removing stock from sbr to transport as a pistol

[Iraqgunz]

I hate to tell you this, but you are partially wrong. The BATF website clearly states that if you have an SBR, remove the upper and were to replace it with a non-NFA upper and you were to no longer possess the short upper, then you are no longer in possession of an SBR. That's it-point blank. Regardless of what you scare tactics you may want to use.

Once again, people are overthinking shit to the point that it becomes absurd. I truly believe that there are those who shouldn't own NFA items.

I'll throw this out there and then leave this mess alone.

Once a lower is on a Form 1, then it is a NFA controlled and registered item. Taking the upper off the lower doesn't suddenly nullify the Form 1 you payed Uncle Sugar 200 bucks for.

The lower is the only serialized part of the firearm. You're throwing out conjecture without proof that could land someone in jail. A lower without an upper is still considered a firearm by law, if you're debating that then I'm truly at a loss for words...

This ATF ruling, is an interpretation. It is NOT law, and should not be represented as law. If you get pulled over by the State Police in a non-SBR state, and try telling him that your registered lower isn't actually a rifle, because it doesn't have an upper on it, you are honestly going to tell me that he's just going to give you the okay to keep right on truckin'?

The laws are really very simple, and there really isn't much room for wiggle. A lower transferred to you as a pistol, must remain in pistol configuration. A lower transferred to you as a rifle, may not be configured as a pistol. A lower registered by you as an SBR may not be transported to a non-SBR state by configuring it as a pistol, because it was not originally transferred as a pistol, and is currently registered as an SBR, regardless of what upper is on it at the time.

The thing about all that, is that it's been repeated in this thread ad nauseum, by numerous individuals, and you refuse to accept it. Is everyone else here ALL wrong, or are you wrong? It's not a slap to your manhood to be wrong. You got your answer numerous times, either accept it and move on or keep arguing and piss some people off.

[Bacon Six Actual]

I hate to tell you this, but you are partially wrong. The BATF website clearly states that if you have an SBR, remove the upper and were to replace it with a non-NFA upper and you were to no longer possess the short upper, then you are no longer in possession of an SBR. That's it-point blank. Regardless of what you scare tactics you may want to use.

Once again, people are overthinking shit to the point that it becomes absurd. I truly believe that there are those who shouldn't own NFA items.

Point taken, but I honestly wouldn't want to test that. The BATFE has a track record of being less than friendly, and it's rare that a field agent will be up to date on current stance of the BATFE towards NFA items, at least in my experience with them.

I agree, shit's overthunk. Take care and watch your corners brother.

[Iraqgunz]

There is nothing to test. Without the short upper you no longer have an SBR. It's point blank. Can you point to one single case of one person who was arrested and convicted for such a violation?

The BATF doesn't care what you have or what configuration it's in. The exception being for dealers and for those who have such weapons and commit silly crimes.

Everything else is someones internet masturbatory obsession.

Point taken, but I honestly wouldn't want to test that. The BATFE has a track record of being less than friendly, and it's rare that a field agent will be up to date on current stance of the BATFE towards NFA items, at least in my experience with them.

I agree, shit's overthunk. Take care and watch your corners brother.

[Bacon Six Actual]

There is nothing to test. Without the short upper you no longer have an SBR. It's point blank. Can you point to one single case of one person who was arrested and convicted for such a violation?

The BATF doesn't care what you have or what configuration it's in. The exception being for dealers and for those who have such weapons and commit silly crimes.

Everything else is someones internet masturbatory obsession.

Where I disagree with you is also point blank. Regardless of configuration, you still have a form 1 for an SBR, correct? The BATF's current stance on it is subject to change, the NFA is law, the current rulings of the BATF are not. Per the BATF's website, they are precedents, and "do not have the force and effect of Department of Justice regulations." I really don't see the issue here, all this is at this point is arguing semantics. If you have to ask the question, it's probably a bad idea.

Not looking to play devil's advocate, but the experience that I have with the ATF is from the dealer's side of the house. I'm an Arizona native, so I've seen how the ATF conducts business regularly, and I simply do not want to argue semantics with them on this subject. Someone else may choose to do so. Here in open forum, good natured debate is fun, and informative. You don't have to be convicted of something to get arrested for it, and the arrest will not be expunged simply because you weren't convicted.

Neither of our opinions are unequivocally and unarguably definite, we're both basing them off of ATF rulings and federal law. I've decided to base my opinion on federal law, and err on the side of caution.

Thank you for the discussion, I sincerely hope you have a good day.

[threeheadeddog]

Where I disagree with you is also point blank. Regardless of configuration, you still have a form 1 for an SBR, correct? The BATF's current stance on it is subject to change, the NFA is law, the current rulings of the BATF are not. Per the BATF's website, they are precedents, and "do not have the force and effect of Department of Justice regulations." I really don't see the issue here, all this is at this point is arguing semantics. If you have to ask the question, it's probably a bad idea.

Not looking to play devil's advocate, but the experience that I have with the ATF is from the dealer's side of the house. I'm an Arizona native, so I've seen how the ATF conducts business regularly, and I simply do not want to argue semantics with them on this subject. Someone else may choose to do so. Here in open forum, good natured debate is fun, and informative. You don't have to be convicted of something to get arrested for it, and the arrest will not be expunged simply because you weren't convicted.

Neither of our opinions are unequivocally and unarguably definite, we're both basing them off of ATF rulings and federal law. I've decided to base my opinion on federal law, and err on the side of caution.

Thank you for the discussion, I sincerely hope you have a good day.

No bacon you are wrong...it is not a slap to your manhood to be wrong... Sorry couldnt resist. The confusion here seems to stem from the laws reguarding machine guns which are more in line with the "once a machine gun always a machine gun" not so for an SBR which cannot by definition be an SBR with out the SB... it would just be a R lol.

All kidding aside(really was kidding bacon I meant no harm and was typing with a smile not trying to be a dick), I think I may have found what I was looking for in that for a conversion to take place the lower has to start as a pistol. It may then be converted to rifle and back again. It seems that if it starts as a rifle than it may not go pistol and back. I will ASSUME(god I hate doing that) that because it is a registered SBR, even though it started as an "other" lower, that I will have to treat it as a rifle reciever.

If anyone finds or knows that the reciever can be converted back please tell me/reply/pm ect. Untill then I will go with the idea that it is a rifle reciever.

[tsconver]

No bacon you are wrong...it is not a slap to your manhood to be wrong... Sorry couldnt resist. The confusion here seems to stem from the laws reguarding machine guns which are more in line with the "once a machine gun always a machine gun" not so for an SBR which cannot by definition be an SBR with out the SB... it would just be a R lol.

All kidding aside(really was kidding bacon I meant no harm and was typing with a smile not trying to be a dick), I think I may have found what I was looking for in that for a conversion to take place the lower has to start as a pistol. It may then be converted to rifle and back again. It seems that if it starts as a rifle than it may not go pistol and back. I will ASSUME(god I hate doing that) that because it is a registered SBR, even though it started as an "other" lower, that I will have to treat it as a rifle reciever.

If anyone finds or knows that the reciever can be converted back please tell me/reply/pm ect. Untill then I will go with the idea that it is a rifle reciever.

You are still wrong the atf considers once a rifle always a rifle. The only exception is the thompson contender. If you put a buttstock on a rifle it is now and always a rifle, period.

Sent from my GT-P7510 using Tapatalk 2

[DOA]

I'll throw this out there and then leave this mess alone.

Once a lower is on a Form 1, then it is a NFA controlled and registered item. Taking the upper off the lower doesn't suddenly nullify the Form 1 you payed Uncle Sugar 200 bucks for.

The lower is the only serialized part of the firearm. You're throwing out conjecture without proof that could land someone in jail. A lower without an upper is still considered a firearm by law, if you're debating that then I'm truly at a loss for words...

This ATF ruling, is an interpretation. It is NOT law, and should not be represented as law. If you get pulled over by the State Police in a non-SBR state, and try telling him that your registered lower isn't actually a rifle, because it doesn't have an upper on it, you are honestly going to tell me that he's just going to give you the okay to keep right on truckin'?

The laws are really very simple, and there really isn't much room for wiggle. A lower transferred to you as a pistol, must remain in pistol configuration. A lower transferred to you as a rifle, may not be configured as a pistol. A lower registered by you as an SBR may not be transported to a non-SBR state by configuring it as a pistol, because it was not originally transferred as a pistol, and is currently registered as an SBR, regardless of what upper is on it at the time.

The thing about all that, is that it's been repeated in this thread ad nauseum, by numerous individuals, and you refuse to accept it. Is everyone else here ALL wrong, or are you wrong? It's not a slap to your manhood to be wrong. You got your answer numerous times, either accept it and move on or keep arguing and piss some people off.

THIS. Exactly. Why people wont just accept the correct answer is beyond me.

[tb-av]

To clarify the question slightly lets forget about state lines as that is not the issue. Lets just for the sake of arguement say that I have a soft top Jeep(which I dont but it makes this easy)with top removed. I am out and about and have to park somewhere for some reason that is also a nonissue. Would it not under those circumstances make sense to remove the buttstock put it in my handy backpack and go into an extablishment now having a legally concealed pistol without the worry of loosing it due to my vehicle having absolutely no protection from someone taking something from it.

So you are trying to carry your AR as pistol with your concealed handgun permit?.... because I assume carrying a concealed rifle is not allowed?

[iNeXile]

ATF 2011-4 cleared the way for converting a pistol to a rifle and back again. It also clarifies that it must originally be a pistol. A firearm that is originally built as a rifle cannot be made into a pistol without a form1.

A SBR is originally made (via form 1) as a rifle, therefore taking the stock off will not make it into a pistol. However as previously mentioned, removing the short barrel removes the SBR from the purview of the NFA and it is treated as a title 1 firearm. It can be sold as such or transported as any title 1.

Bacon Six Actual also stated that BATFE opinions (which are rulings) are not law. This is not true. BATFE regulations, rulings, and opinions are law to the same extent that EPA and DOL regulations and rulings are law. Ultimate statutory interpretation rests with the courts, but executive agencies charged with the administration of the laws are given great deference in their rulings and opinions. Deference shown to administrative agency decisions is often referred to as Chevron deference, after the case bearing the same name. In short, "considerable weight should be accorded to executive department's construction of statutory scheme it is entrusted to administer." Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Resources Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984).