Want an AR pistol with removable magazine - LEGALLY?

[XDshooter]

They actually define specifically what an "SBR" is - which makes things more fuzzy instead of less fuzzy. . .

The question becomes what does "made from a rifle" mean??? I assert that it refers only to things that are made from RIFLE receivers - but I am not certain the DOJ interprets it that way. . .

A rifle is defined in the law, therefore a firearm that has a bone fide pistol lower can never meet this definition, unless you attack a buttstock, then it becomes a rifle.

Pretty clear cut.

[XDshooter]

And apparently you do not understand the rule against rude or insulting comments.

Do not post in this manner again.

Insulting? Hardly. This person did not even take the time to read and comprehend what I posted.

That is extremely insulting. Even more so that others overlook this fact.

[Kestryll]

Insulting? Hardly. This person did not even take the time to read and comprehend what I posted.

That is extremely insulting. Even more so that others overlook this fact.

Don't try to play clever little games, you know damn well it was an insult.
The ludicrous claim that by not understanding your post was an insult is both arrogant and self serving BS.

Regardless of what you may think no one here is simple enough to buy that line of hogwash.

It appears you are guilty of the same 'crime' you accuse others of, failing to read or comprehend what I wrote.
I don't see it as an insult at all, but neither do I say 'Knock it off' in jest. Nor do I warn a third time.

[XDshooter]

I think we've all been overthinking this one.

1) An AW can only be a pistol, shotgun, or rifle.
2) 12001 could be problematic.

So, just simply taking the buttstock off your OLL rifle that already has a barrel over 16" would make it a non rifle/pistol/shotgun.

The AW laws wouldn't apply then.


Just make sure it is over 26" in length.

[oaklander]

I agree that it's clear cut - but as you know - nothing is clear with the DOJ.

A rifle is defined in the law, therefore a firearm that has a bone fide pistol lower can never meet this definition, unless you attack a buttstock, then it becomes a rifle.

Pretty clear cut.

[oaklander]

No - don't do this!

12276.1. (a) Notwithstanding Section 12276, "assault weapon" shall also mean any of the following:

(3) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches.

If what you say is true - then anyone who wants a detachable magazine could just saw the buttstock off their rifle and start using detachable magazines. I don't think that sawing the buttstock off a rifle makes it a non rifle, even if the OAL is more than 30 inches.

Earlier you made the argument that whether something is a rifle or pistol depends on the receiver. Now you are making the argument that a rifle can be rendered a non-rifle by sawing the buttstock.

I think we've all been overthinking this one.

1) An AW can only be a pistol, shotgun, or rifle.
2) 12001 could be problematic.

So, just simply taking the buttstock off your OLL rifle that already has a barrel over 16" would make it a non rifle/pistol/shotgun.

The AW laws wouldn't apply then.


Just make sure it is over 26" in length.

[XDshooter]

I agree that it's clear cut - but as you know - nothing is clear with the DOJ.

Since when did we care about th eopinion of the DOJ?

That's the basis for this website. Clarification of the law. The DOJ won't do ethically, so we must do it ourselves. I think calguns should be appointed the new DOJ BOF.

[packnrat]

[oaklander]

I'm trying to think ahead about what the DOJ may say to the DA who is prosecuting your case.

When you look at legal issues like this, you need to look at the "other side" too and try and imagine what argument they might come up with. This is true even if you disagree with them or think they are stupid.

If you cut the butt stock off a rifle, it's still a rifle. And if it's less than 30 inches long, it's an AW, and if it's less than 26 inches long, it's also a SBR.

It's possible that a pistol could be outfitted with a > 16 inch barrel and maybe not be considered a pistol any more. I will defer to others who have done more research on this topic.

I'll take some of that popcorn!

Since when did we care about th eopinion of the DOJ?

That's the basis for this website. Clarification of the law. The DOJ won't do ethically, so we must do it ourselves. I think calguns should be appointed the new DOJ BOF.

[XDshooter]

If you cut the butt stock off a rifle, it's still a rifle.

The law states pretty clearly that a rifle is one designed to be fired from the shoulder. If I build this firearm up without a buttstock, then it was not designed to be fired from the shoulder.


Also, if they did rule that it would still be a rifle, then all those unregistered "crew-served" M2 50BMG owners would become felons.

[RANGER295]

The law states pretty clearly that a rifle is one designed to be fired from the shoulder. If I build this firearm up without a buttstock, then it was not designed to be fired from the shoulder.


Also, if they did rule that it would still be a rifle, then all those unregistered "crew-served" M2 50BMG owners would become felons.

[XDshooter]

I'm trying to think ahead about what the DOJ may say to the DA who is prosecuting your case.

When you look at legal issues like this, you need to look at the "other side" too and try and imagine what argument they might come up with. This is true even if you disagree with them or think they are stupid.

If you cut the butt stock off a rifle, it's still a rifle. And if it's less than 30 inches long, it's an AW, and if it's less than 26 inches long, it's also a SBR.

It's possible that a pistol could be outfitted with a > 16 inch barrel and maybe not be considered a pistol any more. I will defer to others who have done more research on this topic.

Yes, okay, once a rifle always a rifle. Taking off the buttstock won't change the fact that it is still a rifle. No rifle receiver can be used for this purpose.


Back to using an 80% receiver. Thus I would not label pistol or rifle. Or maybe even "Non Pistol/Rifle." Now it still may be considered a pistol based off of 12001.

However, what is stopping an M2 or M1919 from being labeled a pistol, and as such an assault weapon?

1) The M2 and the M1919 both have a detachable magazine that is located outside the grip.

978.20 "....Ammunition feeding device includes any belted or linked ammunition...."

2) The barrel on the M2 could be changed out to one of a length that is less than 16".

12001. (a)(1) As used in this title, the terms "pistol," "revolver," and "firearm capable of being concealed upon the person" shall apply to and include any device designed to be used as a weapon, from which is expelled a projectile by the force of any explosion, or other form of combustion, and that has a barrel less than 16 inches in length. These terms also include any device that has a barrel 16 inches or more in length which is designed to be interchanged with a barrel less than 16 inches in length.

[ironpete]

I am totally new to all this and fascinated by firearms laws.

Does US vs Davis (excerpt below) change this scenario at all?

24. The 9 millimeter and .22 caliber pistols seized by ATF
were modified by adding an additional grip.

25. Title 26, United States Code Section 5845(e) defines
"any other weapon" as:

... any weapon or device capable of being concealed from which
a shot can be discharged through the energy of an explosion
... Such term shall not include a pistol or revolver having a
rifled bore, or rifled bores, or weapons designed, made or
intended to be fired from the shoulder and not capable of
firing fixed ammunition.

26. A "pistol" is defined in Section 5845 as

A weapon originally designed, made and intended to fire a
projectile (bullet) from one or more barrels when held in one
hand, and having (a) a chamber(s) as an integral part(s) of or
permanently aligned with, the bore(s); and (b) a short stock
designed to be gripped by one hand and at an angle to and
extending below the line of the bore(s). 27 CFR 178.11
(emphasis added).

27. Even after being modified with grips, the pistols are
still "pistols" as defined above and not "any other weapon" as
defined by 26 U.S.C. section 5845(e).

...

As to the motion to dismiss concerning the two pistols, this
court concludes that the weapons are "pistols" as defined and are
not "any other weapons," and that the motion to dismiss as to the
pistol counts should be granted.



How does the ruling that "adding a forward grip to a pistol doesn't change its designation as a pistol" (as opposed to an AOW) change the situation? The whole exercise was to get the pistol into AOW status to avoid AW status right?

Does this mean that I could safely add a forward grip to my B-15ed (therefore fixed mag) AR pistol without changing designation?

Are these kinds of rulings limited to the state or district in which they are rendered?

[ke6guj]

IIRC, yes, the ATF did lose in US vs. Davis in arguing that a VFG on a pistol made it an AOW. But they did not appeal the ruling so there is no circuit precident. So, right now, I'd say that that ruling only applies to that district, and maybe even to that particular judge.

Even though ATF lost, they still state that they will proscicute for VFG'ing a pistol as an unregistered AOW. Based on the above ruling, it may be possible to win that suit, but juggling legal bills vs. the cost of a tax stamp, most people would probably go with the $5/$200 tax stamp.

The same thing has happened regarding post-86 machineguns. ATF has lost 922(o) cases via the district court saying that if you aren't willing to accept the tax payment, you can't charge someone with failing to pay the tax. ATF hasn't appealed those cases and continues to proscicute and win 922(o) cases.