AR 15 Buttstock = Handgun

[dfletcher]

Help ...

I'm looking for the ATF letter that specifically states a new AR 15 lower with buttstock attached does not become a long gun until a greater than 16" upper is attached - that an AR 15 with buttstock attached is 4473'd as "other" and can be assembled as a handgun outside CA of course.

Someone on another forum (GB) ended a thread with "an AR 15 with a buttstock is automatically a long gun" and I'd like to post the correct info.

I found the T/C letter, but one's been posted here regarding the AR specifically.

Thanks

[wildhawker]

Federally, the firearm is a receiver until it's assembled into a specific disposition (e.g. handgun, rifle, shotgun, long gun, AOW, MG, or others).

In CA, the receiver is DROSed as a long gun or handgun depending on the transferee.

I believe that bdsmchs had that letter, if you're searching.

[dfletcher]

^^^
I think that's the one I posted, the one I'm recalling speaks to AR 15s specifically and states an AR receiver with buttstock attached does not become a long gun until it is "barreled" or "enbarreled" with a greater than 16" upper - odd use of the word kind of stuck in my mind.

[wildhawker]

Here's you link: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...27&postcount=1

(Yes, this is a repost from the FFL forum of mine)

So this morning I had a nice long phone discussion with James at the local (OC) ATF field office about AR lower receivers. Specifically, complete lower receivers with buttstocks installed and how they must be recorded and transferred.

First off, a complete lower receiver which has a buttstock *DOES NOT* meet the definition of a rifle or a shotgun, and MUST be transferred on the 4473 as an "other firearm" of type "receiver".

Second, because complete lower receivers are not rifles or shotguns, they CAN NOT be transferred to someone under the age of 21. A buttstock does not a rifle make, and you can't just slap a buttstock onto a lower and transfer it to an 18-20 year old.

Third, because a complete lower receiver with a buttstock installed is not a rifle or a shotgun, it MAY be used in the construction of a pistol. This was the most surprising to me. Obviously, you must remove the buttstock first and replace it with something like a pistol buffer tube, or buffer tower plug. But the buttstock DOES NOT negate the possibility of building a pistol[*]

This last part was the most surprising to me, since the ATF has always held the position of anything with a buttstock cannot be made into a pistol. Ever. In truth, I was actually hoping to catch the ATF in a small hypocrisy, for if they told me you can't make a pistol from a receiver that has a buttstock, then that would mean they would maintain that the receiver with a buttstock is indeed a rifle/shotgun and so what would be their reasoning for not allowing the transfer to an 18-20yo.

So, want an LMT pistol? It can be done




[*] = PLEASE remember that due to CA's DROS system confusing the issue, it may not be legal to build a pistol on even a stripped lower receiver due to receivers being DROS'ed as "long guns", with no way to DROS them as pistols at this time.


UPDATE - 2/19/2010: My ATF agent called me back. We're getting an official letter ruling on #3.

UPDATE - 3/29/2010: The letter came! LMT defender pistols, anyone?

[cmaynes]

I hope people have the commonsense to not think that is an end-around way to make an SBR....

[JBBenson]

So, how should one carry/transport a complete lower with buttstock attached?

As a "rifle"? Or as a "pistol", i.e. in a locked case?

[dfletcher]

Here's you link: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...27&postcount=1

Thanks very much, that's the one.

[dfletcher]

I hope people have the commonsense to not think that is an end-around way to make an SBR....

I don't think that's the case. The thread started on GB with a discussion of stripped lowers and I threw in that an AR 15 with a buttstock was 4473'd the same and had the same status as a stripped receiver with respect to being configured as a pistol, so long as it never had a barrel on it; and that a person needed to be 21 yrs old to purchase.

[Fobjoe]

Would this allow one residing out of state to possibly assemble a superlight "plumcrazy" pistol?

[cmaynes]

I don't think that's the case. The thread started on GB with a discussion of stripped lowers and I threw in that an AR 15 with a buttstock was 4473'd the same and had the same status as a stripped receiver with respect to being configured as a pistol, so long as it never had a barrel on it; and that a person needed to be 21 yrs old to purchase.

the letter from ATF however is assuming that the end user will do things in the right order- IE get the lower through the 4473, convert it, THEN add the pistol upper.

I have seen crazy stuff in regards to this sort of thing- and many times people will look at something like that and selectively read it- and then go and get themselves into all sorts of trouble-

I have a friend for instance, who had a 16" barrelled AR, and in the same gun case had a 10.5" barrelled upper- That sort of screams out constructive possession, at least to me- and given most LEO's misinterpretation of the laws, would likely result in at the least a big hassle for the owner, and at worse- an actual confiscation and possible detention.

[wildhawker]

cmaynes,

How do we control for idiots? As with guns themselves, the assumption here is that people will use the information appropriately.

-Brandon

[dfletcher]

the letter from ATF however is assuming that the end user will do things in the right order- IE get the lower through the 4473, convert it, THEN add the pistol upper.

I have seen crazy stuff in regards to this sort of thing- and many times people will look at something like that and selectively read it- and then go and get themselves into all sorts of trouble-

I have a friend for instance, who had a 16" barrelled AR, and in the same gun case had a 10.5" barrelled upper- That sort of screams out constructive possession, at least to me- and given most LEO's misinterpretation of the laws, would likely result in at the least a big hassle for the owner, and at worse - an actual confiscation and possible detention.

Agree - some folks have the wonderful ability to go dancing in a minefield.

It's amazing really how easy it is to run afoul of the law with no ill intent. For example, a fellow buys a Remington Model 7 action in a rifle stock - no barrel, he figures he'll get that later. It's the only Remington he owns. Later comes and goes (as it does with many gun projects) and he gets the hots for a bolt action pistol so the Rem 7 action is barreled with a nice 15" Shilen and dropped into an XP 100 handgun stock. The Rem 7 rifle stock sits in the corner. The poor fellow has gone from building a rifle (OK) to building a handgun instead (OK) to I suppose constructive possession of an SBR (Oh, oh ....) without a second thought.

I know firearms technology is mostly 19th centuray stuff, but on this barrel switching and "handgun to long gun & back" configuration stuff I think current technology has outpaced the law. Laws passed that criminalize lopping off the barrel of a Colt Monitor seem out of place given our current advances and capabilities.

[wildhawker]

An action without a barrel (that has never been a functioning rifle or shotgun) is only an action, stock or not. If he first removes the barrel-less action from the stock and then assembles a handgun, there is no violation or constructive possession of an SBR.

That said, it's pretty reasonable to expect (at least) a few criminal cases to test the definitions within the next few years. Hopefully we'll have a chance to challenge them in a civil action(s) prior, but it's tough to outpace the crim law on these issues.

-BC

Agree - some folks have the wonderful ability to go dancing in a minefield.

It's amazing really how easy it is to run afoul of the law with no ill intent. For example, a fellow buys a Remington Model 7 action in a rifle stock - no barrel, he figures he'll get that later. It's the only Remington he owns. Later comes and goes (as it does with many gun projects) and he gets the hots for a bolt action pistol so the Rem 7 action is barreled with a nice 15" Shilen and dropped into an XP 100 handgun stock. The Rem 7 rifle stock sits in the corner. The poor fellow has gone from building a rifle (OK) to building a handgun instead (OK) to I suppose constructive possession of an SBR (Oh, oh ....) without a second thought.

I know firearms technology is mostly 19th centuray stuff, but on this barrel switching and "handgun to long gun & back" configuration stuff I think current technology has outpaced the law. Laws passed that criminalize lopping off the barrel of a Colt Monitor seem out of place given our current advances and capabilities.

[bohoki]

wow this is a tricky question


sounds like if you only own an ar-15 style rifle and a 10 inch upper that is constructive possession of a SBR that sounds reasonable to me

but is owning only a ar-15 style pistol and a complete a2 buttstock assembly constructive possession of a sbr?


it seems as if the only immunity to the constructive possession is to have a lawful use for the item once you have a lawful use all unlawful uses are ignored

[bwiese]

sounds like if you only own an ar-15 style rifle and a 10 inch upper that is constructive possession of a SBR that sounds reasonable to me

but is owning only a ar-15 style pistol and a complete a2 buttstock assembly constructive possession of a sbr?

Yep. I would not own an AR stock (telestock or A2 buttstock) if I only had an AR pistol.

Remember we're not just talking Fed law here, we're talking CA law - and there's less precedent and written documentation on what's what and it'd be very easy for a CA court to find guilt.

it seems as if the only immunity to the constructive possession is to have a lawful use for the item once you have a lawful use all unlawful uses are ignored

Generally, yes - a "lenity outcome".