SBR illegal???

[CJ]

How's this:

I have actually read this letter before. The problem is they leave it intentionally ambiguous. This is my point, possessing a rifle stock that could "readily" be installed on your pistol. How "readily" is a stock off another rifle? There is nothing in here that says you couldn't get prosecuted for it. By using a standard rifle or carbine buffer you're placing yourself in the position to use an ambiguous description open for interpretation. If I was a prosecutor I could convince a jury you had intent to construct with a rifle buffer, it wouldn't be that difficult. Nothing in this letter says otherwise. It simply puts forward a single ambiguous word: "readily." The truth is if you have a pistol buffer, none of this would even apply, and nothing would be open to speculation.

[TeeShock]

What did livetoshoot indicate on the 4473's from this years GB?

[CJ]

What did livetoshoot indicate on the 4473's from this years GB?

I believe they are marked as receivers, and not rifles.

[ThreeFingerPete]

I have actually read this letter before. The problem is they leave it intentionally ambiguous. This is my point, possessing a rifle stock that could "readily" be installed on your pistol. How "readily" is a stock off another rifle? There is nothing in here that says you couldn't get prosecuted for it. By using a standard rifle or carbine buffer you're placing yourself in the position to use an ambiguous description open for interpretation. If I was a prosecutor I could convince a jury you had intent to construct with a rifle buffer, it wouldn't be that difficult. Nothing in this letter says otherwise. It simply puts forward a single ambiguous word: "readily." The truth is if you have a pistol buffer, none of this would even apply, and nothing would be open to speculation.

I'm not arguing one way or the other on the buffer application. Obviously if you have a carbine buffer tube on a pistol and you own a collapsible stock (loose or on another rifle) then you're in violation.

Re-read my posts, I think it was very clear what I was saying. I'm not sure that we are in disagreement.

[CJ]

I'm not arguing one way or the other on the buffer application. Obviously if you have a carbine buffer tube on a pistol and you own a collapsible stock (loose or on another rifle) then you're in violation.

Re-read my posts, I think it was very clear what I was saying. I'm not sure that we are in disagreement.

Our stances being different are primarily the difference. You referenced it assuming you have some protection. I feel it says nothing at all that protects you from prosecution. If I was someone who didn't want to get caught in a court room, I would only put pistol buffers on pistols, and keep the rifle/carbine on rifles only. You are correct though - what I said earlier is not true, having a rifle buffer on a pistol does not make a it a rifle, but it does open you up to get prosecuted for it, and nothing protects you from that either.

[KBScobravert]

Our stances being different are primarily the difference. You referenced it assuming you have some protection. I feel it says nothing at all that protects you from prosecution. If I was someone who didn't want to get caught in a court room, I would only put pistol buffers on pistols, and keep the rifle/carbine on rifles only. You are correct though - what I said earlier is not true, having a rifle buffer on a pistol does not make a it a rifle, but it does open you up to get prosecuted for it, and nothing protects you from that either.

This 100 times over.

[ThreeFingerPete]

You referenced it assuming you have some protection.

No, I referenced it because that's the way the atf sees it. I don't recommend doing it that way, but that's their official standpoint. I didn't condone, nor recommend using carbine buffers, nor skating the law regarding the definition of pistol.

I feel it says nothing at all that protects you from prosecution. If I was someone who didn't want to get caught in a court room, I would only put pistol buffers on pistols, and keep the rifle/carbine on rifles only. You are correct though - what I said earlier is not true, having a rifle buffer on a pistol does not make a it a rifle, but it does open you up to get prosecuted for it, and nothing protects you from that either.

You can be prosecuted for anything. If the ATF comes to your house and decides you're getting fucked, bend over and grit your teeth.

[CJ]

No, I referenced it because that's the way the atf sees it. I don't recommend doing it that way, but that's their official standpoint. I didn't condone, nor recommend using carbine buffers, nor skating the law regarding the definition of pistol.

They really don't have a standpoint though, when you look at the wording. Basically they are saying "if you have a rifle buffer on your receiver, we can "readily" do whatever we want to you." It's almost like they encourage you to do it so they have discretion over prosecuting you, like you're being baited in.

You can be prosecuted for anything. If the ATF comes to your house and decides you're getting fucked, bend over and grit your teeth.

Do not make them mad.

On another note, I'm almost to the point of dismissing every single ATF letter I've ever read. Not a single one of those letters ever takes a stance on any topic whatsoever. It's just a meaningless ambiguous description of something that leaves you just as unprotected and open to prosecution as no letter at all. Have you ever read a letter from the ATF that said "You can do this, it is legal."

[ThreeFingerPete]

They really don't have a standpoint though, when you look at the wording. Basically they are saying "if you have a rifle buffer on your receiver, we can "readily" do whatever we want to you. It's almost like they encourage you to do it so they have discretion over prosecuting you, like you're being baited in.




Do not make them mad.

Again, I'm not promoting that people use rifle buffer tubes, and in any instance that I've tried to clarify that I have also stated that if you are in posession of a stock that can be used on that buffer tube, then you are in violation of the law.

Is it a smart move? NO! I'm quite certain that a jury would feel that tool less removal from another rifle and tool less installation onto an illegal SBR constitutes "readily installed".

I'm only putting out the information so that people can try to make an informed judgement. This NFA stuff is not as complicated as people make it out to be if you READ EVERYTHING, soak it in and act in the most prudent manner.

[KBScobravert]

No, I referenced it because that's the way the atf sees it. I don't recommend doing it that way, but that's their official standpoint. I didn't condone, nor recommend using carbine buffers, nor skating the law regarding the definition of pistol.


You can be prosecuted for anything. If the ATF comes to your house and decides you're getting fucked, bend over and grit your teeth.

Anything and everything can be summed up with that last sentence. You could even replace ATF with any 3 letter agency or otehr government entity.

[CJ]

Again, I'm not promoting that people use rifle buffer tubes, and in any instance that I've tried to clarify that I have also stated that if you are in posession of a stock that can be used on that buffer tube, then you are in violation of the law.

Is it a smart move? NO! I'm quite certain that a jury would feel that tool less removal from another rifle and tool less installation onto an illegal SBR constitutes "readily installed".

I'm only putting out the information so that people can try to make an informed judgement. This NFA stuff is not as complicated as people make it out to be if you READ EVERYTHING, soak it in and act in the most prudent manner.

I think the constant references to ambiguous letters and other things are the whole reason NFA items are confusing to begin with. I think it's good you're bringing in all the information in here to clear (or cloud) up the law, but it probably just makes it more confusing. This thread is the perfect example of the ambiguous nature of the ATF. We already knew everything discussed in the thread but we still have no concrete course of action to tell someone. Instead of explaining all the various ambiguities of the ATF I just tell people to not put rifle tubes on pistols, and save them the trouble.

[ThreeFingerPete]

Anything and everything can be summed up with that last sentence. You could even replace ATF with any 3 letter agency or otehr government entity.

Exactly.

[ThreeFingerPete]

I think the constant references to ambiguous letters and other things are the whole reason NFA items are confusing to begin with. I think it's good you're bringing in all the information in here to clear (or cloud) up the law, but it probably just makes it more confusing. This thread is the perfect example of the ambiguous nature of the ATF. We already knew everything discussed in the thread but we still have no concrete course of action to tell someone. Instead of explaining all the various ambiguities of the ATF I just tell people to not put rifle tubes on pistols, and save them the trouble.

If people are considering owning/building a firearm that is NFA, they owe themselves and everyone else a bit of effort. Their diligence means less prosecuted gun owners and less traction for those shit heels in D.C. to try to take our rights.

[futant]

wow good info in here. not that i necessarilly need it in my case.

so can anyone tell me if whether something is 'readily' able to be attached, it constitutes 'intent to construct' ?

is there any definition of 'readily' ? tool less?

For instance , I may have a limbsaver type butt pad around, typical screw into wood stock. If I'm building an ak pistol (just bullpup kit) , would having any butt pad around present a problem ?
what about any fore grip?

I could see the fore grip meeting the definition of 'readily' attached since it's just a rail thing. But what about buttpad ? it's screw in and back of an ak receiver is metal requiring a drill/tap procedure generally speaking.
hell the buttpad goes on a disassembled enfield rifle, what a waste of mental effort this is all over nothing! I'm putting it back to original condition to assemble again later.

[futant]

I think ive researched this enough now I should have just paid the 200$ tax stamp lol!