SBR illegal???

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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

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

[TeeShock]

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

[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.

[ThreeFingerPete]

Yes yes, I know all of that stuff. I'm not convinced about calling a lower a pistol when it has a rifle buffer on it. I've read quite a few synopsis that don't follow that premise. Is there anything in writing from the ATF on this?

edit: Here is the ATF's wording:


Stock is never mentioned. I don't think you would get in trouble doing this or anything mentioned previous. However, I see nothing in the written ATF "law" that says you absolutely couldn't get prosecuted for it. If I was an ATF agent or a federal prosecutor I could make a case that you had intent to construct a rifle if you had a carbine tube on your gun. I cannot do that if you had a pistol buffer on the same gun.

How's this:

[CJ]

A receiver becomes a rifle if it has been assembled into a rifle configuration. Once configured into a rifle, it's permanently a rifle, regardless of its later configurations. (Basically, once you put a stock on it, then it's a rifle)


The ATF has deemed that a pistol can be configured using a rifle/carbine buffer tube so long as you are not in possession of a stock that could be fitted to the gun. In other words, if all of your rifles have m4 stocks, and you use an A1/A2 style tube, you wouldn't be in violation. However, if you own a stock that could fit that A1/A2 buffer tube, then you have intent.



A receiver that has never been configured into a rifle by addition of a stock, plus a short upper is a pistol. If you take that upper off and put a long upper and a stock on that receiver(now a rifle), you cannot go back to the short upper/ no stock configuration without "manufacturing an SBR" and paying the tax stamp.

Yes yes, I know all of that stuff. I'm not convinced about calling a lower a pistol when it has a rifle buffer on it. I've read quite a few synopsis that don't follow that premise. Is there anything in writing from the ATF on this?

edit: Here is the ATF's wording:

"...a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder ..."

Stock is never mentioned. I don't think you would get in trouble doing this or anything mentioned previous. However, I see nothing in the written ATF "law" that says you absolutely couldn't get prosecuted for it. If I was an ATF agent or a federal prosecutor I could make a case that you had intent to construct a rifle if you had a carbine tube on your gun. I cannot do that if you had a pistol buffer on the same gun.

[ThreeFingerPete]

I've had 4 of my lowers registered like that. Regardless if it's a pistol or receiver or whatever the 4473 says, if it's a complete lower with a stock you're in violation even with an SBR upper in your possession.

A receiver becomes a rifle if it has been assembled into a rifle configuration. Once configured into a rifle, it's permanently a rifle, regardless of its later configurations. (Basically, once you put a stock on it, then it's a rifle)

It's a dumb confusing set of laws. You can also be in violation without a stock on it, because I believe the law only considers an AR15 a pistol if it has a) never been registered as a rifle b) cannot accept a stock.

The ATF has deemed that a pistol can be configured using a rifle/carbine buffer tube so long as you are not in possession of a stock that could be fitted to the gun. In other words, if all of your rifles have m4 stocks, and you use an A1/A2 style tube, you wouldn't be in violation. However, if you own a stock that could fit that A1/A2 buffer tube, then you have intent.

So, correct me if I'm wrong here, but I believe if it has a rifle buffer tube it's a rifle, no stock necessary. The reason for pistol buffer tubes and people wrapping them in para-cord is to prevent them from meeting the criteria of accepting a stock and therefore being consider a rifle.

A receiver that has never been configured into a rifle by addition of a stock, plus a short upper is a pistol. If you take that upper off and put a long upper and a stock on that receiver(now a rifle), you cannot go back to the short upper/ no stock configuration without "manufacturing an SBR" and paying the tax stamp.

[KBScobravert]

My theory is that if the ATF is in your house already, a pistol/short barreled upper and other rifle lowers laying around are the least of your problems. Now, with that said, I do not own a short upper that does not sit on a pistol lower until I get the stamps for my SBR.

I want to say I read somewhere that there has never been an "intent to construct" charge upheld in court yet.

Be safe though folks. A pistol buffer tube kit is $55 at the gun shows. I recommend building as a pistol first and before submitting the Form 1 anyways. That way you can test the combo out before committing a peice of aluminum to the ATF for life.