Good new ATF ruling concerning pistols and SBR's

[ryknoll3]

New ruling from ATF:

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

Reader's Digest version:
If you have a firearm that starts out as a pistol (or virgin receiver) and you possess parts to legally make it into a rifle OR a pistol, you are NOT in constructive possession of an SBR. You can switch it back and forth as long as you assemble it legally.

This sounds like it's basically a long-time-in-coming response to the United States vs. Thompson/Center case where SCOTUS ruled that having the parts to assemble an Encore rifle or pistol does not constitute constructive possession of an SBR.

 

[mertbl]

That's pretty awesome news.

So as long as I assemble it in the correct order I'm OK. Almost kills the need to permanently sbr something.

 

[IndySSD]

New ruling from ATF:

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

Reader's Digest version:
If you have a firearm that starts out as a pistol (or virgin receiver) and you possess parts to legally make it into a rifle OR a pistol, you are NOT in constructive possession of an SBR. You can switch it back and forth as long as you assemble it legally.

This sounds like it's basically a long-time-in-coming response to the United States vs. Thompson/Center case where SCOTUS ruled that having the parts to assemble an Encore rifle or pistol does not constitute constructive possession of an SBR.

At first I got excited thinking of a draco build and then I actually read the decision.... Oh well...not what I hoped but its a step in the right direction.


I think its dumb that the atf restricts rifle barrel lengths anyway.....

 

[ryknoll3]

That's pretty awesome news.

So as long as I assemble it in the correct order I'm OK. Almost kills the need to permanently sbr something.

Not really. You still only have a pistol OR a rifle. In the case of an AR, you could start with a virgin lower or an AR pistol and switch back and forth between pistol and rifle, but you still can't put a buttstock on the pistol. I'd much rather shoot an SBR than an AR pistol.

 

[shooter521]

Thank you, ATF, for making "official" what has been obvious to the rest of us for years...

 

[slottech]

So, if one had a S&W M&P 15-22 rifle and the pistol version, could you swap out the uppers & lowers to make a SBR? Rifle lower & pistol upper. Is this now OK?

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Slottech, not even close. All existing SBR and Pistol laws are in effect. But if you have parts to make a SBR or pistol you are not guilty of constructive intent. Whoopty doo. Dumb dumb dumb. Why can't we abolish the ATF already?

 

[Mr.JAG]

So, if one had a S&W M&P 15-22 rifle and the pistol version, could you swap out the uppers & lowers to make a SBR? Rifle lower & pistol upper. Is this now OK?

NO.

 

[slottech]

I figured as much. Just wishful thinking I suppose. Maybe someday, huh? Only in a perfect world.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Very wishful. I wouldn't expect a ruling like that until legislation is enacted showing all of these rulings to be unconstitutional and reverse them by force of law.

That will be a long time coming.

 

[ryknoll3]

Slottech, not even close. All existing SBR and Pistol laws are in effect. But if you have parts to make a SBR or pistol you are not guilty of constructive intent. Whoopty doo. Dumb dumb dumb. Why can't we abolish the ATF already?

Be careful with that statement.....

Two things:

1. There is no such thing as constructive intent. The legal principle is constructive possession. This principle states that if you have parts to construct something illegal and no legal way to assemble all of the parts, you are considered in possession of that illegal item. Intent does not factor into it.

2. If you have the parts to make an SBR or pistol, you COULD still be charged with being in possession of an unregistered SBR. You would need the parts to construct a pistol OR rifle to be safe. Here are two examples:
A. You have a AR pistol and a buttstock for an AR. You COULD be charged with possession of an unregistered SBR under the constructive possession principle because there is no legal way to assemble anything with the buttstock other than an SBR.
B. You have an AR pistol, an AR buttstock and a 16" upper receiver assembly. You could NOT be charged with possession of unregistered SBR because there is a legal way to construct your gun either as a pistol OR a rifle. Under the ATF's old opinion, once you assembled the AR into a rifle, you couldn't go back to a pistol as it would now be considered an SBR.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Thanks that clarifies it for me. I thought you meant what I said and let's say I have an AR rifle and a short barrel upper. They couldn't do anything legally against you.

Retarded. They are just parts.

 

[philagothon]

"SCOTUS Ruling Finds BATFE Unconstitutional"

Now there's a headline I'd love to read! I'm not holding my breath though.

 

[indykid]

It basically puts into writing for those of us who no longer have full second amendment rights, how Beretta was able to sell a Neos Pistol and a Neos Carbine kit, and be able to go back and forth between carbine and pistol, so long as the carbine stock is never on the receiver when the pistol barrel is on the receiver.

Of course, I keep reading the constitution over and over and don't see anything in the second amendment that dictates overall length, barrel length, number of rounds fired per trigger pull, how many grips are on a pistol, number of imported parts on an imported long gun, etc, etc...

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Of course, I keep reading the constitution over and over and don't see anything in the second amendment that dictates overall length, barrel length, number of rounds fired per trigger pull, how many grips are on a pistol, number of imported parts on an imported long gun, etc, etc...

You and I must not have as good of reading skills as the ATF

 

[canav844]

So does that mean I can now own this
RONIG126 - Command Arms Accessories

And this
GLOCK

At the same time and I'm OK as long as I don't put them together until I get the tax stamp? As neither is in and of itself and SBR and the Glock can be used as a pistol on it's own. Or is it saying that I also need a barrel present so that it can be an SBR or a pistol or a Rifle, as long as I don't make it into an SBR?

Note: At this time I've only got the thread down, starting to sift through the pdf as soon as I hit submit.

 

[ryknoll3]

So does that mean I can now own this
RONIG126 - Command Arms Accessories

And this
GLOCK

At the same time and I'm OK as long as I don't put them together until I get the tax stamp? As neither is in and of itself and SBR and the Glock can be used as a pistol on it's own. Or is it saying that I also need a barrel present so that it can be an SBR or a pistol or a Rifle, as long as I don't make it into an SBR?

Note: At this time I've only got the thread down, starting to sift through the pdf as soon as I hit submit.

No, you can not own this in addition to a Glock UNTIL you get your tax stamp. What ATF said in this ruling is that if you START with a pistol or virgin receiver, you can possess parts to convert it into a Title I rifle (16" or greater barrel, 26" or greater OAL) and switch back and forth between rifle and pistol. If you bought a long barrel for your Glock, you could also buy some sort of stock conversion, like those grip plug stocks and you would be legal to switch back and forth. The example you cited, the ONLY way to assemble those parts is into an SBR, so it would not be legal to have the parts without a stamp.

It was previously held by ATF, that once something was made or converted into a rifle, you could NEVER go back to a pistol without making an unregistered SBR. Now they are saying, so long as it DIDN'T start out as a rifle, you can switch back and forth.

 

[canav844]

No, you can not own this in addition to a Glock UNTIL you get your tax stamp. What ATF said in this ruling is that if you START with a pistol or virgin receiver, you can possess parts to convert it into a Title I rifle (16" or greater barrel, 26" or greater OAL) and switch back and forth between rifle and pistol. If you bought a long barrel for your Glock, you could also buy some sort of stock conversion, like those grip plug stocks and you would be legal to switch back and forth. The example you cited, the ONLY way to assemble those parts is into an SBR, so it would not be legal to have the parts without a stamp.

It was previously held by ATF, that once something was made or converted into a rifle, you could NEVER go back to a pistol without making an unregistered SBR. Now they are saying, so long as it DIDN'T start out as a rifle, you can switch back and forth.

Yeah as I got into the PDF it became apparent, and then confirmed when they get to the held section. I guess I could hope least it's cleared up for the thread readers.

NFA is supposed to ban "gangster weapons" I just hope I don't need to register every baseball bat with the ATF before I go the ballpark, and then you get there and there's all those rocks on the ground. Not to mention those high capacity fists the gangs have been using in the flash mob attacks.

 

[LouisvillePatriot]

Yay! So I can now take the stock off my 20" HBAR and shoot it as a pistol! Or I can take my AR pistol lower and put my 16" upper on it and then throw a stock on the pistol tube.

Wait, this is all a little pointless I'm thinking. ha ha.

 

[Boomstick]

At least they put it in writing