.

edmorseiii said:
ATF letter
Click to expand...

qQKdXrd.jpg
 
Long letter for such a little dick... [rofl2]

I need to get hands on one of those things (on the gun, not on the letter)... See how it REALLY is... I only saw one from the other side of the counter at SO. At the original price I couldn't see it one bit. Not that it's a lot less, it's something to think about.
 
ntomsw said:
I broke mine down and sold the parts I didn't want. I didn't see the point to it, and I was not about to register something. Oh well. [laugh]
Click to expand...

Please spare us the details. You don't have to justify anything here. Everyone knows your moving. It's better to eat crow quietly rather than trying to justify it's taste.
 
your loss, you really should have explored it before parting the gun out. but why sell off everything? not that it's a huge issue but whoever you sold the lower to, or if you kept it, it always has to be a pistol now that you "manufactured" it as such. fun ATF fact. not that there's a paper trail behind it, but legally it's always s'posed to be a pistol now.
 
atilla said:
it always has to be a pistol now that you "manufactured" it as such. fun ATF fact.
Click to expand...

I don't think this is correct. The gun can be "demoted" from being a pistol but not "promoted" from being a rifle. Otherwise things like those Mech-Tech CCU conversion kits would be completely illegal.

I would also bet this problem is less relevant now (due to the way all bare lowers are handled federally). if the lower was transferred again with not much on it, I bet the ATF would want it transferred as "other" which means at that point, it could go either way. As part of the "Other" douchebaggery ATF would probably be forced to get rid of this BS where a "lower gets cooties" once its built out into a gun, even if stripped down later. That's probably a case that they wouldn't want to deal with in court, because they more or less wrapped themselves into a pretzel on that one.

-Mike
 
Last edited:
drgrant said:
I don't think this is correct. The gun can be "demoted" from being a pistol but not "promoted" from being a rifle. Otherwise things like those Mech-Tech CCU conversion kits would be completely illegal.

I would also bet this problem is less relevant now (due to the way all bare lowers are handled federally). if the lower was transferred again with not much on it, I bet the ATF would want it transferred as "other" which means at that point, it could go either way. As part of the "Other" douchebaggery ATF would probably be forced to get rid of this BS where a "lower gets cooties" once its built out into a gun, even if stripped down later. That's probably a case that they wouldn't want to deal with in court, because they more or less wrapped themselves into a pretzel on that one.

-Mike
Click to expand...

thanks mike, i think this was what i was thinking about:

Pistol AR15 receivers are only marked "Pistol" when they are sold as complete pistols. This allows the owner to convert the receiver to a rifle and then back to a pistol again without breaking the law.
Click to expand...

okay, dug up dat letter: www.atf.gov/files/regulations-rulings/rulings/atf-rulings/atf-ruling-2011-4.pdf

basically "just don't make a SBR". good to know.
 
Last edited:
The people who make the contender pistol/ rifles have the ATF papers on there site. Pistol can be made into a rifle and converted back and forth as much as you want. If it started life as a rifle can't be made into a pistol. You just have to know what order to put the parts on and off incase you get a knock on the door and it's the ATF lol .
 
Sweet. WA State looks to be legalizing SBRs so I may be getting my rifle back in my safe this summer. That said, in a quirk of legal silliness it is illegal for WA residents to carry a loaded rifle in their vehicles. No such prohibition exists for pistols if you have your ccw. Soooo I'll keep the pistol because I can carry it in my car loaded. I guess I'll have to get a different upper for my sbr lower. Bummer. I guess the loaded rifle law is common so the Sig brace is a good way to run with a loaded rifle caliber firearm in your car with some good controlability.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk
 
stacarter said:
Sweet. WA State looks to be legalizing SBRs so I may be getting my rifle back in my safe this summer. That said, in a quirk of legal silliness it is illegal for WA residents to carry a loaded rifle in their vehicles....
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

This same law applies in NH. However, according to something I read a few years back = the concept behind the law harkens back to a day when hunters would have a loaded rifle in their vehicle, and the law was made to avoid ND's that occurred due to driving around on back roads, drops, accidents happening as hunters fumbled trying to get the loaded rifle out for a quick shot, etc. etc.

So in such states, an AR15 Pistol (with brace, or without) is an option, where you cannot have a loaded rifle in a vehicle.

I'd still suggest keeping "paperwork" with it, showing the legality of the AR15 pistol (what it is and what it isn't + sig-brace documents). There are many LEO that have no idea about any of this, and can easily (but mistakenly) view it as a "loaded rifle"...
 
Last edited:
edmorseiii said:
I friend brought this to my attention on fb...

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...atf-confirms-firing-ar-15-pistol-shoulder-ok/
Click to expand...


Saw that this morning on another forum. Hopefully that will help to shut-up the wanna-be ATF agents on some sites, that have been spewing their personal opinions on "legalities"....


BTW: Here's a DIRECT LINK to the complete ATF letter (document file) itself, for anyone that wants their own copy: http://siterepository.s3.amazonaws.com/2675/atf_responce_letter.pdf
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom