Gunbroker jailbait?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Curious about this. Not the gun but the legality. Reason being a very small LGS i know of has a stevens model 14 1/2 little scout thats cut down to a pistol , maybe 6 inch barrel . I have the same gun in youth rifle form and would even just buy it for parts but i decided not to because it was just too sketchy. I believe it has something to do with when the modification took place?? If it became a pistol in 1908 perhaps its grandfathered somehow. The arisaka on the otherhand is as @Elkins45 correctly put it, "an abomination". I have no clue about rifles turning into pistols, but i do know there is a minimum over all length - the arisaka doesn't look long enough but i don't know.
 
If that firearm wasn’t first built as a rifle then that’s legally a pistol under federal law.

See the SCOTUS case US v. Thompson-Center Arms Co. and also ATF Ruling 2011-4.
 
Last edited:
I have no clue about rifles turning into pistols, but i do know there is a minimum over all length
If a firearm is first made into a pistol it can be configured as a rifle or a pistol at any time. If it was first made as a rifle it can’t be configured as a pistol. There is a minimum overall length for a rifle (below 26” overall length it’s an NFA short-barrel rifle), but there’s no minimum or maximum overall length for a pistol.
 
If a firearm is first made into a pistol it can be configured as a rifle or a pistol at any time. If it was first made as a rifle it can’t be configured as a pistol. There is a minimum overall length for a rifle (below 26” overall length it’s an NFA short-barrel rifle), but there’s no minimum or maximum overall length for a pistol.

This may be true as a statement of the federal law, but some state laws are more restrictive.

In California, once a weapon has been configured as a rifle, it cannot legally be reconfigured as a pistol, even if it started out that way.
 
This may be true as a statement of the federal law, but some state laws are more restrictive.

In California, once a weapon has been configured as a rifle, it cannot legally be reconfigured as a pistol, even if it started out that way.
Yes, I was referring to federal law. As always, state laws are varied and may be more restrictive.
 
I would be surprised to find out any Arisaka started out as a pistol.

A 17" barrel and an OAL of 26" would make this legal in most jurisdictions AFAIK.
 
If the OAL is longer than 26" (we already know the bbl's >16"), it's quite possible ATF would call it a rifle. Kinda ugly though.
There is no overall length limit or barrel length limit to a pistol. If it didn’t start off life as a rifle and it current doesn’t have a stock installed on it, it can’t be a rifle no matter how long it is.
 
There is no overall length limit or barrel length limit to a pistol.
That's correct.

If it didn’t start off life as a rifle. . .
It's an Arisaka. We can be highly confident that it started life as a rifle. Sunrise confident.

. . . and it current doesn’t have a stock installed on it, it can’t be a rifle no matter how long it is.
No, I don't think so. Adding a stock to a pistol makes it a rifle (or SBR), but I do not believe removing the stock from a rifle makes it a pistol. Bench resters have been making rail guns with rifle actions for a long time, and I don't think they're all violating NFA.
 
That was my thinking, but I don’t know enough to be sure. If that started off life as a rifle then it’s not a pistol, it’s just a rifle that has had the stock removed.
It's the same as putting a pistol grip on a shotgun with an 18" barrel as long as it's 26" OAL.

While I agree it's not a good looking gun what purpose does it serve. It looks like something that was done because it can and a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
 
No, I don't think so. Adding a stock to a pistol makes it a rifle (or SBR), but I do not believe removing the stock from a rifle makes it a pistol. Bench resters have been making rail guns with rifle actions for a long time, and I don't think they're all violating NFA.
What I posted was correct. If a firearm started off life as a pistol and is currently configured as a pistol, then it’s a pistol no matter how long it is. Like I said, there is no overall length limit to a pistol.

But I agree it’s pretty unlikely that an Arisaka was first made as a pistol.
 
Last edited:
The this question was answered long ago when Thompson/Center produced the Contenders which were made to take both pistol grips and rifle stocks and barrels. Under Federal law, if it started as a pistol it can be changed to a rifle or shotgun and back to a pistol. If it started as a long gun it can't be made a pistol without paperwork through the BATFE.

The bare receivers I've purchased were all sold as pistols. Therefore if I wanted to make a pistol from them, I would first have to assemble them as a pistol.

As noted above, barrel length has nothing to do with whether a gun is a pistol. If I bought a Thompson/Center Encore as a pistol I could put a 20 inch barrel on it with it's pistol grip and it would be a pistol. If I put a rifle stock on it, it would be a rifle.

I can't see how the Arisaka pictured above could be legal as it has a pistol grip which it surely didn't start with.
 
What I posted was correct. If a firearm started off life as a pistol and is currently configured as a pistol, then it’s a pistol no matter how long it is. Like I said, there is no overall length limit to a pistol.

But I agree it’s pretty unlikely that an Arisaka was first made as a pistol.

It is no longer a pistol if a stock is installed, out side of the loopholes like the WWII handguns that had a stock originally with them. This is the law that the entire "pistol brace" market hinges on. You are correct if you are saying that it doesn't matter how long the barrel is, but an addition of a stock to a pistol does change the classification to Short Barreled Rifle, per the ATF.

edit to add: I do not think you are saying differently, I just wanted to clarify the difference between overall length and a stock, for readers who may not know.
 
I can't see how the Arisaka pictured above could be legal as it has a pistol grip which it surely didn't start with.
Simple: it's a rifle. Provided it's OAL is >26" (and we know it's bbl is >16") it's not an SBR, so it's just a rifle.

Pistol's may not have rifle stocks; the opposite is not the case. Benchrest rail guns, with rifle receivers, >16"/26" dimensions, and no stock whatsoever, are rifles.
 
Simple: it's a rifle. Provided it's OAL is >26" (and we know it's bbl is >16") it's not an SBR, so it's just a rifle.
That’s only the case if the firearm started off life as a rifle (which it probably did). And overall length with rifles applies when the stock is installed (and in the extended position if adjustable). If you’re disassembling a rifle and you take the stock off and that causes it to be under 26” overall length, that’s not an NFA violation. Now, if you permanently modify it to not have a stock, that’s different. And it appears from the pic that that’s what was done to the Arisaka, but it’s hard to tell from the tiny pic on my phone.

Pistol's may not have rifle stocks; the opposite is not the case. Benchrest rail guns, with rifle receivers, >16"/26" dimensions, and no stock whatsoever, are rifles.
If a bench rest rail gun was assembled that way and never had a stock installed, then it’s not a rifle. A firearm cannot ever be a rifle if has never had a stock installed on it.

Here’s the definition of “rifle” per federal law, note the part about “intended to be fired from the shoulder”:

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/firear...ion-firearms-gun-control-act-definition-rifle
 
Last edited:
I can’t imagine any way that this is a legal pistol, so I defer to the legal authorities here

https://www.gunbroker.com/item/845946292
It's not a pistol.
As it started life as an Arisaka rifle it remains a rifle. Having had the buttstock cut off doesn't change anything.
If the barrel is indeed 17" and the OAL is at least 26" it remains a rifle under Federal law.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top