AR pistol questions for PA??!

[mythaeus]

As for the PM I sent him, here is what I said (basically what you just said):

...
mythaeus, I agree with your #3, a virgin lower is just that. It is a AR lower and can be made into a rifle, SBR or pistol, depending on what the buyer wants. I've not seen any law that says if it is marked "pistol" that it can only be made into a pistol. Another example, how many guns are out there that are marked Law Enforcement Only or Military Only (or words to that effect) that are sold to "civilians" and are perfectly legal to own.

Thank you for sharing. Glad to see other are understanding the laws similar to how I'm understanding them.

...
Maybe we're over thinking this to death.

Hahaha...yeah, like I said, it's academic. Burden of proof and the desire require.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the BAFTE stated in a ruling recently
that a stripped lower can go from a pistol to a rifle, then back to a
pistol configuration without violating NFA rules, either by kits, or
acquired parts. It just can't start out to be a rifle, then to a pistol,
without that pesky tax stamp.

You are correct (GL001 mentioned this). http://www.atf.gov/regulations-rulin...ing-2011-4.pdf

Ok, I have a question. I purchased a virgin AR receiver as a spare at least 4 years ago. The FFL told me they were processing it as a "pistol lower" so I had the option to build it as a pistol or a rifle if I choose to. I don't recall what paper work was completed, I kind of remember the extra pistol form.

So, where do I stand regarding this?



Here's my second question.

At that time (IIRC) the law permitted me to build it as a pistol and I could later on change it to build a rifle from the receiver, but if I built it as a rifle first, I could not build it as a pistol later on.

Here's my question, how in the hell would the ATF know if it was built as a rifle or pistol first????? There is no way for them to prove it either way, nor anyway for me to prove it, if I "had" to.

You're not really standing anywhere, IMHO. You have a virgin lower which is now can be made into a pistol or rifle. Everything else applies from that point on, depending on what you choose to build.

Burden of proof is on the prosecution. The "how" is perceptibly difficult, but the risk of discovery does exist. If I don't do anything wrong, I don't have to cover my track.

Al

[Gun]

I think that it has to be sold as a handgun first(on a 4473) for that to work. It all comes down to taxes in the end.

In another thread*, I stated that parts are not taxed, when ordered separately.
An order containing all the parts to assemble either a rifle or a handgun will be
charged the FAET, but only on the parts necessary for the assembly, and not on
any extra parts.




*It was in the 'PSA stripped lower sale' thread, in the rifle forum.

[Dasbalddog]

Adding to others.... A stripped lower is and should be marked "OTHER" on the 4473.

It is NOT a pistol OR a rifle at that point and technically different (read "mostly rifle") rules apply.


Something else to think about.....on the topic of "pistol to rifle to pistol".... Assuming that it is legal.... If there is ANY evidence of "rifle to pistol", the ATF can now ask you to provide evidence that it was a pistol FIRST. If you cannot, the you will probably be charged with illegal possession of an SBR.

[Hawk]

Still, it is better to line up ducks, like when certain parts
were ordered and received. Why chance it!

Again, I'm not chancing anything.

When parts were ordered is not proof of anything. You can legally buy and sell a pistol/rifle upper and parts FTF (with no required paper trail).



.

[knight0334]

In another thread*, I stated that parts are not taxed, when ordered separately.
An order containing all the parts to assemble either a rifle or a handgun will be
charged the FAET, but only on the parts necessary for the assembly, and not on
any extra parts.




*It was in the 'PSA stripped lower sale' thread, in the rifle forum.

With that, being stipulations on the manufacturer, producer, or importer, and the tax isn't paid - then I personally would be very cautious of doing a receiver-to-handgun-to-rifle-to-handgun conversion. Especially with the wording in that ruling.

A receiver-to-pistol is ok for sure. So is a receiver-to-rifle. But I don't have a warm and fuzzy feeling about a receiver-to-pistol-to rifle-to-pistol conversion. Maybe I'm being overly cautious because I don't like the idea of 10year in Fed Pen???

[Hawk]

Something else to think about.....on the topic of "pistol to rifle to pistol".... Assuming that it is legal.... If there is ANY evidence of "rifle to pistol", the ATF can now ask you to provide evidence that it was a pistol FIRST. If you cannot, the you will probably be charged with illegal possession of an SBR.

Problem is (as it is now) there is no required documentation or form required by the ATF to make the switch of a pistol lower from a pistol to rifle, or rifle back to pistol. It appears to me there is a flaw in the system that may put one at risk even if what they did was legal according to the ATF.

[GunLawyer001]

With that, being stipulations on the manufacturer, producer, or importer, and the tax isn't paid - then I personally would be very cautious of doing a receiver-to-handgun-to-rifle-to-handgun conversion. Especially with the wording in that ruling.

A receiver-to-pistol is ok for sure. So is a receiver-to-rifle. But I don't have a warm and fuzzy feeling about a receiver-to-pistol-to rifle-to-pistol conversion. Maybe I'm being overly cautious because I don't like the idea of 10year in Fed Pen???

That's how the smart money bets.

I'm not really sure (partly because I haven't thought about it much, partly because ATF is winging it) who has the burden of proof in taking advantage of ATF's ruling. The statute says it's an unregistered SBR if you build a pistol then rifle then pistol. ATF says that original pistols can go back after a rifle build. If the evidence is that your pistol was once a rifle, you may have the burden of proving that you fall within the administrative exception.

Some of this discussion is dangerously like asking how the cops would know if you killed your neighbor, fed him through a wood chipper, and fed the bits to a school of fish. "How would they know" is not relevant to "is it legal". And to assume that we know all the means of proof, today and tomorrow, is wrong. 150 years ago, if they didn't see you do the crime, but you left fingerprints, and DNA, and rifling marks on the bullet, they'd have a hard time convicting. Today, with those techniques, plus GPS tracking in phones and cars, plus bank cams and security cams and cell phone cams, and blogs and forum comments.....your fate could be sealed by evidence that was completely off your radar. You can pay cash for ammo and the police can access video of you making the purchase at Walmart, maybe months later. I've seen Walmart managers take a receipt and look at video of the purchase with no trouble at all, in response to a customer who said "I paid for this but they didn't put it in the bag."

Don't make your plans around the assumption that "nobody will find out". The prisons are filled with people who thought that way. They were wrong.

If you buy a pistol that left the factory as a pistol, the evidence will support you. if it started as a virgin lower, and you made it into a pistol before making it a rifle and then into a pistol, the evidence is just your word, at least for the exculpatory part.

[mythaeus]

That's how the smart money bets.

I'm not really sure (partly because I haven't thought about it much, partly because ATF is winging it) who has the burden of proof in taking advantage of ATF's ruling. The statute says it's an unregistered SBR if you build a pistol then rifle then pistol. ATF says that original pistols can go back after a rifle build. If the evidence is that your pistol was once a rifle, you may have the burden of proving that you fall within the administrative exception.

....

Hm...good point. I generally post pictures of my builds. I have photographic evident, dated and all, to prove that my build was a pistol. I have 2, 1 I built from a receiver that was transferred to me as "pistol" by the FFL (I didn't know it better then) and was never made into a rifle; and, the other was bought from RRA as an assembled lower (and marked "PISTOL ONLY"). If I were to build a 3rd from a virgin lower, I will document it in whatever ways I can (photos, video, posts). Is there a good/recommended way of documenting should the burden of proof falls on us?

Al

[Hawk]

That's how the smart money bets.

I'm not really sure (partly because I haven't thought about it much, partly because ATF is winging it) who has the burden of proof in taking advantage of ATF's ruling. The statute says it's an unregistered SBR if you build a pistol then rifle then pistol. ATF says that original pistols can go back after a rifle build. If the evidence is that your pistol was once a rifle, you may have the burden of proving that you fall within the administrative exception.

Some of this discussion is dangerously like asking how the cops would know if you killed your neighbor, fed him through a wood chipper, and fed the bits to a school of fish. "How would they know" is not relevant to "is it legal". And to assume that we know all the means of proof, today and tomorrow, is wrong. 150 years ago, if they didn't see you do the crime, but you left fingerprints, and DNA, and rifling marks on the bullet, they'd have a hard time convicting. Today, with those techniques, plus GPS tracking in phones and cars, plus bank cams and security cams and cell phone cams, and blogs and forum comments.....your fate could be sealed by evidence that was completely off your radar. You can pay cash for ammo and the police can access video of you making the purchase at Walmart, maybe months later. I've seen Walmart managers take a receipt and look at video of the purchase with no trouble at all, in response to a customer who said "I paid for this but they didn't put it in the bag."

Don't make your plans around the assumption that "nobody will find out". The prisons are filled with people who thought that way. They were wrong.

If you buy a pistol that left the factory as a pistol, the evidence will support you. if it started as a virgin lower, and you made it into a pistol before making it a rifle and then into a pistol, the evidence is just your word, at least for the exculpatory part.

Believe me I'm not advocating doing anything illegal. My point is that there really isn't any way to prove to the ATF that you built the pistol first (from a pistol lower) and then built the rifle. And there is no way to prove you later on went from the rifle back to a pistol. I'm thinking of people who own multiple uppers and a pistol receiver who switch depending on their need at that time.

[Boots_DE]

... I will be making all my AR's into pistols first for a while, then convert them into rifles if I need to (I have plenty of rifles). To me, this is the most assured way for legal back and forth conversion.

Reading this thread is making my head spin! But, I do have a question... if the lower is first made into a pistol, then it's legally a pistol, not a SBR. However, isn't there a limit on the barrel length of a pistol? If a pistol lower is configured with a barrel 16" or over, wouldn't it then be an illegal pistol?

Are you sure it's not "once a pistol, always a pistol", or "once a rifle, always a rifle" (without the SBR stamp)?

It seems to me the law is much too convoluted. If someone is not prohibited from owning a handgun, why should it matter how you configure your lower? (but, I know it does now)

Would sea-sickness meds help me right now?