"RIFLEMAN" article (T/C USSC Case)

The bare receiver has to be assembled into a pistol to be officially considered an original pistol. At least, that is what they are going to judge it by.
 
so i would take the atf letter to mean i could make my stripped lower both ways flipping back and forth at will.
Click to expand...

But only using parts you obtained as a single kit, from a single source - that includes the receiver itself. That is my take on it anyway.

A multipurpose kit refers to something that a manufacturer sells with the gun so as to allow reconfiguring. TC used to make one but it ended up in a legal fight at the supreme court. I am not sure that another kit has ever been available since from the same source being the manufacturer. I would think that the ATF would need to give its blessing to allow such a kit to happen and no one makes ones anymore. Buying a rifle and assembling a bunch of parts so that you can reconfigure it as a pistol is not legal. If it were, plenty of gun makers would be suggesting to do so, but in fact there are warnings to not do that.
Click to expand...

But I'm not suggesting that (bold part). I'm talking about buying an assemblage of parts that would include enough parts to make either a rifle or a pistol. Are you saying manufacturers won't sell me those parts? I have not checked but I don't see why not. As I said even a typical stripped lower + parts kit technically has sufficient parts to make a pistol or a rifle, depending on whether you attach the shoulder stock or not.

DISCLAIMER: I am not recommending the above course of action, or suggesting that anyone try it. Quite the the contrary, I recommend NOT re-configuring any firearm without being 100% sure of the law and the ATF's position. Anything I say here is strictly hypothetical
 
But only using parts you obtained as a single kit, from a single source - that includes the receiver itself. That is my take on it anyway.
Click to expand...

Did you read the 2011-4 ruling or are you basing that on expeditionx's earlier letter? Reading the 2011-4 ruling, it looks like ATF now takes the position that a collection of indvidual parts is OK.
 
Did you read the 2011-4 ruling or are you basing that on expeditionx's earlier letter? Reading the 2011-4 ruling, it looks like ATF now takes the position that a collection of indvidual parts is OK.
Click to expand...

Both. But it's so complicated that I give up anyway...I just don't know how to make sense of it.
 
Seems to me that these laws may have had a few do-gooders with good intentions (Paging the Infernal Paving Dept.) at the start, but they are perpetuated to give the Legal System something to do...... gotta keep the Lawyers workin' .......


You know, they keep making the law more and more complicated, to the point it is incomprehensible to average folk, and soon Lawyers, Judges, Prosecuters, and Policemen will be the only ones that give a damn about it. Everyone else will be a "criminal", and society will collapse.
 
divil said:
Both. But it's so complicated that I give up anyway...I just don't know how to make sense of it.
Click to expand...

I would say less complicated; but vague in a lot of areas, especially given ATF's past interpretations of the law.

jimbob86 said:
You know, they keep making the law more and more complicated, to the point it is incomprehensible to average folk, and soon Lawyers, Judges, Prosecuters, and Policemen will be the only ones that give a damn about it.
Click to expand...

The laws they make are incomprehensible to a fair amount of lawyers, judges, prosecutors and policemen as well. Heck, look at California DOJ's assault weapon law. It got so complicated that they had to borrow the "Is it legal" flowchart from CalGuns in order that police officers, prosecutors and judges could understand the law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top