Pistol to Carbine, is this legal?

[Eddie1965]

I have a Mac-10 clone currently in jail right now and as all of us Californians do during this time I'm searching the web for accessories. I see they sell carbine kits where you swap the lower and add a stock to the pistol. I've followed the flow chart and as long as I have the bullet button I'm compliant. My question is this: Could I legally switch back and forth between pistol to carbine and back to pistol again? Oh, and it is being dros'ed as a pistol.

[alfred1222]

what is the barrel length and the OAL length?? as long as you dont assemble an SBR when you put a new lower and stock on it i think you should be fine. someone with more knowledge on this help or correct me...

[Vin496]

what is the barrel length and the OAL length?? as long as you dont assemble an SBR when you put a new lower and stock on it i think you should be fine. someone with more knowledge on this help or correct me...

This is my understanding as well, as long as you adhere to the OAL(barrel/total length)requirements for a rifle and the BB you should be o.k..

Once it's registered as a pistol, then your fine making it a rifle.

[bwiese]

You can make it into a rifle.

Remember that a Mac-type pistol does not need a BulletButton since magwell == the pistol grip, but when it becomes a rifle it will require a BulletButton due to different structure of pistol vs. rifle SB23 AW law.

However, the problem is going from rifle back to pistol - in California.

While ATF has issued recent memo(s) about this being OK on a Fed basis, the murky California SBR definition and lack of case law risks the pistol status after rifle->pistol transition being contaminated with "SBRness".

Sure, nobody may catch you, but what happens otherwise?

Remember what happened to Mr. Rooney who followed Fed law/policy concerning overall rifle lenght measurement in relation to folding stock status and then got burned under CA SBR law.

[Quiet]

What Bill said.

Due to CA's SBR laws, do not make a handgun into a rifle than back into a handgun.

[Eddie1965]

Thanks for the advice. For the price of the kit I can buy a hi-point carbine outright so I will probably go that route instead or save up a couple hundred dollars more and get a nicer carbine. Thanks again for the replies.

[Jeepers]

You can make it into a rifle.

Remember that a Mac-type pistol does not need a BulletButton since magwell == the pistol grip, but when it becomes a rifle it will require a BulletButton due to different structure of pistol vs. rifle SB23 AW law.

However, the problem is going from rifle back to pistol - in California.

While ATF has issued recent memo(s) about this being OK on a Fed basis, the murky California SBR definition and lack of case law risks the pistol status after rifle->pistol transition being contaminated with "SBRness".

Sure, nobody may catch you, but what happens otherwise?

Remember what happened to Mr. Rooney who followed Fed law/policy concerning overall rifle lenght measurement in relation to folding stock status and then got burned under CA SBR law.

but if cali's SBR laws closly follow fed law on SBR's where is the differance other then CADOJ did not issue a letter saying it was ok ? i dont recall ever seeing a letter that says BB are ok or kydex grip wraps to go featureless either

[bwiese]

but if cali's SBR laws closly follow fed law on SBR's where is the differance other then CADOJ did not issue a letter saying it was ok ? i dont recall ever seeing a letter that says BB are ok or kydex grip wraps to go featureless either

CA SBR laws thematically follow the Fed law but are not word-for-word, and case law and BATF agency documentation/regulatory behavior at least give some clarity on *FED* issues on SBR.

There's very little case law and very little if no agency opinion on a CALIFORNIA basis. The the 'constructive possession' phraseology is also not shaped by any regulation, there's little court record/case law, etc. The law is very broad.

So we don't want what happened to Rooney to happen to other people.

Your assertions that this situation is even tangentially related to the BB situation vs SB23 are wholly invalid. DOJ has approved semiauto centerfire rifles (Barrett M82CA) and the DSA "California" FAL with fixed magazines that can readily be removed (i.e, not permanent). In addition, SB23 is shaped by formal regulatory law (definitions) such that what a detachable magazine is, or is not, has force of law.

[Jeepers]

CA SBR laws thematically follow the Fed law but are not word-for-word, and case law and BATF agency documentation/regulatory behavior at least give some clarity on *FED* issues on SBR.

There's very little case law and very little if no agency opinion on a CALIFORNIA basis. The the 'constructive possession' phraseology is also not shaped by any regulation, there's little court record/case law, etc. The law is very broad.

So we don't want what happened to Rooney to happen to other people.

Your assertions that this situation is even tangentially related to the BB situation vs SB23 are wholly invalid. DOJ has approved semiauto centerfire rifles (Barrett M82CA) and the DSA "California" FAL with fixed magazines that can readily be removed (i.e, not permanent). In addition, SB23 is shaped by formal regulatory law (definitions) such that what a detachable magazine is, or is not, has force of law.

so how do we go about getting this clarified ?
will it take someone being arrested to make a test case, or can it be clarified in California law before some D.A. tackles the case

[Munk]

so how do we go about getting this clarified ?
will it take someone being arrested to make a test case, or can it be clarified in California law before some D.A. tackles the case

A published DOJ opinion of some kind as to the interpretation of the law in this specific situation would be rather strong, but I hear they don't do that so much.

A person could just do it and risk arrest and let their lives get screwed for a while during the following court case.

I'm unsure as to any grounds for a lawsuit to clarify the scenario, since the law isn't giving you any damages, owing to the fact that they don's KNOW if it's damaging you or not.

The closest grounds for challenging it would be its lack of clarity on the situation presented.

I would LOVE an answer to this situation, because I have an Encore (thanks to those who are better legally versed than I for all the advice and explanations.) and I also have a Beretta that can be used for one of those modular Carbine Kits.

[Jeepers]

A published DOJ opinion of some kind as to the interpretation of the law in this specific situation would be rather strong, but I hear they don't do that so much.

A person could just do it and risk arrest and let their lives get screwed for a while during the following court case.

I'm unsure as to any grounds for a lawsuit to clarify the scenario, since the law isn't giving you any damages, owing to the fact that they don's KNOW if it's damaging you or not.

The closest grounds for challenging it would be its lack of clarity on the situation presented.

I would LOVE an answer to this situation, because I have an Encore (thanks to those who are better legally versed than I for all the advice and explanations.) and I also have a Beretta that can be used for one of those modular Carbine Kits.

same here as i am looking at a uzi pistol as a plaything but only "if" i can convert back and forth from pistol to carbine like the ATF has stated as legal in the feds eyes

[Harrison_Bergeron]

Wasn't an official opinion on a specific firearm released recently?

It was about a gun that is sold as a complete kit that is designed to swap back and forth. I can't remember what gun it was though.

[bwiese]

same here as i am looking at a uzi pistol as a plaything but only "if" i can convert back and forth from pistol to carbine like the ATF has stated as legal in the feds eyes

1. DOJ ain't gonna give any letter to you and if it's a letter written
by a 'field representative' it may not have much weight because
they likely won't even remotely understand the issue. These are
the same people that say it's legal to intrafamily transfer a gun
across state lines without use of an FFL>

2. I would NOT do an Uzi-clone (Uzis themselves are banned by name)
that is convertible. Do one Uzi for pistol, and separate for rifle.


Many of these laws are completely (or nearly so) unexplored and there's little case law behind them, and gunnies are always racing ahead in terms of ideas about configurations etc.

Don't end up like Mr. Rooney - hell, he was even trying to follow the law.

[IrishPirate]

Could I legally switch back and forth between pistol to carbine and back to pistol again?

If you need to open a can of worms, that the best tool for the job. So many poorly written laws will enter into effect that it's hard to tell what's going to happen. Is it a pistol? is it an SBR? can it go back and forth? etc....best to stay away from this until some actual clarity can be found on the issue.

once we get the go ahead though, I want one of these...