Legality of a Removeable Rifle Stock on a Pistol?

Making tax on an NFA weapon is $200 for all NFA weapons, including AOWs. All NFA weapons transfer on a $200 tax, accept AOWs transfer for $5.

i was told that IF i decided to "make" more than one AOW per year, that i would have to be licensed as a FIREARMS MANUFACTURER, which is 150.00 for 3 years.
Click to expand...
False. You can make an unlimited number of firearms, including NFA firearms, for personal use.

a pistol REMAINS a PISTOL, if so registered at the time of assembly/construction/first transfer, regardless of size/configuration.
Click to expand...
False again. A firearm is what configuration it currently is. Put a stock on a pistol and you have a SBR.

IF you buy a receiver (for example a new M-16 stripped receiver) & register it as a PISTOL receiver, you may switch it back & forth to a rifle at your option, provided that you NEVER have the short barrel on at the same time as you have the shoulder stock mounted.
Click to expand...
False yet again.

Wow you have no clue what you are talking about.
 
freakshow10mm,

tell me, "oh, great oracle", WHAT are your qualifications to be so "ALL-knowing" & evidently filled with hubris & ignorance of the law???
(fyi, you post like a lawyer & that is NOT a compliment.)

inasmuch as you seem to have posted no such verifiable qualifcations, i'll happily accept your opinion as just that = personal opinion.

yours, PG
 
Willie Lowman;all,

inasmuch as i previously told you that i have NOT received the letter, your response is fully considered & dismissed as more blather & fact-free nonsense.

when i receive the letter from technical branch, i'll post it.
(i have no reason to believe that the 'techie" lied about sending the letter.)

note to all: one of the several things that "gets on my nerves" as i enter my seventh decade of life are "self-appointed internet experts", who try to convince others on "the worldwideweird" of their "expertise", W/O having any qualifications.
ABSENT verifiable qualifications, the "experts" just (to me at least) look clownish, blustering, impotent, arrogant & SELF-important & they make me gag.

yours, PG
 
Recommended reading for those interested in NFA items. NFA FAQ

prestigegunleather, the "$5" fee for an AOW is the transfer tax on an existing AOW that is already registered. If you create your own AOW on a Form 1, the manufacturing tax is $200. I am not a lawyer, did not stay at a Holiday Inn Express and do not have a dog in this fight, but I have been collecting NFA weapons for over 20 years and it really does cost $200 to make your own AOW on a FORM 1.
 
Last edited:
I am a lawyer and prestigegunleather is either putting out bad info or is the very first person to discover both a dramatic change in BATF policy as well as the reversal of several provisions of the 1968 GCA.

As far as what anybody at BATF told you, get it in writing or it doesn't mean a thing. I've gotten three different answers to the same question from ATF (and for that matter, ATF letters aren't always that consistent either; but at least you can rely on them in court).
 
prestigegunleather said:
ABSENT verifiable qualifications, the "experts" just (to me at least) look clownish, blustering, impotent, arrogant & SELF-important & they make me gag.
Click to expand...

Certainly the irony of this statement hasn't escaped you. ;)
 
prestigegunleather said:
freakshow10mm,

tell me, "oh, great oracle", WHAT are your qualifications to be so "ALL-knowing" & evidently filled with hubris & ignorance of the law???
(fyi, you post like a lawyer & that is NOT a compliment.)

inasmuch as you seem to have posted no such verifiable qualifcations, i'll happily accept your opinion as just that = personal opinion.
Click to expand...

He's the holder of an 02/07 FFL/SOT. He deals with NFA items and the laws thereof literally every single day of work.

I don't care much for your attitude, sir - you're giving all retired peace officers a very bad name with your flagrant and repeated ignorance of law.
 
Regarding the title of the thread-
Perhaps rulings have changed, but there were guns manufactured that had removeable stocks/barrels that were legal to change from rifle to pistol. One was made by the French firm of Unique. It was a .22 LR pistol that came with a full rifle stock and barrel, that you inserted the pistol action into.
 
So, if I understand one of the previous posts, if you take your 1911, install a 16" barrel, install the slotted mainspring housing, and put the shoulder stock on, it now becomes a rifle and can never be "unconverted" back to its original configuration as a pistol (to include removal of the slotted mainspring housing)? (Meaning that it will now become an SBR coverted from a rifle???) All this according to BATF regs? Or am I getting really confused?:D:confused::eek::mad::(
 
Last edited:
I don't see what part of my last post could even be regarded as fact free nonsense.

There was only one fact in my last post and I will repeat it here.

Without that letter, your posts Mr. Prestigegunleather, are nothing more than mine. Just posts on a web site.

When you get that letter from the ATF, please post it for us all to see.
 
to all,

one wonders WHY any of you (particuliarly "PTK" & "freakshow10mm") seem to think that i LIED about what a BATFE technical branch employee (absent his consent, i will not give his name) told me on the phone AND that he promised to mail me a letter (confirming the information in our phone conversation) about.
i am NOT an "expert" & do not claim to be (3+ decades of being a LEO makes you "expert on" mostly being "tired", being disgusted with the government/"the judicial system" & physically "beat-up".). thus "PTK's " comment about "the irony" is considered & also dismissed as "SILLY".

to Bartholomew Roberts: counselor, my contact with technical branch was at the urging of my attorney. he didn't know the answers & neither did i.
finding out the FACTS (rather than asking for the UNknowing/ignorant/personal OPINIONS of "FFL holders"/"know it alls"/"internet experts"/police officials) was precisely why i asked for a ruling on my proposed "pickup monster".
not only am i NOT "an expert" (of "the worldwideweird" sort or any other kind) but i do know, from my years of being "pinned to the badge", that federal regulations/laws/adminstrative findings/court decisions CONSTANTLY change.
would you agree with Fred T__________ (my attorney) that once i have the letter "in hand" that i am reasonably well-protected from civil/criminal/administrative actions & harrassment by BATFE???


yours, PG
"Don't blame me. i voted for the American."
 
Last edited:
Prestigegunleather, since you aren't my client and I don't know all of the facts, I cannot speak to your situation. I would advise my own clients not to rely on ATF legal opinions unless they are in writing and directed to them personally regarding their specific question.

However, like the others, I would certainly appreciate you posting that letter when you receive it. From a legal standpoint, that would be quite a switch in ATF policy.

(Meaning that it will now become an SBR coverted from a rifle???) All this according to BATF regs? Or am I getting really confused?
Click to expand...

You are confused. See Revenue Ruling 61-203 for the explanation on carbine kits for pistols.
 
Bartholomew Roberts,

oh, what a "lawyerly answer" in #72. = chuckle.

forget my specific case & simply answer my underlying question ====> in your opinion as an attorney & from your own professional experience, will the BATFE "stand behind" a decision that they have rendered in writing, in response to a question from a member of the public
OR
do you find them to be as underhanded/dishonest/scheming/"wishy-washy" as the late/lamented Neal Knox, GOA, JPFO, TSRA, NRA & other gunowner groups claim?
(i worked with ATF agents a number of times over the years "down on the border" & most of the agents were OK guys/gals, when working cases. i have ZERO experience with the agency as a whole & frankly fear that under the "leadership" of BHO that the political types may be "doing strange & wonderful things".)

yours, PG
"politicians are like diapers. they should be frequently changed & for the same reason."
 
forget my specific case & simply answer my underlying question ====> in your opinion as an attorney & from your own professional experience, will the BATFE "stand behind" a decision that they have rendered in writing, in response to a question from a member of the public
Click to expand...

Not a chance, they've directly reversed what letters have stated in the past, complete with confiscation of "legal by the letter" items.
 
BATFE "stand behind" a decision that they have rendered in writing, in response to a question from a member of the public
Click to expand...

This is the same group that issued a written ruling that a shoestring was a machinegun. They later reversed that ruling.
 
You are confused. See Revenue Ruling 61-203 for the explanation on carbine kits for pistols.
Click to expand...

I've read that ruling before and understand it. However, given what some of the posters in this thread have opined, just the opposite seems to be the case.
 
forget my specific case & simply answer my underlying question
Click to expand...

I don't have a per question rate. Would you like my hourly rate for people on the Internet who I don't know from Adam or should we discuss a flat fee?

As far as ATF, in my experience, the people who handle the day to day business of ATF are often not as familiar with firearms laws as they would be in an ideal situation. Since many of the questions they are asked to opine on confuse even lawyers and there is no overall principle of logic guiding most gun control laws, you can and do get different answers depending on who you ask.

This is why it is important to get those answers in writing. Frankly, I estimate your chances of getting the letter from ATF you described in your posts as only slightly above my chances of being Emperor of the world before the day is out (in fact without the first happening, I wouldn't count on your letter).
 
I've read that ruling before and understand it. However, given what some of the posters in this thread have opined, just the opposite seems to be the case.
Click to expand...
Trust what you have seen in writing from the ATF. They are the ones that will ruin your life for not doing as per their whim.

All opinions on the internet are to be
considered & also dismissed as "SILLY".
Click to expand...
 
HKmp5sd;all,

the "shoestring decision" is not a bit more stupid than the city attorney of Washington, DC deciding that a double-barreled 16 guage shotgun that "doubled" (as a result of a wornout trigger mechanism) was "constructively a machinegun".
(one wonders what the "effective cyclic rate" of a two-shot, manually loaded, MG is???)

fwiw, i was stationed at the Pentagon at that time (working for the National Guard Bureau) & the laughter directed at the city attorney's office was deafening. as a result of the continuing/mounting ridicule (including in the local newspaper editorial pages) directed at the whole city government, the city "quietly" dropped the case & returned "the machinegun" to the owner for repair.

note to all: currently, ordinary semi-automatic .22 rifles ARE classed as machineguns by the DC government because such weapons "could be remanufactured to become machine weapons".
(may i point out that a Honda Civic could be "remanufactured" into a dumptruck with enough parts/money/labor?)


yours, PG
 
Bartholomew Roberts,

sorry, counselor, "i ain't buying any".

btw, it's "non answers" like yours that remind me WHY i keep Fred T______________ "on retainer" for the various family businesses:
1. he gives answers to questions in "plain English" that we can use for making business plans/decisions,
2. he answers the question that we asked, rather than some other question
AND
3. if he has no knowledge of the subject (like solving some of my aged mother's complex tax problems) and/or no experience to rely on, he openly says that we need a different sort of lawyer & (at least) can usually tell us who we ought to contact for that sort of work/information.

yours, PG
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top