Pistol stock = SBR?!

[jmorris]

One other "fun fact" about conversions like the mechtech is that once you put it on a pistol frame you have now made a rifle and when you put the pistol topend back on you now have an SBR.

 

[Sam Cade]

One other "fun fact" about conversions like the mechtech is that once you put it on a pistol frame you have now made a rifle and when you put the pistol topend back on you now have an SBR.

Nah.

ATF says you are fine as long as the handgun is assembled into a legal configuration, and you can go back and forth at will.

Mechtech+pistol frame=Title one firearm.

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

 

[Sam1911]

Yes! That is wonderfully true! The ATF did indeed reverse themselves on that opinion (which is not uncommon, of course) and did so in favor of the gun owner (which IS uncommon)!

Who knows...the start of a kindler, gentler, more logical and reasonable ATF?


Ok, now that's just going too far!

 

[Frogman]

You know it would not be bad - the $200 tax stamp if they would throw in the use of a silencer to go with the SBR.

 

[GLOOB]

The old 19th century cavalry troops proved that point when they abandoned the idea of stocks for their revolvers completely, many years before the NFA put a damper on the idea.

Yeah, but red dots hadn't been invented, yet. And what's the rate of aimed fire on a SA revolver, anyway?

 

[Sam1911]

And what's the rate of aimed fire on a SA revolver, anyway?

Actually, that's a good point. A lot faster without a stock than with one, certainly, as the cocking motion is much easier to accomplish with the gun free to be rolled in the hand easily.

 

[jmorris]

ATF says you are fine as long as the handgun is assembled into a legal configuration, and you can go back and forth at will.

That's good news. Talked to them last year about this and at that time the only pistol you could convert back and forth was the contender.

 

[HGUNHNTR]

hope that picture is not really the inside of the vehicle those guns are transported in and is instead some outdoor beat up vehicle that does not run or is a target.

This is because that beer can on the floor is an 'open container' and would give any officer that happened to see it the ability to cause you some trouble. I would hate to see you have your firearm confiscated and the trouble getting them back because you were cited for an open container or arrested for possible intoxicated driving (they will probably fail you on their discretionary field sobriety test if they think you just drank that beer.)

And possibly the most heinous offense...drinking light beer. C'mon, whats that crap!

 

[backbencher]

Sam,

Had forgotten about the KPOS. If they'd make one for the M9, I'd pick one up for my next deployment. I doubt I'll get an M4 next time round.

Do they sell a holster for the KPOS?

FF!

backbencher

 

[Sam Cade]

Do they sell a holster for the KPOS?

Don't think so.

It would be WAY to long to carry holstered.

 

[Zoogster]

Who knows...the start of a kindler, gentler, more logical and reasonable ATF?

No they realized the Supreme Court decision applied to all such firearms based on the details of the actual legal challenges in the Thompson case.
The details of the end ruling are only part of the story, the arguments actually being addressed to bring it to the SCOTUS, combined with the SCOTUS ruling. They even spoke positively of the utility of such a firearm that could go back and forth between legal pistol and rifle configurations.
Absolutely it did not just apply to a single firearm, as was the ATF's crazy interpretation. That is like saying Brown v. Board of Education only applied to that one school, or one county. The Supreme Court rulings never have worked like that, they address the law behind the specific situation, the contested legal issue that took it from the lower courts to them, and so the ATF's conclusion was flipping the bird to the Supreme Court.
The ATF's contrary view would have meant they could readily lose in court if challenged.
For some reason they came to terms with the error of their ways, perhaps in light of the pro-gun momentum across the USA, and instead of sticking with an interpretation in direct opposition to the SCOTUS (by saying SCOTUS meant something else, so 'we are actually just doing what they said') changed their interpretations to comply with SCOTUS.


Now the irony is I think their interpretation which was in contradiction to the SCOTUS ruling kept things more simple across the board. They wanted things to stay simple. It meant less freedom, made no real sense as a restriction, but certainly made for easier enforcement. Assembling a long gun made a long gun, and anything made after was something made from a long gun, an NFA item no matter how it started out originally.
However in modern times with virtually all commercial guns papered and traceable to the manufacturer and/or 4473 to determine what they originally were, enforcement is still quite simple. It's not like someone can claim it was a pistol if it never was.

The SCOTUS may or may not have been right in their interpretation of the laws in question and Thompson sales perhaps shouldn't have been deemed acceptable, I don't know, but it was their clear decision. The ATF's interpretation was certainly in clear and direct violation of the ruling SCOTUS did make.
They didn't like the implications and chose to ignore the SCOTUS ruling by saying their loss in court actually meant what they were arguing in court all along, but only for every single other firearm. Essentially saying they won anyways, refusing to accept the loss.
I imagine SCOTUS would not be too happy dealing with them again on the same issue because the Agency decided to say that the SCOTUS actually meant what the ATF had wanted to be the case all along, lost their argument in court, and then essentially refused to lose by stating it just applied to one gun. I think such clear childish opposition and refusing to accept the SCOTUS decision would have pissed the SCOTUS off.


They came to their senses, ceased violating a SCOTUS ruling, and now we all have the freedom the Thompson case intended many years prior. I don't know if I would call that kinder and gentler or stemming from a more pro-gun attitude, but I am glad they made that decision.
Thanks ATF.

 

[dogtown tom]

Well said Zoogster.

I don't blame ATF entirely. The root problem is a poorly written National Firearms Act.

And THAT was the fault of Congress.