View Full Version : receiver extension legality question
clschicago
11-05-12, 11:46
I own a colt le6920. 100% box stock, actually i havent even ever fired it.
I just built a bcm lower (which i actually ordered from g&r with NO STOCK chosen on the options list), and basically mated it to a 11.5" upper i built at the same time. when the lower came to my local ffl, it was marked on whatever paperwork as an other.
so now i have a 100% complete rifle and a 100% complete pistol ar.
my question is, is the regular old m4 carbine reciever extension legal to have on my ar pistol?
I believe im 100% legal.
I believe that my colt le6920 stock is completing my le6920 rifle. its not just some stock laying around, its actually part of a complete gun.
I also believe the atf doesnt give a shit what R.E. is installed on your ar pistol, so long as it doesnt have a stock on it.
I would like to further clarify, that I do not have any other ar stocks at all that i own, not here, not somewhere else, none. Just one ar15, and this ar15 pistol.
ive gotten into a bit of a pissing match on another forum in regards to a picture i posted of my collection, and try as i might to instill correct info (unless im wrong here....) im getting beaten down by idiots.
so... what say you (because the people on the other forum said if i posted it on m4c i would be put in my place...).
this is the actual photo in question:
http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/527497_10151216681102988_1394288154_n.jpg
furthermore, if I am truly in the wrong, I will be purchasing a pistol tube or at least removing the locking holes on the bottom of the R.E.
Thanks
I am sure the scaremongers will be around soon enough to tell you about constructive intent or possession and that a prison cell is already waiting with your name on it.
1. Don't broadcast it to the world.
2. Print a copy of the legal definition of what a pistol is to show anyone who may become curious.
3. Don't worry about it.
clschicago
11-05-12, 13:00
thanks, precisely my thoughts, based on a thread you posted in a while back that was around 3 pages long.
You have a pistol lower for your pistol upper, that you use as a pistol. You also own other rifles and pistols.
It generally requires playing lots of other stupid games before the BATFE starts showing up to deliver stupid prizes.
Hate to say it, but in this case, you are setting yourself up.
A rifle extension is designed to attach a stock. A pistol extension is not. Which makes them 2 very different things in the eyes of the law.
Why not throw an AFG on there too, as it's not a 'vertical grip' forward of the mag well.
Remember, all it takes is one person at the range (or someone who sees it anywhere) bringing this to the attention of someone in LE to complicate your day.
Not saying that you will have a NKW at 0 dark 30, or that they will shoot your cat,or you will get 10/10K, but when a pistol extension is so easy to get, why screw around.
And since you didn't list where you are from, I'll take a blind stab based on your user name, and say that you live in the ever gun and freedom loving state of Il, and we all know that you can't legally own an SBR in that fine state.
Just remember, It doesn't have to really be illegal when dealing with the cops, as they have the power to make your life hell, right or wrong. And the BATFE can make it much worse.
Better yet, why don't you send a letter to the tech branch and get an opinion right from the horse's mouth? Then keep the letter with the gun if anyone challenges you?
Really? Maybe you should read some of the stuff that is already out there. Especially as it applies to pistols/SBR's and what not.
I assume that you do know that the BATFE has also sent out letters that actually contradict what others in the BATFE have already put out there.
Can you point to one LEGITIMATE case where someone with an AR pistol and standard carbine extension was charged?
Hate to say it, but in this case, you are setting yourself up.
A rifle extension is designed to attach a stock. A pistol extension is not. Which makes them 2 very different things in the eyes of the law.
Why not throw an AFG on there too, as it's not a 'vertical grip' forward of the mag well.
Remember, all it takes is one person at the range (or someone who sees it anywhere) bringing this to the attention of someone in LE to complicate your day.
Not saying that you will have a NKW at 0 dark 30, or that they will shoot your cat,or you will get 10/10K, but when a pistol extension is so easy to get, why screw around.
And since you didn't list where you are from, I'll take a blind stab based on your user name, and say that you live in the ever gun and freedom loving state of Il, and we all know that you can't legally own an SBR in that fine state.
Just remember, It doesn't have to really be illegal when dealing with the cops, as they have the power to make your life hell, right or wrong. And the BATFE can make it much worse.
Better yet, why don't you send a letter to the tech branch and get an opinion right from the horse's mouth? Then keep the letter with the gun if anyone challenges you?
Really? Maybe you should read some of the stuff that is already out there. Especially as it applies to pistols/SBR's and what not.
I assume that you do know that the BATFE has also sent out letters that actually contradict what others in the BATFE have already put out there.
Can you point to one LEGITIMATE case where someone with an AR pistol and standard carbine extension was charged?
Iraqgunz, Thats what I was thinking also, I have read those regs and as far as I can remember, I dont remember it saying anythning about the stock differences, if its that big of a issue, wrap some foam around it.
if its that big of a issue, wrap some foam around it.
Exactly, I wish we would stop thinking up ways for the ATF or whoever to expand on the meaning of their laws. In New York we argue about silly shit like whether pinning stocks is "permanent enough" or if we should use a gallon of epoxy and "blind pin" as opposed to simply driving a roll pin through the stock and RE. If a cop can't adjust your stock without a toolbox full of tools it's non-adjustable. If your pistol doesn't have a stock on it it's a pistol, if it does it's an sbr. If your wife's rifle has a stock that could be attached to your rifle it doesn't make your pistol a rifle.
Really? Maybe you should read some of the stuff that is already out there. Especially as it applies to pistols/SBR's and what not.
I assume that you do know that the BATFE has also sent out letters that actually contradict what others in the BATFE have already put out there.
Can you point to one LEGITIMATE case where someone with an AR pistol and standard carbine extension was charged?
Sure, read some stuff that someone else said, that's the ticket.
Sorry, but in this case, it's not all that gray, as the only reason to have a RIFLE extension on a lower is to attach a STOCK, which makes the firearm in question a SBR.
As I said, he is free to do what he wants. It's not my ass that is in a sling if someone with the power to arrest him makes a case out of it.
But it's pretty stupid to say there is not a thing wrong with doing what he is doing when we all know that it's asking for trouble, especially when the pistol tubes are easy to get. If it wasn't an issue, why are there even pistol tubes? Hmmm....
Sometimes a little common sense goes a long way... but if you want to over think it, be my guest. I know your area of expertise is in fixing the guns, so I will keep listening to your advice on malfunction correction.
As for the conflicting letter issue, yea, i have heard a whisper or two over the years about that.... Like I said, if he submits a letter, the answer he gets is applicable ONLY to him, and that is why he should keep the letter if it says it's kosher to have a RIFLE extension on a PISTOL. If it says otherwise, then he will have his answer FOR HIM.
As I said, you want to play word games, throw an AFG on an AR pistol. After all, it's not a VERTICAL pistol grip, so it must be alright....
Exactly, I wish we would stop thinking up ways for the ATF or whoever to expand on the meaning of their laws. In New York we argue about silly shit like whether pinning stocks is "permanent enough" or if we should use a gallon of epoxy and "blind pin" as opposed to simply driving a roll pin through the stock and RE. If a cop can't adjust your stock without a toolbox full of tools it's non-adjustable. If your pistol doesn't have a stock on it it's a pistol, if it does it's an sbr. If your wife's rifle has a stock that could be attached to your rifle it doesn't make your pistol a rifle.
If the BATFE can't get your gun to fire more than one round with each pull of the trigger without a toolbox full of tools, it's not a machine gun... but we all know that isn't the case.....
I am sure the scaremongers will be around soon enough to tell you about constructive intent or possession and that a prison cell is already waiting with your name on it.
1. Don't broadcast it to the world.
2. Print a copy of the legal definition of what a pistol is to show anyone who may become curious.
3. Don't worry about it.Well I suggest 1. Don't broadcast it to the world.
2. Print a copy of the legal definition of what a pistol is to show anyone who may become curious.
3. Don't worry about it...
If the BATFE can't get your gun to fire more than one round with each pull of the trigger without a toolbox full of tools, it's not a machine gun... but we all know that isn't the case.....
? I have no idea what that means.:confused:
? I have no idea what that means.:confused:
in reference to your stock statement....
It means that the BATFE has been known to go to extraordinary measures to make weapons that do not meet the definition of a MG meet that requirement, so it's no stretch of the imagination for them to say if a receiver extension is, by design, made to accept a stock, that having one on a 'pistol' lower constitutes possession of an SBR.
It's pretty easy to say to a group of 12 people that the sole purpose of having a rifle extension on a firearm is to facilitate the use of a stock, and have them believe that, because that is what it is designed for.
Like I said, the only way to know, in this particular case, is to ask. Then, if the tech branch says it's not an issue, the OP has it in writing and can provide that if any LE ever questions the legality. If they say it's not legal, then he can buy a pistol tube and be in compliance, and avoid any hassles.
I don't really care what the OP decides to do, but he came here asking, and posting pics, of his set up, and rather than take the word of some random person off the net, I simply said that the only way to know is to ask.
The OP is the one risking
I'm not the one looking at a potential felony and loss of rights, or the legal bill to fight it.
And the OP apparently lives in Il, if his screen name is an indication of where he lives, and Il doesn't even allow civi ownership of NFA items, so the locals can shaft him too if they feel like it.
But hey, feel free to play with a bunch of people who have no qualms about burning down a house with men, women, and children in it...
Why even risk it? You can spend $25 at Palmetto and get a pistol receiver extension and save yourself any possible future headaches.
Spikes sells a pistol extension also, I thing you're playing with fire and to spend 25 bux to not get burnt is well worth the money.
A good attorney is around $400/hour
dont have a pistol AR but if I did, this is the RE that I'd want http://www.lwrci.com/p-244-gse-pistol-buffer-recoil-kit.aspx Its only 4inches long.....Thats what she said :dance3:
Actually the OP doesn't live in Illinois, just like I don't live in Iraq. He lives in an NFA friendly state. You're wrong on many accounts.
Can you provide any cases where someone was actually prosecuted for having a carbine or rifle extension on an AR pistol?
in reference to your stock statement....
It means that the BATFE has been known to go to extraordinary measures to make weapons that do not meet the definition of a MG meet that requirement, so it's no stretch of the imagination for them to say if a receiver extension is, by design, made to accept a stock, that having one on a 'pistol' lower constitutes possession of an SBR.
It's pretty easy to say to a group of 12 people that the sole purpose of having a rifle extension on a firearm is to facilitate the use of a stock, and have them believe that, because that is what it is designed for.
Like I said, the only way to know, in this particular case, is to ask. Then, if the tech branch says it's not an issue, the OP has it in writing and can provide that if any LE ever questions the legality. If they say it's not legal, then he can buy a pistol tube and be in compliance, and avoid any hassles.
I don't really care what the OP decides to do, but he came here asking, and posting pics, of his set up, and rather than take the word of some random person off the net, I simply said that the only way to know is to ask.
The OP is the one risking
I'm not the one looking at a potential felony and loss of rights, or the legal bill to fight it.
And the OP apparently lives in Il, if his screen name is an indication of where he lives, and Il doesn't even allow civi ownership of NFA items, so the locals can shaft him too if they feel like it.
But hey, feel free to play with a bunch of people who have no qualms about burning down a house with men, women, and children in it...
It means that the BATFE has been known to go to extraordinary measures to make weapons that do not meet the definition of a MG meet that requirement,
I hear this often enough, but when I read about specific examples it's usually not the case. Most times it turns out that people are trying to get around the laws. If I have an AR that has a FCG that is worn or altered to fire burst or full auto and I continue to use it, I cant blame BATFE. Being in compliance of the law is just that. Why are people so scared of being unlawfully arrested and charged with crimes? Am I missing something? How often does the BATFE arrest people for not being in "extra" compliance? Christ next thing you'll tell me is to make sure my barrel is 16.5" long to avoid being arrested. Hey you never know all it takes is one bad tape measure and your off to jail.
Actually the OP doesn't live in Illinois, just like I don't live in Iraq. He lives in an NFA friendly state.
That may be true , but I Hate all kinds of shit.
:smile:
Actually the OP doesn't live in Illinois, just like I don't live in Iraq. He lives in an NFA friendly state. You're wrong on many accounts.
Can you provide any cases where someone was actually prosecuted for having a carbine or rifle extension on an AR pistol?
Would have been nice if some guy with Chicago in his name would clarify. Most people who put cities in their name reside in or near said city in my experience.
As for prosecution for having a rifle extension on a pistol, of course I cannot come up with an example. just like no one can come up with an example of a case where someone had a short upper with a bunch of rifle lowers sitting around and getting popped for having an SBR.
But pretty much everyone says keep that shorty upper somewhere other than with a bunch of rifle lowers if you don't have a registered receiver.
And what is the current position of having an M-16 trigger group? Pretty much everyone will say not to do it, because it isn't worth the headache just in case something happens. And I think that the probability of someone breaking down a rifle to look at a trigger group is much lower than someone seeing a rifle extension without a stock..
The OP is free to do whatever the hell he wants, but if he gets popped, it's his ass. And I'd bet dollars to donuts he'd whine about getting popped if it happened.
It's a pretty stupid thing to bother with when pistol tubes are all over the place.
But I will say that it's sad that we have to even have these discussions living in the supposed freedom loving land of the USA....
If IG is right, then you can theoretically use your pistol as an sbr with stock, but as soon as anyone shows up, pull the stock off before they see it.
I still wouldn't do it though.
I hear this often enough, but when I read about specific examples it's usually not the case. Most times it turns out that people are trying to get around the laws. If I have an AR that has a FCG that is worn or altered to fire burst or full auto and I continue to use it, I cant blame BATFE. Being in compliance of the law is just that. Why are people so scared of being unlawfully arrested and charged with crimes? Am I missing something? How often does the BATFE arrest people for not being in "extra" compliance? Christ next thing you'll tell me is to make sure my barrel is 16.5" long to avoid being arrested. Hey you never know all it takes is one bad tape measure and your off to jail.
Did you know that under the definition of 'machine gun', there is no exception for worn parts in a semi-auto?
Would you use an M-16 hammer, trigger, disconnect and safety in your AR? If not, why not?
Did you know that under the definition of 'machine gun', there is no exception for worn parts in a semi-auto?
Would you use an M-16 hammer, trigger, disconnect and safety in your AR? If not, why not?
Yea I did know that there is no exception for worn parts or improperly installed parts for that matter. In fact there are no exceptions at all that I'm aware of. The point I'm making is the BATFE to my knowledge doesn't go around altering legal semi-auto's into fully auto's. And a legal semi auto doesn't go fully automatic without warning. If it does and you keep using it it's your fault.
As far as using an M-16 FCG, I'm not even sure it's legal to use one. If it is legal then yes I would use it. Why not? If it were to go tits up and turn my rifle FA it's no different than an AR-15 FCG malfunctioning.
Actually I would because those parts alone will not make your gun go full auto. In fact you would also require a safety selector lever to do so. I can only assume by your statement that you don't understand how the system actually works.
In addition I believe the BATFE has stated previously that the use of such parts is not necessarily illegal. But, if your weapon fires more than one round per pull of the trigger after doing so then you are going to have a problem.
Did you know that under the definition of 'machine gun', there is no exception for worn parts in a semi-auto?
Would you use an M-16 hammer, trigger, disconnect and safety in your AR? If not, why not?
Actually I would because those parts alone will not make your gun go full auto. In fact you would also require a safety selector lever to do so. I can only assume by your statement that you don't understand how the system actually works.
In addition I believe the BATFE has stated previously that the use of such parts is not necessarily illegal. But, if your weapon fires more than one round per pull of the trigger after doing so then you are going to have a problem.
Slow down champ. Safety = safety selector. Note I didn't edit my post.
I am quite aware of how the system works in both the Full and 3 round burst.
I personally have a rifle set up with all the named components, along with the standard M-16 carrier. And It works just like a semi set up, as it should, since it doesn't have a burst or auto sear, or the capability to install a factory sear set up. And I don't have the money for a RIDAS/RLL.
But it's a valid comparison to the stock, because conventional wisdom in the community is why bother with the possible hassles.
I know one person who probably regrets not using an AR-15 trigger group, not that it would have made a difference as there is no exemption for worn/malfunctioning parts.
Name one manufacturer of the AR-15 who sells their firearms with M-16 trigger groups at this time.
Now name one manufacturer of AR-15 pistols that sells their firearms with rifle extensions.
And I'll even say it now: I wonder why there aren't any???
Just a little food for though...
But it's a valid comparison to the stock, because conventional wisdom in the community is why bother with the possible hassles.
I know one person who probably regrets not using an AR-15 trigger group, not that it would have made a difference as there is no exemption for worn/malfunctioning parts.
The reason why it's a valid comparison is because both the stock and FCG are legal. In the eyes of the law a receiver extension is a receiver extension.
I can manufacture a slip on stock to fit over a pistol tube and you can buy it and keep it in your gun case. When you put it on your pistol you have created an illegal SBR. Stop over thinking this chit. Taking the stock off of your SBR "receiver extension"makes it a pistol. Putting a slip on cane handle on your pistol's RE makes it an SBR. Having it in your pocket is legal. By the way You can find slip on handles of all kinds that fit on "pistol" RE"shttp://i690.photobucket.com/albums/vv261/rr556/cane.jpg
The reason why it's a valid comparison is because both the stock and FCG are legal. In the eyes of the law a receiver extension is a receiver extension.
I can manufacture a slip on stock to fit over a pistol tube and you can buy it and keep it in your gun case. When you put it on your pistol you have created an illegal SBR. Stop over thinking this chit. Taking the stock off of your SBR "receiver extension"makes it a pistol. Putting a slip on cane handle on your pistol's RE makes it an SBR. Having it in your pocket is legal. By the way You can find slip on handles of all kinds that fit on "pistol" RE"s http://i690.photobucket.com/albums/vv261/rr556/cane.jpg
This might be what is needed to end this discussion.
This issue HAS been addressed by the tech branch, and here is their response:
http://images112.fotki.com/v386/photos/5/41655/10241684/Bufferquestion-vi.jpg
So, if you have no spare stocks laying around, they don't care. But if you do, then you are in possession of an unregistered SBR. No 'constructive intent' or any other mumbo jumbo.
pretty straight forward in that letter.
And just to put it out there before IG shows up, yes, there could very well be a letter that says the exact opposite. But I'll let someone else dig for that unicorn...
I suggest that you re-read the letter. Specifically the last paragraph where they use the word COULD.
I believe that since that particular letter was issued almost 9 years ago, there have been others that (IIRC) do not say the same thing.
I would really like to see some solid EVIDENCE of any person who was in fact charged and or convicted for what you are suggesting. And to be clear, I don't mean some idiot who was doing other illegal stuff and had the book thrown at him. I am talking a solid legit case of of someone who did nothing else.
This might be what is needed to end this discussion.
This issue HAS been addressed by the tech branch, and here is their response:
http://images112.fotki.com/v386/photos/5/41655/10241684/Bufferquestion-vi.jpg
So, if you have no spare stocks laying around, they don't care. But if you do, then you are in possession of an unregistered SBR. No 'constructive intent' or any other mumbo jumbo.
pretty straight forward in that letter.
And just to put it out there before IG shows up, yes, there could very well be a letter that says the exact opposite. But I'll let someone else dig for that unicorn...
You are missing my point. So I'll try and be a little more clear. If you install a hammer, trigger and disconnector from an M16 your weapon will function normally as it should.
If you then install a select fire selector lever in conjunction with those other parts there is a very high probability that your weapon will fire in bursts or full auto. I know this for a fact because I have done testing (without a sear) and I have video of it. I use it in my course to teach people the necessity of being careful when they are selecting parts and to understand the implications of using certain parts in their AR's.
Slow down champ. Safety = safety selector. Note I didn't edit my post.
I am quite aware of how the system works in both the Full and 3 round burst.
I personally have a rifle set up with all the named components, along with the standard M-16 carrier. And It works just like a semi set up, as it should, since it doesn't have a burst or auto sear, or the capability to install a factory sear set up. And I don't have the money for a RIDAS/RLL.
But it's a valid comparison to the stock, because conventional wisdom in the community is why bother with the possible hassles.
I know one person who probably regrets not using an AR-15 trigger group, not that it would have made a difference as there is no exemption for worn/malfunctioning parts.
Name one manufacturer of the AR-15 who sells their firearms with M-16 trigger groups at this time.
Now name one manufacturer of AR-15 pistols that sells their firearms with rifle extensions.
And I'll even say it now: I wonder why there aren't any???
Just a little food for though...
http://blog.princelaw.com/2009/09/01/florida-man-arrested-for-constructive-possession-of-an-sbr/
As a "victimless" crime, it's hard to find examples because no one is complaining about it. It's just about as hard to find someone arrested for illegally owning a machine gun without also being charged with another crime, but even that is easier to catch since there are far less legal machine guns than sbrs.
I don't know how far the case went besides an arrest.
Also, http://www.atf.gov/regulations-rulings/rulings/atf-rulings/atf-ruling-2011-4.pdf
Again, there is a difference between doing something legal and doing something illegal that's extremely hard to catch. I think as a moderator here IG, you shouldn't be advocating for the later, as you represent the forum as a whole, even if you disagree with the law.
A pistol RE is not that expensive. Since the OP built the lower, he should have no problem in changing out the RE.
Geesh, this is not one of those 'My DI AR is a Piston AR!' threads.:jester:
1. I never advocated anything illegal and in fact reading what you posted as well as the outdated letter posted above I have still not seen anything that says 100% that you cannot use one.
2. My opinions are my own and do not reflect tha of the STAFF here anyone else for that matter.
3. I guess I am just a simpleton. I don't read into shit and look for Leprechaun hiding in the forest.
4. I am also not a lawyer and I don't work for the BATFE. So the OP is free to do whatever is clever.
http://blog.princelaw.com/2009/09/01/florida-man-arrested-for-constructive-possession-of-an-sbr/
As a "victimless" crime, it's hard to find examples because no one is complaining about it. It's just about as hard to find someone arrested for illegally owning a machine gun without also being charged with another crime, but even that is easier to catch since there are far less legal machine guns than sbrs.
I don't know how far the case went besides an arrest.
Also, http://www.atf.gov/regulations-rulings/rulings/atf-rulings/atf-ruling-2011-4.pdf
Again, there is a difference between doing something legal and doing something illegal that's extremely hard to catch. I think as a moderator here IG, you shouldn't be advocating for the later, as you represent the forum as a whole, even if you disagree with the law.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.