PDA

View Full Version : Hypothetical - Virgin rcvr, dros'd as long gun, volreg'd as pistol. Would u build it?


thedrickel
04-23-2011, 2:17 PM
Let's say, hypothetically speaking of course, you DROS'd a receiver as a long gun maybe a year ago, and you know for a fact that it was 4473'd as "Other." Then, let's assume that thru some acrobatic verbal maneuvers, you were able to convince the BOF flunkies to accept your voluntary registration form and enter it into AFS as a pistol. Could the state still make a future claim that your (now built) pistol is in fact an SBR since it was DROS'd as a long gun? (although clearly no stock has ever been attached)

SJgunguy24
04-23-2011, 2:47 PM
Only 1 way to find out......I have a couple laying around.

CSACANNONEER
04-23-2011, 2:50 PM
I spoke with ATF about this at SHOT. On a federal level, there are ZERO issues with building a handgun on a virgin receiver. It makes no difference to them how California DROSed it. So, legally, you can always buy a receiver in Ca. DROS it as a long gun, take it to another state (or not depending on your level of comfort), build it into a handgun and bring your already legally owned firearm back into California with you. I see no legal reason that one would be required to voluntarilly register it as a handgun. I see it as a perfectly legal way to own brand new unregistered handguns in CA. But, IANAL and don't have the funds to fight something like this should it ever go to court. So, I'm not doing it at this point in time.

CHS
04-23-2011, 2:53 PM
Seeing as how CA actually destroys the "long gun" DROS's once the background check is complete, the only record left of this gun would be the AFS registration and a paper copy of the DROS at the FFL's premises.

I don't see an issue with it.

However, I also wouldn't advocate that anyone do this. Especially with the roster SO CLOSE to being destroyed.

Hopi
04-23-2011, 3:41 PM
Lots of good discussion on the same topic here: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=249589

chiz
04-23-2011, 11:32 PM
I would do it. I haven't seen anything saying saying you cant turn a long gun into a pistol. Just like there is nothing saying that you can't change a single shot pistol semi auto. The way I see it the law says what you can't do, not what you can. And I don't see where it says you can't.

Besides it just a regular 7.62x39 pistol anyway.

Cokebottle
04-23-2011, 11:49 PM
Then, let's assume that thru some acrobatic verbal maneuvers, you were able to convince the BOF flunkies to accept your voluntary registration form and enter it into AFS as a pistol.
This is the problem.
You can't do this without committing perjury.
To VolReg as a handgun, it must be in roster-exempt form when the build is initially completed.
You can't do this and process the VolReg prior to completing the build without lying on the form (barrel length, semi-auto, etc....)

Hopi
04-24-2011, 12:03 AM
To VolReg as a handgun, it must be in roster-exempt form when the build is initially completed.

You insisted that is the case in the thread linked above, where is that assertion backed by law?

Without a barrel, it's not a pistol, so the receiving FFL would log it through the way he would any other stripped lower.

Whether it could be legally done? Possibly.
Finding an FFL willing to stick his neck out and do it?
How's your relationship with your black-rifle FFL?
The biggest problem is likely the "barrel length" entry on the DROS.

If an LEO walks in to an FFL to PPT a stripped pistol receiver, how is it logged? As a pistol. Am I wrong?

thedrickel
04-24-2011, 12:57 AM
Assume it was volreg'd as a single shot, naturally. :)

Cokebottle
04-24-2011, 10:57 AM
You insisted that is the case in the thread linked above, where is that assertion backed by law?
PC 12125 (http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/PEN/3/4/2/1.3/s12125)(a) Commencing January 1, 2001, any person in this state who manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the state for sale, keeps for sale, offers or exposes for sale, gives, or lends any unsafe handgun shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year.
If an LEO walks in to an FFL to PPT a stripped pistol receiver, how is it logged? As a pistol. Am I wrong?
LEO is exempt from the roster. The roster is the whole problem. We (civvies) can't DROS a handgun from dealer stock unless it is either on the roster, or roster exempt.
The stripped receiver is neither roster exempt, nor on the roster.

A cop can DROS a used playing card as a handgun since he is exempt from the roster.

As far as that goes, anyone can PPT a stripped receiver as a handgun. The problem is obtaining it in the first place. The LEO could PPT the handgun receiver, but he first must obtain it without it ever having been "declared" a long gun. Cops are not exempt from NFA.
Assume it was volreg'd as a single shot, naturally. :)
Which means it must be complete.
You are taking the chance on assembly prior to approval of the VolReg and potentially violating NFA, or you are lying on the VolReg under the "barrel length" and type of action (SS, S/A, etc...)

Barabas
04-24-2011, 12:06 PM
Which means it must be complete.
You are taking the chance on assembly prior to approval of the VolReg and potentially violating NFA, or you are lying on the VolReg under the "barrel length" and type of action (SS, S/A, etc...)

ATF says building a pistol from a receiver that has never been built as a rifle is fine:

http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=122&t=465457

No violation of NFA.

Cokebottle
04-24-2011, 12:26 PM
ATF says building a pistol from a receiver that has never been built as a rifle is fine:

http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=122&t=465457

No violation of NFA.
But outside of California, the receiver has never been legally declared to be a "long gun".
In California, the original DROS does.

Supposedly, the DOJ purges the records after 5 days (and some claim there is evidence that they do not), but the DROS record does remain at the FFL.

I'm not going to risk a felony, especially not to have something that is "fun", but so totally impractical as an AR pistol.

707electrician
04-24-2011, 12:28 PM
Seeing as how CA actually destroys the "long gun" DROS's once the background check is complete, the only record left of this gun would be the AFS registration and a paper copy of the DROS at the FFL's premises.

I don't see an issue with it.

However, I also wouldn't advocate that anyone do this. Especially with the roster SO CLOSE to being destroyed.

:twoweeks: Right? :D

E Pluribus Unum
04-24-2011, 12:36 PM
What if somebody who lives in another state, like Utah, builds up an AR pistol and then moves to California? He should be able to voluntarily register it as long as it's in California-legal configuration... yes?

Munk
04-24-2011, 12:39 PM
But outside of California, the receiver has never been legally declared to be a "long gun".
In California, the original DROS does.

Supposedly, the DOJ purges the records after 5 days (and some claim there is evidence that they do not), but the DROS record does remain at the FFL.

I'm not going to risk a felony, especially not to have something that is "fun", but so totally impractical as an AR pistol.

This was my worry as well. Something about building a handgun out of a long gun. IMO there's no reason that should be illegal but whatever... Since CA declared it a longgun on the way in, you'd be running afoul of this.

Cokebottle
04-24-2011, 12:45 PM
What if somebody who lives in another state, like Utah, builds up an AR pistol and then moves to California? He should be able to voluntarily register it as long as it's in California-legal configuration... yes?
Perfectly legal.
Same as they would be able to declare any other off-roster handgun.

That is not the same form as the VolReg... that is a declaration as a personal importer/new resident. The forms are similar but it is a roster exempt transaction.

Joe
04-24-2011, 12:58 PM
Very interesting thread.

bwiese
04-24-2011, 1:08 PM
What if somebody who lives in another state, like Utah, builds up an AR pistol and then moves to California? He should be able to voluntarily register it as long as it's in California-legal configuration... yes?

That's a legal pistol in UT.

As long as it's brought into CA in non-AW form, fine to vol reg it.

CHS
04-24-2011, 1:09 PM
If an LEO walks in to an FFL to PPT a stripped pistol receiver, how is it logged? As a pistol. Am I wrong?

Assume it was volreg'd as a single shot, naturally. :)

"Logged" as a frame/receiver/other. DROS'ed as a pistol. There is a spot on the Handgun DROS for "frame"

Theoretically, you could Volreg a "handgun frame" since it's supported in the DROS and therefore SHOULD be in AFS. I do know at least one other Calgunner that has actually volreg'ed a few stripped virgin receivers as handgun frames because he had residency in Vegas. I think he used the personal handgun importer form though.

http://i335.photobucket.com/albums/m446/bdsmchs/KD-pistol-1.jpg

http://i335.photobucket.com/albums/m446/bdsmchs/KD-pistol.jpg

bwiese
04-24-2011, 1:29 PM
But outside of California, the receiver has never been legally declared to be a "long gun".
In California, the original DROS does.

Supposedly, the DOJ purges the records after 5 days (and some claim there is evidence that they do not), but the DROS record does remain at the FFL.

I'm not going to risk a felony, especially not to have something that is "fun", but so totally impractical as an AR pistol.


The reason for the caution is that generally once a receiver is 'corrupted' by assembly even momentarily into rifle it can't turn into a handgun again.
If the receiver were somehow, for some reason, 4473'd as a long gun I think the ATF would have issues with it becoming a pistol.

So when this level of triviality risk SBR legal drama, I think there is some risk that CA DROSing could be

What a BATF field agent says is pretty moot. Unless there were a signed letter from BATF Tech Branch, that'd be a no-go.

There's more risk on the state side too. The awesome, officially recognized as competent powers of the State of California, thru purchase process, have officially declared a receiver to be a rifle and not a pistol. Even if there is no record of this stored ("rifles aren't registered"), there's a log or paper somewhere on file (at FFL) that says the receiver was DROSed as a rifle. And while rifles have a "shoulder fired" component in their definition,
one 12020(c)(....) definition of SBR includes "any weapon made from a rifle..." that shorty in one more evil ways.

Given we have a lawful path to such guns, this discussion is really more or less academic.

We should NEVER rely on a "there's no record of this" stance, so we can do this" because that's only supported by the "dead hookers in trunk are legit if your taillights work" legal theory.

bwiese
04-24-2011, 1:31 PM
If an LEO walks in to an FFL to PPT a stripped pistol receiver, how is it logged? As a pistol. Am I wrong?

From a practical standpoint it's probably handwavingly regarded as a handgun, there may be some aux. frame designator. It's just not a Rostered pistol - and thus given it's a PPT xfer, it's legit to transfer.

CHS
04-24-2011, 1:33 PM
The stripped receiver is neither roster exempt, nor on the roster.


Actually, stripped receivers ARE roster-exempt :)

The problem is twofold: A.) The DOJ has stated that receivers are not rosterable. The law says differently, so this is an underground regulation. Plus, it's IN THE DROS. It's easy to sell a receiver as a roster-exempt handgun to a normal non-leo civilian. However, when that regulation was challenged the BOE rejected the challenge/claim. And B.) Pena. We don't want to screw up efforts to actually get rid of the roster entirely through Pena.

Hopi
04-24-2011, 1:45 PM
So we come to the exact same conclusion that was formed in my thread from 2 years ago.....not clearly illegal but risky and not worth the effort with other means to acquire firearms of that type.

One question, why does federal preemption not come into play here wrt firearm status?

bwiese
04-24-2011, 1:49 PM
So we come to the exact same conclusion that was formed in my thread from 2 years ago.....not clearly illegal but risky and not worth the effort with other means to acquire firearms of that type.

One question, why does federal preemption not come into play here wrt firearm status?

There may be no Federal preemption in this field - a (legally) competent organization has indicated it was a rifle and that could carry backward. I don't think there's any law on the Fed books saying "we own this space exclusively".

Also, state of CA has the right to create its own firearm definitions and as I mentioned above I can see a risk *CA law* SBR status being crossed, even if we were A-Ok with the Feds.

glockwise2000
04-24-2011, 2:36 PM
:twoweeks: Right? :D

It has been :twoweeks: forever!!!