Short barrel rifle build questions

[SemperFiUSMC]

And that proves my point exactly. NOWHERE in those definitions does it mention how the firearm was transferred. It is ALL about the physical attributes of the firearm. If you're saying those definitions prove your point and disprove mine then you're on some pretty serious drugs... It very plainly lays out the physical attributes that make it a rifle, SBR, or pistol. The fact that a firearm was mistakenly transferred under the wrong category on the 4473 doesn't change it's physical attributes. A pistol that has ALWAYS met the physical qualifications for a pistol from the point of manufacture all the way to the owner's hands doesn't miraculously become a rifle when the FFL checks the wrong box on the form; the physical attributes remain the same.

I'm seriously willing to learn here but if you don't have any credible evidence (as it appears you don't) then just tell us. You don't have to keep trolling. If there is no credible evidence then I'll write a clarification letter to the ATF and get the story first-hand and I'll be sure to post it up here when I get the response.

ATF Ruling 2003-308. Enjoy. I'm outtie.

 

[CountryBoy19]

ATF Ruling 2003-308. Enjoy. I'm outtie.

Outtie because you know you made an incorrect statement that you couldn't back up with any credible evidence so you're running away?

I can't seem to find 2003-308 anywhere but I find what the Firearm Law Deskbook has to say about it. FWIW, those of you that aren't in the know, the Firearm Law Deskbook is a very expensive, very comprehensive deskbook that is put together by a very large legal research team/company called Westlaw. The book costs several hundred dollars and is one of the best resources one could have. So without further time wasting, lets see what it has to say. It does not specifically list each ATF ruling, but it researches rulings and makes "legal conclusions" based upon that research.

The ruling SemperFi is talking about is from Oct 30, 2003 when the Chief of the FTB BATF was Sterling T. Nixon. What he failed to mention is that there is a more recent, more relevant ruling that carries more weight of law. That ruling is from Dec 11, 2009. The conclusion made by the Firearm Law Deskbook based upon both rulings is

Finally, the result is the same without regard to how the items are initially recorded in the manufacturer's or other licensee's record books, i.e., as a firearm receiver, a pistol, or a rifle. Section 5845(a)(4) describes a weapon made from a rifle with certain dimensions, and ss 5845(c) defines a rifle as having certain physical characteristics. None of these definitions include how a manufacturer or other licensee recorded the item in its record books pursuant to the requirements of 18 U.S.C.A. ss 923(g) and related regulations.

Emphasis added where necessary.

SemperFi, you better pony up some evidence; you're losing your credibility pretty quickly around here...

 

[ccuney]

I thought AR lowers were now sold as "other" or something to that effect?

This is correct. When purchasing a "stripped Lower" on the 4473 it will be marked "Other" it has not been built yet.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Outtie because you know you made an incorrect statement that you couldn't back up with any credible evidence so you're running away?

I can't seem to find 2003-308 anywhere but I find what the Firearm Law Deskbook has to say about it. FWIW, those of you that aren't in the know, the Firearm Law Deskbook is a very expensive, very comprehensive deskbook that is put together by a very large legal research team/company called Westlaw. The book costs several hundred dollars and is one of the best resources one could have. So without further time wasting, lets see what it has to say. It does not specifically list each ATF ruling, but it researches rulings and makes "legal conclusions" based upon that research.

The ruling SemperFi is talking about is from Oct 30, 2003 when the Chief of the FTB BATF was Sterling T. Nixon. What he failed to mention is that there is a more recent, more relevant ruling that carries more weight of law. That ruling is from Dec 11, 2009. The conclusion made by the Firearm Law Deskbook based upon both rulings is


Emphasis added where necessary.

SemperFi, you better pony up some evidence; you're losing your credibility pretty quickly around here...

I said call the ATF. I gave an educated guess (which I stated as such) as to what I think the outcome would probably be based upon information that I have access to that you obviously don't. You don't like my advised opinion and call it trolling. Whatever. You win. It's not worth arguing over.

 

[ccuney]

This is correct. When purchasing a "stripped Lower" on the 4473 it will be marked "Other" it has not been built yet.

Sorry I need to clarify this "it should be marked "other"" since it has the possibility of being made into a pistol or rifle. I guess if the ffl didnt know what he was doing he could check the wrong box even though it states "other" is a recever, ect on the 4473.

 

[CountryBoy19]

I said call the ATF. I gave an educated guess (which I stated as such) as to what I think the outcome would probably be based upon information that I have access to that you obviously don't. You don't like my advised opinion and call it trolling. Whatever. You win. It's not worth arguing over.

Uh, what? Now you're just back-pedalling. The information you posted is just up-thread. Were you really hoping I would take your word for what you "said" and not verify your above posts.
Not until I called you out which was the start of your downward spiral.
You never stated it as such, you presented it as fact.
If you're talking about your outdated, incorrect information then you're right, I don't have easy access to that because I use up-to-date information that won't get me in legal jeopardy.
You presented your information as fact and continued to argue about how right you were yet provided no evidence. Finally you provides citation to an older, less relevant ATF ruling which has a more recent, more relevant ruling that contradicts it. I pointed that out and now you're back-pedalling. Let me be clear. This is NOT the first time you have presented your opinions as facts. I'm not here to poo on you, your business, or anything else related to you, I try to keep my opinions about you and your business private as they should be. I'm just trying to stop the spread of misinformation. Your understanding of NFA law and your "resources" clearly aren't the same as what the majority of the NFA community uses based upon many of your postings here. I have received rep and PMs from several active people in this forum telling me it's not worth arguing with you because you're just trolling and too arrogant to admit when you're wrong; but I've ignored those to ensure your incorrect opinions and misinformation do not get spread by others.

Lets refresh everyone's memory.

Be very, very careful when selecting a stripped lower receiver to SBR if you intend to build a pistol first. If at any time the lower was transferred as, or was entered into an A&D book by any FFL in the transfer chain as a rifle, even though never assembled, it is a rifle and it would be a federal felony (10 years, $250K fine) to put a short barrel on it, even if you purchased it as a stripped lower and built it in a pistol configuration.

I would recommend doing this one of two ways. The first is purchase a complete AR pistol and SBR it. Make sure on your receipt it show that you purchased a pistol, and get a copy of your 4473. Don't purchased one off the street, from a friend, or off INGO after getting your 50 quality posts. If later it is determined that you have an illegal SBR but you have documentation that it was properly transferred to you as a pistol, you will have a much better and more solid defense. The person who transferred it to you will have their ass in a ringer, but at that point you won't care about them.

If you decide to purchase a stripped lower, contact the manufacturer and find out how it was reported to the ATF, then contact each FFL that the lower was transferred to and make sure it was transferred and booked as either a pistol or receiver only.

This is your first post to the thread. The statement in RED is presented as "FACT" by you. You stated nothing that even remotely identified it as your opinion or possibly incorrect, you presented it as fact. I called you out on that, provided a very well respected legal resource for evidence, and now your only "out" is to admit being wrong, or back-pedal and say that it was only your opinion. The posts don't lie.

And if that wasn't enough, your 2nd post presents the exact same information again stating it as fact, even with the arrogance to say, "You are absolutely wrong."

If a firearm is transferred as a rifle on a 4473 it is a rifle and cannot be converted into a pistol. Putting a barrel under 16 inches on it or having an overall length of less than 26 inches requires registration as an SBR. That is direct guidance from the NFA Branch, whom I deal with on a daily basis. We not only manufacture silencers, but we also manufacture machine guns and SBRs.

You are absolutely wrong. 4473s are signed under penalty of perjury by both the Buyer and the FFL. The 4473 documents the state of the firearm at the point in time it was transferred. If an FFL states under penalty of perjury something that is false they put their license at risk. The 4473 can absolutely change the designation of a firearm.

I think it would be best if you just stick to answering questions/problems about HTA products. We have enough people in the Class III forum that are actually well-versed in the legalities of NFA firearms. I don't want you to leave; just stick to the things you know best.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Uh, what? Now you're just back-pedalling. The information you posted is just up-thread. Were you really hoping I would take your word for what you "said" and not verify your above posts.
Not until I called you out which was the start of your downward spiral.
You never stated it as such, you presented it as fact.
If you're talking about your outdated, incorrect information then you're right, I don't have easy access to that because I use up-to-date information that won't get me in legal jeopardy.
You presented your information as fact and continued to argue about how right you were yet provided no evidence. Finally you provides citation to an older, less relevant ATF ruling which has a more recent, more relevant ruling that contradicts it. I pointed that out and now you're back-pedalling. Let me be clear. This is NOT the first time you have presented your opinions as facts. I'm not here to poo on you, your business, or anything else related to you, I try to keep my opinions about you and your business private as they should be. I'm just trying to stop the spread of misinformation. Your understanding of NFA law and your "resources" clearly aren't the same as what the majority of the NFA community uses based upon many of your postings here. I have received rep and PMs from several active people in this forum telling me it's not worth arguing with you because you're just trolling and too arrogant to admit when you're wrong; but I've ignored those to ensure your incorrect opinions and misinformation do not get spread by others.
Lets refresh everyone's memory.

This is your first post to the thread. The statement in RED is presented as "FACT" by you. You stated nothing that even remotely identified it as your opinion or possibly incorrect, you presented it as fact. I called you out on that, provided a very well respected legal resource for evidence, and now your only "out" is to admit being wrong, or back-pedal and say that it was only your opinion. The posts don't lie.
And if that wasn't enough, your 2nd post presents the exact same information again stating it as fact, even with the arrogance to say, "You are absolutely wrong."

I think it would be best if you just stick to answering questions/problems about HTA products. We have enough people in the Class III forum that are actually well-versed in the legalities of NFA firearms. I don't want you to leave; just stick to the things you know best.

You are absolutely right. I lied. I lied on purpose so that people would call the ATF rather than take a chance with getting their ass in a sling. Not playing Interwebz lawyer is the most unforgivable and heinous of actions. It ranks right up their with plagerizing posts from other forums like ARFCOM without giving due credit in order to attempt to prove a point. It was unforgivable. It was a horrible act on my part do do so. I apologize profusely.

Or maybe, I was just a bit confused. I posted the following:

these are very good questions for the atf, not for people that will not pay to represent you, serve your prison time, or give up their right to keep and bear arms in solidarity with you in the event they give you bad scoop and you get hosed. i have a type 7/sot and ask the atf questions every day. they will help you.

In another thread: https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/class-iii-nfa/324885-building-suppressor-personal-use.html

I thought my post was in this thread. I confused one "I need legal advise and am glad to rely on the free advise of Interwebz lawyers" thread post with another "I need legal advise and am glad to rely on the free advise of Interwebz lawyers" thread. My whole goal was secretly to have people NOT contact the ATF with their questions and hope they got in trouble. For that I should and shall forever be branded the worst kind of scoflaw and liar.

BTW, I found a ruling that says that a pistol can be converted to a rifle and back without violating the NFA, and the parts necessary to swap back and forth may be possessed at the same time so long as if there is a stock there is also a barrel over 16" long, and the rifle is over 26" long at the same time you possess the short barrel for the pistol. So to the extent I pondered your Glock 19 example, I was wrong. However, the opinion you lifted has to do with converting a Thompson Center Contender Kit, and nothing whatsoever to do with an AR15. I found another ruling that establishes that a firearm produced in non-kit form is assigned a type either by assembling or producing (neither defined) which could well mean that assignment of type could be established by either the manufacturer or first use, which could be documented by a 4473 transfer. Only the ATF can answer that question.

Also, determination letters and rulings have no force of law whatsoever. They can be recinded and ignored at will by the ATF.

In any case, I am going to go sit in a corner for 3 hours as penance for my crimes and stick to the stuff I know from now on. Merry Christmas everyone.

 

[indymike]

You technically should not have the parts for a short upper w/o having a registered firearm to put them on.
Some folks dismiss 'constructive intent,' but yes, there is case law:
UNITED STATES v. KENT, No.?97-8425., May 04, 1999 - US 11th Circuit | FindLaw
there is also US v Kwan; Kwan was convicted of "intent" to build a contraband SBR, but later had the conviction over-turned (because he DID have a registered firearm the parts (pistol shoulder stocks) could have been used with).

-rvb

I went and read that case just out of curiosity. What I found most fascinating in that case is how in 3 or 4 places, the Circuit Judge emphasized that they were affirming the conviction because the upper was fully assembled. They were implying that if the upper was disassembled and the barrel was on its own, there would be no grounds for conviction since it would show "intent" to use it for parts and not as a functioning upper.

Even further, they state in the footnotes "There was some kind of short barrel among the parts in the box, but this barrel was not the one attached to the upper receiver unit or described in the indictment and hence is not relevant to this appeal." Again, implying that if it were the barrel in question and it were separate from the upper, they would have reversed the lower court.

Of course I would never have a disassembled (<16in barreled) upper in a house/apt with a rifle lower without the proper registration but it's interesting in that case that they would be hard pressed to sustain a conviction if it had been disassembled. I'm very new to the SBR world so I'm just learning here. If I'm way off, I'd be happy to be called out on it and would take it as a chance to learn.

 

[ryknoll3]

National Firearms Act of 1934, Gun Control Act of 1968, ATF regulations, explicit opinion from NFA Branch, case law. I do this as a business, and I get ATF opinions all the time.

If a firearm is transferred as a rifle on a 4473 it is a rifle and cannot be converted into a pistol. Putting a barrel under 16 inches on it or having an overall length of less than 26 inches requires registration as an SBR. That is direct guidance from the NFA Branch, whom I deal with on a daily basis. We not only manufacture silencers, but we also manufacture machine guns and SBRs.

You are absolutely wrong. 4473s are signed under penalty of perjury by both the Buyer and the FFL. The 4473 documents the state of the firearm at the point in time it was transferred. If an FFL states under penalty of perjury something that is false they put their license at risk. The 4473 can absolutely change the designation of a firearm.



A good question for the ATF. My educated guess is yes. It is possible to legally convert a pistol to a rifle without explicit ATF approval by installing a 16 inch barrel and a stock and having an overall length greater than 26 inches. Once a stock is installed, a firearm can no longer be a pistol. Your Glock 19 would be forever and always be a rifle, and would have to be transferred as such. If you had a barrel of less than 16 inches or an overall length less than 26 inches, your rifle would be an SBR and if you didn't have proper paperwork you would be in possession of an illegal NFA firearm.

If the 4473 contained an error in classification then there is probably a process to fix it, but I don't know what that would be since my business is only in the manufacture and transfer of NFA firearms. I don't know who at ATF would be tasked with determining how to fix an erroneous 4473 after the fact. But I do know that my first and only phone call would be to the ATF, and I would not rely on misguided misinformation from the Interwebz.

Sorry, the above is no longer true.

See ATF Ruling 2011-4
http://www.atf.gov/files/regulations-rulings/rulings/atf-rulings/atf-ruling-2011-4.pdf

Held further, a firearm, as defined by 26 U.S.C. 5845(a)(3) and (a)(4), is not made when a pistol is attached to a part or parts designed to convert the pistol into a rifle with a
barrel of 16 inches or more in length, and the parts are later unassembled in a configuration
not regulated under the NFA (e.g., as a pistol).

As long as your firearm started out as a pistol, you can build it into a legal rifle configuration (16" barrel, 26" OAL) and bring it back to a legal pistol configuration (no stock) as you like.

If it started out as a rifle, it is ALWAYS a rifle.