http://www.atf.gov/files/regulations...ing-2011-4.pdf
Was what I was going off of.
http://www.atf.gov/files/regulations...ing-2011-4.pdf
Was what I was going off of.
The entire ATF batshiOt crazy. Half of the regulations they publish are so vague it’s crazy.
Back to the topic at hand.
Just like a lot of the “pistol brace” threads, the gun owners as a whole can be our undoing.
Simply installing a foam pad or wrapping with para cord can do a great for the use of the buffer tube.
Proper Planing Prevents Piss Poor Performance.......
AFAIK, using a standard carbine buffer tube on a pistol is not illegal. The Thordsen Customs pistol buffer tube cover and cheek rest are specifically designed for AR pistols and use the standard buffer tube. Here's the link to the product, which also includes an AFT letter:
http://www.thordsencustoms.com/frs-1...be-cover-kits/
http://www.thordsencustoms.com/ar-ak...-saddle-black/
It's not exorbitant, but I just don't like throwing away money. What am I going to do with the pistol tube if I convert to an sbr?
Also, I believe it still stands, it's perfectly legal to use a mil-spec tube. If you get in "trouble" it's because of the misapplication of the law.
If you want to do it to save a potential headache fine, but it's not illegal.
The government has a specific definition of "constructive possession," and we would do well to understand it carefully. A good place to start is the Supreme Court opinion on United States vs. Thompson-Center Arms Co. Pay attention to the paragraph spanning pp.511-512.
The ATF ruling linked by ColtSeavers cites this section of the opinion, but takes it out of context to imply that "a pistol and attachable shoulder stock" in close proximity is considered an NFA firearm (pp.2-3). This is NOT the intent of the SCOTUS opinion. Nice job ATF trying to scare us....
I am no lawyer, though it is plain to see what the high court intended. As long as you keep parts in such a way that the rule of lenity applies (read the opinion), you have nothing to fear from the government.
Last edited by bruin; 09-21-17 at 19:01.
And this was the ATF's response to that ruling, which is what I was going off of.
http://www.atf.gov/files/regulations...ing-2011-4.pdf
My understanding of the Thorsden is because there is a carbine receiver extension tube cover attached to the carbine receiver extension, that that precluded any other stock from being attached and was the reason why it's legal.
Quite unlike an unmodified carbine receiver extension.
Bookmarks