Handgun, into rifle, back into handgun?

[Prometheus]

So, I hate when people say something's legal, but don't provide any proof

Our law system is defaulted that anything not prohibited is, by default legal. I know thats where you were going, but just doing a little

In any eventif my wife SBR's her sig p556 that she can never "un" SBR it.

Is that correct? Once she fills out the paperwork and gets it declared an SBR that's it. It can never be brought back to pistol status. She'll never be able to return it factory pistol specs and sell it (or keep it) as a pistol. It would have to be transferred as an SBR forever.

Correct?

 

[paddling_man]

Is there something else that I'm not aware of

Lots. For all of us. That's why we ask these questions.

A bit of judgment from the BATF:

If the BATF were "gunning" for you, then a disclaimer on the manufacturer website isn't going to save you in court. I would probably purchase a MechTech if I were even **remotely** interested in one and not feel too concerned. Be aware, you *could* have a problem if it is ever contested and Nate poses a valid concern.

Discussed before here:
Questions about Mech-Tech Carbines - Glock Talk

 

[paddling_man]

Have a nice day.

 

[ashylarry]

Our law system is defaulted that anything not prohibited is, by default legal. I know thats where you were going, but just doing a little

In any eventif my wife SBR's her sig p556 that she can never "un" SBR it.

Is that correct? Once she fills out the paperwork and gets it declared an SBR that's it. It can never be brought back to pistol status. She'll never be able to return it factory pistol specs and sell it (or keep it) as a pistol. It would have to be transferred as an SBR forever.

Correct?

I dont know if anyone would want to buy a firearm that is engraved with your name/manufacture information on it. And it would also be on a form 1. And I dont know for sure if you can transfer a form 1, I think form 4 is transferable. Which means she would have to buy the 556 as a SBR origonally.

Someone correct me if I am wrong.

 

[NateIU10]

Our law system is defaulted that anything not prohibited is, by default legal. I know thats where you were going, but just doing a little

In any eventif my wife SBR's her sig p556 that she can never "un" SBR it.

Is that correct? Once she fills out the paperwork and gets it declared an SBR that's it. It can never be brought back to pistol status. She'll never be able to return it factory pistol specs and sell it (or keep it) as a pistol. It would have to be transferred as an SBR forever.

Correct?

You can have it removed from the registry, they keep your money of course though

 

[ashylarry]

So according to that letter posted above, if you put a mech tech conversion on your 1911 style pistol then go back to pistol you are in violation of NFA?

 

[NateIU10]

So according to that letter posted above, if you put a mech tech conversion on your 1911 style pistol then go back to pistol you are in violation of NFA?

That's the way it looks to me

 

[flightsimmer]

(8) The term "short-barreled rifle"
means a rifle having one or more bar-
rels less than sixteen inches in length
and any weapon made from a rifle
(whether by alteration, modification, or
otherwise) if such weapon, as modified,
has an overall length of less than
twenty-six inches.

The Mech-Tech barrel is 16-1/2" so it would not qualify as Short Barreled rifle.
It has an Overall length of 33" and is not made or modified from a rifle.
It is classified as a "handgun accessory" and is exempt from Federal Law.
Did I miss anything else?
Have a great day, Dan.

 

[ashylarry]

Did I miss anything else?

To ME the 2nd paragraph 2nd sentence means you can put a mech tech on the pistol, but it has to stay there.

 

[NateIU10]

(8) The term "short-barreled rifle"
means a rifle having one or more bar-
rels less than sixteen inches in length
and any weapon made from a rifle
(whether by alteration, modification, or
otherwise) if such weapon, as modified,
has an overall length of less than
twenty-six inches.

The Mech-Tech barrel is 16-1/2" so it would not qualify as Short Barreled rifle.
It has an Overall length of 33" and is not made or modified from a rifle.
It is classified as a "handgun accessory" and is exempt from Federal Law.
Did I miss anything else?
Have a great day, Dan.

The Mech-Tec IS legal. No one is disputing that fact. Taking the Mech-Tec off and putting a handgun upper on gives you the short OAL and barrel, making it an SBR, as it was made from a rifle. The ATF letter posted clearly states that. It's not legal. Did I miss anything?

Also, a handgun accessory has nothing to do with Federal law, so I have no idea why you'd think that excuses it? A barrel is a rifle accessory, so I can buy any barrel and put it on an AR15 because it's exempt from Federal law? Nope, it's the configuration you put it in, not the actual items themselves.

ETA: Did you even read the ATF letter? It says my points exactly.

 

[paddling_man]

Did I miss anything else?
Have a great day, Dan.

Yes.

If one carries the example of the (legal) Uzi pistol being placed into a (legal) rifle configuration by adding a barrel longer than 16" and a stock *then,* extrapolating the above example, pistol becomes a short-barreled rifle when the mechtech is removed.

That is, if one carries forward the argument that the analogy is consistent between the referenced Uzi and the 1911. The legal status would appear to be the same.

I don't really have a nickel in the kitty other than my interest was piqued when the thread appeared to take on an ugly tone. I would feel comfortable buying a MechTech if I found them interesting as anything other than a novelty. For my money, in a pistol-cartridge rifle, I would prefer a Marlin lever gun in .357 or .44. Still, I wouldn't want to be the one the BATF decided to make an example of by establishing/confirming case law with the MechTech. I'm an engineer - not an attorney - however, I think the MechTech owner would lose.

Have a lovely day.

​

 

[flightsimmer]

Yes.

If one carries the example of the (legal) Uzi pistol being placed into a (legal) rifle configuration by adding a barrel longer than 16" and a stock *then,* extrapolating the above example, pistol becomes a short-barreled rifle when the mechtech is removed.

That is, if one carries forward the argument that the analogy is consistent between the referenced Uzi and the 1911. The legal status would appear to be the same.

I don't really have a nickel in the kitty other than my interest was piqued when the thread appeared to take on an ugly tone. I would feel comfortable buying a MechTech if I found them interesting as anything other than a novelty. For my money, in a pistol-cartridge rifle, I would prefer a Marlin lever gun in .357 or .44. Still, I wouldn't want to be the one the BATF decided to make an example of by establishing/confirming case law with the MechTech. I'm an engineer - not an attorney - however, I think the MechTech owner would lose.

Have a lovely day.

OK then, that takes care of the Uzi's, the AR-15's and we've covered the Thompson Center Contender (of which I had one). Now check out the "Handgun Accessory" section which it is said that the Mech-Tech is listed in and see if it is truly "exempt" or not.

This is getting truly interesting and is a fine example of what I said about flying.

By the way, I am not upset about this conversation. We truly need to know the truth about the regulations and how it is applied but I fear there will be no end to it untill someone goes to court over it.

I'll call Mech-Tech tomorrow and see if they can enlighten us on chapter and verse as it applies to them. Dan.

 

[NateIU10]

OK then, that takes care of the Uzi's, the AR-15's and we've covered the Thompson Center Contender (of which I had one). Now check out the "Handgun Accessory" section which it is said that the Mech-Tech is listed in and see if it is truly "exempt" or not.

This is getting truly interesting and is a fine example of what I said about flying.

By the way, I am not upset about this conversation. We truly need to know the truth about the regulations and how it is applied but I fear there will be no end to it untill someone goes to court over it.

I'll call Mech-Tech tomorrow and see if they can enlighten us on chapter and verse as it applies to them. Dan.

The thompson case is specific to Thompson. The letter about the Uzi is about ALL handguns, converted to rifles. It has nothing to do with what you call "accessories." It's about the configuration of the rifle/handgun. You're making a rifle as per the USC, then making a SBR, also per the USC. I don't see how you're still confused

Again, read the letter about the Uzi, it's talking about how you turn it into a rifle, and as such cannot be turned back into a pistol without a Form 1. This applies to ALL handguns. It's about the definitions of each firearm, not about whether something is an accessory or not.

If a 1911 has a stock that attaches to the barrel bushing (no such thing exists as far as I know), are you saying that since it's just an accessory, it would be legal to have a short barrel on it? . I'm not upset either, I just don't understand your reasoning with the USC being so clear, and now the proof from the BATFE



IT'S ABOUT HOW YOU HAVE THE COMPONENTS ARRANGED!

 

[flightsimmer]

(snip)> IT'S ABOUT HOW YOU HAVE THE COMPONENTS ARRANGED!

Exactly! The stock is not attached to the frame, it is attached to the slide or upper unit.

Government regs are as clear as mud sometimes and sometimes there is no rhime or reason to them. It seems like they don't know what there doing. Oh, did I say that?

I'll see what Mech-Tech say's and if they can back it up. Dan.

 

[RonPaulSupporter]

I'll see what Mech-Tech say's and if they can back it up. Dan.

I doubt they will give you a clear answer, most people aren't familiar with the laws regarding NFA firearms.
I have to agree though that with the ATF letter and my looking at the current law, it is illegal to configure a pistol as a rifle and then change it back to pistol configuration. Like said in the letter it constitutes manufacturing an illegal SBR. The fact that something is an accessory and not a firearm is irrelevant. By the same logic I could buy an unregistered auto sear and use it in an AR-15 to make it fully automatic just because it's only an accessory.

 

[NateIU10]

(snip)> IT'S ABOUT HOW YOU HAVE THE COMPONENTS ARRANGED!

Exactly! The stock is not attached to the frame, it is attached to the slide or upper unit.

Government regs are as clear as mud sometimes and sometimes there is no rhime or reason to them. It seems like they don't know what there doing. Oh, did I say that?

I'll see what Mech-Tech say's and if they can back it up. Dan.

It doesn't matter what the stock is attached to, except that it's attached to the firearm in a way that fulfills the definition of a rifle as previously stated. If Mech-Tec says they're willing to foot the bill for lawyer fees, that's the only way I'd listen to legal advice from a telephone operator

 

[flightsimmer]

OK then, let's look for a moment at the intent of the law in the case of converting a legal pistol (1911 or Glock) into a full sized rifle (Mech-Tech, CCU) because it does have a barrel over 16" and an overall length greater than 26" and cannot be made any shorter without a major modification because the stock is permanently attached (welded) to the upper unit and not the (regulated) lower unit. Is it to regulate weapons of mass destruction? Is it to regulate concealable high power weapons or what? Also, how does this compare with the Thompson Center Contender ruling other than it being a semi-auto self loading pistol caliber weapon and not a "high power rifle" caliber?

It is very clear too me that we need a definitive answer to this question and to know exactly how the BATFE looks at the Mech-Tech, CCU (Carbine Conversion Unit) in particular before this can be settled.

Mech-Tech Systems Inc. has declared that the CCU is exempt from federal regulation but how does this apply? Is it that the CCU itself is a legal non-firearm without a lower unit attached or is it legal even with a fully functioning lower unit attached?

Inquiring minds need too know.

Have a great day Guy's and Girl's, I will dig into this deeper and see. Dan.

 

[flightsimmer]

It has just occured to me (I don't know why it took so long) that the place to get a trusted definitive answer on the Mech-Tech, CCU would be the NRA. Does anybody who knows how want to ask them for the sake of this discussion? If not, I'll give it a try. Dan.

 

[NateIU10]

Look, it's about turning a rifle into a handgun. This act is illegal. That's why the other cases have bearing on the present.

You convert the handgun (1911) into a longgun (16+inch barrel and stock designed to be fired from the shoulder through a rifled bore.) Can we agree on this?

If so, then the definition of a longgun is what applies to the firearm now. Agree?

ANY longgun, be it designed or redesigned as such, cannot be turned into a handgun, as it would classify it as a SBR.

I honestly don't see where you are getting any information that says it would be legal?

 

[flightsimmer]

I haven't heard back from the NRA yet but this link (below) is why I still question if it is legal or not. A lot of CCU owners are apparently not aware of it if it is illegal. We need to hear it from the High Priest before we all get in trouble with Uncle Sam.

Legality of Mech Tech CCU, 10mm and .40SW [Archive] - Glock Talk

By the way, I do understand what your saying about converting it back to a pistol and yes it sounds correct to me but why does Mech-Tech claim a Federal exemption for the CCU? I'm waiting to hear back from them also. Dan.