AR pistol lower question

[bubbapug1]

Does an AR lower specifically need to say pistol lower to be used in a pistol build, or can any lower, even those not marked pistol, be used as long as they are dros'd as a pistol lower and than forever foward become a pistol lower?

[dirtyJ]

Any lower can be used for a pistol build, as long as it's built as a pistol before DRoS (LEO exempt). Once a pistol, always a pistol lower, it's initially transferred single shot, but after that you can PPT it with a 10 round mag all day long if you want.

[Josh3239]

Do your other handguns say "handgun" on them? People think special rules apply to certain firearms and they don't. Every firearm is held to the same standard, that is what defines it as legal. Just because your Glock and AR pistol don't look the same, they abide by the same federal and CA regulations.

[dachan]

You can build a pistol on a receiver that is not marked pistol, but IMO it’s just asking for trouble.

Federal law says once a rifle, always a rifle. Also, FFL's are now suppose to log in receivers as "rifle receiver" or "pistol frame". Some are not doing so, but if a stripped receiver is ever logged as "rifle receiver" or entered on a 4473 as a "rifle receiver" or ever built into a rifle (even if nobody ever saw it as such) it cannot legally be built into a pistol without ATF permission. Therefore, unless you know your receiver was never logged as "rifle receiver" or entered on a 4473 as a "rifle receiver" or ever built into a rifle, you cannot build it into a pistol. Even once built into a pistol, it is conceivable that you will find yourself in situations where you must prove the entire lineage of you receiver again.

The DROS form adds another issue in CA. The DROS form only allows selecting long gun or handgun. If a stripped receiver ever gets DROS'ed as a long gun, it could be considered a declaration that it is a rifle receiver under federal law even though the corresponding 4473 is only marked (non-specific) receiver. That then makes it permanently (until the tax stamp is paid) a rifle under federal law.

As a FFL, I will not accept any AR pistol that is not built on a Pistol marked receiver. And due to the possibility that at sometime it was a rifle/rifle receiver, I also will not PPT any stripped receiver that is not marked Pistol as a pistol frame even if given proof that is currently registered in CA as a pistol frame. I understand he possibility that a stripped Pistol marked receiver was once a rifle still exists, but it is much less likely.

[bubbapug1]

So unless the geneology of a AR lower can be totally traced and confirmed you could in fact be holding not a pistol, but an SBR, and suffer the consequences of that act...which is very painful to say the least.

I do notice AR pistols draw attention of LEO's at my range. I have been scrutinized twice.

[dachan]

Here's an example that just got bumped 5 minutes ago, tell me you're will to risk a federal felony conviction for something like this:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=267882

[CHS]

Does an AR lower specifically need to say pistol lower to be used in a pistol build, or can any lower, even those not marked pistol, be used as long as they are dros'd as a pistol lower and than forever foward become a pistol lower?

There is absolutely no legal requirement, federal or otherwise, for a lower receiver that will be used in the construction of a pistol to be marked "pistol".

Any lower can be used for a pistol build, as long as it's built as a pistol before DRoS (LEO exempt). Once a pistol, always a pistol lower, it's initially transferred single shot, but after that you can PPT it with a 10 round mag all day long if you want.

BS.

Once a pistol lower, it can be built as a rifle, and then it can never be a pistol again. No such thing as "once a pistol, always a pistol".

More BS.

I just checked all of my handguns. I looked on all of my revolvers, and my 1911's, my Mark II and even my Sig Mosquito. None of them are marked "pistol".

So you're saying that every single one of my pistols is asking for trouble?

Federal law says once a rifle, always a rifle. Also, FFL's are now suppose to log in receivers as "rifle receiver" or "pistol frame". Some are not doing so, but if a stripped receiver is ever logged as "rifle receiver" or entered on a 4473 as a "rifle receiver" or ever built into a rifle (even if nobody ever saw it as such) it cannot legally be built into a pistol without ATF permission.

You're half right. FFL's are supposed to log in receivers as "receivers". There is no such thing as a "rifle receiver" or "pistol frame". They are all receivers.

The ATF has warned that a receiver that will be built into a pistol should never be described as "rifle" or "rifle receiver". But that's actually just ATF opinion, and not really law.

Therefore, unless you know your receiver was never logged as "rifle receiver" or entered on a 4473 as a "rifle receiver" or ever built into a rifle, you cannot build it into a pistol. Even once built into a pistol, it is conceivable that you will find yourself in situations where you must prove the entire lineage of you receiver again.

BS. You never have to prove the lineage. It's up to a prosecutor to prove otherwise. If you've got a DROS that says a particular serial number is a pistol, then it's a pistol. Oh, it'll also be registered to you, so that's one more point in your favor.

The DROS form adds another issue in CA. The DROS form only allows selecting long gun or handgun. If a stripped receiver ever gets DROS'ed as a long gun, it could be considered a declaration that it is a rifle receiver under federal law even though the corresponding 4473 is only marked (non-specific) receiver. That then makes it permanently (until the tax stamp is paid) a rifle under federal law.

No it doesn't.

As a FFL, I will not accept any AR pistol that is not built on a Pistol marked receiver. And due to the possibility that at sometime it was a rifle/rifle receiver, I also will not PPT any stripped receiver that is not marked Pistol as a pistol frame even if given proof that is currently registered in CA as a pistol frame. I understand he possibility that a stripped Pistol marked receiver was once a rifle still exists, but it is much less likely.

What magical powers does a "pistol" marked receiver have that one that's not marked "pistol" have?

Why is it that somehow one marked "pistol" is more legitimate than one not marked pistol?

What you're saying is you will have absolutely zero problems PPT'ing a "pistol" marked lower receiver that has been DROS'ed as a "rifle" before, but you won't touch an unmarked receiver that has been properly DROS'ed as a pistol.

The markings have absolutely zero legal weight whatsoever.

A receiver is a receiver is a receiver.

All that matters is how it was originally built.

Here's an example that just got bumped 5 minutes ago, tell me you're will to risk a federal felony conviction for something like this:
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=267882

Federal felony conviction? Really? That's just stupid.

[dirtyJ]

You're right, although for CA purposes my statement was correct as well, just not expounded far enough. What I should have said, was once a pistol lower, always a pistol lower for PPT purposes within CA unless legally built into a rifle. The rest of my statement stands though .

[bubbapug1]

So to sum it up...you can use a regular lower legally to build a pistol correct?

I do remember the ATF letter posted on ARF in which the poster asked about converting an AR lower back and forth to a rifle and pistol. The answer was negative on switching back and forth...I'll try to find the letter.

My question was specific to using a non-marked pistol lower for a pistol build.

[OCArmory]

You are not allowed to switch back and forth. Any virgin receiver can be built into a pistol. The sticky part here in California is that for the most part receivers are DROS'ed as long arms to get around the safe handguns list. I have not seen an opinion letter from the ATF whether that permanently taints the status of the stripped lower. The general consensus that everyone has operated on is that it would since the title long arm has been assigned to that lower in some official capacity.
Mike

[dirtyJ]

To a FFL07, a receiver is just that, a receiver. It doesn't become anything more until it's been transferred or built upon. Once we check that little box on the 4473 that says pistol, and annotate it in the other description boxes, it becomes, legally, a pistol, regardless of whether or not it says pistol on it.

[CHS]

To a FFL07, a receiver is just that, a receiver. It doesn't become anything more until it's been transferred or built upon. Once we check that little box on the 4473 that says pistol, and annotate it in the other description boxes, it becomes, legally, a pistol, regardless of whether or not it says pistol on it.

The 4473 has nothing to do with it.

As an FFL, you SHOULD be checking the box "other", and describing the receiver as "receiver" on the serial number line.

If you're transferring it as a pistol, it's really the DROS that matters.

[dirtyJ]

If you build the receiver into a pistol, when it gets transferred to the end user, it's a pistol on the 4473 too. The ATF probably won't care if they make it into a rifle after that as long as they follow NFA laws, but if you're transferring a pistol it should be marked so on both the 4473 and the DRoS.

[CHS]

If you build the receiver into a pistol, when it gets transferred to the end user, it's a pistol on the 4473 too. The ATF probably won't care if they make it into a rifle after that as long as they follow NFA laws, but if you're transferring a pistol it should be marked so on both the 4473 and the DRoS.

If you build a receiver into a pistol, then it is no longer a receiver. It's a pistol.

We're talking about RECEIVERS here, not actual pistols.

The question was, does an AR receiver have to say "pistol" on it in order to be legally built into a pistol?

The answer is positively and absolutely not.

[dpharley]

bdsmchs is correct, and I have done this.