AR-15 Pistol to Rifle, and later NFA SBR'd?

[coloradokevin]

Okay, so I'm just looking to clear up a few things that I'm pretty sure I have correct with the laws (and figured some of you might know). I'm thinking of building an AR-15 from the ground up using a stripped lower receiver. My ultimate goal is to pay the tax stamp and register this gun as a short barreled rifle in .300 Blackout, but obviously there is a waiting period to do all of this. As such, I don't want to get in any legal hot water with the ATF while waiting for things to clear on their end.

What I'd like to do is as follows:

1) Buy the receiver and the short upper that will later be used in the finished short barreled rifle.

2) Build the AR-15 as a pistol first, and ensure that everything works like I want it to. I'll probably use a pistol buffer tube at this time just to make sure there are no illusions of this being an illegal SBR.

3) Send off the Form 1 and check for the tax stamp to make this into an SBR. Get the engraving done on the receiver.

4) Get my tax stamp, then add a carbine buffer tube and stock to the existing AR-15 "pistol", which will then become a legal SBR.


Here's how I understand the law with respect to AR-15 pistols (generally):

You are allowed to build a new (i.e. "never been a rifle") receiver into either a pistol or a rifle from the start. If you build a pistol from the start you can later change to a rifle configuration, and then go back to a pistol configuration. But, if you build a rifle from the start you are always stuck with a rifle configuration. And, obviously I understand the 16" barrel requirement on the rifle build until a stamp clears for the shorter length.


Does all of this sound correct?



NOTE: I've been through the process on NFA items before, but I've never done the AR-15 build to short barreled rifle process.

 

[Sam1911]

You've got it right.

 

[Trailduster79]

That sounds right to me. I am building a pistol with the thought that I could convert it to a rifle later if I didn't like or of wanted to go SBR.

I understood it the same, if I went rifle first, I could not go back to a pistol.

 

[HRnightmare]

Sounds like a solid plan.

MY first SBR, I did something similar to what you did. I already had a full AR rifle that I liked so I registered that lower as my SBR. I then bought a pistol length upper and a pistol lower (right before Sandy Hook when they were a dime a dozen) I mounted the optics and sights, sighted it in on the pistol lower and kept it assembled as such. Stamp came in, 15 seconds later and my SBR was assembled.

My one reccomendation would be to look into a good flash suppressor / muzzle brake. I dont know about 300 but my 7.62X39 and 5.56/.223 SBR puts out a percussion and flame that makes the guy to my right's head hurt.

Good luck.

 

[<*(((><]

ColoradoKevin, "You are allowed to build a new (i.e. "never been a rifle") receiver into either a pistol or a rifle from the start. If you build a pistol from the start you can later change to a rifle configuration, and then go back to a pistol configuration. But, if you build a rifle from the start you are always stuck with a rifle configuration. And, obviously I understand the 16" barrel requirement on the rifle build until a stamp clears for the shorter length."


Are you sure you can go back and forth from rifle to pistol when built as a pistol? I was under the impression you cannot go from a pistol to rifle back to a pistol, unless you sbr'd it before you went back to a pistol. To build a pistol it has to never have been a rifle, and by that definition you created an NFA item when you went from rifle back to pistol. (EDIT: Now come to think of it I believe the Thompson Contender and Beretta NEOS changed that, so I could be wrong)

Other than the above you have your order of operations right with building a pistol from a virgin receiver (I think you are smart for using a pistol buffer tube in the mean time), using it as such as you wait for the tax stamp and then once approved and tax stamp in hand you can replace the buffer tube and add a stock, and you are now an owner of a legal SBR.

 

[deadin]

Question...... If he has all of the parts for the various configurations before receiving the tax stamp, might he run into the "Constructive Possession" rule? (Or does that even exist anymore?)

 

[pdsmith505]

If he has the parts to make a pistol, then constructive possession does not apply. Only if there is NO use for the parts other than an SBR does constructive possession.

 

[Jlr2267]

Wait. I always thought if you buy a stripped lower, it is classified as "other" and not rifle or handgun. That receiver could then be used for either, interchangeably. If you built an SBR then it would always be SBR and could not be converted to pistol, but otherwise it could be changed back/forth.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

Constructive possession still exists but in a much more mild form.

Unless they change their mind (which the ATF never does ) Ruling 2011-4 is their current policy.

They fought US v. Thompson/Contender for 19 years and then suddenly and unexpectedly considered it a general ruling (not applying only to TC).

when unassembled parts are placed in close proximity in such a way that they . . . serve no useful purpose other than to make a rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length

"Close proximity is pretty vague". Under a different roof probably meets the requirement. I've kept receivers, barrels, and stock adapters in my safe deposit box about 25 miles from my house so I could do machine work while waiting for stamps (esp. during the post-Dorner bad time when I had 3 11 month stamps).

As a practical matter, a prosecutor is probably going to want to call same house or car "close proximity" if you have too many parts in one place and at the same time and call a different gun case or different safe not close if you have two few parts in the same place. This is analogous to the common case of the very same prosecutor or prosecutor's office arguing much different definitions of "serious injury" in self-defense cases and domestic violence cases.

Mike

 

[bikemutt]

I did my AR15 SBR just as you proposed. I went the extra step when I purchased the stripped lower of also submitting a WA state pistol transfer form which is only required for pistols. While not proof of anything it at least speaks to intent, which was to make it a pistol.

 

[Sam1911]

Are you sure you can go back and forth from rifle to pistol when built as a pistol?

Yes. This was definitively clarified by an ATF ruling in 2011: https://www.atf.gov/files/regulations-rulings/rulings/atf-rulings/atf-ruling-2011-4.pdf

 

[Sam1911]

Wait. I always thought if you buy a stripped lower, it is classified as "other" and not rifle or handgun.

That is the correct box to check on the 4473 form. But you can't shoot a bare lower, so you'll have to build it into either a handgun or rifle in order to use it.

That receiver could then be used for either, interchangeably.

Right. However, if you FIRST build it into a rifle, then the ATF says "once a rifle, always a rifle" applies, per the text of the NFA'34. (I.e.: creating an NFA-regulated "Firearm made from a rifle.")

If you built an SBR then it would always be SBR and could not be converted to pistol, but otherwise it could be changed back/forth.

If you do "SBR" it, sure, you can change it into pistol configuration if you want. You can also change it into a regular non-NFA rifle by adding a 16"+ barrel.

 

[Jlr2267]

Right. However, if you FIRST build it into a rifle, then the ATF says "once a rifle, always a rifle" applies, per the text of the NFA'34. (I.e.: creating an NFA-regulated "Firearm made from a rifle.")

How could the ATF possibly know the receiver's history, if sold as " other"? That ruling, if you have interpreted it correctly, would be 100% unenforceable.

 

[Sam1911]

How could the ATF possibly know the receiver's history, if sold as " other"? That ruling, if you have interpreted it correctly, would be 100% unenforceable.

Oh, no worries. They didn't say they had a clear and realistic way of enforcing it. They just explained what the law seems to say. (And yeah, I've interpreted it correctly...)

Of course this is largely unenforceable. Not COMPLETELY unenforceable...I'm sure there's some combination of events and evidences that might be brought together to provide reasonable enough proof to prosecute somebody, somehow. But darned unlikely.

But really, they don't have to tell you what they could realistically prosecute you for. They just are telling you how to follow the law. "Do it THIS way, not THAT way and you'll be within the letter of the law."

That's not quite the same thing as, "Do it THIS way, not THAT way, or we'll be able to easily put you in prison."

Some folks just like to follow the law, period, and don't quibble over whether an enforcement agency is likely to be able to bust them or not. Others will only follow a law if they don't think they can get away with breaking it.

 

[jerkface11]

As cheap as lowers are why bother?

 

[bikemutt]

Right. However, if you FIRST build it into a rifle, then the ATF says "once a rifle, always a rifle" applies, per the text of the NFA'34. (I.e.: creating an NFA-regulated "Firearm made from a rifle.")

I was corrected on this here once before, shouldn't it read "first a rifle, always a rifle"?

 

[coloradokevin]

Thanks for the replies everyone, I'm glad to know that I was on the right path with all of this.

As cheap as lowers are why bother?

Why bother with what? Are you referring to the idea of going from pistol to rifle and back, or talking about building a pistol before the Form 1 NFA approval for SBR approval?

To me, the biggest advantage to doing things this way is that it allows me to possess all of the pieces I'll need to build my finished product without accidentally falling under a constructive intent issue. In other words, I can work on the build while I'm waiting on my tax stamp without worrying that I might have bought a part too soon to stay legal (ex: I can build my short upper for use on the AR pistol until the tax stamp comes back, at which point a simple buffer tube swap and stock addition would allow me to have my registered SBR).

 

[Jlr2267]

Some folks just like to follow the law, period, and don't quibble over whether an enforcement agency is likely to be able to bust them or not. Others will only follow a law if they don't think they can get away with breaking it.

Well, count me in that 1 st group. But to follow the law, it seems one must first *understand* it. There is the letter of the law, then there is the *spirit* of the law...these days violating either can get you into hot water if you're not of the ruling class.

Maybe I am asking too much by wanting to understand rather than to blindly follow.

 

[OilyPablo]

Seems like fellows have you covered on the "law". I am just learning as well and have done almost exactly as you propose. I even went to the extent of removing any and all AR rifle buttstocks from the area just to be safe. I am now waiting after efiling.

Now here is the negative part, well at least for me and it's the reason I never wanted an AR pistol. Mine has an 11" barrel and is 10mm. It's an absolute pain in the rump to hold and shoot unless you are Brutus. Even with a Sig brace well strapped to my wrist, it's just not much fun. Maybe some people like it, I don't. And the only reason I'm doing it is to dial the gun in.

 

[MachIVshooter]

I even went to the extent of removing any and all AR rifle buttstocks from the area just to be safe. I am now waiting after efiling

Unnecessary.

While I would advise people not to have a short upper around if they do not have a pistol or registered SBR lower that it can lawfully be affixed to, there's no problem with having those stocks around unless you do not have a legal title I rifle or SBR.

Basically, if the collection of parts you have can be assembled into legal configurations, our justice system has to operate under the assumption that that is your intent unless it can be proved otherwise. If you have two stripped lowers, a rifle lower build kit, a pistol lower build kit, a 10" upper and a 16" upper, they have to assume that you mean to build two firearms, a 10" pistol and a 16" rifle. Just because you could assemble an illegal SBR and a really ungainly 16" pistol doesn't mean that you will or intend to.

If simply having the means to make an unregistered NFA weapon were sufficient, anyone with a hacksaw would be in danger, not to mention those of us with mills and lathes. Fortunately, our system is set up in such a way that having the ability to do something unlawful does not constitute a crime.

 

[MistWolf]

Constructive Intent in this case applies only if you have a rifle lower with no rifle upper for it and a pistol upper with no pistol or SBR lower for it.

That means if you have a complete rifle and a pistol upper, you're legal.

If you have a complete pistol or complete SBR and a rifle lower, you're legal.

If you have a rifle lower with no rifle upper and a pistol upper with no no pistol or SBR lower, they can prosecute for Constructive Intent

 

[OilyPablo]

Thanks guys for the clarification. Somebody on another forum got me a bit anxious. As much as I think all firearm laws are stupid and some just plain silly, this variety I don't want to put my family at jeopardy of our benign government. Since I have other AR rifles and a complete AR pistol, I'm GTG.

 

[dogtown tom]

MistWolf Constructive Intent in this case applies only if you have a rifle lower with no rifle upper for it and a pistol upper with no pistol or SBR lower for it.

That means if you have a complete rifle and a pistol upper, you're legal.

If you have a complete pistol or complete SBR and a rifle lower, you're legal.

If you have a rifle lower with no rifle upper and a pistol upper with no no pistol or SBR lower, they can prosecute for Constructive Intent

1. There is no such thing as "rifle lower" or "pistol lower".
2. There is no such thing as "Constructive Intent"

 

[Jlr2267]

For the sake of those of us who might build both rifles and pistols, when is the original build considered a "pistol"? Let's say you have 5 brand new stripped lowers lying around and don't want to keep track of each one's history, so you decide to initially build each as a pistol.

When the pistol extension is attached to receiver is that enough? When the upper is attached? BCG? Magazine? Sights? Does it need to be "used" as a pistol (ie, fired) before it would be considered a pistol? Can one use the same parts for all 5 builds or does each require its own parts?

 

[Sam1911]

Some folks just like to follow the law, period, and don't quibble over whether an enforcement agency is likely to be able to bust them or not. Others will only follow a law if they don't think they can get away with breaking it.

Well, count me in that 1 st group. But to follow the law, it seems one must first *understand* it. There is the letter of the law, then there is the *spirit* of the law...these days violating either can get you into hot water if you're not of the ruling class.

Maybe I am asking too much by wanting to understand rather than to blindly follow.

Maybe you are.

Look, there is a law this is all based upon. It was written in 1934 and is called the "National Firearms Act." It is not a good law. Aside from merely having a very bad intent, it was also written very poorly, with no imagination to picture all the questions the law would leave unanswered. Further, it was written long before modern firearms technology developed very far and didn't account for many of the little twists and turns and in-betweens folks would come up with that didn't fit well into the basic framework of that law.

The BATFE is tasked with enforcing that law. They are given the power to "regulate" firearms technology so as to try to fit the gun world into the little boxes written into the old NFA. They honestly do about the best they can to keep things reasonably consistent with a document that is inherently contradictory and makes their lives a sort of hell, I'm sure.

The more you understand the law, as you're seeking to do, the more you will see why there are a lot of kind of twisted, stretched, rulings made in at attempt to apply it to the real world.

Like this one, that says if you first build an AR receiver into a rifle, it has to remain a rifle -- or a Title II "Firearm made from a rifle." (What most of us call "SBRs.")

Try to understand it if it helps, but in the end the easiest way to keep your sanity is to look at their rulings and simply say, "Oh, so THAT's how they're going to enforce this one? Fine. So be it."