Rifle masquerading as a pistol

[Theohazard]

YOU CAN'T MAKE A PISTOL FROM A RIFLE!!!!!
SO RECORDING IT AS A PISTOL IS A VIOLATION.

But you do you I'm out.

I think you’re missing his point. His point is that it’s not the dealers responsibility to ascertain the legal history of a firearm he receives, he’s simply supposed to record the firearm as it’s actually configured at the time he receives it.

 

[mavracer]

I think you’re missing his point. His point is that it’s not the dealers responsibility to ascertain the legal history of a firearm he receives, he’s simply supposed to record the firearm as it’s actually configured at the time he receives it.

You might claim ignorance and avoid charges good luck.
If you have a pistol built on a Colt model AR15A2 it's not a legal pistol because the receiver was never sold in a stripped version. It would be an unregistered SBR.

Same if you have a pistol with a RUGER receiver marked 10/22.
But like I said you do you.

 

[Elkins45]

The problem in this thread is that there are two different viewpoints being discussed. The OP and dogtown tom are discussing the question from the standpoint of the dealer's responsibilities and liabilities. Everyone else is discussing it from the purchaser's viewpoint. It's absolutely true the FFL has to record the gun as configured when received and has no responsibility to determine if it was originally built as a pistol. It's equally true that the ultimate buyer could find himself in a pickle in the (highly unlikely but still theoretically possible) circumstance where they are found to be in the possession of a rifle illegally configured as a pistol. Presumably the 4473 for that transfer (showing it marked as a pistol) would constitute proof that the buyer wasn't the one who illegally reconfigured it, leaving the ATF or other boogeyman agency to follow the trail thru the FFL to whomever sold/traded it to them.

As a buyer I would have absolutely no hesitation to buy a used AR pistol from a FFL, but I would keep the receipt just in case there were ever a question about how it was configured. I can't imagine this comes up all that often.

 

[FlSwampRat]

The problem in this thread is that there are two different viewpoints being discussed. The OP and dogtown tom are discussing the question from the standpoint of the dealer's responsibilities and liabilities.

One more time I'm going to try to make it clear how the question came up from a discussion with another manager in our chain of pawnshops.
Let's say someone is enamored of the Remington XP-100. Decides to make one by carving the thumbhole stock his Remington 700 down to a pistol style and lops the barrel down to 10.75" like the original.
Doing this is illegal. This gun is also now illegal.
It would be patently obvious looking at this illegal weapon what its path in life has been.
An AR style rifle originally shipped as such is a rifle.
Wouldn't removing the Rifle buffer and stock and replacing it with the pistol version of same and then mounting a pistol upper be the same thing as the remaking of the Rem 700 above and the firearm would be illegal although not as easily discovered to be such, which was entirely the point of my discussion with the other manager.
Reaching out to ATF for clarification by email I received this:
"If was manufactured as a pistol it can be returned to that configuration but not if it was manufactured as a rifle or a receiver."
That would seem to back up what I have been saying all along.

I can't imagine this comes up all that often.

No, I'm sure it doesn't. As we weren't concerned about the legal liability of us as dealers, but merely how easily it would be for the original purchaser to create a problem.
I am quite aware that I don't have a responsibility to backcheck the weapon to the point of manufacture and wasn't worried about legal liability, just a discussion about how easily an AR style rifle could be made illegal.

 

[dogtown tom]

Reaching out to ATF for clarification by email I received this:
"If was manufactured as a pistol it can be returned to that configuration but not if it was manufactured as a rifle or a receiver."
That would seem to back up what I have been saying all along....

Well, your contact at ATF needs to read ATF Ruling 2011-4 because he's wrong: https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/r...red-rifles-rifles-configured-pistols/downloadhttps://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/r...red-rifles-rifles-configured-pistols/download

 

[Elkins45]

"If was manufactured as a pistol it can be returned to that configuration but not if it was manufactured as a rifle or a receiver."

If that were true then no one could ever build a pistol.

 

[FlSwampRat]

If that were true then no one could ever build a pistol.

Well, that's straight from ATF. Take it up with them. You told me to research it, I did.....

 

[FlSwampRat]

Well, your contact at ATF needs to read ATF Ruling 2011-4 because he's wrong: https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/r...red-rifles-rifles-configured-pistols/downloadhttps://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/r...red-rifles-rifles-configured-pistols/download

This is clearly why you have to tread carefully with them, like Tolkein says of going to the Elves for advice, they'll say both yes and no. That's straight from ATF website contact page.

 

[Elkins45]

Well, that's straight from ATF. Take it up with them. You told me to research it, I did.....

I didn't tell you to research anything. You must have me confused with someone else. But regardless, my point stands. If you can't build a pistol from a new bare receiver then there are a lot of illegal pistol builds floating around out there.

 

[FlSwampRat]

I didn't tell you to research anything. You must have me confused with someone else. But regardless, my point stands. If you can't build a pistol from a new bare receiver then there are a lot of illegal pistol builds floating around out there.

Apologies on that, something got crossed, yes.
Anyway, you can build a pistol from a new receiver. It's not ever been built. My point on the whole thread was, according to what I've been told by several people from ATF, two in person, two online, once a gun has been built as a long gun, shotgun or rifle, you can't make it into a pistol. You can, however, go from pistol to rifle and turn it into a long gun and then back to pistol. Why that would be different from just going from rifle to pistol is unclear to me.



The important phrase there is right at the start, "Assuming that the firearm was originally a pistol..."

This is key to the discussion about going from rifle to pistol being illegal.

 

[dogtown tom]

This is clearly why you have to tread carefully with them, like Tolkein says of going to the Elves for advice, they'll say both yes and no. That's straight from ATF website contact page.

Email them back and ask "well, Ruling 2011-4 disagrees......why would you give advice counter to an official ruling?"

Not saying its your case, but I've had other dealers give an erroneous response from ATF based on a poorly or incorrectly phrased question.
One dealer tells me that "ATF says I can't legally ship to your FFL mailing address". When I asked for that ATF IOI's phone # and called that IOI myself, the answer changed. Seems the other dealer didn't ask if it was legal to ship to the FFL mailing address, he asked if it was legal to ship to someone who wasn't an FFL.....my UPS Store isn't an FFL, but it is my FFL mailing and shipping address. (IOI called back and corrected his answer. Dealer still wouldn't ship, saying "it wasn't legal")

 

[FlSwampRat]

Email them back and ask "well, Ruling 2011-4 disagrees......why would you give advice counter to an official ruling?"

I posted full image in another reply. If it was perfectly legal to go from a factory made rifle to a pistol, why have that opening assumption in there?

 

[dogtown tom]

Apologies on that, something got crossed, yes.
Anyway, you can build a pistol from a new receiver. It's not ever been built. My point on the whole thread was, according to what I've been told by several people from ATF, two in person, two online, once a gun has been built as a long gun, shotgun or rifle, you can't make it into a pistol. You can, however, go from pistol to rifle and turn it into a long gun and then back to pistol. Why that would be different from just going from rifle to pistol is unclear to me.

View attachment 896477

The important phrase there is right at the start, "Assuming that the firearm was originally a pistol..."

This is key to the discussion about going from rifle to pistol being illegal.

Whatever you do........don't read the citations to that FAQ right below. One is Ruling 2011-4 that says otherwise.

While the FAQ's are a quick and easy reference, only a fool would rely on them instead of reading the citations to Federal law, CFR or the ATF Ruling.
It's long been known that the FAQ'a are rife with errors, for example:
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/may-nonlicensee-ship-firearm-common-or-contract-carrier

May a nonlicensee ship a firearm by common or contract carrier?
A nonlicensee may ship a firearm by a common or contract carrier to a resident of his or her or her own state or to a licensee in any state. A common or contract carrier must be used to ship a handgun.

In addition, federal law requires that the carrier be notified that the shipment contains a firearm or ammunition, prohibits common or contract carriers from requiring or causing any label to be placed on any package indicating that it contains a firearm and requires obtaining written acknowledgement of receipt.

[18 U.S.C. 922(a)(2)(A), 922(a)(5), 922(e) and (f); 27 CFR 478.30 and 478.31]

See that part in red? Well, that's bogus. Read the citations and you'll discover Federal law only requires notification to the carrier when shipping interstate to another nonlicensee. (and with only a couple of narrow exceptions, that's a Federal crime itself)

 

[dogtown tom]

The important phrase there is right at the start, "Assuming that the firearm was originally a pistol..."

This is key to the discussion about going from rifle to pistol being illegal.

And thats why we are pointing out the error.......hundreds of thousands of frames and receivers (firearms) can be built into "pistols", yet were not "originally a pistol".

 

[danez71]

Email them back and ask "well, Ruling 2011-4 disagrees......why would you give advice counter to an official ruling?"

Does it?

It's largely about Thompson Contender and similar.... which seems different scenario than what the OP is about.

 

[mavracer]

From ruling 2011-4
"Nonetheless, if a handgun or other weapon with an overall length of less than 26 inches, or
a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length is assembled or otherwise produced from
a weapon originally assembled or produced only as a rifle, such a weapon is a “weapon
made from a rifle” as defined by 26 U.S.C. 5845(a)(4). Such a weapon would not be a
“pistol” because the weapon was not originally designed, made, and intended to fire a
projectile by one hand."
Some AR lowers were only avaliable as rifles same with a Ruger 10/22 receiver. They can't be pistols.

 

[FlSwampRat]

From ruling 2011-4
"Nonetheless, if a handgun or other weapon with an overall length of less than 26 inches, or
a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length is assembled or otherwise produced from
a weapon originally assembled or produced only as a rifle, such a weapon is a “weapon
made from a rifle” as defined by 26 U.S.C. 5845(a)(4). Such a weapon would not be a
“pistol” because the weapon was not originally designed, made, and intended to fire a
projectile by one hand."
Some AR lowers were only avaliable as rifles same with a Ruger 10/22 receiver. They can't be pistols.

This goes to the heart of my discussion with the other manager. Such a weapon would be illegal. Legal liabilities aside for the ffl taking it in and reselling, we were simply discussing how easy it would be to take in an illegal weapon, whether we could easily tell its legal status.
Mainly we decided that so many of the laws were out of date with today's gun world and needed to be redone.

 

[dogtown tom]

Does it?

It's largely about Thompson Contender and similar.... which seems different scenario than what the OP is about.

The TC case was about a "kit" consisting of a rifle length barrel, pistol barrel, buttstock and a receiver. At some point ATF decided that swapping back and forth between pistol, rifle, pistol, rifle was "making a pistol from a rifle" and a violation of the NFA. TC disagreed and so di the US Supreme Court. Decades later, ATF came out with this ruling. While the ruling references the Thompson Center case, its clearly not just about the TC case, but ANY pistol that is converted to a rifle AND subsequent reconfiguration as a pistol.
It is germane as the OP asked about the legalities of an AR rifle with a lower marked "pistol".....a marking that has zero impact on whether the firearm ever was in fact a "pistol".

 

[dogtown tom]

Some AR lowers were only avaliable as rifles same with a Ruger 10/22 receiver. They can't be pistols.

No kidding.
Several manufacturers produce 10/22 receivers, not just Ruger. Any of them can be initially assembled as a pistol, then subsequently configured as a rifle and later back to pistol.

 

[Elkins45]

Mainly we decided that so many of the laws were out of date with today's gun world and needed to be redone.

The AR platform is ground zero for this, especially in light of the recent decisions not to prosecute that were based on the realization that an AR lower doesn’t meet the letter of the law regarding the GCA definition of a firearm. It’s going to be fascinating to see how that one gets resolved.

The pistol-rifle-pistol thing is stupid. It’s entirely a matter of semantics...but more than one person found themselves in the hot seat because of semantics.

 

[dogtown tom]

This goes to the heart of my discussion with the other manager.
.......... we were simply discussing how easy it would be to take in an illegal weapon, whether we could easily tell its legal status.

You can't.
And I doubt you'll ever see a prosecution for the following:
Person 1 buys a Colt AR rifle.
He disassembles the lower receiver and sells it on GunBroker, shipping to Bills Bait and Gun.
Bill does what legally required and records the acquisition of an Other Firearm....a receiver.
Person 2 (the buyer) completes the Form 4/NICS for an Other Firearm...a receiver and the dealer transfers it to him.

While the firearm was originally a rifle, Person 2 is not in any way obligated or required to research the history of the firearm.
But......that lower cannot be configured as anything but a rifle or after paying a tax stamp for an SBR.

If Person 2 were to assemble as a pistol or other firearm, ATF would bear the burden of proof to prove that they knew the receiver could not be assembled as anything other than a rifle. Person 2 could point to their 4473 and the dealer would verify that he did indeed transfer a firearm frame or receiver and not a rifle.

That's a hot mess. One that ATF doesn't want to see in the courts for the same reasons as the Thompson Center case. Does that make the firearm in the above scenario legal? Not according to ATF.

ATF IOI's don't run around in the woods, go to gun ranges or chase down serial#'s ........they don't have enough to even do compliance inspection on more than 10% of licensees a year. I've been in business for eleven and a half years, three compliance inspections and not once did an IOI care one bit whether the Colt AR lower recorded in my books as an "Other" had ever been a rifle.

And for the sake of argument, suppose you are building an AR from the ground up. The LAST part you have on your kitchen table is a shoulder stock. What firearm do you have on the table in front of you? That there....is a pistol. Now you put on the shoulder stock.

 

[dogtown tom]

The AR platform is ground zero for this, especially in light of the recent decisions not to prosecute that were based on the realization that an AR lower doesn’t meet the letter of the law regarding the GCA definition of a firearm. It’s going to be fascinating to see how that one gets resolved.

Another example of ATF not wanting a decision from the judiciary. Thats why they dropped those cases so quick.
They can fix the definition of receiver in about three months, same way Trump had them redefine bumpstocks as machine guns.

The pistol-rifle-pistol thing is stupid. It’s entirely a matter of semantics...but more than one person found themselves in the hot seat because of semantics.

Yup. Its interesting to read the comments made by Scalia in US vs TC

 

[MistWolf]

FlSwampRat, as easy as it is to assemble an AR into an illegal configuration, it's just as easy to make it legal again. Just separate the upper from the lower.

You're right that the laws are outmoded.

 

[MistWolf]

I understand that. You receive it as a pistol, there is no way to confirm it was originally a rifle without the original paperwork from the seller. If it WAS a rifle converted to a pistol, it is illegal. If you receive it as an SBR (with a stock not a brace) you can verify if it’s a legal SBR by contacting the NFA Division. If they don’t show it registered, it is an illegal SBR.

What am I missing?

The fact that an SBR cannot be transferred without the proper paperwork.

 

[Sour Kraut]

The fact that an SBR cannot be transferred without the proper paperwork.

“I” know that, and that’s the easy part. Verify or rule out it it’s an SBR by contacting NFA Div.