Short barreled rifle question (removable Glock stock)

44 AMP said:
The operative principle is "constructive possession". Meaning, if you have all the parts to make the illegal item (unregistered SBR) you could be guilty of violating the law, even though you did not actually assemble it. That is something a jury will decide, and, personally, I think that is a situation to be avoided.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I've talked to many people who owned the parts to make an SBR (or other NFA item) and didn't realize that simply owning those parts could be considered illegal even if they never assembled them.

Just to elaborate on what 44 AMP posted, the ATF ruling I linked to above also contains their opinions on the requirements for being charged with constructive possession. Here's the key part of that ruling regarding the issue:

A firearm, as defined by the National Firearms Act (NFA), 26 U.S.C. 5845(a)(3), is made when unassembled parts are placed in close proximity in such a way that they: (a) serve no useful purpose other than to make a rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length; or (b) convert a complete weapon into such an NFA firearm.
Click to expand...
According to the ATF, if you have the parts for an SBR in "close proximity" to each other with "no useful purpose" other than to make an SBR, then it's the ATF's opinion that you're breaking the law.

Now, the term "no useful purpose" seems clear to me: If you have a shoulder stock designed for a Glock and you have a Glock nearby that's not registered as an SBR, you have "no useful purpose" for those parts other than to make an illegal SBR with them. But if you have a short-barrel AR-15 upper receiver and a pistol-configured lower nearby, that's a "useful purpose" because AR pistols are legally considered regular pistols.

However, the term "close proximity" is pretty vague. I once asked the lead ATF agent for an FFL/SOT audit what "close proximity" meant exactly, and he told me that was a question for a lawyer. That vagueness is why people often avoid having the parts together in the same house just to be safe.

Here's a case of someone getting charged for constructive possession of an SBR:

http://blog.princelaw.com/2009/09/01/florida-man-arrested-for-constructive-possession-of-an-sbr/
 
It has been said that putting a should stock on a good handgun converts it into a bad carbine. Looks neat, is a mainstay of spy and secret agent movies, really not that practical IMHO.
Sine when were government regulations ever well thought out ?
 
SIGSHR

Looks neat, is a mainstay of spy and secret agent movies, really not that practical IMHO.

This tells me that you have never shot one such as a broomhandle or Uberti cattleman or a Colt 1861 even.

That same stock legally would be called adaptive equipment and fully legal under the ADA.
 
hartcreek
SIGSHR

Looks neat, is a mainstay of spy and secret agent movies, really not that practical IMHO.
Click to expand...
This tells me that you have never shot one such as a broomhandle or Uberti cattleman or a Colt 1861 even.
Click to expand...
No, he nailed it............and I have shot a Broomhandle Mauser, Artillery Luger and shoot my own Inglis Hi Power regularly.

Stocked pistols are a poor substitute for a real carbine/rifle.........and every military in the world has eventually realized that.;)



That same stock legally would be called adaptive equipment and fully legal under the ADA.
Click to expand...
Sorry, the ADA has absolutely nothing to do with Federal laws regarding firearms.:rolleyes:

Matter of fact..... the term firearm isn't mentioned once in the ADA.
 
The only advantage I ever found shooting A Broomhandle Mauser with the stock attached was that, with the stock in place, the slot for it in the pistol's gripframe didn't bite my hand.

:D
 
If you follow the link to the site in the OP that site clearly states that one needs to have the federal stamp to have one of these shoulder stocks.

If you read the comments on this particular shoulder stock you will see that most users think it is junk and are returning it so it appears that some are purchasing it without the stamp trying it and determining that for them it is junk.

This rule about the shoulder stock has been on and off. A quick review of history shows that attachable shoulder stocks date back to at least the war of Northern aggression.

As others have stated the antique and C&R statutes differ but I have seen these setups for sale and the stamp was not needed and I am sure that there are readers that own these combinations because the combinations were purchased when the stamp was not needed.

The kits that I have personally seen were for Colt 1911 and a Dan Wesson and the Dan Wesson kit had multiple barrels.

Now as for shooting I was at a range and I personally shot a broomhandle with the stock attached and it made a huge difference. I myself have a kit made by Uberti/Ivar Johnson with an 18 inch barrel that I use for hunting. The 18 inch barrel makes missing my shot with my .44 Cattleman unlikely. When I attatch my shoulder stock the unit is better balanced and supported and I am even more less likely to miss my shot.

I also have a kit for an ASM .44 C&B and it is the same story with this set up.

If you are thinking about getting such a stock and not disabled you had better get the stamp. If I had a Glock I would get the stamp and a better stock just to be covered BUT because I am disabled I would be covered anyway because a few years ago the United States Department of Justice issued a ruleing that covers all kinds of assistive devices that circumvents ATF in this case.

No the DOJ does not specifically list this stock. The DOJ ruling simply states all assistive devices that maybe be used by a person of disability to go about their daily lives. Being able to target shoot and protect ones self is just one of those things.
 
Look at the reviews of those gloack stocks from people who have them. Generally pretty bad. I looked at getting one and opted not to do so. One major complaint is how close it ends up to your face.

An SBR is a lot more firepower than a pistol. The regulation does make some sense. Sort of. OAL only would make more sense though.

Other thing to keep in mind is ATFE notification requirements when taking NFA items across state lines.
 
Sharkbite I dont know about Broomhandles, but a Glock 18 WITH a stock is much easier to shoot well then one without a stock
Click to expand...
I don't think anyone has said a shoulder stock doesn't help, just that it isn't as effective as a carbine.

Would you feel safe carrying a Glock pistol with a shoulder stock slung over your shoulder? I wouldn't...........at least not with a round in the chamber and an exposed trigger guard. :eek:
 
hartcreek ...This rule about the shoulder stock has been on and off. A quick review of history shows that attachable shoulder stocks date back to at least the war of Northern aggression.
Click to expand...
No, the "rule" on shoulder stocks attached to handguns has not changed since the passage of the 1934 National Firearms Act.

Certain handguns, among them some Lugers, Mauser and FN Hi Power pistols have been removed from the purview of the NFA due to their status as curios & relics. They are not considered SBR's as long as they have an original shoulder stock attached.

This does not mean any Luger, Mauser or Hi Power can have a stock....only a very limited and specific model of each.


As others have stated the antique and C&R statutes differ but I have seen these setups for sale and the stamp was not needed and I am sure that there are readers that own these combinations because the combinations were purchased when the stamp was not needed.

The kits that I have personally seen were for Colt 1911 and a Dan Wesson and the Dan Wesson kit had multiple barrels.
Click to expand...
Only one Colt 1911 with a specific serial# is listed removed from the NFA on the ATF Curio & Relic list when a specific shoulder stock is used.
No Dan Wesson revolver is listed as being removed from the NFA with a shoulder stock. See the list here:https://www.atf.gov/file/56621/download



Now as for shooting I was at a range and I personally shot a broomhandle with the stock attached and it made a huge difference. I myself have a kit made by Uberti/Ivar Johnson with an 18 inch barrel that I use for hunting. The 18 inch barrel makes missing my shot with my .44 Cattleman unlikely. When I attatch my shoulder stock the unit is better balanced and supported and I am even more less likely to miss my shot.
Click to expand...
No one disagrees that it may make your shooting more accurate than shooting the handgun without a stock, it remains a fact that your shooting will always be better with a real carbine/rifle than a stocked handgun.....for many reasons.



......BUT because I am disabled I would be covered anyway because a few years ago the United States Department of Justice issued a ruleing that covers all kinds of assistive devices that circumvents ATF in this case. No the DOJ does not specifically list this stock. The DOJ ruling simply states all assistive devices that maybe be used by a person of disability to go about their daily lives. Being able to target shoot and protect ones self is just one of those things.
Click to expand...
Please provide a link to this ruling.
I've been a gun dealer for seven years and have never seen any such document from the DOJ. I'm an Adapted Physical Education specialist (PE teacher for students with a disability or gross motor delay) so I'm very aware of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

If there is an exemption from the NFA and ATF regulations for someone with a disability it would be HUGE news for the gun community.
 
Althoug the ADA combined with some of the other court decisions might make for an interesting case, I also have never heard of an ADA exemption and that would be huge news. I'm sure someone behind a gun counter somewhere has been talking about one though.
 
Just learned this

During a recent conversation with some pals, I learned that if you attach a foregrip (ie, tommygun grip) to the under rail on your Glock, you have also created a SBR, and are now in violation of law. Note, this is foregrip only, w/o a buttstock.

I was quite surprised, as I had not heard this before.

I was pondering how stable a Glock 10mm might be with a tommy grip and a lanyard about ones neck at just the right length to provide a sort of "sling tension" for accurate shooting on game, when I was informed of my folly by more knoweledgable friends.
 
AOW is "Any Other Weapon"

It is the category for any other weapon that is regulated. This includes, but is not limited to guns that don't look like guns, and guns with certain features that do not fit exactly in the other groups.

Pen guns, palm guns, Certain holsters (including a briefcase) designed to be fired with the gun inside, some pistols with vertical foregrips are on their list, as well.

No, the "rule" on shoulder stocks attached to handguns has not changed since the passage of the 1934 National Firearms Act.
Click to expand...

Actually, it has changed, and changed back. The LAW has not changed since 34, ATF's rule about what does, and does not fall under the law has changed, more than once.

Certain handguns, among them some Lugers, Mauser and FN Hi Power pistols have been removed from the purview of the NFA due to their status as curios & relics. They are not considered SBR's as long as they have an original shoulder stock attached.
Click to expand...

Yes, this was once the rule, and is the rule again today. But there was a period of more than a few years when the C&R guns were legal to have reproduction stocks attached.

Then a different administration reversed the rule and stated that only original shoulder stocks were legal. This is the rule currently in effect as far as I know.

It is a difficult thing, to tell, at a glance, the difference between a well preserved original and a well made reproduction. The stocks were not serial #'d most have no markings at all.
 
44 AMP Quote:
No, the "rule" on shoulder stocks attached to handguns has not changed since the passage of the 1934 National Firearms Act.
Click to expand...

Actually, it has changed, and changed back. The LAW has not changed since 34, ATF's rule about what does, and does not fall under the law has changed, more than once.
Click to expand...
Sorry, pistols with a shoulder stock have been NFA since 1934 because they meet the definition of a short barreled rifle.

The "rule", whether law or regulation is still the same.


Quote:
Certain handguns, among them some Lugers, Mauser and FN Hi Power pistols have been removed from the purview of the NFA due to their status as curios & relics. They are not considered SBR's as long as they have an original shoulder stock attached.
Click to expand...

Yes, this was once the rule, and is the rule again today. But there was a period of more than a few years when the C&R guns were legal to have reproduction stocks attached.
Click to expand...
Don't confuse a determination letter with a regulation.;)

Determination letters only apply to the particular firearm addressed in the letter.......that's why there are conflicting letters regarding reproduction stocks vs original stocks.

In any event only a very select few C&R pistols have been removed from the purview of the NFA.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top