Can i put a 16 1/2 " barrel on my charger
- Thread starter mrt949
- Start date
TheDevilThatYouKnow
New member
As a pistol, you can put any length barrel you desire on it; from 2 inches to 2 foot. There are no legal impediments to putting a Ruger 10/22 Takedown's barrel on your Charger pistol (assuming it fits mechanically).
What you cannot do is add a buttstock with a barrel under 16 inches or an overall length under 26 inches as that would convert your pistol to a short-barreled rifle.
What you cannot do is add a buttstock with a barrel under 16 inches or an overall length under 26 inches as that would convert your pistol to a short-barreled rifle.
FrankenMauser
New member
Under Federal law, there is no problem with that concept.
But, check your state and local laws.
Some places - even gun-friendly states like Utah - have strange definitions and funky laws that place limits on barrel length or overall length for handguns; or have definitions that can turn your 16.5" Charger into a short-barreled rifle under state law.
Much discussion of some of these dumb laws and definitions in recent months, due to the Mossberg Shockwave being technically illegal, completely undefined, or in a grey area wasteland in at least a dozen states.
Check your local laws...
But, check your state and local laws.
Some places - even gun-friendly states like Utah - have strange definitions and funky laws that place limits on barrel length or overall length for handguns; or have definitions that can turn your 16.5" Charger into a short-barreled rifle under state law.
Much discussion of some of these dumb laws and definitions in recent months, due to the Mossberg Shockwave being technically illegal, completely undefined, or in a grey area wasteland in at least a dozen states.
Check your local laws...
The case that went to the Supreme Cort was Thompson/Center vs. United States. This is were we now get our direction in that a pistol can become a rifle and returned to a pistol without necessarily becoming a SBR.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/504/505.html
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/504/505.html
FrankenMauser
New member
eldos1, The world and the ATF have moved on since that T/C decision.
Use current ATF opinions/determinations, if you want to keep up with the current state of affairs.
And... that's not really applicable here, anyway.
State/local law is separate from Federal law.
Federal law says it's still a pistol.
State/local law may differ.
Use current ATF opinions/determinations, if you want to keep up with the current state of affairs.
And... that's not really applicable here, anyway.
State/local law is separate from Federal law.
Federal law says it's still a pistol.
State/local law may differ.
Theohazard
New member
Actually, it's just the opposite: It took the world and the ATF many years to finally come to terms with that decision. After the SCOTUS decision in 1992, the ATF and most of the gun world figured it just applied to that specific situation. But after well over a decade of constant questions, the ATF issued Ruling 2011-4. That ruling directly references that case and it follows its decision. 2011-4 is the most recent ATF ruling we have on the subject.FrankenMauser said:
US v. Thompson-Center Arms Co. guides our current understanding of the rules for constructive possession and also directs us in when it's OK to go from being a pistol to a rifle and vice-versa.
Last edited:
FrankenMauser
New member
Exactly my point.
2011-4 matters, not the original decision.
And, even then... it's only at a Federal level.
2011-4 matters, not the original decision.
And, even then... it's only at a Federal level.
Theohazard
New member
No, that wasn't your point at all, at least not as you stated it. The world and the ATF haven't "moved on" since that decision like you claimed. In fact, the world and the ATF have done just the opposite; they've adapted their understanding of federal law to follow that decision. Like I said, 2011-4 is directly derived from that decision. So how can you claim that everyone has "moved on" from it when that decision directly guides federal policy to this day?FrankenMauser said:
True, but federal firearm laws supercede state firearm laws, and most states don't have specific firearm definitions that are stricter than federal laws. So federal laws are far from irrelevant here.FrankenMauser said:
FrankenMauser
New member
2011-4 is what matters (primarily) here.
And if 2011-4 is what matters, then my words made the point exactly:
I said local law may differ.
And IF there ARE local/state laws/definitions in place, they they DO matter.
Federal law does not supplant local law, as your statement implies with the use of "supercedes" (sic). It is the over-reaching, 'universal' law. But local law can be more restrictive, in addition to Federal law.
And if 2011-4 is what matters, then my words made the point exactly:
2011-4 (and its references) would be the current state of affairs - not T/C vs U.S., verbatim, from 1992.
I didn't say they were irrelevant.
I said local law may differ.
And IF there ARE local/state laws/definitions in place, they they DO matter.
Federal law does not supplant local law, as your statement implies with the use of "supercedes" (sic). It is the over-reaching, 'universal' law. But local law can be more restrictive, in addition to Federal law.
Theohazard
New member
OK, I'll admit that supersede wasn't the best word to use to describe how local laws can't be less restrictive than federal laws, but my point simply was that federal law is the primary and most important thing to understand in this case considering local laws usually don't differ from federal laws on this subject.
And you're starting to sound like a politician here. The first sentence of your original statement to Eldos1 was incorrect. You stated this: "The world and the ATF have moved on since that T/C decision." Well, that's flat-out wrong and it shows a misunderstanding of where Ruling 2011-4 came from. You can parse words and point out flaws in my wording all you want, but it won't change the fact that the ATF and did exactly the opposite of "move on" from the T/C decision, they actually ended up applying it universally after many years of claiming it only applied to the specific T/C situation.
And you're starting to sound like a politician here. The first sentence of your original statement to Eldos1 was incorrect. You stated this: "The world and the ATF have moved on since that T/C decision." Well, that's flat-out wrong and it shows a misunderstanding of where Ruling 2011-4 came from. You can parse words and point out flaws in my wording all you want, but it won't change the fact that the ATF and did exactly the opposite of "move on" from the T/C decision, they actually ended up applying it universally after many years of claiming it only applied to the specific T/C situation.