Adjustable buffer tube on pistol? Constructive possession?

[Rich1911]

I am very lost on the pistol brace ruling. My question is, can you legally put a 6 position buffer tube on a pistol lower without a stock? And if so, what if I have extra stocks lying around? Could that be considered constructive possession?

I do have more stocks than rifle lowers (I tried a bunch of different ones).

FYI, I do not have any pistol lowers yet, just trying to decide if I want to go down this rabbit hole.

[Tripplet918]

The 6 position buffer tube is not meant to be shouldered.

Having a pistol brace that can attach to the pistol is a gray area, leaning towards constructive possession.

It looks like FPC’s challenge to the pistol brace rule is going to win.

Things are fluid right now. You are in violation of the new brace rule unless you are a member of a group who is party to the lawsuit.

[IVC]

There isn't a ruling, rulings come from courts as dispositions of test cases. What we have is interpretations of the legality by the executive branch, which defines what and how they will enforce and argue in the court.

Since we are pretty clear that CA sees braces as stocks, and since we know that the CA DOJ is anything but gun-friendly, I would never consider having a rifle buffer tube on a pistol, let alone if I owned extra stocks. The risk is just too high for me. But since there were no test cases yet (as far as I know) about constructive possession of this type, it's up to individuals to decide on how much risk they are willing to take and how much money they would want to spend being a test case. And, remember, being a test case doesn't mean you'll win, only that you'll get your day in court.

If you want my opinion, worth what you paid for it, I'd say stay away.

[Rich1911]

The 6 position buffer tube is not meant to be shouldered.

Having a pistol brace that can attach to the pistol is a gray area, leaning towards constructive possession.

It looks like FPC?s challenge to the pistol brace rule is going to win.

Things are fluid right now. You are in violation of the new brace rule unless you are a member of a group who is party to the lawsuit.

What if I don?t have a pistol brace, and only extra stocks? Is this still considered a gray area? Will having those stocks get me in trouble?

Again, I have nothing in possession. However, am looking into purchasing a complete pistol lower that has a 6 position tube attached (and does not come with a brace).

[IVC]

The 6 position buffer tube is not meant to be shouldered.

The "rifle buffer tube" is meant to have stock attached. The only reason to have those "6 positions" is for the stock to be adjustable. That's why I call it a "rifle buffer tube" and it's likely what the DA would call it.

When you have a pistol that can readily and without tools be converted to an SBR, when you have adjustable stocks laying around, it's playing with fire. Again, this is just my opinion, so others are free to see it differently and do as they please.

[Tripplet918]

What if I don?t have a pistol brace, and only extra stocks? Is this still considered a gray area? Will having those stocks get me in trouble?

Again, I have nothing in possession. However, am looking into purchasing a complete pistol lower that has a 6 position tube attached (and does not come with a brace).

When in doubt dont.

I cant give you definitive advise. There is none at the moment. As the other guy said, it gets even more complicated when CA gets involved.

[IVC]

What if I don?t have a pistol brace, and only extra stocks? Is this still considered a gray area? Will having those stocks get me in trouble?

As far as the legal precedent goes, there isn't one (to my knowledge). So it's a judgment call. All you can get is different opinions and it's going to be up to you to decide.

The best outcome, if you get the pistol lower, is that you're left alone and nobody bothers you. It's also likely that you'd never have an LE encounter where the issue would pop up. But on the negative side, there is a lot that a determined DA could push in court. In fact, if a DA "takes interest" in your configuration, that's enough to cost you a fortune.

[IVC]

When in doubt dont.

^^^ This is usually a good rule to go by, especially when risking a political felony prosecution.

[Rich1911]

Thanks!

So in theory, if I were to go the pistol route and do have extra stocks lying around, it would be best to just instal a pistol tube.

[bohoki]

i got pistol buffer tubes on my pistols they have the little cheek foam i'm not going to mess around sbr penalties are just like having a machine gun

[SVT-40]

The "rifle buffer tube" is meant to have stock attached. The only reason to have those "6 positions" is for the stock to be adjustable. That's why I call it a "rifle buffer tube" and it's likely what the DA would call it.

When you have a pistol that can readily and without tools be converted to an SBR, when you have adjustable stocks laying around, it's playing with fire. Again, this is just my opinion, so others are free to see it differently and do as they please.

This.

The question you would get asked is; "Why do you have a rifle buffer tube on your pistol lower if you supposedly don't intend to put a rifle stock on it?"

[sigstroker]

I think I saw somewhere in the "proposed rule" that having a rifle or carbine buffer tube on a pistol would be considered a stock.

Funny thing, one of the reasons the appeals court (I think) bounced it back to the lower court was the AFT is supposed to make their "final rule" like, or close to, the "proposed rule", and they were nowhere near alike. Without even considering the Constitution, there are a lot of procedural bungles the AFT made. It's like they don't even have lawyers over there any more.

[Quiet]

I am very lost on the pistol brace ruling. My question is, can you legally put a 6 position buffer tube on a pistol lower without a stock? And if so, what if I have extra stocks lying around? Could that be considered constructive possession?

Under CA laws...

If the AR pistol has the ability to accept a shoulder stock and an unattached shoulder stock is under the control or possession of the person who possess that AR pistol, then that person is in possession of a SBR. [PC 17170(e)]


Penal Code 17170
As used in this part, “short-barreled rifle” means any of the following:
(a) A rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length.
(b) A rifle with an overall length of less than 26 inches.
(c) Any weapon made from a rifle (whether by alteration, modification, or otherwise) if that weapon, as modified, has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length.
(d) Any device that may be readily restored to fire a fixed cartridge which, when so restored, is a device defined in subdivisions (a) to (c), inclusive.
(e) Any part, or combination of parts, designed and intended to convert a device into a device defined in subdivisions (a) to (c), inclusive, or any combination of parts from which a device defined in subdivisions (a) to (c), inclusive, may be readily assembled if those parts are in the possession or under the control of the same person.

I think I saw somewhere in the "proposed rule" that having a rifle or carbine buffer tube on a pistol would be considered a stock.

Under current Federal regulations... [27 CFR 479.11]

When determining on a case by case basis, several factors are taken into consideration:
~If the firearm's size (weight and length) is consistent with a similarly designed rifle. [a.2.i]
~If the buffer tube provides a length of pull consistent with that of a rifle. [a.2.ii]
~If the firearm's sights/scope are set with an eye relief that requires shouldering the firearm for proper usage. [a.2.iii]
~If the buffer tube or any type of reward extension is required for the firearm to operate. [a.2.iv]
~If the manufacturer has marketing/promotional material showing the firearm being used as a rifle. [a.2.v]
~If there is info (such as social media content) demonstrating the firearm being used as a rifle. [a.2.vi]


Therefore...

If an AR pistol has a carbine/rifle buffer tube that gives it a length of pull consistent with that of a rifle when shouldered (11.5") and the sights/scope on the AR pistol are set so that eye relief needed to properly use those sights/scope requires the AR pistol to be shouldered, then that AR pistol can be considered a SBR.




27 CFR 479.11
Rifle.
a. A weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed cartridge to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger, and shall include any such weapon which may be readily restored to fire a fixed cartridge.
1. For purposes of this definition, the term ?designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder? shall include a weapon that is equipped with an accessory, component, or other rearward attachment (e.g., a "stabilizing brace") that provides surface area that allows the weapon to be fired from the shoulder, provided other factors, as described in paragraph (2), indicate that the weapon is designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder.
2. When a weapon provides surface area that allows the weapon to be fired from the shoulder, the following factors shall also be considered in determining whether the weapon is designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder:
i. Whether the weapon has a weight or length consistent with the weight or length of similarly designed rifles;
ii. Whether the weapon has a length of pull, measured from the center of the trigger to the center of the shoulder stock or other rearward accessory, component or attachment (including an adjustable or telescoping attachment with the ability to lock into various positions along a buffer tube, receiver extension, or other attachment method), that is consistent with similarly designed rifles;
iii. Whether the weapon is equipped with sights or a scope with eye relief that require the weapon to be fired from the shoulder in order to be used as designed;
iv. Whether the surface area that allows the weapon to be fired from the shoulder is created by a buffer tube, receiver extension, or any other accessory, component, or other rearward attachment that is necessary for the cycle of operations;
v. The manufacturer's direct and indirect marketing and promotional materials indicating the intended use of the weapon; and
vi. Information demonstrating the likely use of the weapon in the general community.

[IVC]

27 CFR 479.11
Rifle.
a. A weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use
...
iv. Whether the surface area that allows the weapon to be fired from the shoulder is created by a buffer tube, receiver extension, or any other accessory, component, or other rearward attachment that is necessary for the cycle of operations;

v. The manufacturer's direct and indirect marketing and promotional materials indicating the intended use of the weapon; and

vi. Information demonstrating the likely use of the weapon in the general community.

And this is why we complain about the legal system and the laws. They are literally trying to legislate "naughtiness" of a gun - two functionally identical guns can be treated differently and lead to felony convictions based on marketing and TikTok.

Imagine if the legality of your car changed based on what commercials they are running. A commercial shows your car speeding, so you get pulled over because your car is *capable* of speeding and it was shown on TV as a promotion. Or, a law that says "you as a man can compete in women's sports if you drink Bud Light, but not if you drink Coors Light" because that's what's on TikTok and that's how we determine whether you're using, abusing or mocking the (idiotic) system. But this is our reality until the system changes...