ATF response to some AR pistol and shotgun questions

[franklinarmory]

Sorry to bump such an old thread, but this is a really interesting question. It was also never confirmed in the thread that the letter in the OP was legit. Did anyone run that down?

Yes. Right to the top.

Two weeks ago I was at the NFATCA conference in D.C. I brought the topic up with FTB Chief Spencer. (aka the ATF chief that signs "the letters.") As I brought it up, Deputy Chief Griffith responded. He asked me to send copies of my letter, Jack's letter (which Jack helped me out with. Thank you Jack!) and the letter noted in this thread. I don't want to speak out of turn, but the info I received today noted that ATF counsel is looking at it currently. Given that two out of the three letters are in the public domain and they appear to be in conflict, I have asked for a ruling so industry and individuals can operate with knowledge of where the line is drawn.

I did mention to the Deputy Chief that since any rifle that a AOW would be attached to must be over 26" (otherwise the rifle itself must be registered with the NFA,) there should not a state interest in changing the AOW definition to SBR just because the host firearm is a rifle. Obviously we can have 26" shotguns without NFA licensing. ...so what advantage is there to attaching an AOW shotgun to a rifle?

This issue may be bigger I realized since the issue of Glocks attached to rifles came up in the same discussion. Hopefully that won't taint what we are working with here.

[franklinarmory]

Actually this is an important issue(and may warrant a separate topic to discuss it).

So long as a long gun DROS in CA does not trigger federal SBR rules, it can't trigger CA SBR rules. Why because a non shoulder fired receiver is not a 'rifle' and all SBR rules refer to them being rifles.

Put it more bluntly, you can either build a pistol off of a long gun DROS stripped receiver(sans buttstock) or every non shoulder fired 50 BMG in the state that wasn't DROSED as a pistol and isn't a registered gun is illegal.

Why because the 50 BMG that's not shoulder fired is not considered a rifle. If we are comfortable with 50 BMG weapons being non rifles if they aren't shoulder fired then pistols built on stripped receivers would have the same treatment.

So are pistol builds on stripped long gun DROSed receivers legal, or is every non pistol DROSed 50BMG that isn't registered illegal?

A 'non shoulder fired' definition of rifle can't be valid for 50BMG and then not also valid for pistol builds. Either both are legal, or both are illegal.

Actually you are dead wrong! 50 BMGs with barrels shorter than 16" would be pistols (or possibly SBRs) under CA law. 50 BMGs with barrels over 16" would be longguns in CA and other under Federal rules.

You have conflated your argument horribly. Building pistols out of receivers AFTER you have DROSed them as long-guns is a good way to get an NFA violation. Please read the ATF ruling from last year. Pistol-Rifle-Pistol = Cool. Rifle-Pistol-Rifle= Not cool. Unless you are signing up to be the test case, I suspect that you are ill advised to promote your argument so vehemently in the public square. You are likely to encourage some neophyte to screw up, and when they do, those statistics will be used against all of us!

[blazeaglory]

because it is not a vertical grip, so it can't be mounted vertically

I think I get it...

They should have said, it is IMPOSSIBLE to mount an AFG vertically. The wording kinda messed me up. I thought they were telling us we cannot mount it, as in DONT DO IT. But what I think they are saying, as did you, is that it is technically impossible to do so.

So why is everyone afraid of using an AFG on their featureless builds? Its spelled out in the ATF letter that is legal and is not a forward pistol grip.

[chead]

So just to be clear then, the status of a bare receiver as it's DROS'd trumps whatever it's built up to initially? So an AR receiver DROS'd as a rifle but never built as a rifle is really always still a "rifle"?

What trips me up is why then would it be okay to go from pistol to rifle and back to pistol, but not the other way around? I get it's an issue of SBRs, but it seems like it should get you both coming and going, as it were.

[franklinarmory]

DROS uses "long gun" or "pistol." While long gun does not equal rifle, it definitely is NOT a pistol. Taking your long gun and turning it into a pistol would be legally problematic without NFA approval.

To stir things up a little more, I do have verbal confirmation (for whatever that is worth) that going from "pistol" to "other" and back again under Federal definition is perfectly fine. Still, it's not a good idea to head down this road.

[CrazyPhuD]

Actually you are dead wrong! 50 BMGs with barrels shorter than 16" would be pistols (or possibly SBRs) under CA law. 50 BMGs with barrels over 16" would be longguns in CA and other under Federal rules.

You have conflated your argument horribly. Building pistols out of receivers AFTER you have DROSed them as long-guns is a good way to get an NFA violation. Please read the ATF ruling from last year. Pistol-Rifle-Pistol = Cool. Rifle-Pistol-Rifle= Not cool. Unless you are signing up to be the test case, I suspect that you are ill advised to promote your argument so vehemently in the public square. You are likely to encourage some neophyte to screw up, and when they do, those statistics will be used against all of us!

Honestly this type of response is why I stopped posting a few weeks ago. Please read my post again specifically the second sentence...."So long as a long gun DROS in CA does not trigger federal SBR rules"

I wasn't addressing the NFA issues, but that is actually part of what this letter is discussing, specifically Q1 and if a stripped receiver that has never had a stock can be made into a handgun. This is further supported but this memo that the ATF sent to FFLs a few years ago...

http://www.atf.gov/press/releases/2009/07/070709-openletter-ffl-gca.pdf

Additionally the old federal transfer forms didn't used to have an 'other' category it was only long arm or handgun. An old opinion from that era uses even stronger terms than 'long arm' by referencing a 'rifle type receiver'.

If an individual were to obtain a rifle type receiver that had not
previously been utilized in the assembly of a rifle, a handgun could be
made and not be subject to the provisions of the NFA.

http://www.nfaoa.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=165&sid=fb98634f5a6f16fa48d77dd686d6264b

While the ATF can change it's mind at any time(and I am no lawyer giving no legal advice), there is significant documentation to support a stripped receiver not being a rifle even if transferred as a long arm at the federal level.

The logical issue I was trying to present was the other concern, the comment that even if the receiver were legal federally that CA might consider a long gun DROS to mean rifle. And if the receiver was ever a rifle to CA then it is always a rifle from SBR status and can't be made into a handgun.

I believe this places us in a logical dilemma when it comes to 50BMG then. If a long gun DROS taints a firearm as a 'rifle', then any firearm DROSed as a long gun and is capable of firing a 50BMG cartridge could be declared a 50BMG rifle. Barrel length here doesn't matter, the only question is, is the 50BMG a 'rifle'.

If I am not mistaken, in the context of 50BMG, there is no explicit definition of what a rifle means. We have been using the definition of rifle from SBR to specify, i.e. 'shoulder fired' etc.

This is the logical dilemma that is present by how we appear to treat 50BMG and stripped receivers differently with a long gun DROS. If the 50BMG is built on a pistol lower or it is 'homemade' then there should be no legal issues. But if long gun DROS of a stripped receiver makes it a rifle in CA. Then a long gun DROS of any 50BMG firearm must make it a 50BMG rifle at least at the time of DROS. Which would be a felony.

One might be able to avoid it being a 50BMG and a rifle by breaking down the firearm before transfer so that at time of transfer it was not able to chamber a 50BMG but the state could argue, once a rifle, always a rifle per the SBR rules so you couldn't reassemble it after transfer. How many M2 semi-auto's have been transferred as long arms in the state and people seem ok with it.

Maybe I'm wrong here but the issue of does 'long arm' DROS = rifle appears to be the same for stripped receivers or 50BMG firearms.

If you wanted to be conservative you should not transfer any 50BMG as a long arm for the same reason that you should not build any stripped receiver(DROSed as a long arm) into a pistol. But right now we appear to say that long arm DROS does not taint a 50BMG as a rifle but it does taint a stripped receiver.

That can't be, either a long arm DROS must taint both firearms or it taints neither. That is the issue that warrants further discussion(and ideally legal opinion).

But it likely won't be with me..considering that I was already not planning to post much and I had a browser crash causing me to have to rewrite 1/2 of this I think this is it for me with posting. It's just not worth the time.

[franklinarmory]

I don't think you're getting it yet. A 50BMG can be an "other" and a "long gun." It does not have to be a rifle - ever. However, a state clasified "long gun" is never a "pistol."

A better question is why can't stripped pistol frames be sold given that they could be manufactured as single shot exempt products. But then again, I guess those exempting features would have to be attached in order to be legal during DROS.

[1000stars]

Hence the reason letters don't mean squat. Talk to an attorney and get their prospective because they are the one that will be representing you in court when things go bad, not the ATF or its letter.

My attorney's advise in gray areas such as this is don't. Because any litigation can be devastating financially (meaning I can't afford it), and this is from a so called "college buddy".

[bohoki]

i say any time you mount something to an item with a buttstock you are giving it the attributes of control a shoulder fired arm benefits from

barrel length and over all length are the deciders for shoulder fired other wise they are counted as short barreled shotguns or rifles

but i just enjoy thought exercises i'm no legal expert

[Jason P]

I hate to say it, but this is a possible side effect of people going crazy on someone for not using the search function. That might fly on an engine rebuilding forum, but patience, tolerance and education is VERY serious in this battle for freedom. Some of the internet rules of etiquette may not apply to gun forums.

Not saying that's what happened here, but I've been wondering when I would stumble across a good example. If someone wants information bad enough, they'll get it one way or another...