What to make of this ATF ruling?

[Bassics]

http://www.atf.gov/regulations-rulings/rulings/atf-rulings/atf-ruling-2011-4.pdf

It tells me that converting your 14" TC pistol to a 14" TC rifle by adding a shoulder stock is still manufacturing an NFA firearm, and

Converting that same 14" TC pistol to a 16" rifle by adding the stock and changing the barrel is not manufacturing an NFA, and

Having all of the parts mentioned above is still a violation if not registered as an NFA, and

this letter really means nothing at all.

[Moose242]

You can not have a rifle with a barrel length under 16 inches without registering it. Having a stock that can make a pistol into a rifle with a barrel length under 16 inches in the same place as the aforementioned pistol is considered constructive intent.

Simple as that.

[Bassics]

Yeah, but this was supposed to clarify the legality of conversion kits and especially the swappable nature of single shot receivers for very legitimate purposes otherwise.

Clarifies things like a smoke bomb IMO.

[helosailor]

Having a rifle with less than 16" barrel is NFA regulated. Having the parts to make a rifle with a barrel less than 16" is covered by the NFA (intent to manufacture). Having a complete rifle or the parts to make a complete rifle with a barrel 16" or longer is all fine and dandy. The "proximity" of the parts to one another is left wide open to interpretation.
The letter is pretty pointless because it just acknowledges that there will be cases that are ambiguous (i.e. difficult/impossible to prosecute) and that owners should take steps to make sure that the jackboots will not be kicking down the door in the middle of the night.
At least that's my take on all of it.

[Bassics]

Pretty much mine too.

[CJ]

http://www.atf.gov/regulations-rulin...ing-2011-4.pdf

It tells me that converting your 14" TC pistol to a 14" TC rifle by adding a shoulder stock is still manufacturing an NFA firearm, and

Converting that same 14" TC pistol to a 16" rifle by adding the stock and changing the barrel is not manufacturing an NFA, and

Having all of the parts mentioned above is still a violation if not registered as an NFA, and

this letter really means nothing at all.

There were kits that allowed the owners of certain original TC kits to switch between a rifle and pistol legally. It is (as far as I'm aware) the only example of a company suing the government and winning the judgement on an NFA item.

[John -- '02 HAWK]

its a simple ruling it allows a pistol to made into a rifle and back again with out getting in trouble

so now your glock can become a rifle

http://www.mechtechsys.com/glock.php

and be converted back to a pistol

[CJ]

In United States v. Thompson/Center Arms Company, 504 U.S. 505 (1992), the United States Supreme Court examined whether a short-barreled rifle was “made” under the NFA when a carbine-conversion kit consisting of a single-shot “Contender” pistol was designed so that its handle and barrel could be removed from its receiver, and was packaged with a 21-inch barrel, a rifle stock, and a wooden fore-end. The Court held that, where aggregated parts could convert a pistol into either a regulated short-barreled rifle, or an unregulated rifle with a barrel of 16 inches or more in length, the NFA was ambiguous and applied the “rule of lenity” (i.e., ambiguities in criminal statutes should be resolved in favor of the defendant) so that the pistol and carbine kit, when packaged together, were not considered a “short-barreled rifle” for purposes of the NFA.

Bingo, that's the ruling I was citing. I haven't read this, but I doubt you can add a stock to your pistol. I'm pretty sure this is specific to only weapons sold as kits by the manufacturer. They were able to justify it because it was a single shot, which couldn't be used in a mass murder of any kind. You guys seem to be under the misconception that ATF rulings benefit or increase the scope of our rights, instead of contract/lessen them.

[Moose242]

There were kits that allowed the owners of certain original TC kits to switch between a rifle and pistol legally. It is (as far as I'm aware) the only example of a company suing the government and winning the judgement on an NFA item.

Marble's Arms & Manufacturing Company challenged the NFA and won. They made a gun called "The Game Getter".

"In 1938 Congress recognized that the Marble Game Getter, a short .22/.410 sporting firearm, had "legitimate use" and did not deserve the stigma of "gangster weapon" and reduced the $200 tax to one dollar for the Game Getter. In 1960 Congress changed the transfer tax for all "any other weapon" (AOW) category to $5. The transfer tax for machine guns, silencers, SBR and SBS remained at $200."


So before 1960, all AOWs had a $200 stamp required. I did not know that.

[CJ]

Marble's Arms & Manufacturing Company challenged the NFA and won. They made a gun called "The Game Getter".

"In 1938 Congress recognized that the Marble Game Getter, a short .22/.410 sporting firearm, had "legitimate use" and did not deserve the stigma of "gangster weapon" and reduced the $200 tax to one dollar for the Game Getter. In 1960 Congress changed the transfer tax for all "any other weapon" (AOW) category to $5. The transfer tax for machine guns, silencers, SBR and SBS remained at $200."


So before 1960, all AOWs had a $200 stamp required. I did not know that.

It would seem from that a customer woudl still need to do all the bullshit paperwork for $1, whereas the TC you could get on a single 4473.

[Moose242]

It would seem from that a customer woudl still need to do all the bullshit paperwork for $1, whereas the TC you could get on a single 4473.

Yes, that is true.

People have seldom challenged the NFA and won, so even a minor victory is one for the books.

[CJ]

Yes, that is true.

People have seldom challenged the NFA and won, so even a minor victory is one for the books.

I fought the law, and the law regulated me.

[Moose242]

I fought the law, and the law regulated me.

Lol. Sad, but true.

[Bassics]

Bingo, that's the ruling I was citing. I haven't read this, but I doubt you can add a stock to your pistol. I'm pretty sure this is specific to only weapons sold as kits by the manufacturer. They were able to justify it because it was a single shot, which couldn't be used in a mass murder of any kind. You guys seem to be under the misconception that ATF rulings benefit or increase the scope of our rights, instead of contract/lessen them.

Sure, but did it change anything for say the crop of AR "pistols" that are, essentially, loose parts? I believe there was one manufacturer who keyed the barrels to comply, but really man, the number of platforms with short barrels and shorter receivers are many. And honestly legitimate when you try to come up with a reason why is even matters.

[CJ]

Sure, but did it change anything for say the crop of AR "pistols" that are, essentially, loose parts? I believe there was one manufacturer who keyed the barrels to comply, but really man, the number of platforms with short barrels and shorter receivers are many. And honestly legitimate when you try to come up with a reason why is even matters.

Right, but I'm pretty sure this has nothing to do with AR-15's and it never would.