If I remove the buttstock (and VFG) off my SBR, and the resulting firearm is <26", is it legally a pistol?
Facts:
I built the SBR from a virgin receiver.
I put the buttstock on last, which technically means it was built into pistol configuration first
The ATF has said that temporarily reconfiguring an NFA firearm into non-controlled format (for instance, putting on a 16" upper) means it doesn’t fall under NFA guidelines while in that configuration (for, say, interstate travel).
My SBR is ~25" long if I were to remove the buttstock.
The reason I ask is that we have an alternative deer season coming up, and pistols are eligible for use. If I can legally convert my SBR temporarily into a pistol, I can use it.
This ain’t going to be an answer, rather just food for thought. We know a couple things:
You cannot make a pistol from a rifle
You can have a pistol, configure it into a rifle, and return it to a pistol
So, if it wasn’t an SBR, the answer is definitely yes.
Some will say you can go pistol -> SBR -> pistol. Some will say that with the Form 1, you have made a new firearm, and that firearm is a rifle…thus you can’t return it to pistol configuration.
I don’t know what side of that argument I stand on. However, buying another stripped lower and building it into pistol configuration seems to be a lot easier than spending 10 years in prison and paying a $250,000 fine. (That’s why I keep two pistol lowers around). You can easily swap the upper over without any legal concerns (other than if AR pistols happened to be illegal in your state).
I don’t know if I’d try it with the original carbine buffer tube. If you switch to a pistol buffer tube than has no means of mounting a stock I think you’d be way safer. This may be a good time to try out a Sig brace, the ATF has said this keeps it a pistol. MY SBR was made as a pistol first while I was waiting on the stamp.
Yeah, what BigWaylon said… I also have both a pistol and my SBR, so I don’t have to worry about doing anything with my SBR lower. It’s a shame so many stupid laws have been put on the books since the 2A was written.
I have no desire to build a pistol lower - if it comes to that I’ll just use my 357. But I’m not concerned with the legality of using a carbine buffer tube - constructive intent isn’t an issue for a registered lower, lol.
Im with BigWalon on this one. I personally think this… “Some will say that with the Form 1, you have made a new firearm, and that firearm is a rifle…thus you can’t return it to pistol configuration.” from quote above. I know you can take it out of NFA configuration and have it be legal. 16+ inch barrel… But to me, taking a butt stock off a SBR is a SBR without the buttstock on it. Still a SBR. Just my opinion. Not worth the hassle or risk. Just my 02
I think this was covered by ATF in an inspection I had a few months back. IIRC, it would still be a SBR. If you were to put a pistol buffer tube (that does not accept a locking stock), then it would qualify as a pistol.
If your aunt had balls she’d be your uncle. You will always have a rifle. Only way to legally swap back and forth is if it was declared a pistol when receiver was virgin.
What they won’t figure out for sure until Monday morning if you don’t produce your paperwork is, you were not hunting with an illegally built unregistered pistol, but that you were hunting illegally with a legal SBR
This logic is flawed. As registered, it is a rifle but this is no different than changing the upper on a register lower to take it into a different locale. Pistols do not have to be registered so if it has a pistol config, it’s a pistol, even if it was temporarily convertered to one.
If one changed to a 16" upper on a registered lower then it’s a legal 16" and can be transported or handled as such by the owner without paperwork. Call ATF. This is what they will tell you.
The pistol question is a bit more tricky if the short bbl remains but it follows the same principle; a stock cannot be readily attached to a pistol tube hence it has been temporarily converted.
Maybe not, in my state if you build a lower into a pistol it must be registered with the state police as a handgun. If you build it into a rifle you do not. I did mention that if he did not produce his paperwork the locals wouldn’t know what he had(maybe they would know, I was just putting him in a cell for the weekend). But we know he will always have a rifle, he has the option of a SBR, he will never have the option of a pistol. If he removes the stock from his SBR and leaves the tube he has a partially assembled SBR(intent???). If he goes hunting in the woods during handgun season his intent is clear and he is asking for trouble with the locals. If he changes to a pistol tube, he has built an illegal pistol.
He can not build a legal pistol. He can not hunt during handgun season with a rifle.
So just to be clear, you understand the ATF has issued an opinion (2011-4) that it’s understood to mean that if you buy a virgin receiver, then build a pistol out of it, you can legally build it into a rifle & go back & forth. This is exactly what I did (receiver to pistol to rifle). It sounds like you’re saying that’s illegal in general, which is incorrect. I still fail to see why receiver to pistol to Sbr to pistol is different than receiver to pistol to rifle to pistol.
Because with an SBR, you’ve made a new firearm via a Form 1, which is a short barreled rifle. You haven’t simply reconfigured the pistol into a rifle. You now have a firearm that is a new firearm, and starts life as a rifle, thus cannot be made into a pistol.
That’s the other side of the argument. As mentioned, 2011-4 is the “it’s OK” side.
Again, I’m not saying that’s how the ATF would rule, but I do understand both sides of the argument.
I think this is the only argument that anyone has posed to this point that holds any weight, and I’ll have to think about that one. I wish I had thought about this months ago - I’d just write a letter.
IANAL, but:
Your hunting regulations are likely state-level laws, not federal ones – you need to look whether “pistol” is defined in the hunting regulations, and if not there, then in State law (and in any pertinent case law).
All of these answers referring to Federal/BATFE laws and rulings have little to no meaning unless your state laws in some way defer to the federal definitions.
Start by referring to your pertinent hunting regulations / state laws, and find where the term “pistol”/“handgun” is defined, depending what your hunting regs refer to.
For example, in my state, a pistol is “any firearm with a barrel less than sixteen inches in length, or is designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand.” – so for purposes of state-level laws, any SBR would also, by definition, be a “pistol”, regardless of whether a stock is attached.
Yeah, I’ve done some homework there for sure. Hunting regs mention only “Centerfire Pistol” as one of the allowable methods, and there is actually no definition of pistol in the state statutes - they define terms like “rifle” and “concealable firearm” but not pistol. So I’m assuming that if I’m within the federal definition of pistol, I’m OK. I do have to buy a 10-round magazine, but AR pistols are OK. We’ve checked specifically on that. My scoped 300 BLK would be a lot better for me and surely a quicker/cleaner kill for the deer, but I can take one down with my 357 if it comes to that.
I get it. I was 100% on the side of the 2011-4 argument and have actually recommended the pistol -> SBR -> pistol method to several people online and in person.
However, after having my eyes opened to the other side of the argument, I’ve never made the recommendation again. Not saying it’s wrong, I’m just not comfortable recommending it anymore.
For me, it’s not an issue, as I have two “pistol” lowers I keep around (both even engraved as pistol, which is completely unnecessary, just hoping it’s an extra layer of protection against local LEO that don’t know the laws).