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.