if the second part of this is true. Keep in mind that the second part of your statement comes directly from ruling 2011-4 and the Supreme Court case that inspired it. But that ruling doesn't mention SBRs at all, it's only dealing with Title I pistols and rifles.

Yes, historically the ATF has said that an SBR is only an SBR while it's in SBR configuration. But that was generally considered to only apply to rifles before 2011-4; you could make an SBR back into a regular rifle, but everyone still went by the old "once a rifle, always a rifle" mantra and knew it couldn't go back to being a pistol.

Once the ATF clarified their stance in ruling 2011-4, people just assumed that the ruling applied to SBRs too: They made the logical jump that you could configure an SBR as a Title I pistol if that's how it started out. And I don't think this is necessarily a wrong way of thinking, I just know that this is an issue that has never been expressly clarified by legislation, case law, or ATF determinations, and that means nobody knows the answer for sure.

Arizona Mike, if you can provided one citation that 2011-4 applies to SBRs also, then that would be extremely helpful. But as far as I know, no citation exists anywhere in any court cases or ATF publications.

 

[pjeski]

The first part of this is true, but nobody knows for sure if the second part of this is true. Keep in mind that the second part of your statement comes directly from ruling 2011-4 and the Supreme Court case that inspired it. But that ruling doesn't mention SBRs at all, it's only dealing with Title I pistols and rifles.

Yes, historically the ATF has said that an SBR is only an SBR while it's in SBR configuration. But that was generally considered to only apply to rifles before 2011-4; you could make an SBR back into a regular rifle, but everyone still went by the old "once a rifle, always a rifle" mantra and knew it couldn't go back to being a pistol.

Once the ATF clarified their stance in ruling 2011-4, people just assumed that the ruling applied to SBRs too: They made the logical jump that you could configure an SBR as a Title I pistol if that's how it started out. And I don't think this is necessarily a wrong way of thinking, I just know that this is an issue that has never been expressly clarified by legislation, case law, or ATF determinations, and that means nobody knows the answer for sure.

Arizona Mike, if you can provided one citation that 2011-4 applies to SBRs also, then that would be extremely helpful. But as far as I know, no citation exists anywhere in any court cases or ATF publications.

It's worse than that. 2011-4 twice explicitly excludes SBRs.

 

[Theohazard]

It's worse than that. 2011-4 twice explicitly excludes SBRs.

Interesting, I must've forgot about those parts, I haven't read it in a while. Thanks for the update.

And on a side note, I'm with you: I think it's probably OK to configure an SBR as a Title I pistol as long as that's how it started out, but until someone can show me some evidence that either a court of law or the ATF said it's expressly OK, then I'm going to hold off claiming it's definitely legal.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

2011-4 says nothing about this exact situation. I'm not aware of anything that says you cannot go back to a pistol from an SBR that did not start as a rifle.

Mike

 

[Theohazard]

I'm not aware of anything that says you cannot go back to a pistol from an SBR that did not start as a rifle.

And I'm not aware of anything that says you can. And that's the problem here.

Here's the thing: Before the Supreme Court case Thompson-Center v. US and its further clarification in ATF Ruling 2011-4, it was the ATF's position that you couldn't make a firearm into a pistol after it was made into a rifle. The popular saying was, "Once a rifle, always a rifle."

Then 2011-4 came along and clarified that you could actually make a Title I firearm back into a pistol if it originally started off that way. But since 2011-4 doesn't apply to SBRs, it's not unreasonable to think that SBRs aren't affected by that ruling.

2011-4 says nothing about this exact situation.

Exactly. And before that ruling, the ATF's official stance was that you couldn't make a rifle back into a pistol at all. And since 2011-4 doesn't apply to SBRs, it's not unreasonable to think that's still the case until some relevant authority rules otherwise.

 

[pjeski]

2011-4 says nothing about this exact situation. I'm not aware of anything that says you cannot go back to a pistol from an SBR that did not start as a rifle.

Mike

Since the definition of an SBR includes a weapon made from a rifle, and since an SBR with a stock meets the definition of a rifle, even though the definition of a pistol is what it is, you could argue that once a pistol is made into an SBR, when it is returned to pistol format it is a weapon made from a rifle and therefore still an SBR. This doesn't apply to making an SBR into a title 1 rifle, just into a pistol. (ATF says you can return a SBR to title 1 with a long upper, but they never mention a pistol). 2011-4 cleared this up for title 1 weapons, but specifically not for SBRs. I believe the arguments in 2011-4 would apply to returning to a pistol, but you might find yourself in the position of having to make those arguments yourself without a ruling to support you. And you might not succeed. (Again IANAL)

 

[Ryanxia]

After re-reading the law and the ruling I tend to agree that it could be interpreted in either way.

Of course, they'd have to prove that you did in fact physically alter your pistol into an SBR configuration at some point and then returned it to pistol configuration. (Because just because you have your tax stamp back to proceed doesn't mean you have to immediately convert, some guys wait years).