Legality of a Removeable Rifle Stock on a Pistol?

Yes it would be legal with out the stock. Old G.O. from sportsman's guide can't be bothered to explain the ins and outs of creating a SBR. It is easier and safer legally for G.O. to let you think you have to use that stock and barrel together... Like I said, you can use just the long barrel but that would be stupid. (I wonder if the gun would cycle correctly.)

The barrel length isn't an issue without the stock. Follow me?
 
To add to this the local range/gun shot recently let me play with an Ingram. It was so rediculous. You can't shoot from the hip with anything like a hope of accuracy. I was working with holding it like a pistol I could just feel how it was going to be all out of balance. I commented this to them "Yeah it looks cool but I'd have to attached a stock to make it work. The laughed and said yeah, but that would make it illegal.
 
aroundlsu: I think it should be said again in very simple terms:

You can not attach any type of stock or vertical foregrip to a pistol in the United States.
Click to expand...

This is simply not true.

All you have to do is pay a $200 tax and fill out a form for SBR.

ATF regulations CLEARLY allow certain Lugers, Mausers and Browning Hi Powers to have an attached stock WITHOUT the owner having a tax stamp.
 
This is simply not true.

All you have to do is pay a $200 tax and fill out a form for SBR.

ATF regulations CLEARLY allow certain Lugers, Mausers and Browning Hi Powers to have an attached stock WITHOUT the owner having a tax stamp.
Click to expand...

If you pay a $200 tax for the SBR it's no longer a pistol and my comment is still accurate. ;)

The OP and others reading this thread are not interested in attaching a stock to a very specific model relic gun. They want to attach stocks to their Glock and other modern automatics. So I felt it was important to clearly state that you simply can't do it rather than continue to bog down the thread with NFA regulations and perhaps give some kid the idea that maybe he can attach the stock to his Glock.
 
aroundlsu
Quote:
This is simply not true.

All you have to do is pay a $200 tax and fill out a form for SBR.

ATF regulations CLEARLY allow certain Lugers, Mausers and Browning Hi Powers to have an attached stock WITHOUT the owner having a tax stamp.
Click to expand...


If you pay a $200 tax for the SBR it's no longer a pistol and my comment is still accurate.
The OP and others reading this thread are not interested in attaching a stock to a very specific model relic gun. They want to attach stocks to their Glock and other modern automatics. So I felt it was important to clearly state that you simply can't do it rather than continue to bog down the thread with NFA regulations and perhaps give some kid the idea that maybe he can attach the stock to his Glock.
Click to expand...

Wrong again.

With the stock attached it requires a tax stamp. Without the stock attached it is still a handgun and requires no tax stamp.

What you cannot comprehend is that the rules for attaching a stock to a Glock are the same as with any other handgun. IT CAN BE DONE LEGALLY, AND IS DONE ALL THE TIME. As I stated before, you pay a tax, you can attach a stock.

It is interesting that you believe regulations "bog down" this thread. Ignorance of those regulations will send you to jail.










.
 
First, if you SBR your pistol, it's no longer a pistol, it's a SBR, irregardless if there's a stock on it or not; unless you have your SBR removed from the registry.

As far as teh mectec kinda stuff, you install 16" barrel on pistol (still a pistol), install stock (now a rifle with 16" barrel). If you stick the stock on with teh factory 4-5" barrel, you create a SBR.
 
Once you attach a shoulder stock and a 16 inch barrel to the frame, you create a rifle. Once you remove the stock you attach the short barrel. You are creating a firearm with a short barrel out of a rifle, which is in the definition of a short barreled rifle. Both statutes for the SBR and SBS contain the phase "or a weapon made from a rifle" and "or a weapon made from a shotgun". That is what I don't get.

TC v US established there is no constructive possession for SBR in that the weapon has to be made and not an aggregation of parts like a suppressor or machine gun. It also said their carbine/pistol kit was not a SBR unless the stock and short barrel were attached at the same time.
 
Let's define handgun, pistol, revolver, and rifle. 478.11 in the USC states:

Handgun. (a) Any firearm which has a short stock and is designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand; and

(b) Any combination of parts from which a firearm described in paragraph (a) can be assembled.

Pistol. A weapon originally designed, made, and intended to fire a projectile (bullet) from one or more barrels when held in one hand, and having (a) a chamber(s) as an integral part(s) of, or permanently aligned with, the bore(s); and (b) a short stock designed to be gripped by one hand and at an angle to and extending below the line of the bore(s).

Revolver. A projectile weapon, of the pistol type, having a breechloading chambered cylinder so arranged that the cocking of the hammer or movement of the trigger rotates it and brings the next cartridge in line with the barrel for firing

Rifle. A weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder, and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed metallic cartridge to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger.

Short-barreled rifle. A rifle having one or more barrels less than 16 inches in length, and any weapon made from a rifle, whether by alteration, modification, or otherwise, if such weapon, as modified, has an overall length of less than 26 inches.

So if a handgun/pistol/revolver ("handgun") has a shoulder stock attached it is then a rifle, since a rifle is a weapon redesigned or made/remade to be fired from the shoulder.

Now take off the stock and put a barrel on it that makes the weapon shorter than 26 inches OAL, it is now a SBR since the weapon was made a rifle by attaching a shoulder stock and a barrel 16" long (or more) thus making a rifle. Now take the rifle and reconfigure it to be shorter than 26 OAL by what appears to be any means, it is now a SBR since you took a rifle and now made it to be shorter than 26 inches OAL.

What am I missing here? A pistol with shoulder stock and 16" barrel is a rifle because it is a weapon that has been redesigned or remade and intended to be fired from the shoulder.
 
You are missing several ATF rulings that it is OK to stock a pistol with a legal length barrel, and take it back to pistol configuration.
Stop trying to make sense of gun laws.
 
After taking less than 5 seconds to google "thompson Contender v. US" http://supreme.justia.com/us/504/505/ (here's your homework;))
and reviewing it, whether or not it is legal to convert a pistol to a rifle and back again wasn't even the question. Heck, it isn't even in question.

The ruling was about whether or not there was "contructive presence" in the kits thompson sells. It contained a 10" bbl, a 21"bbl, a pistol grip, a buttstock, and a receiver assembly. Ruled legal. If you read the other thread about this I also provide a letter from the ATF (to me), while it does not address that exact question it alludes to it in the question about not allowing conversion into a rifle. (which is legal)
 
Trapp, I'm well aware of TC v US and that it addressed the constructive possession of a SBR. I don't find anywhere in that case where it said you can swap from a pistol to rifle and it's not an SBR, since the case dealt with constructive possession.
 
Ok I've read your letter which doesn't address the issue I'm asking about.

Take a virgin receiver. Make a pistol out of it.

Take the barrel off and replace it with a 16 inch or longer barrel. Add a shoulder stock. It is now a rifle since it is a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder.

Now remove the shoulder stock and 16 inch barrel. Install the short barrel. You have now made a weapon less than 26 inches OAL, from a weapon that was previously a rifle (made by adding shoulder stock and 16" barrel) as defined by 478.11: any weapon made from a rifle, whether by alteration, modification, or otherwise, if such weapon, as modified, has an overall length of less than 26 inches.

That fits the definition of a SBR, since you took a pistol and made it into a rifle by adding shoulder stock and 16" barrel making OAL longer than 26" OAL, finally reverting back to a short barrel and no stock reducing the OAL to less than 26" thus is a SBR.

Where am I going wrong here? It seems to be very clear to me. If you add a shoulder stock and barrel to increase the OAL of a pistol to 26" or longer OAL it's a rifle. Shortening the OAL of that newly made rifle (as defined) to an OAL of less than 26" by any means, in this case short barrel and no stock, you create a SBR.
 
When you place a 16" barrel on a PISTOL it does not change the fact that it is a PISTOL. Add a shoulder stock and you have NOT created a SBR, as the FIREARM is not an NFA firearm at this point.

You must not attach the stock unless the 16" barrel is in place and you must remove the stock prior to removing the 16" barrel. At no point have you created a SBR.

If you leave the stock on the firearm and replace the 16" barrel with a barrel of less than 16" (such as a 5" barrel) then you have created a firearm subject to NFA regulation. It is a SBR at that point.


I don't think any reply that will be posted here will satisfy you.

I highly recommend contacting your local ATF guy. Even then he will only recite the same language as has already been posted.
 
When you place a 16" barrel on a PISTOL it does not change the fact that it is a PISTOL.
Click to expand...
Yes, I know that. That is not what I'm asking.

Add a shoulder stock and you have NOT created a SBR, as the FIREARM is not an NFA firearm at this point.
Click to expand...
I know you have not created a SBR. You have created a RIFLE.

Riddle me this: does placing a shoulder stock on a pistol with 16" barrel create a rifle? That is the question that no one here has answered with evidence. I say according to the definition of "rifle" that it does.

Now if someone can show me where in the law it says that this is not creating a rifle, then I'm good.

I don't think any reply that will be posted here will satisfy you.
Click to expand...
Perhaps if someone actually answered the question I would be satisfied. So far I've received nothing but double talk and attitude.

I highly recommend contacting your local ATF guy. Even then he will only recite the same language as has already been posted.
Click to expand...
The ATF in the nearest field office is not versed in NFA. I'm the only 07 FFL and only Clas 2 SOT in the UP. They do not deal with this stuff. The NFA branch can't give me a straight answer on this issue either.
 
Freakshow

Getting a little frustrated? I know I didn't address that exact question. The point I was making is that it isn't even a question. It has never been a question or the question in question.

One day, one of the alphabet boys are going to ask that question. When they do I believe you have predicted their response. Until the right/wrong person askes the question it is perfectly legal in the eyes of the BATFE as proven by the kits out there.

Compose a letter to the NFA/technologies branch as I did. I predict initially they will say it is ok. Unless, of course, you provide that arguement for them.

Remember this is the internet....Weed out the Hot Garbage and use your analytical skills. Once you provided the sound, solid arguement you did, I knew right away no one was going to be able to answer your question with solid evidence.

My apologies if you contrued my posts as doubletalk or attitude. I just wanted to provide what I know of the situation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top