PDA

View Full Version : ATF Response re: AR Pistol



zero7one
23 September 2012, 22:17
Follow this link (click here (https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B0qyloA48O3XZWFjYjMwYTMtYTg1MC00NzVhLWI3NmMtZDRiN TMzNzdhMzUx/edit?pli=1)) for a .pdf file that I came across today. It gives a response from the ATF about AR Pistols and some legalities surrounding the manufacturing of one. Of interesting note, according to this letter from the ATF, says that it is lawful for a person to install a Magpul Angled Foregrip (AFG) onto the bottom accessory rail and it not become a SBR.

landshark
23 September 2012, 23:11
Very interesting. I know that for a lot of people, building a AR pistol is a great way to get all the parts while waiting on a SBR stamp. It would seem though that at the end of the day you would wind up with a lower that you could only, from then on out, use as a pistol lower. Unless you wanted to pay another $200 to convert said pistol to a rifle....I think that I would just sell that lower as a "pistol" lower and just get a new "rifle" lower. Was thinking about going this route when I start building my 300blk SBR, once again, that is until I get my SBR tax stamp.

Thanks for sharing.

todd.k
24 September 2012, 08:46
It would seem though that at the end of the day you would wind up with a lower that you could only, from then on out, use as a pistol lower. Unless you wanted to pay another $200 to convert said pistol to a rifle...
You can make a rifle from a pistol. Install a 16"+ barrel FIRST, then a stock, now you have a rifle. If you wanted the barrel to be less than 16" you would need to pay the tax to make an SBR out of your pistol.

TangoSauce
24 September 2012, 10:40
Keep in mind too, to my knowledge, once you convert a pistol to a rifle lower it will ALWAYS be a rifle lower.

TangoSauce
24 September 2012, 10:48
So does overall length on AR pistol apply? It mentions no restrictions on bbl length in that response. I'm getting fuzzy over a difference between 'handgun' and 'pistol'.


IC 35-47-1-6
"Handgun"
Sec. 6. "Handgun" means any firearm:
(1) designed or adapted so as to be aimed and fired from one (1) hand, regardless of barrel length; or
(2) any firearm with:
(A) a barrel less than sixteen (16) inches in length; or
(B) an overall length of less than twenty-six (26) inches.

Spart
24 September 2012, 20:00
Keep in mind too, to my knowledge, once you convert a pistol to a rifle lower it will ALWAYS be a rifle lower.

This is no longer true.

Open letter to the public from the ATF:

http://www.atf.gov/regulations-rulings/rulings/atf-rulings/atf-ruling-2011-4.pdf

This also affects those of us who have carbine kits for pistols, such as the one I have for my Beretta .22 pistol.

I've switched my AR pistol to rifle config and back a few times. No black helicopters yet.

fmkenner
29 September 2012, 15:33
Also if your OAL is over 26" on your pistol it is just considered a firearm, which you can then attach a VFG. Simular to this.
http://www.franklinarmory.com/PRODUCTS_XO-26.html

Letter from the ATF.
http://www.franklinarmory.com/XO-26_Letter__c_.pdf

If you have an OAL less that 26" on your pistol lower with a VFG its considered an AOW which requires a stamp.
In Michigan we cant have SBR and have to register our pistols. I've decided to register an AR lower and build a pistol because of this.

UWone77
29 September 2012, 17:57
I wish we in Washington State could just have SBR's so we wouldn't have to deal with the AR pistol silliness.

AR-10
7 October 2012, 17:19
This is no longer true.

Open letter to the public from the ATF:

http://www.atf.gov/regulations-rulings/rulings/atf-rulings/atf-ruling-2011-4.pdf

This also affects those of us who have carbine kits for pistols, such as the one I have for my Beretta .22 pistol.

I've switched my AR pistol to rifle config and back a few times. No black helicopters yet.

So does that mean you can keep a standard carbine receiver extension when you go back to a pistol or are you putting a pistol tube back on?

In the past I was told a pistol should never have a tube that will readily accept a stock, but your post makes me wonder if this is ok to do now.

fmkenner
7 October 2012, 20:06
So does that mean you can keep a standard carbine receiver extension when you go back to a pistol or are you putting a pistol tube back on?

In the past I was told a pistol should never have a tube that will readily accept a stock, but your post makes me wonder if this is ok to do now.

In my opinion your better off putting pistol tube back so as it cant have a stock put on it easily. You wont have anything to explain.

Stickman
7 October 2012, 20:09
So does that mean you can keep a standard carbine receiver extension when you go back to a pistol or are you putting a pistol tube back on?

In the past I was told a pistol should never have a tube that will readily accept a stock, but your post makes me wonder if this is ok to do now.

No, it does not mean that at all. The above was written out for a very narrow purpose. Having a rifle or carbine receiver extension is having a SBR regardless of whether you have the rest of the stock on it or not.

ETA- ATF opinions are somewhat different than what I have posted above. The general gist is that you can not have in readily available to accept a stock. There are a lot of people who feel this means they can use the carbine extension as long as they have no extra stocks around. This is not true, and is not what the law says.

TangoSauce
7 October 2012, 22:55
This is no longer true.

Open letter to the public from the ATF:

http://www.atf.gov/regulations-rulings/rulings/atf-rulings/atf-ruling-2011-4.pdf

This also affects those of us who have carbine kits for pistols, such as the one I have for my Beretta .22 pistol.

I've switched my AR pistol to rifle config and back a few times. No black helicopters yet.

Thanks for that link, I've been going back and forth with some friends on this and received mixed responses.

Gunfixr
17 December 2012, 21:05
You can install the Magpul AFG on a pistol regardless of its' length. If I had to guess, I'd say that this is because it is not actually a grip, like a VFG is. You cannot wrap your hand around it like you can around any grip, you can only cup it like a forearm.
However, like mentioned, once it is over 26" in length, it is now classified as a "firearm". This is the same category that the Mossberg and Remington pistol gripped "Cruiser" shotguns fall into.

As for building a pistol, and then converting it into a rifle, and then going back to a pistol, that is legal, so long as you always stop switching parts when you have a legal version. A lot of this changed with the landmark Thompson Contender case. This case also drastically changed what construed "constructive possession".

You can use a carbine length tube on a pistol, but it cannot be a carbine tube, as that would readily accept a stock. Even if it doesn't actually have a stock on it at the time, such a tube on a pistol would make an SBR.

djthemac
11 January 2013, 22:52
Does this have any impact on people with one registered sbr lower, 2 short uppers and a complete 16" ar15?

eodinert
10 April 2013, 09:21
Having a rifle or carbine receiver extension is having a SBR regardless of whether you have the rest of the stock on it or not.

The ATF has written several letters about this, and all of them that I have seen say it's OK to put a carbine receiver extension on a pistol.

I googled one up. This is just one of many, by the way, and they are all worded a little different: http://www.jcweaponry.com/images/ar15/BB.JPG

Notice how they say it's permissible to use a carbine receiver extension, then turn around and say 'you may be in possession of an SBR if you have a stock'. Is it permissible, or not? In Thompson Center vs. USA, (required reading, IMO) the court ruled that since the parts COULD be assembled in a lawful manner the law could not assume your were going to do something illegal (they call this the rule of lenity).

Based on the afore mentioned letters, Thompson Center vs. US, and the CFR, I think it would be legal (I'm not a lawyer). You'll have to find your own comfort zone on this one, though.

Stickman
26 May 2013, 14:48
EODinert,

Correct, it should be legal by way of opinion letter if there are no stocks around. Having a stock on another weapon would make it accessible. I've dealt with BATF on a professional level multiple times, and people just don't understand how things are viewed by them. The key phrases become "could readily be installed" and "in your possession", and these are open to the opinion of the agents involved.

Does that mean it has to be within arms reach? No, it most certainly does not. In fact, when you look at terms used by the ATF, they become quite vague at times. Do you have to possess the proper license to own a SBR? Yes, you do, but what does "possess" mean in that application? Do possess mean own, or does possess mean on your person? When I talk to ATF, that is an answer that plays back and forth like a reed in the wind.

Here is an easier example we are all familiar with. To pin and weld a muzzle device in order to create a 16" barrel, there are two accepted ways to do it. It still has to be done correctly, but it is commonly done, and not thought much about. Have you ever thought about how ATF tests this to see if it can be readily removed? The lock the barrel down, get a 6 foot breaker bar, and crank on it. If the barrel is bent, twisted or broken it has nothing to do with if it passes or not. The intent of the test is to see if it fails and can be removed.

Take the above testing method, and apply it to your pistol based AR15. Would you honestly feel comfortable with it being examined by the ATF? Lets leave out you having done anything else wrong, because your grounds for examination could be something as simple as getting Tboned in a traffic accident and it being viewed by the officer impounded the vehicle while you were taken to the hospital. That means you don't get to explain anything, and the weapon is simply examined.... This is why I don't use a carbine extension on my pistol, because no matter how you want to play the game, I full understand the game gets played two ways. One of those ways is for the internet guys to talk about, and the other is how it is played in real life and in court.

Lets think about the defense you would mount in court in front of a jury. You would say your stock wasn't actually near your "pistol", and that would be your defense along with the ATF opinion letter. ATF agents and the prosecutor would refer to it as an illegal weapon during the entire case, and as a rifle. The agents would each be asked to show how a stock could be placed on the "rifle", and it would take them a fraction of a second. The prosecutor would then present a class for the jury showing various stocks, and how they all went on that same receiver extension. They would then take each of the other AR15s you used to own and demonstrate how easy it was to take the stocks on and off placing them on what you called a pistol. He or she would then give a closing argument while they took a box of various stocks and put them on and off the receiver extension showing their point over and over.

In the end, any of us would be screwed, because the jury would see and understand how easy it is to put a stock back on. The opinion letter would be used against you because you knowing "possessed" stocks which fit. It would be ugly, it would be bogus, and they would win to make points that they were tough on gun control or for whatever other political reason they had.

Just some things to think about, personally, I don't think the SBR should be any different than buying a pistol or rifle. If the ATF/ Feds want $200, have it paid to the dealer as the checks are being done at that time anyway.