Legal barrel length

and even that is debatable! there are atf letters that state once an encore has been converted from pistol to rifle you cannot convert it back, as you would be converting a rifle to a pistol!
Click to expand...

Indeed.

Although, from my research it seems as though the actual debate is residual, self-sustained, as it were, by the internet. The issue seems to have been resolved some years ago but the internet has allowed the phantom problems to continue.

In any case, the powers that be in NY are very content to proclaim the absolute legality as I described above and you've got to know that if NY doesn't have a problem with it then it's probably pretty solid. These knuckleheads will restrict ANYTHING if they think that they can get away with it.:mad::rolleyes:
 
ATF lost the encore fight before the supreme court.

You can go back and forth, but you need to make sure the rifle stock is not attached when the pistol barrel is on the action.
 
Since rifle barrel lengths are, legally speaking, 16" or longer, a pistol with a barrel over 16" plus a shoulder stock is just...a rifle. Not a sbr or any other NFA type thing. If there is no stock, its just a pistol with a rediculous barrel.
 
Is there a legal maximum for pistol length on a pistol? If you were to exceed 16" on a pistol barrel, is it illegal? For the moment, ignore how completely ridiculous the idea sounds. Just curious about the legality of such a behemoth.
Click to expand...

15 and 63/64"....:D. Once you hit 16, you're in rifle barrel territory. I have a XP-100 target pistol I would LOVE to make a rifle, but the barrel of 15-1/2 requires too much legal effort, unless I can find some form of muzzle weight/break to be permanently attached
 
ATF lost the encore fight before the supreme court.

You can go back and forth, but you need to make sure the rifle stock is not attached when the pistol barrel is on the action.
Click to expand...

My understanding of the Supreme Court case is that the legality of swapping back and forth between configurations was never addressed.
 
ATW525 said:
My understanding of the Supreme Court case is that the legality of swapping back and forth between configurations was never addressed.
Click to expand...

If memory serves me correctly, the way it went down was in such a way that the ATF more or less decided to ignore the conversions. They still believe it to be illegal but do not pursue it based on the outcome of that case. Particularly why, or how it was worded I do not remember but it convinced me at the time and it has certainly convinced every dealer that I've ever asked as well as the Powers That Be in New York.
 
The key point about the Supreme Court ruling was that it focused on the notion of "Constructive Possession" as it applies to short barreled rifles. All they said was that if you have a bunch of parts that be assembled into either a pistol, a rifle or a short barreled rifle, it is not considered possession of a short barreled rifle until it's actually assembled in that configuration.

The BATFE's stance is that once you assemble those parts into a rifle configuration, you have made a rifle. At that point you can't switch back to a pistol without obtaining a tax stamp because even if you removed the stock it would meet the statutory definition of a short barreled rifle. This is a separate issue from the "Constructive Possession" issue decided by the Supreme Court.
 
The BATFE's stance is that once you assemble those parts into a rifle configuration, you have made a rifle. At that point you can't switch back to a pistol without obtaining a tax stamp because even if you removed the stock it would meet the statutory definition of a short barreled rifle. This is a separate issue from the "Constructive Possession" issue decided by the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

Interesting and arbitrary conclusion by the ATF. What would be the logic that once it's a rifle it's always a rifle but it started out as a handgun and it's not always a handgun? Sounds like a money grab to me.

Regardless, I'm convinced that it's no longer an issue. I even emailed TC directly and asked if it was still a problem and they said no.

So, my internet research convinced me, the Powers That Be in NY told me that it's fine, every dealer that I've talked to says it's fine, and TC says it's fine. So, I still say that it's just residual internet conjecture and no longer a problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top