Short barrelled rifle question.
I have a contender frame from a carbine and a pistol.
Could one of these frames be registered with BATFE as a short barrelled rifle frame and then use my different pistol barrels with the shoulder stock interchangeably? Could I then also use it with regular length barrels as well, either as rifle or pistol?
I know I would have to pay the $200 tax stamp fee.
Could one of these frames be registered with BATFE as a short barrelled rifle frame and then use my different pistol barrels with the shoulder stock interchangeably? Could I then also use it with regular length barrels as well, either as rifle or pistol?
I know I would have to pay the $200 tax stamp fee.
0
-
For registration purposes, ATF Form 1 was ask for a specific barrel length, but once the frame is registered you can add the stock and then use any barrel lengths you chose. You can also remove the stock and fire it as a conventional pistol. 0 -
It is my belief that a carbine cannot be legally converted to a pistol but a pistol can be converted back and forth. Is that correct? 0 -
no, you can SBR a rifle
if you put down 5" for a SBRed rifle
then you could use any bbl length that size or longer that interchange. you can also list multiple calibers for the same SBR0 -
quote:Originally posted by gruntled
It is my belief that a carbine cannot be legally converted to a pistol but a pistol can be converted back and forth. Is that correct?
Let's try to clarify -- as there is NFA (National Firearm Act) conversions and non-NFA changes to consider here.
I'll also avoid using the term "carbine" as that really doesn't have any legal definition, under NFA laws -- it is just considered a "rifle."
If you have a firearm that was originally manufactured as a handgun, you can install a 16+ inch long barrel on that handgun, then you can legally put a shoulder stock on it and use it as a "rifle." There is no NFA tax stamp purchase required for this conversion -- but make sure you always put the long barrel on first, and take it off last, as the stock being left on with a shorter-than-16-inch barrel will make it in a configuration in violation of NFA laws.
If you have a firearm that was originally manufactured as a rifle, you cannot install any barrel less than 16 inches long, with or without a shoulder stock, unless you first buy a tax-stamp for that rifle registering it as an SBR (short-barreled-rifle).
Specific to the original-poster's question: The frame where it would really make more sense to register it as an SBR is for the rifle ("carbine"). You can already, without NFA registration, put a 16-inch barrel on that pistol, and install a shoulder stock and use it as a rifle (again, paying attention to the order in which you do that conversion -- don't leave the shoulder stock on with a short barrel).
If you do get the rifle registered as an SBR, then you can have just the short barrels on it without a shoulder stock (in a configuration just like a pistol).
Or, if you chose to register the pistol as an SBR, then you could put a shoulder stock on it anytime, not just after you had fitted it with a 16+ inch long barrel.
Get both the pistol and rifle registered as SBRs ($400 in tax stamps), then you can swap things around anyway in any order and always be completely legal.
(When you really think about this -- "measuring barrels" to not end up in prison -- is really silly. One of the clear demonstrations of how insane bureaucrats have taken control of the country. There is no commonsense behind NFA laws like these, as a short barrel on a rifle, or a shoulder stock on a handgun, doesn't make these firearms any more dangerous. One could argue that fully-automatic firearms pose some higher level of danger, but to suggest SBRs represent some "leap" in lethality, that they should be registered, is just ridiculous.) Political rant off.0 -
Thanks to all.
I think competentone has answered my questions.
I am not unfamiliar with the contender/encore platform or the federal law regarding them or even the SBR law. I am retired LE and have worked with those laws throughout my life and my career.
I also agree with the utter stupidity of such laws and the taxing of the same. I have often voiced my opinion and even written letters to legislators asking them to repeal such stupid laws. In Michigan, on a state level, they have even changed the law where a folding stocked or shoulder stocked firearm had to be registered as a handgun if it was over 26" but less than 30" because of the confusion it caused both in regards to measuring the length or allowing concealed carry of such "limbo" guns.
My question had more to do with if there were any advantage to registering one frame as a SBR and then being able to convert it to a pistol after registering it as a SBR "long gun" or vice-versa.
My motivation is if I registered one frame as a SBR, I think I could then use my 12, 14 and 15 inch straight-walled cartridges (like 357 max, 41 mag, 44 mag and 45 colt) to hunt deer in Michigan in the shotgun zone with a shoulder stock.
For those that don't know, Michigan just changed the law to be able to use certain pistol calibers in carbines in the area that was formally restricted to shotgun, certain handgun, and muzzleloader only.
Registering one frame as a SBR would be cheaper than purchasing even one 357, 41, 44 or 45 caliber barrel in a length over 16 inches to use in these areas. While I could use these in a contender pistol, it was illegal to put a shoulder stock with the shorter barrels.
I have barrels over 16 inches but they are all rimfire or bottlenecked cartridges or 45/70-all of which are prohibited in this area for use with a shoulder stock for hunting deer.0 -
I'm not saying I agree with it, but the rationale behind banning SBRs or shoulder-stocked pistols is not that they're intrinsically any more dangerous than otherwise similar guns with longer barrels, but that they're more CONCEALABLE. Ditto for "sawed off" shotguns.
The powers that be don't want people walking around with easily concealable really powerful and potentially accurate weapons.
Its sort of a military type thinking where arms that can reach out a distance have to be carried openly.
While obviously handguns can kill too, both range and damage are much more limited, and threat to law enforcement (who have armor) is quite a bit less.0 -
A bit off track of the original question, but attached on post #4 is an ATF letter that answers some of the questions raised here.
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=15377343#post15377343
For those who admire such talent, note how ATF uses words to reverse their previous position that a handgun, once reassembled as a legally configured rifle, can not subsequently be reassembled as a legally configured handgun - the old "once a rifle, always a rifle" dictum. ATF undoes this, not by simply saying the rule is eliminated, but by deciding that firearm with a shoulder stock and +16" barrel isn't really a rifle - it's merely a handgun reassembled in rifle configuration. These folks could teach Bill Clinton a thing or two discussing the definition of "is" .....[;)]
Folks may also find interesting that a new rifle stocked receiver, such as found with T/C or AR style firearms, is not considered a rifle until a barrel greater than 16" has been installed. They are 4473'd as "other" and the buyer must be 21 yrs or older to purchase.0 -
quote:Originally posted by dfletcher
For those who admire such talent, note how ATF uses words to reverse their previous position that a handgun, once reassembled as a legally configured rifle, can not subsequently be reassembled as a legally configured handgun - the old "once a rifle, always a rifle" dictum. ATF undoes this, not by simply saying the rule is eliminated, but by deciding that firearm with a shoulder stock and +16" barrel isn't really a rifle - it's merely a handgun reassembled in rifle configuration. These folks could teach Bill Clinton a thing or two discussing the definition of "is" .....[;)]
Its the "never admit you're wrong" rule of politics. In general, these kinds of reversals aren't unusual (I'm not talking just about the BATFE). Some agency figures out that one of its current policies is unworkable, illegal, or causing political issues, and then it alters it.
One of the issues here is that BATFE is just an enforcement agency. It doesn't make firearms law. .. it just comes up with its own interpretations of existing law, then enforces those AS IF they're law. Part of the background of this particular reversal is that an actual judge looked at the BATFE's ruling with respect to Encore pistols/rifles, and decided the BATFE had no legal basis to do what it was doing.
Anyway, regardless of the reasons for the change, or the subsequent torturing of language/definition it caused, I think its a step in the right direction.
Again forget the wording for a minute, guns don't have "memories". They don't know what they "were" for ten seconds when someone added a a stock, or swapped a long barrel for a short one then reversed the change.
What *should* matter is simply the ACTUAL (ie current) configuration of a gun. If a gun *IS* in a legal configuration, it should be legal, and if it isn't it shouldn't be.
So if its legal to have a pistol, and legal to have a pistol-caliber rifle, and its legal for any given individual to have either one, then really what difference does it make to anyone if that individual switches back and forth between the two forms on the same frame so long as the gun is never in an illegal configuration?
This is entirely irrespective of whether or not a stocked pistol or short-barreled rifle should be legal. Those are a different "class" of weapons, and its a a different question.
I say that there is room to argue about whether not these things should be legal. . .but that's not really the "question" either. As a matter of practice those types of guns already *ARE* legal. . .you can buy them, and you can own them. . .its just a question of paying a tax and filling out Federal paperwork.
So, to the extent that there is a question here, its why this particular class of weapons requires extra regulation, taxation, and paperwork!0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
8 comments