Pistol vs Rifle recievers

[ISC]

I have a couple of virgin sequentially numbered AR lowers at home waiting for me to do build them. When I bought them, they came to the FFL listed as rifles and I wasn't sure what my plans for them were so I didn't say anything. The more I think about it though, the more I like the idea of having an AR pistol I'm thinking a gas piston upper with 8" or 10" barrel would be cool. I think it would be especially nice to have a matching rifle/pistol combo.

My question is this. Since niether was ever assembled as a rifle, can I build it as a pistol even though the original transfer had rifle listed as the type?

 

[vranasaurus]

1. Ensure that you never make it into an SBR configuration. I have seen internet postings regarding once it's a pistol or rifle you can never change it. I haven't seen that written in any law or regulation so if it is please educate me.

2. If you possess a short upper you should always have a pistol or SBR lower for it or at the minimum one SBR or pistol lower if you possess multple short uppers. If you didn't I would be concerned about some type of constructive possession NFA charge.

My only concerns with changing from one to the other would be don't make it into an SBR without a stamp and don't end up in some kind of constructive possession of an SBR situation.

 

[NavyLT]

Do you know how they were listed on the 4473 when they were transferred to you? I would think that would be what matters. The current 4473 has three classifications of firearms: pistol, rifle, and other. It is my understanding, and I would have to go find the proof, that if the receiver was transferred to you on the 4473 as a pistol - that's what it has to be made into. If the receiver was transferred to you on the 4473 as a rifle - that's what it has to be made into. If it was transferred to you on the 4473 as other - it's your choice what you make it into, but once it is assembled into a pistol or rifle, it has to stay that way.

Stripped lower receivers are supposed to be listed on the current 4473 as "other" and, as such, the out-of-state exceptions and lower age limits for rifles in 18 USC 922 (b) do not apply to them because they are not rifles.

To me the overriding factor in all this is: if you exercise proper discretion, who the heck is really going to notice or care? Like was suggested in the post above, I would simply avoid possessing more pistol and rifle uppers than you have receivers for. I would not go out in public with a pistol and rifle upper and one receiver and be swapping them around to see which combo fits/shoots better, for example.

The only situation that might cause problems (in my mind) is if you transfer a completed rifle or pistol via an FFL, which will generate a 4473 when it is sold, and that 4473 configuration does not match a previous 4473 configuration for the same serial number receiver. But, even the chances of that being detected are remote, especially if different FFL's are involved.

AR-15.com probably has copies of the real ATF opinion letters which seem to change depending on which way the wind is blowing.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

This is the very same question that I had when I was looking to get my Encore.

There are two answers. There is the technical opinion of ATF and there is what everyone does, which corresponds to what gets enforced.

Technically, the ATF world revolves around the firearm being a rifle. They consider that once it's a rifle, it's always a rifle. So, you can have a handgun and convert it to a rifle and you're perfectly legal. Take that very same rifle and convert it back to the very same handgun that it started as and, technically, according to ATF, you have an illegal short barreled rifle, because, again technically, it was a rifle and will always be.

In reality, people constantly convert firearms from rifle to handgun and back again, states will even list the handgun that used to be a rifle on your permit. When you convert it back to a rifle, you will have a rifle that's listed on your handgun permit! Everyone knows that everyone does it and no one cares.

This is why, when I bought my Encore, I had it shipped into the state without a barrel but WITH pistol grips. According to ATF, it's a pistol. According to NY state, it's a "firearm" but meets neither the qualifications for a handgun OR a rifle until it has a barrel, which makes it exempt from CoBIS testing.

Now, I have a handgun registered on my permit, the ATF thinks it's a handgun and I can convert it back and forth without running into any enforcement issues.

Even so, if you carefully read the ATF site, and court cases that they have taken up, you will see that they technically do not allow for a rifle to be converted to a handgun.

 

[brickeyee]

The current 4473 has three classifications of firearms: pistol, rifle, and other.

Older 4473s only had 'rifle' and 'pistol.'

The law restricts the sale of all firearms by FFLs to those 21 and over.
There is an exception in the law for long arms at age 18.

Since a receiver is NOT a long arm, it is handled like a pistol.
You must be 21 to purchase a receiver.

The BATFE finally added the 'other' category when they noticed enough receivers being bought and sold.

How they would treat a receiver sold on the old form and marked 'pistol' is left as an exercise.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

Since a receiver is NOT a long arm, it is handled like a pistol.
You must be 21 to purchase a receiver.

Are you sure? In the case of the Encore, it depends on the designation given by Thompson Center.... supposedly. It appeared from my research that the ATF goes by what the manufacturer designates. It may be different for an AR frame I don't know, but in the case of the Encore, it's "supposed to be" that some frames are designated rifles and some frames are designated pistols.

 

[44 AMP]

My understanding (and I might be wrong, but I don't think so)

Is that when the receiver is manufactured, the maker determines it is either a rifle or pistol. It may be sold as the bare receiver, but it is listed as one or the other. This is what the ATF goes by.

You can put a long barrel and stock on a pistol receiver. Nobody cares (its legal, again), but if you put a short barrel on a rifle receiver, it becomes an SBR, and not legal without ATF approval.

T/C and the ATF went round and round in court over this subject, and I believe that the current classifications are a result of that.

As a practical matter, (especially with Contenders) nobody really cares much. Even if you broke the law, the ATF probably wouldn't go ballistic on you. BUT, when you are talking ARs, its a different story.

In the past, the ATF has prosecuted people for having an SBR upper and a non SBR registered lower receiver in the same house! I recall the term used was "constructive possession". You have all the parts, you could put it together (even though you hadn't), therefore, you broke the law.

Don't personally know how these cases turned out, but given the high rate of ATF convictions, probably not good for the gun owners. Even if they were found not guilty, the cost and hassle can be ruinous.

You could call the ATF and see what they say, but I would recommend getting something in writing, as the word of a given agent on the phone is not a legal ruling.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

As a practical matter, (especially with Contenders) nobody really cares much. Even if you broke the law, the ATF probably wouldn't go ballistic on you. BUT, when you are talking ARs, its a different story.

In the past, the ATF has prosecuted people for having an SBR upper and a non SBR registered lower receiver in the same house! I recall the term used was "constructive possession". You have all the parts, you could put it together (even though you hadn't), therefore, you broke the law.

The "constructive possesion" was the crux of the T/C vs ATF lawsuit also. They were selling a kit at the time that included a rifle and the stock components of a handgun. The ATF charged them will illegally producing short barreled rifles because it was "possible" to assemble one from the kit.

T/C won the battle, but my research when I was buying my Encore convinced me that technically the ATF considers ANY rifle that is converted to a handgun to be a SBR and, again technically, requires a tax stamp, even if the rifle that you convert to a handgun had already been a handgun just minutes before.

That lawsuit was also the source of the manufacturers having to designate the frame of the gun as either a rifle or a handgun, regardless of whether it had any furniture, or even a barrel of any kind, attached.

It seems though that the designation as a handgun is "over ridden" by legally converting the firearm into a rifle, since that activity is unrestricted, but once done, the conversion of the new rifle to a handgun is restricted. Again, technically, as it appears that no one actually cares except for a few ATF bureaucrats. NY state will even allow an Encore that was purchased as a rifle to be listed on a handgun permit, which would be a clear violation of ATF rules.

 

[vranasaurus]

The manufacturer no longer designates a receiver as a pistol or a rifle hence the other block on the 4473.

The only way I can see them getting a constructive possession conviction for an SBR is:

1. If you have short uppers and some rifle lowers but no SBR or Pistol lowers they can legally attach to.

2. You possess more short uppers than you have lowers they can legally go on. This one is much more iffy than the 1st.

3. All the parts in your possession could only possibly make an SBR.

If you changed a rifle to a pistol or vice versa and never had it in an SBR configuration what crime would they charge you with?

Example 1: You have an AR Rifle. You take the buttstock off sell it to the neighbor and install a pistol buffer tube. Then place a short upper on it. What crime have you committed?

Example 2: You have an AR pistol. You take the short upper off and sell it to a guy down the street. You then put a buttstock and legal length upper on it. What crime has been committed?

In neither instance were you in possession or constructive possession of an SBR.

If you are going to do the AR pistol and rifle thing it is probably easiest to just do one upper per lower. at some point constructive possession goes a bit too far. Unless the government can show that you intended to make an SBR or the only use for the parts in your possession is to make an SBR its a stretch. Lots of farmers are probably in constructive possession of a meth lab too.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

Example 1: You have an AR Rifle. You take the buttstock off sell it to the neighbor and install a pistol buffer tube. Then place a short upper on it. What crime have you committed?

Example 2: You have an AR pistol. You take the short upper off and sell it to a guy down the street. You then put a buttstock and legal length upper on it. What crime has been committed?

My research was not in regards to AR style firearms, but I assume that the same asinine thinking would apply on the part of the ATF. Unfortunately, I no longer have the links to the information that I refer to so you'll either have to take my word for it or look for the info.

Example 2 is not a crime. It is entirely legal to convert ANY handgun into a rifle, so long as it meets the requirements of a rifle, that is barrel over 16 inches and a rifle stock.

Example one would be the crime of illegally creating a SBR, because the ATF doesn't care if it's "now" a handgun. It was a rifle and it always a rifle according to the ATF. In order to convert a rifle to a handgun you must pay the $200 tax. If you do it without paying the bribe, er, tax, then it's illegal. Even if the friggin' thing STARTED as a pistol and you converted it to a rifle.... converting it back to a pistol TECHNICALLY requires a tax stamp.