SBR vs Pistol

[hpluseleven]

I apologize if this has been answered before, but I have not found an answer...

Why can't you saw off a shotgun/rifle and now call it a pistol? (Taurus Judge comes to mind as an example of a short shotgun) You can get a rifle that shoots most any "pistol" cartridge you want, why couldn't you cut down the barrel and make it a pistol again?

 

[kingpin008]

why couldn't you cut down the barrel and make it a pistol again?

Because it wasn't a pistol to begin with.

Others who are more knowledgeable will undoubtedly be by shortly to elaborate, but that's the basic idea - once a rifle, always a rifle (or shotgun) as far as the ATF is concerned. Shortening the barrel or stock of a rifle doesn't change that it was created as a rifle - it merely changes it's configuration.

 

[TexasRifleman]

Why can't you saw off a shotgun/rifle and now call it a pistol?

It's stupid, but there are a couple of reasons given.

1) The purchasing age for a handgun (from a dealer) is 21. It's only 18 for a rifle or shotgun. So, buying a rifle at a dealer when 18, then sawing the barrel off, would go around that law. Stupid of course because private sales are legal, and it's legal (Federal anyway) for an 18 year old to buy a handgun in a private transaction.

2) The other is the idea (wrong of course) that a rifle sawed off makes it "more powerful" than a standard handgun would be.

Most of this NFA stuff came about during Prohibition when gangsters did all sorts of wacky things with guns.

If it's in the NFA you can pretty much bet some gangster along the way tried it.

The other question, why can't you convert a rifle to a handgun then back again, is interesting. The Supreme Court ruled that you could actually do that, in the case of Thompson. ATF however interprets that decision to say that it ONLY applies to a certain number of Thompson rifle/handgun kits sold as a complete kit.

The trick is in the wording of Federal Law where it says that handguns, shotguns, rifles are "designed and intended" to be such and such. The ATF argues that once you change that you change the design intent of the manufacturer, so you're in violation of the law.

In the end you are right, there is no real reason for it, it's all BS. But, prison waits at the other end of confronting these laws so..... we live with them.

Gun laws are stupid. Don't even waste your time trying to find some rational reason for most of them. You'll just get migraines.

 

[Sam1911]

The National Firearms Act of 1934 defined firearms as falling into either Title I or Title II categories. Title I covered anything like a standard rifle, pistol, or shotgun. Title II covered machine guns, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, destructive devices (explosive munitions, toxic/chemical weapons, and -- oddly -- large bore rifles over .50 cal), silencers, and "Any Other Weapons" (pen guns, cane guns, briefcase guns, smooth-bore handguns, pistols with a vertical fore grip, etc.).

The law specifically says if it IS a rifle (or shotgun) it cannot be then made into a Title I handgun. If you wanted to take a Remington 700 rifle and somehow machine it down into a Cold Single Action Army revolver, you'd still first have to register it as a short-barreled rifle. (Weird, eh?)

If you REALLY want to know...

US Code says, in TITLE 26, Subtitle E, CHAPTER 53, Subchapter B, PART I, § 5845

Definitions

For the purpose of this chapter—
(a) Firearm
The term “firearm” means:

(1) a shotgun having a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length;

(2) a weapon made from a shotgun if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length;

(3) a rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length;

(4) a weapon made from a rifle if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length;

(5) any other weapon, as defined in subsection (e);

(6) a machinegun;

(7) any silencer (as defined in section 921 of title 18, United States Code); and

(8) a destructive device. The term “firearm” shall not include an antique firearm or any device (other than a machinegun or destructive device) which, although designed as a weapon, the Secretary finds by reason of the date of its manufacture, value, design, and other characteristics is primarily a collector’s item and is not likely to be used as a weapon.

(b) Machinegun
The term “machinegun” means any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.

(c) Rifle
The term “rifle” means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed cartridge to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger, and shall include any such weapon which may be readily restored to fire a fixed cartridge.

(d) Shotgun
The term “shotgun” means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed shotgun shell to fire through a smooth bore either a number of projectiles (ball shot) or a single projectile for each pull of the trigger, and shall include any such weapon which may be readily restored to fire a fixed shotgun shell.

(e) Any other weapon
The term “any other weapon” means any weapon or device capable of being concealed on the person from which a shot can be discharged through the energy of an explosive, a pistol or revolver having a barrel with a smooth bore designed or redesigned to fire a fixed shotgun shell, weapons with combination shotgun and rifle barrels 12 inches or more, less than 18 inches in length, from which only a single discharge can be made from either barrel without manual reloading, and shall include any such weapon which may be readily restored to fire. Such term shall not include a pistol or a revolver having a rifled bore, or rifled bores, or weapons designed, made, or intended to be fired from the shoulder and not capable of firing fixed ammunition.

(f) Destructive device
The term “destructive device” means
(1) any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas
(A) bomb,
(B) grenade,
(C) rocket having a propellent charge of more than four ounces,
(D) missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce,
(E) mine, or
(F) similar device;
(2) any type of weapon by whatever name known which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, the barrel or barrels of which have a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter, except a shotgun or shotgun shell which the Secretary finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes; and
(3) any combination of parts either designed or intended for use in converting any device into a destructive device as defined in subparagraphs (1) and (2) and from which a destructive device may be readily assembled. The term “destructive device” shall not include any device which is neither designed nor redesigned for use as a weapon; any device, although originally designed for use as a weapon, which is redesigned for use as a signaling, pyrotechnic, line throwing, safety, or similar device; surplus ordnance sold, loaned, or given by the Secretary of the Army pursuant to the provisions of section 4684 (2), 4685, or 4686 of title 10 of the United States Code; or any other device which the Secretary finds is not likely to be used as a weapon, or is an antique or is a rifle which the owner intends to use solely for sporting purposes.

Unfortunately, regardless of the logic of it all, the law is EXTREMELY clear about this. Any RIFLE or SHOTGUN cannot be made into a handgun, period, full stop.

Call your senator. Maybe we can get this reversed in our lifetimes!

 

[husbandofaromanian]

I have a suppressed Contender G2 in .223(1-9 twist 11.5" barrell). Uh, who needs a rifle.

 

[hpluseleven]

Thanks guys - I figured the answer was going to be something along the lines of "because that's the way it is" - I don't know why anyone would want to cut down a rifle or a shotgun - if it's like the movies "so I can swing it faster" why not use a pistol to begin with? It seems dumb to want to do it, but it also seems dumb that it's illegal to do so...in any case, thanks for the responses

 

[Zoogster]

I figured the answer was going to be something along the lines of "because that's the way it is"

That is basically it. There is lots of fine details, but some of them don't make sense.

The one reason that at one point did make sense:
Pistols were going to be outlawed by the NFA. Or should I say made title 2 firearms, which at the time were difficult to register, and $200 was a lot more back then even if you could first learn about and then get the paperwork processed.


Towards the end of passing the NFA legislation they removed handguns from the restrictions to help it pass. But there was already additional areas meant to strengthen the handgun ban (title 2 classification.)
Since handguns were going to be title 2, if someone could legally simply make what was basically a pistol from a long arm, such modified long arms would just replace pistols where a pistol would have been used.
Meaning the ban on handguns would be pointless because everyone would just make handguns from long arms.



That is the reason. People have since created new logic to justify it, but that was the original reason.

I don't know why anyone would want to cut down a rifle or a shotgun - if it's like the movies "so I can swing it faster" why not use a pistol to begin with?

Because a stocked firearm allows you to accurately place shots quickly with less muzzle climb and less effected by recoil. Your shoulder can take a lot more recoil than your wrist, and it takes several times the recoil to have as much muzzle climb.

For example take the layout of the mp7. I did a quick search and found this picture:

Not necessarily that specific weapon or caliber, but a similar layout in semi-auto could be quite useful.

You could keep it in say a vehicle instead of a handgun or someplace else you want something compact for storage. It would be slightly more bulky than a typical handgun, but could be kept in the smaller pictured handgun setup most of the time with the smaller flush magazine like pictured on top. Good for storage or protecting yourself in the vehicle in its most compact and maneuverable form.
But lets say you are driving along and witness a group of thugs attacking someone or otherwise victimizing someone in a way that may require lethal force. Perhaps you want more precision to be able to hit the right people and avoid the victim if necessary.
You simply pull out the collapsed stock and now you have a shoulder fired weapon that offers a lot more stability than a pistol.
So if you do need to fire you can put the bullet where it needs to go much more precisely than without a stock, posing more danger to the bad guy and less danger to innocent people.

They wouldn't replace handguns for carry, but in certain roles they would offer a lot more flexibility.
Most certainly useful.
There would be many more similar designs, and even some like your typical handgun that simply had folding and collapsing stocks built into the design if they were unrestricted.

 

[NavyLCDR]

(Taurus Judge comes to mind as an example of a short shotgun)

The Judge is not a short barreled rifle, because a rifle is a gun designed to be fired from the shoulder.

The Judge is not a short barreled shotgun because it has a rifled barrel.

The Judge is a true handgun because it is designed to be fired from one hand and has a rifled barrel.

The same is true of a Thompson Contender/Encore in the pistol configuration.

Now, pistol grip only shotguns are also legal if their barrel is longer than 18 inches, and they are classified as Any Other Weapons and you must be 21 years old to purchase one in the pistol grip configuration from an FFL.

 

[Sam1911]

Now, pistol grip only shotguns are also legal if their barrel is longer than 18 inches, and they are classified as Any Other Weapons and you must be 21 years old to purchase one in the pistol grip configuration from an FFL.

Uh, NavyLT, I think you missed a clause in that sentence somewhere...

They aren't Title II "AOWs" unless they have <18" barrels and no stock. (A smooth-bore handgun.) A PGO shotgun with OAL beyond 26" and barrel over 18" is just a Title I firearm.

 

[NavyLCDR]

I get confused. What I meant was PGO shotgun's are the same as stripped lower receivers as far as an FFL selling them. They aren't a handgun because they have a smooth bore, and they aren't a shotgun because they are designed to be fired in the hand vice from the shoulder. So they cannot be sold to persons under 21 years of age by an FFL. I was referring to the class of weapon on the form 4473, not the NFA. I need to look and see what the exact wording is on the 4473...

OK. It's block 18 on the form 4473 and the options are: handgun, long gun, and other firearm. What I meant was a PGO shotgun is an "other firearm" on the 4473.

 

[Zoogster]

why not use a pistol to begin with?

To expand on my earlier example involving self defense.

Also consider hunting and outdoor defense applications.
Imagine hiking through the forest and brush with a traditional long gun. Having to climb rocks babying the gun and dealing with the clumsy firearm on uneven surfaces and going over obstacles.


Now imagine hiking through the woods with something not much bigger than a handgun, and most of that length barrel (giving space for lots of powder burning and good velocity.) Now imagine getting to your destination, like a hunting blind, or spotting your prey in a clearing.
You extend the stock, and suddenly you have a firearm twice as long, and much easier to take steady aim with.
It could also be chambered in a rifle hunting caliber you typically would not want to fire in its collapsed state, but was entirely reasonable with the stock deployed.

Or bear or cougar or other predator defense.
You could have something small and compact that was out of the way and not bumping into things while you do other activities for hours, days, years, without ever needing the firearm.
Much easier to keep slung all day than a rifle or shotgun while fishing or hiking, but much easier to control than a .454 - S&W .500 revolver if needed.

You could have your 3-5 round magazines for certain hunting applications too.


Such firearms would undoubtedly be very useful and handy, with wider applications than many other firearm types.
Such designs are however rare and uncommon because of legal restrictions. The market is so small with NFA restrictions that there is minimal incentive to make non - LEO/military oriented designs.
NFA items also require federal permission to cross state borders, and are otherwise not suitable for a casual all purpose firearm.

 

[GonHuntin]

The other question, why can't you convert a rifle to a handgun then back again, is interesting. The Supreme Court ruled that you could actually do that, in the case of Thompson. ATF however interprets that decision to say that it ONLY applies to a certain number of Thompson rifle/handgun kits sold as a complete kit.

This is not exactly true, the TC Supreme Court case did NOT consider the question of converting a rifle into a handgun. That case was based around the the legality of using of a "carbine kit" to convert a contender PISTOL into a rifle. At the time of the case, TC did not make a contender rifle, all contenders were pistols.

The BATF has changed their interpretation of what can and can't legally be done with a contender pistol several times......they have stated that you can convert a contender handgun frame into rifle configuration but that it must stay a rifle or it becomes a title 2 weapon (sbr) if converted back to pistol configuration......recently, they have said that a contender can be converted from pistol to rifle and back, but only IF it originally was shipped from the factory as part of a complete kit that included frame, both pistol and rifle barrels, pistol grips and rifle stock.......I've been collecting and shooting contenders for many many years and, to my knowledge, TC has NEVER made such a kit.

 

[NavyLCDR]

In the case of a gun like the Contender and Encore that are made to be switched among different configurations.... in all honesty.... that BATFE is 99% certain to not know what the heck you're doing with it anyway, so, personally, I don't really worry myself over what their current interpretation is!

Now a gun that isn't actually made in different configurations...the chances are greater of attracting attention.

 

[Sam1911]

I've been collecting and shooting contenders for many many years and, to my knowledge, TC has NEVER made such a kit.

You may not have seen one, but the parties involved certainly appear to believe that such was produced...

Here is the syllabys of the Thompson decision: http://docs.justia.com/cases/supreme/504/505.swf

In the opening sentence it states that, "Respondent manufactures the "Contender" pistol and, for a short time, also manufactured a kit that could be used to convert the Contender into a rifle with either a 21-inch or a 10-inch barrel."

So, this statement:

the TC Supreme Court case did NOT consider the question of converting a rifle into a handgun. That case was based around the the legality of using of a "carbine kit" to convert a contender PISTOL into a rifle. At the time of the case, TC did not make a contender rifle, all contenders were pistols.

Is incorrect in several ways. For one, they obviously DID make the parts to make a Contender Rifle, though whether they sold them as stand-alone rifles at that time I don't know (and it is irrelevant).

Second, the entire case hinged NOT on "the legality of using of a "carbine kit" to convert a contender PISTOL into a rifle" AT ALL -- but on whether possessing or distributing the entire kit, including the buttstock and 10" barrel, would constitute possession of a Title II firearm. The government used the analogy of a bicycle being shipped to a buyer disassembled -- and yet it was still a bicycle. The Court found that, since the parts COULD be assembled in a legal fashion the government could not act against an owner as though they WOULD assemble it in an illegal fashion. (Without proof that they had actually done so, of course.)

Souter's comments in the opinion clearly state that the kit could be assembled as either a Title I pistol, an NFA-regulated SBR, or as a Title I rifle, which would be entirely legal. There is nothing in the NFA that calls into question the legality of converting a handgun into a Title I rifle, so that wasn't even under debate.

 

[Zoogster]

The other question, why can't you convert a rifle to a handgun then back again, is interesting. The Supreme Court ruled that you could actually do that, in the case of Thompson. ATF however interprets that decision to say that it ONLY applies to a certain number of Thompson rifle/handgun kits sold as a complete kit.

This is not exactly true,

It is true, the ATF has simply not interpreted it that way from the start.
The court addressed the "utility" of a firearm that could be used as both a pistol and rifle, not simply converted once.

The ATF never liked that as it conflicted with a lot of their established rules which build on each other and look better with some sort of continuous logic.
It was easy to see their perspective as it could upset other similar definitions they had long established, but the court did in fact decide that.
The ATF simply chose to say the court only meant ____, thereby redefining the actual ruling to be exactly what they claimed before going to court. But since they claim it is consistent with the ruling they can defy the court while claiming to be complying.

recently, they have said that a contender can be converted from pistol to rifle and back, but only IF it originally was shipped from the factory as part of a complete kit that included frame, both pistol and rifle barrels, pistol grips and rifle stock.......I've been collecting and shooting contenders for many many years and, to my knowledge, TC has NEVER made such a kit.

You have to be able to think like a lawyer representing the ATF side to know what they are maneuvering to fight or argue in the future.


If you understand the potential legal argument they are anticipating you can see exactly why. The old interpretation too openly defied the court, and after review they knew it. The new interpretation gives them the defense to essentially claim they really believe the court ruling only applied to the specific firearm, and therefore the case law and precedent does not apply to anything else.
But it does in fact apply, but they can claim it does not, and if they were to lose in another case addressing the exact same issue we already won, pretend to be ignorant or have misunderstood the court.
Innocent of any wrongdoing, as they are the agency charged with enforcing statute and creating broad restrictions based on very limited laws.

I could go search for one of my more detailed arguments citing the facts of the case, the law in question, and the law the case law was altering.


The end result is they got their way, even after the highest court in the nation decided against them. The retained their way by claiming the landmark decision only applied to a specific firearm kit no longer made.
Giving the impression they are complying after losing the case, and getting exactly what they wanted the whole time, the ability to retain their previous logic and interpretations.
But the SCOTUS was addressing and resolving the issues of the lower court of appeals, which specifically were addressing the legality of specific actions, not merely the legality of the firearm in question.

 

[Sam1911]

I also think we may have another disconnect: I've read many times that the "once-a-rifle-always-a-rifle" dictum is the ATF's reinterpretation of the Thompson decision.

However, as quoted in post 4 above, that definition of a firearm "made from a rifle" comes directly from the NFA itself. Oddly, I have not found where in Thompson the Court actually said that it IS legal to convert, even a T/C kit, back from a rifle to a pistol.

What Souter wrote is this:

This case presents the question of whether a manufacturer "makes" a short-barreled rifle when it packages as a unit a pistol together with a kit containing a shoulder stock and a 21-inch barrel, permitting the pistol's conversion into an unregulated long-barreled rifle, or, if the pistol's barrel is left on the gun, a short-barreled rifle that is regulated. We hold that the statutory language may not be construed to require payment of the tax under these facts.

This would seem to suggest, indeed as the ATF has later indicated, that KITS packaged this way would not be subject to the tax so long as they weren't actually assembled as a regulated SBR. However, he specifically does not say, "and back into pistol form."

It does NOT ... ANYWHERE that I can find ... say that it reverses the general provisions of NFA'34 -- including the "made from a rifle" language.

While I don't LIKE what that law says (or even what it STANDS FOR), I do think we give the ATF an unfair black eye when we blame them for an interpretation like this. It would be nice if they said that this must logically apply to all T/Cs. Or even ALL rifles! But when I read the law and this case, I don't think I could come to that conclusion myself. It really does appear that the Court made a tiny little hole in that law and left the ATF to deal with the fact that that law now applied to identical examples of the same gun differently.

 

[Zoogster]

The "utility" word I quote is in reference to the SCOTUS use of the term in their decision, and the clearest recorded example of what they believed the use was they were deciding:



The SCOTUS ruling in the Thompson case clearly states it is legal.
They were discussing 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 originally 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 their ruling.

The Supreme Court of the United States acknowledged that the usefulness of a contender pistol with rifle conversion parts was to have both a pistol and a rifle, not just convert it one time:

The packaging of pistol and kit has an obvious utility for those who want both a pistol and a regular rifle,

They clearly acknowledge their understanding of the issue. That they were deciding on the legal standing of an item that would be used as both a pistol and a rifle at different times. That is the "obvious utility" of having "both" which share the same receiver.
So when making their decision they were of the understanding the decision was regarding an item that would be used as both a pistol and a rifle at different times.
Not much "utility" in converting it one time, and you certainly don't get "both" and "utility" converting it one time in one direction.


This decision also would set precedent just like other SCOTUS decisions. Not be limited in scope to one specific firearm. That is just an ideal (for them) ATF post ruling interpretation.
It was the action of going back and forth as well as the ability to sell the combination of items being addressed. You need to read beyond just the SCOTUS decision itself and read the lower court decision to know what the SCOTUS was reading and addressing and the questions of law raised in that lower decision that they were setting case law for with their specific choice of words.

 

[w_houle]

The National Firearms Act of 1934 defined firearms as falling into either Title I or Title II categories. Title I covered anything like a standard rifle, pistol, or shotgun. Title II covered machine guns, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, destructive devices (explosive munitions, toxic/chemical weapons, and -- oddly -- large bore rifles over .50 cal), silencers, and "Any Other Weapons" (pen guns, cane guns, briefcase guns, smooth-bore handguns, pistols with a vertical fore grip, etc.).

I was under the impression that pistols were originally suppose to fall under Title II?

 

[Zoogster]

I was under the impression that pistols were originally suppose to fall under Title II?

A handgun ban was arguably actually the primary purpose of the NFA. Then just as now handguns were the predominant firearm used by criminals (and other citizens in self defense.)
While some high profile criminals had used various other weapons like select fire weapons, most of them were actually stolen from the police or the military, and their use in crimes was minimal. But their notice by the media in sensationalized reports was high. A handful of the biggest high profile criminals became romanticized during this time when most people could barely afford to feed themselves.

Anyways the banning of handguns is why they created the whole SBR and SBS legislation as I mentioned in an earlier post.
Towards the end of the legislative process before it was signed into law handguns were removed. But then the additional sections meant to enforce a pistol ban, namely the SBR and SBS sections were not removed in the hasty removal of handguns.


The whole purpose of SBR and SBS restrictions was to prevent people from making unrestricted improvised handguns from long guns to replace handguns which were banned.
The creators of the bill had the foresight to know that people would simply cut down a long arm to dimensions comparable to a handgun and then use them for whatever they would have traditional used a handgun for before the handgun ban.
(Title 2 paperwork processing, CLEO sign off, or the $200 amount was essentially a ban for most people in the 1930s during the Great Depression.)


But when handguns were removed from title 2 restrictions the SBR and SBS sections intended purpose ceased to exist, but the sections were still in the bill and passed into law when the legislation became law.
As a result the old "revenuers" who were no longer required as of December 5, 1933 as the end to Prohibition was ratified and had who previously enforced Prohibition now had a new job just in time!
Enforcement of various complex and arbitrary limits which often make no sense.
Jobs were saved!

 

[Sam1911]

They clearly acknowledge their understanding of the issue. That they were deciding on the legal standing of an item that would be used as both a pistol and a rifle at different times. That is the "obvious utility" of having "both" which share the same receiver.

Good point.

This decision also would set precedent just like other SCOTUS decisions. Not be limited in scope to one specific firearm. That is just an ideal (for them) ATF post ruling interpretation.

And yet, SCOTUS didn't make it easy and clear, saying that it sets precident for all firearms. What they did was to call out the specific instance of the pistol and kit package. They did not take it to the next step (which would have been very easy) and say that other combinations that could be assembled this way should be treated the same.

I agree with you completely that such is the interpretation that the ATF "should' take. But I certainly do understand why they did not.

What would interest me greatly would be for another company to manufacture a rifle & pistol combination kit and see how that is received by the ATF.

Say, just for example, Glock bought the patents for the Mech Tech carbine kit and began selling kits that came with both a Glock 17 handgun, and a carbine style "upper."

Under Thompson it would seem that the ATF would have no legal room to deny the legality of such a kit. However, with that part being availalbe only as an accessory -- from a different manufacturer, no less -- it doesn't fall into the packaged kit description.

Of course, that's my imperfect reading of the case and the US Code. A lawyer could give a much more sound view of the issue. However, I am still semi-convinced that SCOTUS didn't WANT to rock the boat so far as to disrupt the way that the NFA is enforced and so (as is very common) they kept their decision within very narrow limits.

JMHO.

 

[GonHuntin]

Quote:
I've been collecting and shooting contenders for many many years and, to my knowledge, TC has NEVER made such a kit.

You may not have seen one, but the parties involved certainly appear to believe that such was produced...

You have missed my point.......you have to go back and read the quote in my post.......specifically "The other question, why can't you convert a rifle to a handgun then back again, is interesting. The Supreme Court ruled that you could actually do that, in the case of Thompson. however interprets that decision to say that it ONLY applies to a certain number of Thompson rifle/handgun kits sold as a complete kit."........First, the SC did not rule that you can convert a rifle into a handgun and back in the TC case. Second, the "kit" referred to in the quoted part of my post and mentioned in a BATF opinion letter, IE a complete rifle/ pistol kit has never, to my knowledge, been produced by TC.......TC has made contender pistols, contender carbines and carbine "kits" that included a shoulder stock, carbine barrel and forend to convert an existing contender pistol into a carbine.......BUT, TC has NEVER, to my knowledge, made a "kit" that included a frame, pistol grip, pistol length barrel, rifle stock and rifle barrel.......BATF has referenced such a kit in an opinion letter but it never existed.


Here is the syllabys of the Thompson decision: http://docs.justia.com/cases/supreme/504/505.swf

In the opening sentence it states that, "Respondent manufactures the "Contender" pistol and, for a short time, also manufactured a kit that could be used to convert the Contender into a rifle with either a 21-inch or a 10-inch barrel."

Exactly, the kit referenced in the USSC case was designed to convert a contender PISTOL into carbine configuration. The kit included a rifle length barrel, shoulder stock and forend.......it did not include a frame.


So, this statement:
Quote:
the TC Supreme Court case did NOT consider the question of converting a rifle into a handgun. That case was based around the the legality of using of a "carbine kit" to convert a contender PISTOL into a rifle. At the time of the case, TC did not make a contender rifle, all contenders were pistols.
Is incorrect in several ways.

For one, they obviously DID make the parts to make a Contender Rifle, though whether they sold them as stand-alone rifles at that time I don't know (and it is irrelevant).

I disagree, at the time the case was filed, TC did NOT make a RIFLE, all contenders were pistols.......that fact is important, and revelant because, as we know, it is legal to convert a pistol to rifle configuration, but not legal to convert a rifle to pistol configuration. Texas Rifleman's post, which I quoted, claimed that the SC ruled, in the TC case, that a person could convert a rifle into handgun configuration and back, that is certainly NOT true. The TC case was not about converting a rifle, it was about a conversion kit designed to convert a PISTOL and whether possessing the kit was legal due to the fact that a person could assemble the shoulder stock and pistol barrel together to create an NFA regulated short barreled rifle.


Second, the entire case hinged NOT on "the legality of using of a "carbine kit" to convert a contender PISTOL into a rifle" AT ALL -- but on whether possessing or distributing the entire kit, including the buttstock and 10" barrel, would constitute possession of a Title II firearm. The government used the analogy of a bicycle being shipped to a buyer disassembled -- and yet it was still a bicycle. The Court found that, since the parts COULD be assembled in a legal fashion the government could not act against an owner as though they WOULD assemble it in an illegal fashion. (Without proof that they had actually done so, of course.)

True, it was really a constructive intent/possession case. However, if you go back to Texas Rifleman's post, I was referring to his claim that SC ruled you could convert a rifle into a handgun and back....and that was what I was disagreeing with.......I was trying to make the point that the TC case did not involve converting rifles into handguns because TC did not make a rifle at that time. I am aware of the constructive possession aspect of the case, and that is really the basis for the case, however, I think it's important to point out that the SC ruling in the TC case did not contradict the NFA regulations on converting rifles into handguns


Souter's comments in the opinion clearly state that the kit could be assembled as either a Title I pistol, an NFA-regulated SBR, or as a Title I rifle, which would be entirely legal. There is nothing in the NFA that calls into question the legality of converting a handgun into a Title I rifle, so that wasn't even under debate.

Agreed, and that was my point, the TC case had nothing to do with the legality of converting a rifle to pistol configuration.

__________________

 

[Sam1911]

the "kit" referred to in the quoted part of my post and mentioned in a BATF opinion letter, IE a complete rifle/ pistol kit has never, to my knowledge, been produced by TC.......TC has made contender pistols, contender carbines and carbine "kits" that included a shoulder stock, carbine barrel and forend to convert an existing contender pistol into a carbine.......BUT, TC has NEVER, to my knowledge, made a "kit" that included a frame, pistol grip, pistol length barrel, rifle stock and rifle barrel.......BATF has referenced such a kit in an opinion letter but it never existed.

Ahh. That may be true. I was reading the line about "distributed with" and perhaps assuming something. You'd think the ATF could have gotten that simple part right, but ...?

Exactly, the kit referenced in the USSC case was designed to convert a contender PISTOL into carbine configuration. The kit included a rifle length barrel, shoulder stock and forend.......it did not include a frame.

Well, that does make a difference. The letter from the ATF seems to indicate that such KITS do include a serialized frame and only those serial numbers that came with those kits are kosher to swap. If that is factually incorrect then the situation is quite different.

Has anyone asked T/C to explain whether they did or did not produce a kit like that? You'd think this would be grounds for an immediate challenge of the ATF ruling if they were factually incorrect...

The TC case was not about converting a rifle, it was about a conversion kit designed to convert a PISTOL and whether possessing the kit was legal due to the fact that a person could assemble the shoulder stock and pistol barrel together to create an NFA regulated short barreled rifle.

Ok. Certainly agreed.

True, it was really a constructive intent/possession case.

That's how I read it. They really don't seem to address the NFA "...made from a rifle..." conflict at all.

However, if you go back to Texas Rifleman's post, I was referring to his claim that SC ruled you could convert a rifle into a handgun and back....and that was what I was disagreeing with.......I was trying to make the point that the TC case did not involve converting rifles into handguns because TC did not make a rifle at that time.

If that is indeed true, then I completely agree with you.

I think it's important to point out that the SC ruling in the TC case did not contradict the NFA regulations on converting rifles into handguns

Mostly by simply not stating whether or not you could convert one BACK. Which is something I hinted at a few posts ago.

Now Zoogster's comments about the appropriateness of the "obvious utility" seems to suggest at least tacit approval (uh...is there ever "tacit approval" of anything from SCOTUS? ) of the conversion both ways.

Agreed, and that was my point, the TC case had nothing to do with the legality of converting a rifle to pistol configuration.

On the face of it, true. But then there's the "obvious utility..."

Very interesting!

 

[GonHuntin]

Another interesting note.......I have read that BATF did, in fact, put forward the argument during the case that, if a person converted a contender pistol to carbine configuration via the "carbine kit", that person would be in violation of NFA if the person then converted said carbine back to pistol configuration. They withdrew that argument before the decision.

Not sure where I read that info, could have been in the SC briefs or might have been on Halbrook's website???

I can't say for sure why they withdrew the argument, but I suspect they knew they would get spanked badly.......the BATF claimed that converting the pistol through use of the kit was "making" a rifle........and, "once a rifle always a rifle"........I suspect they might have figured that the SC would turn that around and say if once a rifle, always a rifle.......then, once a pistol, always a pistol and that wold really throw a wrench in things!