RLTW
Former Action Guy
Disclosure: I am affiliated PRN with a tactical training center, but I speak only for myself. I have no idea what we sell, other than CLP and training. I receive no income from sale of hard goods.
These questions are sprinkled across the internet and forums.
I am not an attorney, but it seems like making an SBR, then putting a brace on it probably wouldn’t pass muster. I don’t disagree about the precise, technical legality of it, but unless there has been someone taken to court, it seems like the ATF would have a good argument to convince a court that the SBR remained an SBR when the stock was replaced with a brace but all other (short barrel) items were kept the same.
I asked a trainer (who also trains local ATF on firearms topics, so there is that) about putting a brace on my SBR for a class, and he said no-go. So I put the upper on a pistol lower and all was good. *edit to explain: State where training was held does not permit SBR’s.
Last edited by JediGuy; 07-09-20 at 08:53.
You can always return an NFA item to non NFA status by returning it to its original configuration. It’s really as simple as that. If it started as a pistol, it can be a pistol again. Why is this so hard to understand? The ATF even advises people to return the NFA item to non NFA status if they wish to travel.
I’d love to see your source saying you can’t. If it exists I’ll gladly eat crow and admit my error. So if you SBR a Glock, then remove the stock or chassis, what do you have? You can always return an SBR to its original factory non NFA status. Be it a pistol, a rifle or a purple unicorn.
IIRC, the ATF has said that it's OK to take a pistol, make it a rifle, and then return it to a pistol configuration. (You cannot take a rifle and turn it into a pistol.) It would seem to follow that it would be OK to take a pistol, make it into a rifle that happens to be an SBR, and then return it to a pistol configuration.
" Nil desperandum - Never Despair. That is a motto for you and me. All are not dead; and where there is a spark of patriotic fire, we will rekindle it. "
- Samuel Adams -
I’m going to trust that good and reasonable people won’t base their legal decisions on anything they’d read in a thread like this. Walking away now.
The only ACTUAL guidance the ATF gives in writing is that a Title II firearm may be returned to its ORIGINAL Title I configuration by removing the features that make it a Title II item. It is true that they do not specifically say “pistol” in the verbiage. However, it is equally true that they do not expressly prohibit it. They make multiple mentions of the firearms ORIGINAL configuration as it left the factory. If that’s a pistol, then it’s a pistol.
You can interpret things however you like. I personally don’t care. I also personally don’t reconfigure my NFA firearms to non NFA firearms. They stay as registered. My opinion is worth exactly what you payed for it. The OP asked a question and I concisely answered it to the best of my knowledge. Again, if someone can show me in writing (not I know a guy who knows a guy who trains a guy who talked to a guy) where I am mistaken I will gracefully thank them for the insight. Why people get so defensive and angry amidst a simple discussion is beyond me & frankly astounding.
Section 2.5 Removal of firearms from the scope of the NFA by modification/elimination of components.
Firearms, except machineguns and silencers, that are subject to the NFA fall within the various definitions due to specific features. If the particular feature that causes a firearm to be regulated by the NFA is eliminated or modified, the resulting weapon is no longer an NFA weapon.
https://www.atf.gov/file/55526/download
Last edited by DoubleW; 07-13-20 at 07:55.
Bookmarks