Is Olympic Arms ignorantly prompting customers to commit federal felonies?

[beefcakeb0]

Being familiar with site rules is also a good idea.

If PAFOA starts issuing infractions for incorrect information, you're going to need a hell of a lot more moderators.

Giving out incorrect legal information is an infraction, and has been since

Lawyering (No warning, 5 points, Expires in 1 month)Please do not offer advice that could land someone in jail. The last thing we need is people telling other members that's it's perfectly OK to carry a firearm in a car without a License To Carry Firearms, or that you can sell someone a handgun without going through an FFL. Like above, don't be afraid to post what you think is correct, just don't state things as fact when you aren't sure without a disclaimer.

[-JD-]

I've heard back from Olympic. I'll paraphrase since I did not ask permission to "publish".

Essentially, he asserts that there is case law from a Texas (he believes) contender conversion case that supports the legality of the back and forth conversion. While he does not have the documentation at the moment, he knows the party and will try to contact them to get the relevant info.

Thanks for getting back to me Tom.

I guess the crux of the matter is if when the pistol is converted to rifle/carbine form has it been "remade" per the language of 18 U.S.C. § 921 (7) and is therefore a "rifle", or is it somehow still a pistol (with the defining features of a non NFA rifle.)

I tried a little searching and was not fortunate enough to turn up the case you mention easily.

The ATF letter here: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...34&postcount=1 both supports my assertion that conversion back and forth is NOT allowable but possibly provides an opening if ALL of the defining rifle and pistol components were provided as a complete kit. I do note that the letter pertains specifically to the single-shot Contender ONLY. I would think that BATFE would at least try to regulate differently for EBRs. Unanswered, and therefore potentially risky, under this letter is what happens when you upgrade or replace one element of the kit? I also question how the single source kit should make any difference under the law whatsoever, but since when do ATF regulation, law, and logic mesh.

Thanks again for getting back to me, I look forward to seeing what citations you can find.

[-JD-]

The ATF letter link in my response is VERY interesting!

I'll start a new thread with the letter attached and xref it here. Letter discussion thread: http://forum.pafoa.org/general-2/957...ml#post1163983

[Asmodeus6]

When this thread first started I was thinking - why doesn't someone just ask Oly?

Looks like that has happened already.

[GunLawyer001]

I just got their latest email ad-letter and this is (partly) what was included:

. . .

Was this ad re-typed? Because it seems to have some spelling errors and other typos. Also, a Google search for key phrases from the ad ONLY comes back to this thread on PAFOA. And there's nothing like this on the OA site.

If this ad is fake, it reduces the number of companies advertising the "to rifle and back again" option to, well, zero.

[-JD-]

Was this ad re-typed? Because it seems to have some spelling errors and other typos. Also, a Google search for key phrases from the ad ONLY comes back to this thread on PAFOA. And there's nothing like this on the OA site.

If this ad is fake, it reduces the number of companies advertising the "to rifle and back again" option to, well, zero.

You dare to impugn my honor sir!!!!!!! Smack! smack! Nerf pistols at dawn!

J/K - Check your email.

[Asmodeus6]

You dare to impugn my honor sir!!!!!!! Smack! smack! Nerf pistols at dawn!

J/K - Check your email.

I got $10 on GL.

You'd go to duel him and he'd just talk you into shooting yourself or something... sneaky and lawyer like. You know they have Jedi mind powers right? Just ask him.

[GunLawyer001]

I got $10 on GL.

You'd go to duel him and he'd just talk you into shooting yourself or something... sneaky and lawyer like. You know they have Jedi mind powers right? Just ask him.

These are not the pistols you want to use....

[GunLawyer001]

You dare to impugn my honor sir!!!!!!! Smack! smack! Nerf pistols at dawn!

J/K - Check your email.

OK, looks like a real ad, even with the improper use of the word "build" ("built" is also a word.).

I have to say, it doesn't look like a lot of thought went into this ad or the legal claims therein. We'd need something solid, something binding in all Federal Circuits, that expressly defines when you've remade or redesigned your pistol into a rifle, within the meaning of the NFA, such that you may no longer turn that "rifle" back into a pistol.

To me, it's pretty clear that paper "registration" plays no part in the statutory definition. It's a rifle if it has a buttstock, it's an SBR if it has that buttstock and a short barrel, or if it's made from a rifle and is under the 16"/26" specified dimensions. A rifle "registered" as a pistol, either via paid excise tax or through state records, is still a rifle if the definition applies. The statute also clearly contemplates that a gun may change status regardless of how it started its life:

The term "rifle" means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of an explosive to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger.

[justashooter]

all the red text warnigns aside. going pistol/rifle/pistol is entirely legal in the specific case of the contender as considered by the SCOTUS. this provides case law which could be useful in defending anyone who might be charged with such conversion of an AR type that started life as a pistol.

[-JD-]

all the red text warnigns aside. going pistol/rifle/pistol is entirely legal in the specific case of the contender as considered by the SCOTUS. this provides case law which could be useful in defending anyone who might be charged with such conversion of an AR type that started life as a pistol.

This is just what we are trying to work out here. Would you please reference the specific case(s) and quote the relevant passage(s) here. I certainly would like to to be the case, but I have seen nothing in the law, or case law that actually supports it.