SBR illegal???

[David]

Interestingly, a registered machine gun with a short barrel and stock doesn't have to be registered as an SBR.

It's pretty awesome.

[dee]

His little chopped and tuned BAR were quite a devastating combination.

BAR's are fucking awesome! Love to shoot one some day, they have a very unique and distinguishable sound when running.

[CJ]

Interestingly, a registered machine gun with a short barrel and stock doesn't have to be registered as an SBR.

Yeah, a transferable machine gun is the ultimate stamp, you can do anything to them and it's legal, for the most part.

[Nash B.]

Interestingly, a registered machine gun with a short barrel and stock doesn't have to be registered as an SBR.

[ThreeFingerPete]

Antiquated thought process.

Turn around, you're preaching to the choir.

[KBScobravert]

They are simply trying to regulate the OAL and barrel length of weapons. Ideally keeping Clyde Barrow from happening again.

His little chopped and tuned BAR were quite a devastating combination.

Antiquated thought process.

[ThreeFingerPete]

From a performance standpoint, are there any advantages to having the rifle buffer on a pistol?

If the pistols/sbr's are what they are concentrated on regulating, why would they worry about rifle parts on a shorty? instead of people putting pistol parts on a rifle?

They are simply trying to regulate the OAL and barrel length of weapons. Ideally keeping Clyde Barrow from happening again.

His little chopped and tuned BAR were quite a devastating combination.


Ultimately, he'd have been equally effective with a fucking steak knife. You can't legislate away genuinely mean, violent people.

[CJ]

From a performance standpoint, are there any advantages to having the rifle buffer on a pistol?

If the pistols/sbr's are what they are concentrated on regulating, why would they worry about rifle parts on a shorty? instead of people putting pistol parts on a rifle?

no performance gain.

[TeeShock]

The moral is don't put a rifle buffer on a pistol.

From a performance standpoint, are there any advantages to having the rifle buffer on a pistol?

If the pistols/sbr's are what they are concentrated on regulating, why would they worry about rifle parts on a shorty? instead of people putting pistol parts on a rifle?

[futant]

ok got it, so then yes you need to be worried the most about what is readily able to be put onto another rifle.
It just so happens everything on an AR is like that.
I wasn't really talking about an AR though.

[CJ]

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.

If I was a prosecutor I would easily be able to convince 12 of your peers that removing a buttstock off of another rifle in 2 seconds, with no tools constitutes readily. I am certain I could do it. The moral is don't put a rifle buffer on a pistol. It is intentionally left open for prosecution. I try not to focus on what things they leave open, and focus on what they concrete close with the verbiage. It's like using an opinion piece from the wall street journal to defend yourself in court.

[futant]

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

[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.

[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.

[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.