Pistol Lowers

[ke6guj]

Obviously that .410 example would not fly in CA since CA defines SBS differently than the feds do.

I'd want to get some sort of legal opinion on longgun =/= rifle if the receiver was never stocked. It would take some $$$$ to get that probably. But, a straight reading of the code does not appear that a longgun can't become a pistol. The only thing limiting a longgun becoming a pistol would be the SBR regs, and that only kicks it if it was a rifle. And the definition of a rifle requires a shoulder stock.

A similar thing has been mentioned regarding making Longgun firearms (16+"/26+") that have detachable mags and evil features, but do not fall under the AW regs since they have never had a shoulder stock.

[trinydex]

so people make pistols like this outside of ca? that's the impression i'm getting.

[CHS]

so people make pistols like this outside of ca? that's the impression i'm getting.

Honestly, we don't know.

I've never actually heard of it.

[ke6guj]

so people make pistols like this outside of ca? that's the impression i'm getting.

Building pistols from stripped receivers is much easier out of state. Many people have done it. But I dunno if any of them were built on receivers that were 4473'd as longguns even though they were stripped. That is one of the reasons that the 4473 was updated to include "other firearm", due to stripped receivers, and NFA items.

What we need to determine is, if federally, does a longgun notation on the bound-book/4473/DROS at any point forever taint a receiver as to never allow it to be able to become a pistol? Or does it actually need to have a shoulder stock attached to become a rifle, so that it is precluded from making a pistol from it.

Once we know that, then we can apply CA law to the situation.

But my reading of Fed an CA law would seem to allow for a "longgun" logged stripped receiver to be initially built as a pistol.

[CHS]

Once we know that, then we can apply CA law to the situation.

But my reading of Fed an CA law would seem to allow for a "longgun" logged stripped receiver to be initially built as a pistol.

The interesting wrench in the gears is the Stupid California Handgun Registration Form.

Think about it, you buy a stripped lower and 4473/DROS it as a longgun. You get home, and you put all your AR pistol parts on it. You then submit the Stupid California Handgun Registration Form. You get confirmation that your AR pistol is now registered to you as a pistol.

A couple months go by and you're at the range playing with your new pistol. A cop sees it and freaks out. So he detains you long enough to run a registration check on your "pistol". Registration comes back clean and registered to you. Cop scratches his head and says "have a nice day" and moves on.

EVEN IF it's technically not allowed, by voluntarily registering the gun as a pistol you've effectively "Made it" a pistol in CA's eyes. The BATFE would be none the wiser.


Can someone please import a 1911 longgun frame into the state for me now? It's not a pistol so it doesn't have to be on the roster

And while we're at it, I could totally use another Encore. Someone should start importing bare Encore and Contender frames. Err, I mean Title 1 firearms

[Ford8N]

But my reading of Fed an CA law would seem to allow for a "longgun" logged stripped receiver to be initially built as a pistol.

So I need to look at the DROS paper work to see if it is "logged" as a "longun" and not "rifle"? Or is this the 4473 paperwork? Usually it's just a bill of sale that is written the word "receiver" and nothing else.

[freakshow10mm]

Look up Thompson Center Arms v US. It dealt with a rifle/pistol kit TC was offering consisting of a single frame with a rifle barrel and shoulder stock as well as a pistol barrel and grip in the same case. In that case, the court ruled that as long as the short barrel and shoulder stock weren't on the frame at the same time, it wasn't a SBR. HOWEVER, and this is the key that many fail to understand, the ruling only applied to that specific kit, not generally to all firearms. A lot of people think the same thing about ARs and that is not the case. It was a very narrow opinion rendered that dealt only with the TC Arms kit, not firearms as a whole.

I contacted my ATF field office downstate in Grand Rapids regarding this issue of the 4473 and bare receivers. They informed me the check box on the old form didn't matter much, if the type of firearm was called into question they looked at sections 26-30 which state the characteristics of the firearm, including if it's a complete weapon (rifle, shotgun, pistol) or receiver/frame.

[CHS]

I contacted my ATF field office downstate in Grand Rapids regarding this issue of the 4473 and bare receivers. They informed me the check box on the old form didn't matter much, if the type of firearm was called into question they looked at sections 26-30 which state the characteristics of the firearm, including if it's a complete weapon (rifle, shotgun, pistol) or receiver/frame.

So then we're good from a Federal point of view.

So there are still a few questions that need to be addressed, if these are just Title 1 receivers/frames and NOT pistols/longguns by definition or law (regardless of how they are 4473'ed or DROS'ed):

1.) Why can't we in CA receive legally through an FFL new dealer stock 1911 frames? Or Glock frames? Or TC bare frames?

2.) Does the status change if they have any parts at all installed in them? (for example: bare TC frame does not come stripped)

3.) If we can't legally have a title 1 firearm 1911 frame, then why are we legally allowed to buy bare AR receivers in CA?

4.) Can I fill out the voluntary handgun registration for a bare frame, regardless of how it was dros'ed to magically "create" a pistol in CA from a frame?

Yeah, these are CA specific questions Adam. I'm hoping that the guys in the know here in CA can shed some light on this. Where's Bill and Gene???

[sureshot]

Follow up

According to a very knowledgable ATF Inspector, up until recently, (30 days ago) this was a very easy question. If the firearm was listed in the Manufacturer's books as type "rifle" it was forever a rifle, as it is illegal to change a rifle into a pistol. If it was manufactured as a pistol, it could be assembled as a pistol.
There is now an additional category of "Other" that receivers are now to be listed on the 4473 as such. If the manufacturer listed it as "other" then the possibility exists that it could be legally assembled as a pistol.

However, to get a REAL decision on this you need to place a written inquiry to the ATF Firearms Technology Branch. This is the only way unequivocally to settle this discussion from the FEDERAL standpoint as if the case of the assembled gun ever getting picked up or seized, this is who would make the determination as to it's legality.

THis is ONLY addressing the issue on the Federal level, NOT onthe CA level.

Jabie Gray

[trinydex]

So then we're good from a Federal point of view.

So there are still a few questions that need to be addressed, if these are just Title 1 receivers/frames and NOT pistols/longguns by definition or law (regardless of how they are 4473'ed or DROS'ed):

1.) Why can't we in CA receive legally through an FFL new dealer stock 1911 frames? Or Glock frames? Or TC bare frames?

2.) Does the status change if they have any parts at all installed in them? (for example: bare TC frame does not come stripped)

3.) If we can't legally have a title 1 firearm 1911 frame, then why are we legally allowed to buy bare AR receivers in CA?

4.) Can I fill out the voluntary handgun registration for a bare frame, regardless of how it was dros'ed to magically "create" a pistol in CA from a frame?

Yeah, these are CA specific questions Adam. I'm hoping that the guys in the know here in CA can shed some light on this. Where's Bill and Gene???

isn't it because of the safe hand gun list? anything _not on_ the list cannot make it in. you would have to do an 80% and build yourself. otherwise you'd have to import the frame in single shot configuration. only a completed gun can pass a drop test or be a single shot gun.

that's in contrast to the aw ban which is anything _on_ the list can't make it in. there's no drop test or anything that has to be passed. so the frame/receiver doesn't have to be in completed gun status when it is imported.

amirite? do i getz cookie?

[ke6guj]

isn't it because of the safe hand gun list? anything _not on_ the list cannot make it in. you would have to do an 80% and build yourself. otherwise you'd have to import the frame in single shot configuration. only a completed gun can pass a drop test or be a single shot gun.

That is what we are trying to figure out. Why can we import a stripped AR-pattern receiver but not a stripped 1911 receiver? Neither is on the safe handgun list. A receiver is neither a handgun or rifle.

that's in contrast to the aw ban which is anything _on_ the list can't make it in. there's no drop test or anything that has to be passed. so the frame/receiver doesn't have to be in completed gun status when it is imported.

once again, if the 1911 receiver is not a complete gun, what is the difference between it and an AR-pattern receiver? The buyer could be wanting the 1911 to run a cabine kit on it.

[trinydex]

once again, if the 1911 receiver is not a complete gun, what is the difference between it and an AR-pattern receiver? The buyer could be wanting the 1911 to run a cabine kit on it.

ah ic, there's an assumed rifleness about the ar receiver and no assumed rifledness about the 1911 receivers, but legally speaking there should be no assuming in either direction. i get what you guys are saying now.

wait... please don't tell me we just gave them a reason to "ban" all receivers...

[ke6guj]

ah ic, there's an assumed rifleness about the ar receiver and no assumed rifledness about the 1911 receivers, but legally speaking there should be no assuming in either direction. i get what you guys are saying now.

exactly.

wait... please don't tell me we just gave them a reason to "ban" all receivers...

that is a possible side-effect. But under what reasoning and PC could they?

[trinydex]

well i guess the question would be how to get relevant entities to recognize 1911 frames as "not full guns" nor "exclussively handgun receiver/frame" such that the safe handgun list comes into play.