PDA

View Full Version : ATF response letter to rifle/pistol conversions


freakshow10mm
10-01-2009, 9:16 AM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v239/freakshow10mm/ATF%20Letters/1zlakg5.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v239/freakshow10mm/ATF%20Letters/13z3cki.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v239/freakshow10mm/ATF%20Letters/2n9gr34.jpg

kap
10-01-2009, 9:36 AM
It appears that any manufacturer who sells a pistol/rifle kit is good to go based on this letter. I just wonder if a reseller could sell a Glock with a carbine kit, as a kit, and be legal under this definition or would everything need to be sold and branded by Glock?

AJAX22
10-01-2009, 9:37 AM
Jeez,

It amazes me how the ATF can get away with bold faced lying like that.

Did they NOT read the court decision?

hoffmang
10-01-2009, 9:41 AM
It steams me that the ATF ignores a directly on point SCOTUS ruling:

United States v. Thompson/Center Arms Co. (http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/tc.html)

-Gene

AJAX22
10-01-2009, 9:43 AM
It steams me that the ATF ignores a directly on point SCOTUS ruling:

United States v. Thompson/Center Arms Co. (http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/tc.html)

-Gene

Yes!

There is no possible way that letter can be interpreted as being in line with the SCOTUS decision.

torsf
10-01-2009, 9:47 AM
http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/tc.html

beat me too it....that's what i get for posting during a meeting :)

CHS
10-01-2009, 10:33 AM
So when do we start selling AR lower receivers with pistol buffer tubes that will allow a shoulder stock to be attached and TWO upper receivers (one 16" and one 10") for a rifle/pistol "kit" :)

Who's going to have the balls to design that buffer tube? :)

Wizard99
10-01-2009, 10:37 AM
Seems to me that BATFE's position in question #3 means a manufacturer, dealer, or even an individual (since they don't define "single source") could assemble an AR-15 kit with one reciever, all the parts to assemble a rifle and pistol, and sell it as a "multipurpose firearms kit".

yellowfin
10-01-2009, 10:38 AM
Do we have recourse in this matter, Gene?

Hopi
10-01-2009, 10:39 AM
So when do we start selling AR lower receivers with pistol buffer tubes that will allow a shoulder stock to be attached and TWO upper receivers (one 16" and one 10") for a rifle/pistol "kit" :)

Who's going to have the balls to design that buffer tube? :)

Maybe this? (http://www.operationparts.com/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=RE-2&click=2)

http://www.operationparts.com/PhotoGallery.asp?ProductCode=RE%2D2

Kharn
10-01-2009, 11:44 AM
Jeez,
It amazes me how the ATF can get away with bold faced lying like that.
Did they NOT read the court decision?The court decision was quite clear, Thompson's kit was not an SBR and the ATF is stating exactly that: a kit purchased as one item from a manufacturer is not an SBR.
Seems to me that BATFE's position in question #3 means a manufacturer, dealer, or even an individual (since they don't define "single source") could assemble an AR-15 kit with one reciever, all the parts to assemble a rifle and pistol, and sell it as a "multipurpose firearms kit".Only manufacturers can add value to a firearm to sell for profit.

gun toting monkeyboy
10-01-2009, 11:47 AM
Do the people at the ATF writing these letters actually have any training? Or is it just Skippy the Intern sitting there with his "Big Book of Gun Facts, Complete with Illustrations and 50 free Bonus Stickers!"? And is somebody going to send whoever wrote that piece of garbage a copy of the Supreme Court ruling and ask them to get their facts straight?

-Mb

CHS
10-01-2009, 12:23 PM
Only manufacturers can add value to a firearm to sell for profit.

BS.

If that was true then we couldn't as an 01 sell AR receivers and uppers and parts kits all together and give people a discount for doing that.

Only a manufacturer can MANUFACTURE firearms, which includes adding parts TO the firearm.

As an 01 I can sell to a customer a box that includes every single part to build their own AR and discount it off the total MSRP of those parts. I just can't put it together for the customer (unless they buy it, wait 10 days, receive it, then bring it back for me to assemble).

CSACANNONEER
10-01-2009, 12:39 PM
Since it is perfectly lega lto homebuild a handgun or a longun for personal use, why would it be a crime to homebuild a "kit" which includes parts for both which can mount to the same reciever?

nicki
10-01-2009, 12:42 PM
This "petty rules" and regulations will eventually be challenged, and the right people are lining things up.

Let's be honest, what makes 16 inches for rifles and 18 inches for shotguns a magic number.

What is so magic about 26 inch overall length?

Why does it matter if a pistol has a shoulder stock, because if you are for "Gun Safety and for shooters being in control of their guns(Gun Safety) when shooting them, it would seem to me that anything that allows people to control their guns means they safely shoot their guns.

The extra restrictions on having shoulder stocks for handguns could deprive Americans with disabilities from having firearms that can be tailored to their disabilities.

Nicki

dantodd
10-01-2009, 12:56 PM
BS.

If that was true then we couldn't as an 01 sell AR receivers and uppers and parts kits all together and give people a discount for doing that.

Only a manufacturer can MANUFACTURE firearms, which includes adding parts TO the firearm.

As an 01 I can sell to a customer a box that includes every single part to build their own AR and discount it off the total MSRP of those parts. I just can't put it together for the customer (unless they buy it, wait 10 days, receive it, then bring it back for me to assemble).

Interesting. So, can an 01 un-manufacture a firearm? i.e. enter into their books as a glock pistol and sell it as a glock pistol/carbine kit?

AJAX22
10-01-2009, 1:00 PM
I do not believe this is the case, The BATFE has repeatedly expressed that a firearm sold in 'knockdown' configuration is still a complete firearm and is regulated under manufacturing and is not tax exempt.


BS.

If that was true then we couldn't as an 01 sell AR receivers and uppers and parts kits all together and give people a discount for doing that.

Only a manufacturer can MANUFACTURE firearms, which includes adding parts TO the firearm.

As an 01 I can sell to a customer a box that includes every single part to build their own AR and discount it off the total MSRP of those parts. I just can't put it together for the customer (unless they buy it, wait 10 days, receive it, then bring it back for me to assemble).

AJAX22
10-01-2009, 1:01 PM
Interesting. So, can an 01 un-manufacture a firearm? i.e. enter into their books as a glock pistol and sell it as a glock pistol/carbine kit?

NO, but an 07FFL could do it, they would however be responsible for FET on the value added when it is run across their books.

freakshow10mm
10-01-2009, 1:35 PM
So when do we start selling AR lower receivers with pistol buffer tubes that will allow a shoulder stock to be attached and TWO upper receivers (one 16" and one 10") for a rifle/pistol "kit" :)

Who's going to have the balls to design that buffer tube? :)
Being an 07 FFL, my company is able to do this. Let me know what you want.

The buffer tube is of no consequence. Take a standard M4 stock with extension and a standard pistol buffer extension, put both of those in a kit. The pistol buffer is not a shoulder stock.

BS.

If that was true then we couldn't as an 01 sell AR receivers and uppers and parts kits all together and give people a discount for doing that.

Only a manufacturer can MANUFACTURE firearms, which includes adding parts TO the firearm.
Firearms sold in knockdown condition are still firearms and it is still an act of manufacturing firearms.

http://www.ttb.gov/firearms/manufacturers.shtml

2. If I manufacture an article and sell it in knockdown condition, am I liable for FAET?

Yes. If you manufacture an article and sell it in knockdown condition (unassembled but complete as to all component parts), you are liable for FAET.

[Refer to 27 CFR 53.11 (definition of manufacturer)]

27 CFR 53.11:

Knockdown condition. A taxable article that is unassembled but
complete as to all component parts.
Manufacturer. Includes any person who produces a taxable article
from scrap, salvage, or junk material, or from new or raw material, by
processing, manipulating, or changing the form of an article or by
combining or assembling two or more articles. The term also includes a
``producer'' and an ``importer.'' Under certain circumstances, as where
a person manufactures or produces a taxable article for another person
who furnishes materials under an agreement whereby the person who
furnished the materials retains title thereto and to the finished
article, the person for whom the taxable article is manufactured or
produced, and not the person who actually manufactures or produces it,
will be considered the manufacturer.
A manufacturer who sells a taxable article in a knockdown condition
is liable for the tax as a manufacturer. Whether the person who buys
such component parts or accessories and assembles a taxable article from
them will be liable for tax as a manufacturer of a taxable article will
depend on the relative amount of labor, material, and overhead required
to assemble the completed article and on whether the article is
assembled for business or personal use.

Why are the rifle and pistol kits sold sans lower receiver? Why can't you buy a Del Ton carbine kit with lower receiver included? They would be manufacturing a firearm and would have to pay 11% FET on that firearm. They will do it, but will charge you the same price as a complete rifle which includes the FET.

wildhawker
10-01-2009, 1:48 PM
After only a cursory glance at this issue, I would think the kit would (for now) need to be based around a functional Roster-exempt single shot pistol.

freakshow10mm
10-01-2009, 1:50 PM
I wonder how this kit would be DROS'd.

CHS
10-01-2009, 1:59 PM
The buffer tube is of no consequence. Take a standard M4 stock with extension and a standard pistol buffer extension, put both of those in a kit. The pistol buffer is not a shoulder stock.


The problem is, it's a pain in the butt to continually remove and replace the buffer tube, especially if the castle nut is properly staked.

What needs to be done is a special "pistol" style buffer tube is made, and a special buttstock made that can be fitted to that tube and that tube only.

This way it's not an SBR when in pistol configuration.


Firearms sold in knockdown condition are still firearms and it is still an act of manufacturing firearms.

http://www.ttb.gov/firearms/manufacturers.shtml


Wow, that's totally and completely unenforceable.

The BATFE can't enforce that law on a gunshop that has an 01 and sells parts, accessories, and lower receivers. If someone is buying a lower, they are buying a lower. If they decide to also, at the same time, buy all the parts to finish that lower, THEY are the builder, not the 01.

CHS
10-01-2009, 2:00 PM
I wonder how this kit would be DROS'd.

Unfortunately, CA has no way to DROS just a frame, except as a handgun.

Pont
10-01-2009, 2:04 PM
This "petty rules" and regulations will eventually be challenged, and the right people are lining things up.

Let's be honest, what makes 16 inches for rifles and 18 inches for shotguns a magic number.

What is so magic about 26 inch overall length?

Measure from your armpit to your wrist. I'm 6'0" and 26 inches from my armpit would leave the barrel protruding conspicuously out of my sleeves just up to the tip of my fingers (well, if the gun was as thin as a measuring tape anyways).

We have Bonnie and Clyde largely to thank for SBR rules. They (and other criminals) would chop down guns and make them "whip-it" guns. They'd strap the cut-down stock to their shoulder and hide it under a jacket. 26" as an overall length would make it nearly impossible for someone short of 6'4" to do so.

It's ballpark and not terribly scientific, but it's not completely arbitrary.

Not that I agree with the law, of course. Especially with the rise in capability of modern handguns, restricting the sale of short-barreled rifles as an attempt to make life harder on criminals is completely ineffective.

freakshow10mm
10-01-2009, 2:04 PM
You'd have to be 21yo or older to buy a firearm in knockdown condition anyway, since it's not a rifle or shotgun in that configuration. Why not DROS is as a frame only? What's the status on the NRF; two weeks out still? NRF happens every day for cops even though (as I understand it) the frame only is an everybody exemption to roster.

freakshow10mm
10-01-2009, 2:07 PM
Measure from your armpit to your wrist. I'm 6'0" and 26 inches from my armpit would leave the barrel protruding conspicuously out of my sleeves just up to the tip of my fingers (well, if the gun was as thin as a measuring tape anyways).

We have Bonnie and Clyde largely to thank for SBR rules. They (and other criminals) would chop down guns and make them "whip-it" guns. They'd strap the cut-down stock to their shoulder and hide it under a jacket. 26" as an overall length would make it nearly impossible for someone short of 6'4" to do so.

It's ballpark and not terribly scientific, but it's not completely arbitrary.

Not that I agree with the law, of course. Especially with the rise in capability of modern handguns, restricting the sale of short-barreled rifles as an attempt to make life harder on criminals is completely ineffective.
Pretty much. The NFA was about machine guns and concealable weapons.

26 inches was about average or so for the length of a whip-it gun.

Original text had all handguns be AOWs with a $5 transfer tax. They dropped it because they thought women who wanted to protect themselves shouldn't be taxed. Silencers were added because the F&W department was worried about poaching during the depression era.

freakshow10mm
10-01-2009, 2:08 PM
Whip-it gun

http://texashideout.tripod.com/lgwhippit.jpg

wildhawker
10-01-2009, 2:09 PM
It has been requested that we do not NRF frames due to potential impacts to ongoing legal matters.

You'd have to be 21yo or older to buy a firearm in knockdown condition anyway, since it's not a rifle or shotgun in that configuration. Why not DROS is as a frame only? What's the status on the NRF; two weeks out still? NRF happens every day for cops even though (as I understand it) the frame only is an everybody exemption to roster.

freakshow10mm
10-01-2009, 2:10 PM
There goes my retirement money.

CHS
10-01-2009, 2:15 PM
You'd have to be 21yo or older to buy a firearm in knockdown condition anyway, since it's not a rifle or shotgun in that configuration. Why not DROS is as a frame only? What's the status on the NRF; two weeks out still? NRF happens every day for cops even though (as I understand it) the frame only is an everybody exemption to roster.

You can't DROS as a frame only because it will be DROS'ed as a pistol and that means that they are subject to the 1-in-30 purchase requirements.

NRF's are in a holding pattern. The DoJ/OAL actually screwed themselves over by refusing to give into the NRF petition, and now the roster itself is being directly challenged in the Pena case :)

NRF does not happen for cops. When you do a DROS, a NRF would fall under "olympic/C&R/exempt" pistols, whereas with cops there is a different spot for peace officer. They are separate exemptions.

dantodd
10-01-2009, 2:15 PM
Unfortunately, CA has no way to DROS just a frame, except as a handgun.

aren't OLL receivers transferred as just a receiver? Why wouldn't a handgun frame be exactly the same thing?

ke6guj
10-01-2009, 2:23 PM
aren't OLL receivers transferred as just a receiver? Why wouldn't a handgun frame be exactly the same thing?OLL receivers are 4473'd as an "other", but DROSed as a long gun.

Currently, a handgun frame would need to be DROSed as a long gun as well because if DROSed as a handgun, then the Roster would apply.

Now, it has been opined that a "long gun" DROS does not neccessarily mean that the frame can't be built up as a handgun, but that is cutting edge legality, and with the Peņa roster case in the system, it isn't worth the gamble.

freakshow10mm
10-01-2009, 2:37 PM
So
receiver with mag lock and bobsled
pistol upper
rifle upper
buttstock
pistol buffer

Knockdown condition and DROS as a long gun?

djleisure
10-01-2009, 2:39 PM
So
receiver with mag lock and bobsled
pistol upper
rifle upper
buttstock
pistol buffer

Knockdown condition and DROS as a long gun?

I like where this is going... :D

freakshow10mm
10-01-2009, 2:45 PM
If I had the money to put together kits and sell them, I'd have a listing on my site already. Hell I'd even tease the rest of the country and start off selling them to CA only.;)

AJAX22
10-01-2009, 2:48 PM
So
receiver with mag lock and bobsled
pistol upper
rifle upper
buttstock
pistol buffer

Knockdown condition and DROS as a long gun?

THAT has serious merit......

(gears start turning)

wildhawker
10-01-2009, 2:51 PM
Somehow I see this becoming a SBR case(s)...

freakshow10mm
10-01-2009, 2:53 PM
THAT has serious merit......

(gears start turning)
Wanna be the test case? :D

AJAX22
10-01-2009, 2:55 PM
Somehow I see this becoming a SBR case(s)...

Not with that BATFE letter.... they may have just REALLY opened the doors on AR pistols in CA...


Imagine if you could DROS all you wanted (it would be a title 1, non handgun) at one time, it did not have to be registered, AND you could switch back and forth between a pistol and a rifle at will?

I'd have to buy a couple and I've got plenty.

Seriously major issue.

Wizard99
10-01-2009, 3:01 PM
So
receiver with mag lock and bobsled
pistol upper
rifle upper
buttstock
pistol buffer

Knockdown condition and DROS as a long gun?

Absolutely, but how would it appear on the 4473?
Since it is both a rifle and a pistol. How are the contender kits DROS'ed and entered on a 4473?

And I think you would want it engraved as both a pistol/rifle lower or somesuch verbiage.

wildhawker
10-01-2009, 3:01 PM
Somebody is going to swap uppers at the range without swapping the back-end into pistol form.

Not that such a thing should bar the concept from further discussion and (possibly) implementation, simply a comment on the risks present.

Not with that BATFE letter.... they may have just REALLY opened the doors on AR pistols in CA...


Imagine if you could DROS all you wanted (it would be a title 1, non handgun) at one time, it did not have to be registered, AND you could switch back and forth between a pistol and a rifle at will?

I'd have to buy a couple and I've got plenty.

Seriously major issue.

CSACANNONEER
10-01-2009, 3:07 PM
Somebody is going to swap uppers at the range without swapping the back-end into pistol form.

Not that such a thing should bar the concept from further discussion and (possibly) implementation, simply a comment on the risks present.

Yep, people speed all the time too. That doesn't mean that we should not be allowed to own vehicles which are capable of breaking laws, does it? Shouldn't the same apply to firearms? As long as it is used as intended, no laws would be broken. If someone wants to build an illegal SBR, they will do it regardless of buying it in a kit form or not. If someone is too stupid to understand the laws and/or read the instructions and warnings in the kit, who's to blame besides them? I'm up for a kit or two!

wildhawker
10-01-2009, 3:22 PM
I'm not arguing that point, as I hope you understood from this:

Not that such a thing should bar the concept from further discussion and (possibly) implementation, simply a comment on the risks present.

What I'm saying is that you could (and likely would) create a situation that geometrically increases the probabilities for such an occurance and a negative outcome with global implications. Being that we have no 2A right at this time, nor is a criminal SBR case the next logical step to securing further rights, it would seem imprudent to ignore and summarily dismiss the risks with a non-parallel like speeding tickets (whereas one can simply pay bail and, if avail., take traffic school to mitigate the points on their driving record).


Yep, people speed all the time too. That doesn't mean that we should not be allowed to own vehicles which are capable of breaking laws, does it? Shouldn't the same apply to firearms? As long as it is used as intended, no laws would be broken. If someone wants to build an illegal SBR, they will do it regardless of buying it in a kit form or not. If someone is too stupid to understand the laws and/or read the instructions and warnings in the kit, who's to blame besides them? I'm up for a kit or two!

freakshow10mm
10-01-2009, 3:36 PM
Absolutely, but how would it appear on the 4473?
Since it is both a rifle and a pistol.[quote]
Other Firearm

[quote]How are the contender kits DROS'ed and entered on a 4473?
Other Firearm on the 4473
don't know on the DROS


[quote]And I think you would want it engraved as both a pistol/rifle lower or somesuch verbiage.
Probably mark the lower model with something involving "kit" and a serial prefix of KIT___ is how my company would do it.

383green
10-01-2009, 3:49 PM
Who's going to have the balls to design that buffer tube? :)

I'll design it if you build it and sell it. I don't think the designer faces any criminal liability if he's not involved with the manufacturing and/or selling. :D

hoffmang
10-01-2009, 3:56 PM
I haven't thought much about th overall issue but I do want to caution that ATF is taking the far more supportable position that selling a "kit" of a firearm is manufacturing a firearm. No big deal for an '07 - just pay the tax - but be aware.

-Gene

Kharn
10-01-2009, 4:26 PM
This "petty rules" and regulations will eventually be challenged, and the right people are lining things up.
Let's be honest, what makes 16 inches for rifles and 18 inches for shotguns a magic number.Originally it was 18" for both, then vets after WWII wanted to buy M1 carbines (with an 18" barrel it was too close for comfort to have an 18" limit). I'm not sure where the 18" figure came from.
What is so magic about 26 inch overall length?The average suitcoat of the 1930s had ~25" from the bottom hem to the bottom of the armpit.

Why does it matter if a pistol has a shoulder stock, because if you are for "Gun Safety and for shooters being in control of their guns(Gun Safety) when shooting them, it would seem to me that anything that allows people to control their guns means they safely shoot their guns.As handguns were going to be under the NFA, they did not want someone cutting down their rifles or shotguns to pistol-sized as is commonly seen in Europe and other countries where long guns can be found with a little effort but pistols are much more difficult to acquire.

swhatb
10-01-2009, 6:49 PM
:20::20:

bohoki
10-01-2009, 7:25 PM
Interesting. So, can an 01 un-manufacture a firearm? i.e. enter into their books as a glock pistol and sell it as a glock pistol/carbine kit?

this is the problem there is no way to unmake a "rifle" only destroy it according to atf regulations

the mechtech ccu's are going to cause some problems

dantodd
10-01-2009, 7:33 PM
this is the problem there is no way to unmake a "rifle" only destroy it according to atf regulations

the mechtech ccu's are going to cause some problems

So the FFL would have to purchase a stripped frame from Glock and then manufacture (but not assemble) the pistol/carbine kit?

Would the DOJ consider this a handgun that needs to be rostered with all the kit parts at one time or would it be rostered if, when assembled as a pistol it was the same as a rostered example?

AJAX22
10-01-2009, 7:34 PM
this is the problem there is no way to unmake a "rifle" only destroy it according to atf regulations

the mechtech ccu's are going to cause some problems

A 07FFL could theoretically bring in a pistol, brake it down 'add value to it' (combine it with a mech tech kit) engrave the receiver with their mfg information....

and it would be a married set

They couldn't do it to a rifle, but a pistol is no problem.

dfletcher
10-01-2009, 8:41 PM
No doubt ATF have been weenies (sorry for the technical jargon ;)) on this matter. But this letter marks (I think) a significant change from the position specified in their previous letter regarding reconfiguration.

In their previous letter (floating around here somewhere) ATF stated reconfiguration was allowed on only those T/C kits previously manufactured & in question as part of the 1992 T/C SCOTUS case. As I read it, only those specific kits could be legally reconfigured - am I wrong?

But this letter states that any kit, to include one newly manufactured, which contains the required items can be legally reconfigured - correct?

May not seem like much of a difference, but if T/C markets a kit with a single frame, a handgun grip, a rifle stock, a +16" bbl and a -16" bbl then it's mix & match time. And the same would apply for ARs.

The problem in CA - and one not answered by ATF - is does the receiver have to be sold as a handgun, not a rifle. We can DROS easy as a rifle, would that negate being able to reconfigure as a handgun?

AJAX22
10-01-2009, 8:49 PM
No doubt ATF have been weenies (sorry for the technical jargon ;)) on this matter. But this letter marks (I think) a significant change from the position specified in their previous letter regarding reconfiguration.

In their previous letter (floating around here somewhere) ATF stated reconfiguration was allowed on only those T/C kits previously manufactured & in question as part of the 1992 T/C SCOTUS case. As I read it, only those specific kits could be legally reconfigured - am I wrong?

But this letter states that any kit, to include one newly manufactured, which contains the required items can be legally reconfigured - correct?

May not seem like much of a difference, but if T/C markets a kit with a single frame, a handgun grip, a rifle stock, a +16" bbl and a -16" bbl then it's mix & match time. And the same would apply for ARs.

The problem in CA - and one not answered by ATF - is does the receiver have to be sold as a handgun, not a rifle. We can DROS easy as a rifle, would that negate being able to reconfigure as a handgun?

Essentially the ATF just said "Well, there is a new catagory... called BOTH"

It would be a title 1 firearm, that while currently not configured in any specific manner, could be assembled by the end user in any configuration they wanted (pistol or rifle, NOT SBR)

CHS
10-01-2009, 8:51 PM
Essentially the ATF just said "Well, there is a new catagory... called BOTH"

It would be a title 1 firearm, that while currently not configured in any specific manner, could be assembled by the end user in any configuration they wanted (pistol or rifle, NOT SBR)

There are two spots to put the "type" of firearm's transferred on the 4473. There's a generic spot where you put a check box in one or more of three selections, and then there's in the description for each line-item where you're putting the serial number.

I would most likely check "other" in the first category, and then on the line-item put "receiver" if the "kit" came with a stripped/assembled receiver without a buttstock. I might in parenthesis note "kit".

I suppose I would DROS it as a long gun since it's not technically a handgun.

AJAX22
10-01-2009, 8:55 PM
There are two spots to put the "type" of firearm's transferred on the 4473. There's a generic spot where you put a check box in one or more of three selections, and then there's in the description for each line-item where you're putting the serial number.

I would most likely check "other" in the first category, and then on the line-item put "receiver" if the "kit" came with a stripped/assembled receiver without a buttstock. I might in parenthesis note "kit".

I suppose I would DROS it as a long gun since it's not technically a handgun.

Exactly

:D

I'm going to sleep on this....

If this is what we think it is... I think I know a couple of manufacturers who we could talk into throwing some kits together and some FFLs who may be into DROSing them here in CA ;)....

be a helluva thing.

dfletcher
10-01-2009, 9:21 PM
Essentially the ATF just said "Well, there is a new catagory... called BOTH"

It would be a title 1 firearm, that while currently not configured in any specific manner, could be assembled by the end user in any configuration they wanted (pistol or rifle, NOT SBR)

Don't go to sleep yet ... ;)

Just to walk through this.

My single receiver, A2 shoulder stock, +16" bbl, -16" bbl and pistol buffer tube (is that what would differentiate an AR handgun from rifle?) all arrive at "Ye Olde Gun Store". On the 4473 the firearm is listed as receiver only. I can't do receiver only on DROS, it has to be a handgun or rifle. If it's handgun the DROS is going to ask for a brand and if that brand isn't on there I'm stuck, yes? If I list it as a rifle DROS gets done, but does listing it on DROS as a rifle prevent me from switching back & forth?

I guess we'll have to do single shot "kits" instead?

yellowfin
10-01-2009, 9:26 PM
So how much of this can be stacked together to be a big enough problem where we can attack the regulatory status of SBR's? I know, I know, don't attack the NFA too soon...but unlike MG's or DD's, this isn't scary nor laden with political hooplah. I can't even think of any significant preceding cases that even address SBR's as a matter of contention. So how's about it?

CHS
10-01-2009, 9:34 PM
My single receiver, A2 shoulder stock, +16" bbl, -16" bbl and pistol buffer tube (is that what would differentiate an AR handgun from rifle?) all arrive at "Ye Olde Gun Store". On the 4473 the firearm is listed as receiver only. I can't do receiver only on DROS, it has to be a handgun or rifle. If it's handgun the DROS is going to ask for a brand and if that brand isn't on there I'm stuck, yes? If I list it as a rifle DROS gets done, but does listing it on DROS as a rifle prevent me from switching back & forth?


You've got a couple things wrong.

First off, if the brand isn't there for a handgun, you use "unknown" and then you are required by the DROS system to enter the make into the comments field. That's how I DROS LWRC PSD pistols to customers. In comments I do "MFR: LWRCI"

Second, there's no such thing as a rifle DROS, only a long gun DROS.

There is actually a huge significant difference between long guns and rifles/shotguns. The difference is the presence of a buttstock.

wildhawker
10-01-2009, 9:50 PM
How difficult to design and produce a quick-change buffer tube?

Seesm
10-01-2009, 10:07 PM
So is my 80% pistol I made for my lady ok to pop the stock off and get a under 16 upper?

And then for a rifle confige we can put a 16+ upper on and a butt stock that is all good? That is what I got out of it... TEHE :)

dfletcher
10-01-2009, 10:36 PM
You've got a couple things wrong.

First off, if the brand isn't there for a handgun, you use "unknown" and then you are required by the DROS system to enter the make into the comments field. That's how I DROS LWRC PSD pistols to customers. In comments I do "MFR: LWRCI"

Second, there's no such thing as a rifle DROS, only a long gun DROS.

There is actually a huge significant difference between long guns and rifles/shotguns. The difference is the presence of a buttstock.

OK, my shorthand error on the rifle & long gun DROS reference.

With the stripped lower, +16" barrel, -16" barrel, long gun stock and pistol buffer tube you would 4473 this "kit" as receiver & DROS as a long gun. After DROS as a long gun, configuring as a handgun would be OK? After DROS, could the buyer sell off the +16" bbl and long gun stock and keep only the handgun barrel?

unusedusername
10-01-2009, 10:44 PM
So is my 80% pistol I made for my lady ok to pop the stock off and get a under 16 upper?

And then for a rifle confige we can put a 16+ upper on and a butt stock that is all good? That is what I got out of it... TEHE :)

Unless I'm wrong (tell me if I am) this new method of transferring a kit would only apply to new sales, as it is a way of bundling a pistol/long gun into a single package that makes it legal to swap parts around.

This would not apply to anything you already bought in an unbundled way.

bohoki
10-01-2009, 11:41 PM
You've got a couple things wrong.

First off, if the brand isn't there for a handgun, you use "unknown" and then you are required by the DROS system to enter the make into the comments field. That's how I DROS LWRC PSD pistols to customers. In comments I do "MFR: LWRCI"

Second, there's no such thing as a rifle DROS, only a long gun DROS.

There is actually a huge significant difference between long guns and rifles/shotguns. The difference is the presence of a buttstock.


every time ive ever bought a pistol gip only mossberg it droses as a "long gun"

has my ffls screwed up i guess technically they are an "other"

ke6guj
10-01-2009, 11:54 PM
every time ive ever bought a pistol gip only mossberg it droses as a "long gun"

has my ffls screwed up i guess technically they are an "other"It DROSes as a "long gun" because there isn't an "other" option in the DROS. But it does 4473 as an "other" instead of a "long gun" (because it isn't a rifle or shotgun).

Read the instructions on the 4473, http://www.atf.gov/press/2008press/100308f4473_pt1_aug2008-sample-rev.pdf , for more info.

dantodd
10-02-2009, 12:18 AM
So is my 80% pistol I made for my lady ok to pop the stock off and get a under 16 upper?

And then for a rifle confige we can put a 16+ upper on and a butt stock that is all good? That is what I got out of it... TEHE :)

very interesting question. Might be good to volreg as a pistol/carbine kit. I bet that would get someone's attention.

freakshow10mm
10-02-2009, 5:44 AM
Unless I'm wrong (tell me if I am) this new method of transferring a kit would only apply to new sales, as it is a way of bundling a pistol/long gun into a single package that makes it legal to swap parts around.

This would not apply to anything you already bought in an unbundled way.
Yes new sales only. An 07 FFL would have to put the kit together, comply with GCA 1968 marking and logging requirements, pay FET, etc. This is for new kits, not consumers assembling a kit.

Note regarding the kit statement in the letter, the words "an assemblage of parts from a single source" are underlined. This means the kit must come from one source, as in you buy a Freakshow rifle/pistol kit from Freakshow Mfg, you can make a rifle or pistol out of those assemblies and that receiver at your heart's content.

Letter of the ruling, means you as a private individual may make your own Title I firearm kit as described above and you can swap it out as described. I think the spirit of the ruling means if you buy it from a manufacturer or dealer who bought it from a manufacturer. I'd wait for the 80% builds on these kits and let's just worry about the manufacturer sales for now, since the guy just posted the letter yesterday and this definitely hasn't trickled down to all the ATF industry field operations offices around the country.

dfletcher
10-02-2009, 9:56 AM
Yes new sales only. An 07 FFL would have to put the kit together, comply with GCA 1968 marking and logging requirements, pay FET, etc. This is for new kits, not consumers assembling a kit.

Note regarding the kit statement in the letter, the words "an assemblage of parts from a single source" are underlined. This means the kit must come from one source, as in you buy a Freakshow rifle/pistol kit from Freakshow Mfg, you can make a rifle or pistol out of those assemblies and that receiver at your heart's content.

Letter of the ruling, means you as a private individual may make your own Title I firearm kit as described above and you can swap it out as described. I think the spirit of the ruling means if you buy it from a manufacturer or dealer who bought it from a manufacturer. I'd wait for the 80% builds on these kits and let's just worry about the manufacturer sales for now, since the guy just posted the letter yesterday and this definitely hasn't trickled down to all the ATF industry field operations offices around the country.

ARe we restricted to switching back & forth between only the rifle and handgun supplied with the kit? Do we even have to keep all the parts - sell off the rifle upper and keep only the lower and handgun length upper?

If we can buy kits and start splitting them up, it seems to me that determining what receiver came in as a rifle only or part of a kit becomes difficult.

freakshow10mm
10-02-2009, 10:00 AM
First question is best answered by the ATF. See my response to the spirit/letter of law I personally opined about earlier.

Second question I'm not sure on clarity. If you want an AR pistol, there are already options out there. Just buy one.

dfletcher
10-02-2009, 11:42 AM
First question is best answered by the ATF. See my response to the spirit/letter of law I personally opined about earlier.

Second question I'm not sure on clarity. If you want an AR pistol, there are already options out there. Just buy one.

Regarding the 2nd question, sorry for the wording - was unclear.

I presume the kits when sold are listed on 4473 as receivers, not a handgun & not long gun? In CA, are the kits DROS'd as long guns? I would think they must be otherwise we run into the "not on roster" issue and can not do DROS, correct?

So if the kit is DROS'd as a long gun, I'm out & about shooting my AR configured as a handgun, no long gun barrel/stock in sight - what do I do to support that what I'm shooting is indeed a legally configured handgun as opposed to an illegally configured "used to be a rifle" handgun? Carry DROS paperwork with me? The DROS paperwork will show it's a rifle.

For the sake of discussion let's set aside "the police have to prove" or "why would anyone ask?" scenarios, I'm just interested in how the difference would be determined.

It seems to me that once this buying AR kits and switching gets going and endures it will as a practical matter be just as difficult for folks to keep track of handgun/rifle status as it is for the T/C frames. I've been shooting T/Cs since about 1972, the frames tend to get sold and resold as whatever mode they are currently configured - I'd bet there are thousands of T/C "handguns" out there that started life as a rifle frame, I think the same thing would happen with ARs.

CHS
10-02-2009, 11:52 AM
It seems to me that once this buying AR kits and switching gets going and endures it will as a practical matter be just as difficult for folks to keep track of handgun/rifle status as it is for the T/C frames. I've been shooting T/Cs since about 1972, the frames tend to get sold and resold as whatever mode they are currently configured - I'd bet there are thousands of T/C "handguns" out there that started life as a rifle frame, I think the same thing would happen with ARs.

This would actually be a very good thing to use against the ATF :)

JagerTroop
10-02-2009, 12:12 PM
How difficult to design and produce a quick-change buffer tube?

I could have a prototype completed by saturday afternoon :D

I already have an idea in my head, since I started reading this thread (about 30 minutes ago)

freakshow10mm
10-02-2009, 12:52 PM
It's pretty easy. Just remove the buttstock by tapping out the pin. Take foam and slide it over the extension tube. Don't over complicate a simple operation.

JagerTroop
10-02-2009, 1:06 PM
It's pretty easy. Just remove the buttstock by tapping out the pin. Take foam and slide it over the extension tube. Don't over complicate a simple operation.

Tapping out the pin?

Are we talking ARs here?

freakshow10mm
10-02-2009, 1:24 PM
Yes. There is a pin under the buttstock. Tap this out and the spring will release allowing the stock to be removed.

Another option so you don't lose the spring is to grab the adjustment pin with a set of pliers, lift, and slide the stock off the receiver extension tube.

Receiver extension with buttstock removed and pistol buffer assembly shown below.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v239/freakshow10mm/Freakshow%20Mfg/PA010013.jpg

Invert your stock and place on your lower receiver (shown with stock removed) holding jig.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v239/freakshow10mm/Freakshow%20Mfg/PA010017.jpg

This nubby...
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v239/freakshow10mm/Freakshow%20Mfg/PA010015.jpg

fits into these recesses along the underside of the receiver extension tube.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v239/freakshow10mm/Freakshow%20Mfg/PA010014.jpg

Grab the fat part of the pin with pliers and pull up as you slide the buttstock off the extension tube.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v239/freakshow10mm/Freakshow%20Mfg/PA010016.jpg

This is the result. A receiver with extension tube, no stock attached.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v239/freakshow10mm/Freakshow%20Mfg/PA010013.jpg

ke6guj
10-02-2009, 1:38 PM
I've never needed to remove that pin to unscrew the nut, or even use a pair of pliers to remove the stock.

I've been able to just grab the plastic "latch" piece and pull it out while sliding the stock off has removed the stock from the buffer tube. Granted, my sample size is probably smaller than yours.

JagerTroop
10-02-2009, 1:46 PM
Yes. There is a pin under the buttstock. Tap this out and the spring will release allowing the stock to be removed.
Or you could just pull out on the lever, instead of in(like making an adjustment). There would never be a reason to remove the roll pin, just to remove the buttstock. Which is why I was confused when you said "remove the pin" ;)

Here's the problem. If you can remove the foam, and install a buttstock... all by hand, wouldn't that be considered "able to accept a buttstock" per BATF? (I can't remember the exact wording) Correct me if I'm wrong.

We would already be pushing the boundaries with the "kit" issue. Why not be concrete on the pistol tube issue?

I'm just trying to be safe, that's all ;)

AJAX22
10-02-2009, 2:26 PM
'able to accept a buttstock' is a constructive possession issue, if it is a kit that is designed to be alternately a pistol and a rifle, then so long as the stock is not on the buffer tube when you have the pistol upper installed it would be ok.

The whole 'put foam on your pistol buffer' is so that you are never in a situation where you could have an extra stock along with your pistol and no legal use for it (i.e. constructive posession)

If your gun is designed to have the buttstock on it when the rifle upper is on it and is legal to switch back and forth, there should be no reason why you can't leave a standard 6 position buffer tube on the firearm in pistol form.

freakshow10mm
10-02-2009, 2:27 PM
I've never needed to remove that pin to unscrew the nut, or even use a pair of pliers to remove the stock.

Because I'm a wimp and need the force multiplier of pliers.:D


Here's the problem. If you can remove the foam, and install a buttstock... all by hand, wouldn't that be considered "able to accept a buttstock" per BATF? (I can't remember the exact wording) Correct me if I'm wrong.

What ability to accept a buttstock? Find the verbiage/context about ability to accept a buttstock and I can comment on it from my POV.

freakshow10mm
10-02-2009, 2:32 PM
'able to accept a buttstock' is a constructive possession issue, if it is a kit that is designed to be alternately a pistol and a rifle, then so long as the stock is not on the buffer tube when you have the pistol upper installed it would be ok.
And TC v US explicitly states that an SBR must have a rifled short barrel and firearm with shoulder stock attached the weapon must be fully operation and complete in order to be a SBR.

The whole 'put foam on your pistol buffer' is so that you are never in a situation where you could have an extra stock along with your pistol and no legal use for it (i.e. constructive posession)
I was thinking more of a comfort in shooting aspect of it, but I can see this point of guarding against CS as applicable to CA state penal code.

If your gun is designed to have the buttstock on it when the rifle upper is on it and is legal to switch back and forth, there should be no reason why you can't leave a standard 6 position buffer tube on the firearm in pistol form.
Correct and the kits I will sell will include both a pistol buffer assembly and an M4 stock assembly (rear detent spring will be captured so you can swap easily).

CHS
10-02-2009, 4:46 PM
Correct and the kits I will sell will include both a pistol buffer assembly and an M4 stock assembly (rear detent spring will be captured so you can swap easily).

I really like the idea of a quick-change buffer/stock system with a captive detent and buffer retainer.

Like a modular tube assembly.

AJAX22
10-02-2009, 5:00 PM
I think it would be best to leave the 6 position buffer tube in place, aluminum on aluminum is not ideal for repeated assembly/dissasembly when you have to torque it down a bit..... I guess you could do it with those stainless steel AR lowers... but you'd be using the buffer tube as a sacraficial element.

Just my 2 cents.

Ground Loop
10-02-2009, 5:29 PM
If those kits were available in CA, at a DROS-willing FFL, I'd have my credit card on the counter in record time.

CHS
10-02-2009, 5:57 PM
Freakshow: How long does it typically take to get a letter back from the tech branch?

It would be awesome to have an actual letter directly from the ATF not only approving "kits", but specifically approving one of yours.

freakshow10mm
10-02-2009, 7:27 PM
Freakshow: How long does it typically take to get a letter back from the tech branch?

It would be awesome to have an actual letter directly from the ATF not only approving "kits", but specifically approving one of yours.
Usually 3-4 months. I have company for the weekend but will draft and mail a letter of intent for clarification to the ATF FTB on Monday the 5th. Hopefully by the end of the year I will get a ruling. I will be including a copy of this letter posted in that with emphasis on the kit part. With that in hand I don't think the ATF has much choice, but even that's a stretch.

Like I said earlier, if I'm approved by the ATF that the AR15 kit it a green light, they will be introduced to California only until I decide other states are worth dealing with.

I'd like to offer a standard kit in .223 and in 9mm. Looking like CMMG for the uppers, possibly RRA for the 9mm as a backup. I'd also like to see if I can work with Addux Tactical to offer a GPU kit using their uppers. Perhaps have JD Defense cut lowers on a variance, AT supply the uppers, basically use as much CA based components as possible and make it the California Kit, or CaliKit.

Hard to decipher as I'm on file with CMMG, LMT, RRA, Anvil, Stag.

Oh, how's this (probably giving into my competition here). How about a LH upper kit with uppers from Stag? Might have to cup their b*lls to get them to run some short barrels with a LH extension or cut and crown standard barrels. Would be cool to have a left hand rifle and pistol kit, eh?

Try and keep the price under $2,000 for the kit with a receiver, buttstock, and two uppers. Custom kits can also be put together from LMT, etc.

JagerTroop
10-02-2009, 8:52 PM
What ability to accept a buttstock? Find the verbiage/context about ability to accept a buttstock and I can comment on it from my POV.

This is the letter that I was refering to. The last paragraph:...possessing a rifle buttstock that could readily be installed on your pistol, could constitute possession of a short-barreled rifle

I know it says "could constitute", and not "does", but do you want to roll the dice?
http://www.jcweaponry.com/images/ar15/BB.JPG

freakshow10mm
10-02-2009, 8:56 PM
"Could" does not equal "does".

Also TC v US shot down the ATF's argument of constructive possession, which I commented on earlier. A SBR or SBS has to be fully assembled to be a SBR or SBS, which TC v US addressed. Since the TC kit was not fully assembled into a SBR, it was not an SBR as in order to be an SBR (or SBS) it has to be fully assembled.

JagerTroop
10-02-2009, 9:00 PM
"Could" does not equal "does".

Also TC v US shot down the ATF's argument of constructive possession, which I commented on earlier. A SBR or SBS has to be fully assembled to be a SBR or SBS, which TC v US addressed. Since the TC kit was not fully assembled into a SBR, it was not an SBR as in order to be an SBR (or SBS) it has to be fully assembled.

Ok. So there are no more constructive possession laws? Good to know. Thank you for correcting me.

I'm just trying to cover all bases :)

freakshow10mm
10-02-2009, 9:03 PM
Federal= no constructive possession according to TC v US. No case to sustain.

California= I personally don't know. I've heard from reliable sources that you have a constructive possession statute in the penal code language about SBR and your 30 inch rule. That part of CA penal code I'm not the one to ask or opine about.

bwiese
10-02-2009, 11:12 PM
Ok. So there are no more constructive possession laws? Good to know. Thank you for correcting me.

I'm just trying to cover all bases :)

Freakshow10mm is only talking about Fed law. He needs to realize we're in CA.

CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION DOES INDEED APPLY TO SBR/SBS MATTERS IN CA. DO NOT HAVE SHORTY UPPER AND AN AR
RIFLE/RIFLE LOWER unless & until you have a legit AR pistol and/or pistol lower.

The definitions of SBR and SBS in Calif PC 12020(c)(...) are wide enough to include separated parts and the wording includes an effective definition of constructive possession concept.

dfletcher
10-03-2009, 12:08 AM
Just to clarify, federal constructive possession does not apply with respect to these kits since a handgun and a long gun can be legally configured from the parts contained, without creating an NFA arm, correct? Having only a shoulder stocked frame/lower and a less than 16" barrel/upper only would still (federally) be constructive possession of an SBR, correct? Or am I misreading Souter in paragraph 4?

http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/tc.html

freakshow10mm
10-03-2009, 4:43 AM
Freakshow10mm is only talking about Fed law. He needs to realize we're in CA.

CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION DOES INDEED APPLY TO SBR/SBS MATTERS IN CA. DO NOT HAVE SHORTY UPPER AND AN AR
RIFLE/RIFLE LOWER unless & until you have a legit AR pistol and/or pistol lower.

The definitions of SBR and SBS in Calif PC 12020(c)(...) are wide enough to include separated parts and the wording includes an effective definition of constructive possession concept.
Which is why I clearly stated that California has constructive possession and that I am not versed in enough in that area of penal code to discuss the California matter, in the post above yours.

Just to clarify, federal constructive possession does not apply with respect to these kits since a handgun and a long gun can be legally configured from the parts contained, without creating an NFA arm, correct?
Yes.

Having only a shoulder stocked frame/lower and a less than 16" barrel/upper only would still (federally) be constructive possession of an SBR, correct? Or am I misreading Souter in paragraph 4?
No. An SBR must be fully assembled in order to be a SBR. Citation from TC v US

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed, holding that a short barreled rifle "actually must be assembled" in order to be "made" within the meaning of the NFA. 924 F. 2d 1041, 1043 (1991). The Court of Appeals expressly declined to follow the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in United States v. Drasen, 845 F. 2d 731, cert. denied, 488 U.S. 909 (1988), which had held that an unassembled "complete parts kit" for a short barreled rifle was in fact a short barreled rifle for purposes of the NFA. We granted certiorari to resolve this conflict. 502 U. S. ___ (1991).

Full text of decision:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-0164.ZO.html

And I must warn everyone here, TC v US which stikes down the ATF's attitude of constructive possession offers no protection from California state law regarding constructive possession of a SBR.

Steve O
10-03-2009, 5:08 AM
Yes!

There is no possible way that letter can be interpreted as being in line with the SCOTUS decision.

I couldn't even read the letter...:chris: