AR15 pistol question

[Nowhere Man]

I'm sure this is a basic question but I don't know the answer.

If I have an AR lower and simply remove the stock from the buffer tube, can I use it with a short barrel pistol upper and be legal?


Dave

 

[Snowbandit]

If it was sold/purchased as a rifle it must remain a rifle. You can make a rifle out of a pistol but not the other way around.

 

[Nowhere Man]

If I buy a lower by itself. And, later I buy an 11" upper and a 16" upper, how in the world is anybody going to know if a person switches it back and forth? Or, is it, don't ask/don't tell?

Dave

 

[Buck Kramer]

^^^yes.

 

[Nowhere Man]

Thanks.


Dave

 

[rcmodel]

^^^No!

It is a violation of Federal Law, no matter how you cut it.

And if you get caught, "Don't ask, don't tell" isn't gonna work.

They have ways to make you talk!!

If you want an AR-15 pistol, buy one, or a pistol lower.

But don't violate the NFA knowingly, cause the consequences IF you get caught are far greater then you ever want to deal with.

rc

 

[Nowhere Man]

^^^^ QFT.


Dave

 

[kb58]

Yeah I just read how they finally caught some British guy hiding in the US for 15 years for some big heist in Britain. What did they get him on? Illegal possession of firearms... I agree that it's not something to be playing fast and loose with.

 

[Bovice]

For the AR-15, the actual part which is legally considered a firearm is the lower receiver. If you buy a "rifle" receiver and put a short barrel upper on it without following the NFA regulations and get caught, you are in serious trouble. It doesn't matter that you took the stock off of the buffer tube.

If you buy the AR-15 pistol, the lower receiver will say PISTOL on it and you can put short uppers on all day without breaking the law. Be warned that AR pistols throw a HUGE flash/blast. Don't let the newbies start off with one!

I know it makes no sense, but it isn't supposed to. It's a source of revenue for the government.

 

[rjrivero]

It is a violation of Federal Law, no matter how you cut it.

And if you get caught, "Don't ask, don't tell" isn't gonna work.

They have ways to make you talk!!

If you want an AR-15 pistol, buy one, or a pistol lower.

But don't violate the NFA knowingly, cause the consequences IF you get caught are far greater then you ever want to deal with.

rc

ATF put out Ruling 2011-4 which says you can take a pistol, turn it into a legal rifle, and then turn it back into a pistol without fear of violating NFA rules.

So, you buy a stripped lower, and construct it into an AR Pistol, you CAN, according to NFA Ruling 2011-4, turn it into a LEGAL RIFLE, and then BACK into a pistol. You MUST make it a PISTOL FIRST. Though not specified, or required, I would DOCUMENT IT (Preferably with a picture on a newspaper to prove the date.)

For the AR-15, the actual part which is legally considered a firearm is the lower receiver. If you buy a "rifle" receiver and put a short barrel upper on it without following the NFA regulations and get caught, you are in serious trouble. It doesn't matter that you took the stock off of the buffer tube.

If you buy the AR-15 pistol, the lower receiver will say PISTOL on it and you can put short uppers on all day without breaking the law. Be warned that AR pistols throw a HUGE flash/blast. Don't let the newbies start off with one!

I know it makes no sense, but it isn't supposed to. It's a source of revenue for the government.

This is just plain WRONG. There is NO difference between a "rifle lower" or a "pistol lower." As long as the receiver has NEVER been assembled into a complete RIFLE, you can make a pistol out of it without fear of violating the NFA rules. That means even if you BUY A COMPLETE LOWER WITH A STOCK, as long as it's never had a RIFLE UPPER ON IT to make it a COMPLETE RIFLE, you can take the stock off and make it into a pistol. I can find you the ATF letter. Standby.

 

[ApacheCoTodd]

I see two patches of thin ice on the lake you're contemplating crossing.

1. The possibility of an "intent" charge thrown into the works as a matter of negotiation in a future possible legal brush-up. I have seen EXACTLY this scenario twice so far.

2. An inadvertent assembly of components in the wrong place at the wrong time.

My $400 / hour advice - don't go there till you can dedicate a pistol/NFA lower.

Also - you gotta ask if the "...know a guy..." and "...don't worry..." fellas will cover legal expenses should you stumble. The number of men which I have seen become felons in scenarios which were "never gonna happen" to date number 5.

 

[rjrivero]

I see two patches of thin ice on the lake you're contemplating crossing.

1. The possibility of an "intent" charge thrown into the works as a matter of negotiation in a future possible legal brush-up. I have seen EXACTLY this scenario twice so far.

2. An inadvertent assembly of components in the wrong place at the wrong time.

My $400 / hour advice - don't go there till you can dedicate a pistol/NFA lower.

Also - you gotta ask if the "...know a guy..." and "...don't worry..." fellas will cover legal expenses should you stumble. The number of men which I have seen become felons in scenarios which were "never gonna happen" to date number 5.

I'm not a lawyer. I don't make $400 an hour. I am curious how anyone could argue "intent" if you have all the bits and pieces to make a LEGAL PISTOL AND A LEGAL RIFLE on the same receiver. It's the ATF's own ruling that if not eliminates the intent argument, then at LEAST cripples their ability to prove it.

I can't help you with inadvertent assembly, but only ask you this question: If you DO have an AR Pistol, and an AR Rifle both as you imply, don't you STILL have the possibility of "inadvertent assembly" of an NFA firearm?

I for one would be greatly interested to hear the 5 cases that you allude to. Can you share the cases so we can look them up?

PS: Exactly who are you billing for this bit of advice?

 

[Nowhere Man]

I now know why I didn't know the answer.


Dave

 

[ApacheCoTodd]

RJRIVERO

The point isn't whether an "intent" charge would stick or not but whether or not one wishes to provide a "gimme" charge to be dropped at a later date anyhow in negotiations.

As far as charging - this advice has already been paid for and the resulting experience is being passed along free of charge.

If one does have a separate pistol and rifle (not the scenario that the OP described) then why would one be whipping uppers around? If one possesses a single lower and both uppers as the OP stated might happen - then the opportunity for a felony is significantly greater as is the framework for intent..

 

[rjrivero]

ApacheCoTodd:
Thank you very much for the discussion. I find this stuff very interesting. (I have worked with MANY lawyers in the past, and find the legal system quite intriguing.)

One follow up question: Did this case come up BEFORE, or AFTER July 25, 2011? (the issue date of ATF Ruling 2011-4)

Prior to this date, the ATF stance was squarely opposed to the current letter. (The reason I ask.)

PS. I'm not implying your services aren't worth $400 an hour, merely having some fun. Please don't take any personal offense. Sometimes my humor comes across poorly in the written format.

 

[rjrivero]

I now know why I didn't know the answer.


Dave

I often say the hardest thing for us to do as gun owners is to stay legal. This is one of the most GLARING example of one of those instances.

 

[Bovice]

This is just plain WRONG. There is NO difference between a "rifle lower" or a "pistol lower." As long as the receiver has NEVER been assembled into a complete RIFLE, you can make a pistol out of it without fear of violating the NFA rules. That means even if you BUY A COMPLETE LOWER WITH A STOCK, as long as it's never had a RIFLE UPPER ON IT to make it a COMPLETE RIFLE, you can take the stock off and make it into a pistol. I can find you the ATF letter. Standby.

I never once spoke of the involvement of a stripped lower receiver, so cool your jets and cut the all-caps. Re-read what I posted. You absolutely can not turn a weapon registered as a rifle into a pistol.

 

[ApacheCoTodd]

All of my experiences were certainly before that but what I really took from my experiences is that it all rests within the size of the net which the prosecutor wishes to initially throw. That and what his(her) subject matter experts are willing to toss around as fact.

I've certainly seen prosecutors cherry-pick ATF rulings of opposing positions. One in particular was a Marine in San Diego where the prosecutor wanted to simply ignore an intent guideline regarding clandestine submachine guns while presenting another as "gospel" in a situation where chronology of the ATF documents was immaterial.

 

[rjrivero]

I never once spoke of the involvement of a stripped lower receiver, so cool your jets and cut the all-caps. Re-read what I posted. You absolutely can not turn a weapon registered as a rifle into a pistol.

My apologies. I use caps for emphasis of points I feel are important. (As, may I note, you did in your reply.) I did not mean to insult.

Since the original post asked specifically, "If I have an AR lower and simply remove the stock from the buffer tube, can I use it with a short barrel pistol upper and be legal?"

The answer is clearly "Yes," provided that the receiver has not been built into a complete rifle first.

Obviously we were coming at the question with a different set of assumptions. You are absolutely correct that if you have a Rifle, you can not convert it into a pistol.


The fact that you put "rifle" in quotes, it implied to me that it had a stock. If by "rifle" receiver you intended a receiver that came off of a rifle, then I concede that you are absolutely correct. Again, you have my apologies. And consider my jets cooled.

 

[rjrivero]

All of my experiences were certainly before that but what I really took from my experiences is that it all rests within the size of the net which the prosecutor wishes to initially throw. That and what his(her) subject matter experts are willing to toss around as fact.

I've certainly seen prosecutors cherry-pick ATF rulings of opposing positions. One in particular was a Marine in San Diego where the prosecutor wanted to simply ignore an intent guideline regarding clandestine submachine guns while presenting another as "gospel" in a situation where chronology of the ATF documents was immaterial.

Understood. I would really like to read the proceedings of this case, if you have the reference that I could look up?

 

[hammer502]

maybe i'm wrong here,but if you purchase a complete lower and upon registration at your ffl it is registered as a rifle you must keep it this way. i have been told by my local shop that if it(complete lower) has a stock that they must register it as a rifle. now stripped lowers can be registered as other on the paperwork.

 

[rjrivero]

maybe i'm wrong here,but if you purchase a complete lower and upon registration at your ffl it is registered as a rifle you must keep it this way. i have been told by my local shop that if it(complete lower) has a stock that they must register it as a rifle. now stripped lowers can be registered as other on the paperwork.

I have never registered anything at an ffl. I have filled out the 4473 (if that's what you mean by "registration.") On a 4473 a lower is neither a rifle nor a pistol. It's "other." It's a receiver, and while it's a controlled part, it is neither a rifle nor a pistol. Your dealer should know this, too.

Some states, for instance Michigan, require registration of Pistols. I've heard that some Michigan FFL's require "registering" a lower as a pistol at the time of transfer. I don't know how they navigate that water.

 

[jrumsey]

I have never registered anything at an ffl. I have filled out the 4473 (if that's what you mean by "registration.") On a 4473 a lower is neither a rifle nor a pistol. It's "other." It's a receiver, and while it's a controlled part, it is neither a rifle nor a pistol. Your dealer should know this, too.

Some states, for instance Michigan, require registration of Pistols. I've heard that some Michigan FFL's require "registering" a lower as a pistol at the time of transfer. I don't know how they navigate that water.

I have seen this come up on other forums that some dealers in Mi. want you register at the time of purchase. I am not sure where they came up with this, as it is not a rquirement anywhere I can find. In fact until the receiver is assembled as a rifle or pistol for the first time it is just a part with a serial number that the dealer has to transfer on the 4473. So to me a dealer here in Mi. is asking you to make a false statement and if his name is on the paper work for the state he is too. Sometimes I think people in an effort to do the right thing end up making it worse than it has to be. Just obey the laws and you should be fine.

 

[ApacheCoTodd]

Understood. I would really like to read the proceedings of this case, if you have the reference that I could look up?

They are very interesting and I will try to find reference information which does not require posting the defendants name.
Maybe, if I can find the relative suppressor, CMG and SBR cases I'll put them up in the legal section as worst case scenario lessons. Each has an element of perfect storm in that the defendants, LEOs and prosecutors were all confused in relation to their standing with regards to federal and state firearms regulations.

The most alarming was the CMG charge relative to a malfunctioning firearm.

 

[Nowhere Man]

Please post a link here if you do.


Dave