What to make of this ATF ruling?

[Bassics]

Tell me more?

I have been on gun show hiatus for some time, but I recently saw a lot of mares leg levers, "paratrooper vintage" and quite a few AR style handguns. It is like something has changed. Which I am all for, don't get me wrong. It's either a gun or it isn't IMO. All in the name of collecting a tax.

[CJ]

Tell me more?

I have been on gun show hiatus for some time, but I recently saw a lot of mares leg levers, "paratrooper vintage" and quite a few AR style handguns. It is like something has changed. Which I am all for, don't get me wrong. It's either a gun or it isn't IMO. All in the name of collecting a tax.

If it has a 16" barrel it can have a stock. If it's less than 16" it cannot have a stock, and it must be marked 'Pistol' somewhere on it. So a ar-15 pistol must have 'pistol' marked on it. Without a form you can't attach a stock. To my knowledge that judgement has no bearing on AR-15's... If someone would clarify this it works off an overlapping law. removing the pistol upper from your pistol lower to place a standard AR-15 upper MIGHT be argued to be legal, however that would only work if you have NO other lower (that isn't marked pistol). If you had another lower that wasn't marked pistol it would be content to construct. Correct me if I'm wrong, this shit makes things even more complicated.

[Bassics]

That is kind of how I read it, they are saying that you are free to do anything legal, but that doesn't change the proximity rule.