Legality of Mech Tech upper for Glock

OK, so I guess I'll come back to this one for a bit.

With regard to the last post, yes, I noted that. I also noted the part printed BEFORE that, which asked, "With regard to the Thompson/Center Contender pistol and carbine kit..."

The Contender differs in one significant way--you CAN attach a stock to the receiver of the firearm.

The Mech-Tech kit comes with a stock attached to the ACCESSORY, with no provision to attach it to the receiver of the Glock or 1911 pistol. That single factor is the most significant facet that makes the whole thing legal.

Or, so I was told by the ATF Agent....:)
 
Powderman, think and do what you want. You've been given definitive proof, cited the law, and had multiple people point out why exactly you're incorrect. There's nothing I can do that will change your mind, clearly.

One day, you might find that with your head in the sand on this issue, someone has put shiny bracelets on your wrists.:(

I'm done here.
 
Just add the new 'stockless' upper and treat it like an AR pistol:

GLK%20basic%20with%20lower%20web%20size.jpg


:D:D:D
 
As much as I like the CCU, I went with the Keltec S2K for a Glock-compatible carbine for just a little more than a tax stamp would cost.
 
I am aware of a couple of guys who wanted to SBR their Glocks and carry the gun CCW, with the Israeli/FAB stock in a Maxpedition-type bag to have available just in case.

After contacting ATF, their ruling was once the pistol is SBR'd it must be stored and transported in SBR configuration.

You can remove the stock and fire the gun in non-NFA (pistol) configuration for short periods of time at the range for fun, but before you leave the gun must be put back into SBR configuration (stock on). You also must store the gun in your safe in SBR configuration.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. Modifications are perfectly permissible even for long periods of time as long as the firearm can be returned to the condition stated on the F1 or F4. The BATFE is very clear on that.
Click to expand...

I have to go with PTK on this one. It's the whole reason I did my build in a certain order. Started with an AR pistol. Custom DI .357 SIG with 9" barrel. No problem, totally legal. Then got it certified as a SBR. Tax stamp came, changed buffer tube and put on a stock. But one of the big problems with any NFA item is the way you have to plan ahead to take them over state lines. You have to do the paperwork. But the rules clearly say that I can remove the stock, change back to a pistol buffer tube, and then travel where I like with no tax stamp. At that point it's just a pistol again.

Now it would be a different story if I had the stock and buffer tube in my car with me and the pistol!

Them's the rules!

Gregg
 
I have a few friends with them, two of which are police. You are not attaching the stock to the frame of the handgun... you are not altering the frame to accept the stock in any way. That frame is registered as a handgun, NOT a rifle. Like their website states, it is just an accessory. Think of a buying a .22 conversion kit for a 1911 and such. You are attaching a slide that has a longer barrel and stock, but the FRAME (IE the registered part) is still a pistol frame and registered as one. I purchased one used off a state trooper friend, then traded it back into a shop. I have watched them take 1911's and Glocks and field strip them to install the upper before a carbine match. I don't see the issue. Like others have stated... they have been around forever.
 
HKFan9 I have a few friends with them, two of which are police. You are not attaching the stock to the frame of the handgun... you are not altering the frame to accept the stock in any way. That frame is registered as a handgun, NOT a rifle. Like their website states, it is just an accessory. Think of a buying a .22 conversion kit for a 1911 and such. You are attaching a slide that has a longer barrel and stock, but the FRAME (IE the registered part) is still a pistol frame and registered as one. I purchased one used off a state trooper friend, then traded it back into a shop. I have watched them take 1911's and Glocks and field strip them to install the upper before a carbine match. I don't see the issue. Like others have stated... they have been around forever.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter whether the stock attaches to the frame, the slide, the magazine, the grips or any other part..............you attach a shoulder stock to a handgun you have manufactured a short barrelled rifle. That makes the handgun an NFA item subject to a tax stamp.

I have no idea what internet lawyer told some of you that the frame must be altered. Once a handgun has had a shoulder stock attached in any way it is an NFA item whether the stock remains attached or not. Without the stock attached it becomes a "firearm made from a rifle" meaning it remains an NFA firearm.

Being around forever is immaterial. The manufacturers of the MechTech are not making an NFA item.....you are. They dance happily to the bank while you ignorantly violate Federal law.
 
Update - Another ATF Letter on CCU

I became concerned about my CCU in general when a range officer at a local range challenged me on it today.

Sorry to resurrect, but I found further information in my searches.

This was posted on AR15.com. Looks like it is ok afterall:

http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j85/koimprobable/guns/atfmechtech001.jpg - page 1

http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j85/koimprobable/guns/atfmechtech002.jpg - page 2

Original poster: http://www.ar15.com/mobile/topic.html?b=6&f=48&t=345636

I am going to send my own letter to the ATF and see if I get a similar response.

Further thoughts on this ... The whole thing demonstrates the insanity of our gun laws; the fact that a federal agency can't even interpret its own laws. Laws that are serious enough to result in felony convictions. I do fear that our inquiries into these inane matters justify the existence of the bureaucracy. I mean what would these ATF agents do if they didn't have to unravel these logical puzzles all day? Real jobs I suppose ... :-(
 
Well, looky here. The ATF has again contradicted itself and is now allowing a pistol to be converted to a rifle and back to a pistol. Mech Tech is legal.
LINK HERE.
 
Powderman,

I highly suggest you talk to the "home office." Call the ATF-NFA branch, Technologies division. Let me know what they tell you. If you want to know about the NFA rules, call the NFA. You're local branch office isn't the correct "source."

If you will take a letter as "proof" perhaps a conversation with the folks who WRITE the letters will suffice?
Click to expand...

Well, looky here. The ATF has again contradicted itself and is now allowing a pistol to be converted to a rifle and back to a pistol. Mech Tech is legal.
Click to expand...

As I mentioned a few posts and pages ago.....
 
What's the difference between the Mech Tech kit and a barreled carbine upper receiver for a Mac10? There has never been any problem taking a Mac10 pistol and using the pistol receiver on a carbine kit. However, you cannot take a Mac10 Carbine (very few made) and LEGALLY put a pistol upper receiver on it.
 
Recent BATF ruling in print

Hello all - Powderman has it right and here is the definitive proof:
http://www.atf.gov/regulations-rulings/rulings/atf-rulings/atf-ruling-2011-4.pdf
(see bottom of last page)
Also in the Nov 2011 issue of American Rifleman (page 90 - ILA column) we have this excerpt:
"The ruling also states that a pistol can be made into a rifle (for example by adding a long barrel and a shoulder stock), and then turned back into a pistol, without making an NFA 'firearm' "
Also - this info is now posted on the Mech Tech forum:
http://mechtechsys.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=431
 
2ndChildhood Hello all - Powderman has it right...
Click to expand...
Nope. :rolleyes:
When Powderman first posted in this thread he was wrong.
ATF did not reverse their opinion until August 4th, 2011.

If you'll read my post directly above yours you'll see where the link to ATF's new ruling was posted the same day it appeared on the ATF website.
 
Hello all - Powderman has it right and here is the definitive proof:
http://www.atf.gov/regulations-rulin...ing-2011-4.pdf
(see bottom of last page)
Also in the Nov 2011 issue of American Rifleman (page 90 - ILA column) we have this excerpt:
"The ruling also states that a pistol can be made into a rifle (for example by adding a long barrel and a shoulder stock), and then turned back into a pistol, without making an NFA 'firearm' "
Also - this info is now posted on the Mech Tech forum:
http://mechtechsys.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=431
Click to expand...

When Powderman first posted in this thread he was wrong.
ATF did not reverse their opinion until August 4th, 2011.
Click to expand...

No, 2nd Childhood. I'm wrong. Just like the other folks here have said, I'm wrong. Even when I post the correct information, after research, I'm wrong.

By the way, once again--I'm wrong.

So are the following people:

ATF Compliance-Seattle
ATF Enforcement-Seattle
ATF Compliance-Atlanta

Assorted Special Agents from DEA and ATF-Enforcement--who shall remain unnamed here for obvious reasons

Mech-Tech Systems--heck, they're so illegal that they're still in business, and were in business for YEARS before this post was started.

Brownell's Inc.--a gunsmith's supply shop, who has a sterling reputation for following the law--as evidenced by their dealing in repair parts for NFA firearms, and who would NOT jeopardize their business by selling illegal items (who, by the way, carried the Mech-Tech systems CCU (Carbine Conversion Unit) for a few YEARS before this even became a controversy).

In closing--yep, I guess I'm as wrong as a two-dollar bill. (Hey, wait--we have those....) ;)
 
Don't be such a drama queen......

You were wrong until ATF issued their determination letter on August 4th, 2011. If you believe you were correct before that date.......ATF disagrees.;)

Why in the heck do you think they issued the ruling?:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top