Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Ar15 pistol question


Trigger Mike

Recommended Posts

One of my hesitations about buying an ar15 pistol is that under Obama you could not put the pistol on your shoulder like a rifle,  but under President Trump  you can.  If biden  wins , assuming you can keep it, i imagine the rule will change again.   

 

I am wondering what your thoughts are on that, since there is a chance biden will win.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't aware that rule had changed?

 

As far as being allowed to keep it; that's pure BS. I'll not be turning in OR registering any guns(I may not use them in public); good luck confiscating them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is currently OK to "occasionally and incidentally" shoulder an AR (or AK) pistol. Per the current guidance, that is...

 

This opinion:

 

https://comms.wiley.law/8/3583/october-2020/alert--atf-interpretive-change-restricts-handgun-imports-and-may-require-nfa-registration(2).asp?sid=a452ea75-2271-421a-8974-669a79e41dc6&fbclid=IwAR1BOwMPd_-xuaviRtOsMZ5amXakayF0Qm7azmIcYOnuQv-rJfRlZ2r7P38

 

speculates the ATF is possibly moving towards reclassifying all of them as AOWs. Under this speculative course, they would not even qualify as SBRs.

 

This is lawyer-level reasoning. As I understand it, if the brace actually is a stock, then the weapon would become an SBR. If the brace is not a stock, then it becomes an AOW. Separate from registration and tax stamp in either case, these reclassifications would also prohibit import as they do not fall under the sporting exemption.

 

The sporting exemption only applies to rifles, pistols, and shotguns, not to NFA items.

 

Consider the link a heads-up. It is speculation, but not unreasonable speculation given the convoluted state of the laws and regulations.

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Badlands Bob #61228 said:

While they are cool and fun to play with, I find them totally worthless for any practical purposes.  No Mall Ninja outfit is complete without one.

In Ohio, since I have a CCW, I can keep one loaded in my truck. I cannot have a loaded rifle in my truck. With the riots ongoing having increased firepower and cartridge power may be a good idea.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Trigger Mike said:

I am wondering what your thoughts are on that, since there is a chance biden will win. 

I would not buy till after the election plays out, unless I got a super deal, worst case you have to pull the pistol barrel off and put a 16" barrel on.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Crooked River Pete, SASS 43485 said:

In Ohio, since I have a CCW, I can keep one loaded in my truck. I cannot have a loaded rifle in my truck. With the riots ongoing having increased firepower and cartridge power may be a good idea.

Allot of people I know like them compared to the sbr , because you don’t have to inform the feds every time you want to take it out of state and no $200 tax . People also like them for the reason CR Peet stated . In Mi we have a overall length requirement for a rifle so many folding stock rifles are consider handguns according to the state of MI . I have Sig MCX and a MI CPL so technically that can be my concealed carry gun , in Michigan. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Badlands Bob #61228 said:

While they are cool and fun to play with, I find them totally worthless for any practical purposes.  No Mall Ninja outfit is complete without one.

My apologies to the OP for hijacking the thread, but just out of curiosity, Bob, would you mind please defining "practical purposes"? I happen to think that they would make dandy close range coyote calling guns...

 

Thanks!

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Crooked River Pete, SASS 43485 said:

I would not buy till after the election plays out, unless I got a super deal, worst case you have to pull the pistol barrel off and put a 16" barrel on.

I don’t think you can do that . If I’m remembering right I don’t think you can convert a handgun to rifle or rifle to a handgun according to the feds . So if there is a record somewhere of what it was manufactured as I believe it could come back to bite you . You might be able to remove the brace and just leave the buffer tube out the back . But with ATF interpretation I’m guessing it will depend upon who wins the election 

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Buckshot Bob said:

I don’t think you can do that . If I’m remembering right I don’t think you can convert a handgun to rifle or rifle to a handgun according to the feds . So if there is a record somewhere of what it was manufactured as I believe it could come back to bite you . You might be able to remove the brace and just leave the buffer tube out the back . But with ATF interpretation I’m guessing it will depend upon who wins the election 

You can turn a pistol into a rifle than back into a pistol, you cannot turn a rifle into a pistol. Thompson Center won this in the courts with their contender frames that could be either.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys might not be aware, but some importers of AR/AK style pistols recently received letters from ATF telling them that they are going to change the classification of certain large pistols into AOW's (Any Other Weapon), making them subject to NFA rules and require a tax stamp. ATF is constantly changing their minds about what constitutes a legal firearm on their own without any oversight by Congress or the White House, and what's legal to own/use today might become an NFA item tomorrow.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Crooked River Pete, SASS 43485 said:

I would not buy till after the election plays out, unless I got a super deal, worst case you have to pull the pistol barrel off and put a 16" barrel on.

That may not be allowed after the election.  Many proposals have been made including a weight limit on pistols.  After the election, it may pass.

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Sixgun Sheridan said:

You guys might not be aware, but some importers of AR/AK style pistols recently received letters from ATF telling them that they are going to change the classification of certain large pistols into AOW's (Any Other Weapon), making them subject to NFA rules and require a tax stamp. ATF is constantly changing their minds about what constitutes a legal firearm on their own without any oversight by Congress or the White House, and what's legal to own/use today might become an NFA item tomorrow.

From what I have read there is a group among the atf that is trying to make the current administration look bad on gun rights and feeling a little emboldened at the possibility of a new one . A prime example of the swamp administrators that think they are law makers.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, sassnetguy50 said:

That may not be allowed after the election.  Many proposals have been made including a weight limit on pistols.  After the election, it may pass.

 

This is a perfect example of the lunacy of gun laws. First they tried to ban handguns that were considered too small and easily concealable. Now they want to ban ones that are considered too big! :huh:

 

The whole idea of regulating SBRs is nonsense. They tell us it's okay to have a really small gun and a really large one, but we can't have a medium-sized one without a tax stamp???

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Trigger Mike said:

One of my hesitations about buying an ar15 pistol is that under Obama you could not put the pistol on your shoulder like a rifle,  but under President Trump  you can.  If biden  wins , assuming you can keep it, i imagine the rule will change again.   

 

I am wondering what your thoughts are on that, since there is a chance biden will win.  

Years ago I fired a friend's AR-15 pistol and personally I found it an interesting range toy, but not something I wanted.  It was too big and awkward to aim well compared to a conventional handgun. 

 

Below is a link that goes into the ballistics of the .223/.556 in a short barrel.  I question whether the bullet will even expand or tumble at the lower velocities, something the round needs to do to be an effective self defense weapon.  

 

Link:  http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/223rifle.html

 

On edit: As an aside, comparing the .25 ACP to the .22 LR using a 2" barrel, the .25 ACP generates as much or more muzzle energy then the .22 LR and as designed, will be more reliable as well.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Crooked River Pete, SASS 43485 said:

You can turn a pistol into a rifle than back into a pistol, you cannot turn a rifle into a pistol. Thompson Center won this in the courts with their contender frames that could be either.

That ruling only applied to the particular kit as it was sold to be both.

 

As far as the rest of us... Yes, it has to start as a pistol. And it can be turned back into a pistol. But a pistol can not be built from a rifle.

 

Also when doing the back and forth, sequence is important! Remove the rifle stock before fitting the pistol upper (SBR). Do not add the rifle stock before first removing the pistol upper and re-installing the rifle upper.

 

Worse than this... Absolutely do not buy the pistol upper until you have the parts for the pistol lower if you already have a rifle. Otherwise you have "constructive possession" of an SBR. And when buying the stripped lower, declare it as a pistol, not a rifle on the 4473. This last one leaves out California as all stripped lowers there must be sold as rifles.

 

And if you do not know the history of a stripped lower for the original consumer sale, assume it is/was a rifle. If the feds ever come knocking, something as trivial as what the original purchaser who never built the lower declared on the original 4473 determines what it is today.

 

Start any pistol build with a documented pistol lower.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Badlands Bob #61228 said:

While they are cool and fun to play with, I find them totally worthless for any practical purposes.  No Mall Ninja outfit is complete without one.

But if you were short with small stature, you might find even a collapsing stock too big to fit you. A so-called AR Pistol with an arm brace might fit such a person much better when occasionally and incidentally shouldered. And it would also be safer in their hands.

 

This new attempt to say a gun is too heavy to be a pistol... What if Arnold Schwarzenegger is holding it? Rambo seemed to hold an M-60 one handed at the hip quite well too.

 

To further claim that because someone could add a 100 round drum to an AR pistol (not even manufactured or sold by the gun maker) makes it too heavy to hold one-handed somehow makes it not a pistol because of potential (not actual) weight...

 

Oh, one more thing... This definition that a pistol is intended to be fired one-handed... Really? Intended? I teach basic firearms classes, and I teach a two-handed grip. One-handed shooting is an advanced skill.

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, John Kloehr said:

That ruling only applied to the particular kit as it was sold to be both.

 

As far as the rest of us... Yes, it has to start as a pistol. And it can be turned back into a pistol. But a pistol can not be built from a rifle.

 

Also when doing the back and forth, sequence is important! Remove the rifle stock before fitting the pistol upper (SBR). Do not add the rifle stock before first removing the pistol upper and re-installing the rifle upper.

 

Worse than this... Absolutely do not buy the pistol upper until you have the parts for the pistol lower if you already have a rifle. Otherwise you have "constructive possession" of an SBR. And when buying the stripped lower, declare it as a pistol, not a rifle on the 4473. This last one leaves out California as all stripped lowers there must be sold as rifles.

 

And if you do not know the history of a stripped lower for the original consumer sale, assume it is/was a rifle. If the feds ever come knocking, something as trivial as what the original purchaser who never built the lower declared on the original 4473 determines what it is today.

 

Start any pistol build with a documented pistol lower.

 

WHAT HE SAID ^^^^

 

You can make a rifle from a pistol. That is legal. Not the other way around.

 

Also, if you buy a stripped lower and you ever think you wish to make it into a pistol, do your paperwork as if it is a pistol lower. Do not get your lowers mixed up and install the wrong upper.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, John Kloehr said:

But if you were short with small stature, you might find even a collapsing stock too big to fit you. A so-called AR Pistol with an arm brace might fit such a person much better when occasionally and incidentally shouldered. And it would also be safer in their hands.

 

 

The only reason I can see to opt for the arm brace is to get around the SBR restriction.  I understand that.   I've never seen anyone put an arm brace on a "rifle" AR15 because it fit them better.  There are lots and lots of adjustable stock configurations for the AR15 that would be a better choice if not for the SBR restriction.   I've also never seen anyone on the range actually use the arm brace as an actual arm brace.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Sixgun Sheridan said:

 

This is a perfect example of the lunacy of gun laws. First they tried to ban handguns that were considered too small and easily concealable. Now they want to ban ones that are considered too big! :huh:

 

The whole idea of regulating SBRs is nonsense. They tell us it's okay to have a really small gun and a really large one, but we can't have a medium-sized one without a tax stamp???

Totally agree . It shouldn’t be that way . The problem is what the federal government will do to a citizen who cuts a inch too much off a gun or modifies it to be select fire . Randy Weavers life was ruined . And while I don’t agree with how David Koresh was running things in TX the feds surly made a mess of that and I don’t remember if they even found any modified weapons. And even if they did ? Was it worth it ? Especially when the local sheriff initially told them he had called him in the past and he would willingly come to town to talk to him. I’m pretty much of the opinion that 99% of our gun laws are a waste of resources. I would have no problem with getting rid of the NFA and the 68 GCA 

Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, John Kloehr said:

That ruling only applied to the particular kit as it was sold to be both.

 

As far as the rest of us... Yes, it has to start as a pistol. And it can be turned back into a pistol. But a pistol can not be built from a rifle.

 

Also when doing the back and forth, sequence is important! Remove the rifle stock before fitting the pistol upper (SBR). Do not add the rifle stock before first removing the pistol upper and re-installing the rifle upper.

 

Worse than this... Absolutely do not buy the pistol upper until you have the parts for the pistol lower if you already have a rifle. Otherwise you have "constructive possession" of an SBR. And when buying the stripped lower, declare it as a pistol, not a rifle on the 4473. This last one leaves out California as all stripped lowers there must be sold as rifles.

 

And if you do not know the history of a stripped lower for the original consumer sale, assume it is/was a rifle. If the feds ever come knocking, something as trivial as what the original purchaser who never built the lower declared on the original 4473 determines what it is today.

 

Start any pistol build with a documented pistol lower.

The local ATF office told my FFL that all new AR style lowers are to be marked as “pistol” instead of “frame” on the 4473 because a virgin receiver can be built into one.  Further, if I buy a revolver and a new lower receiver, he has to file the multiple pistol purchase form.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, sassnetguy50 said:

The local ATF office told my FFL that all new AR style lowers are to be marked as “pistol” instead of “frame” on the 4473 because a virgin receiver can be built into one.  Further, if I buy a revolver and a new lower receiver, he has to file the multiple pistol purchase form.

Interesting. I was just in a gun store Friday and a guy was buying a  lower. The clerk asked him "Pistol or long gun" when he was filling out docs for the purchase. I found the question interesting because you really can't build an AR pistol in California any more.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Pat Riot, SASS #13748 said:

Interesting. I was just in a gun store Friday and a guy was buying a  lower. The clerk asked him "Pistol or long gun" when he was filling out docs for the purchase. I found the question interesting because you really can't build an AR pistol in California any more.

A great example of independent interpretation by the ATF agent rather than clear definition and protocols from the ATF.

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Pat Riot, SASS #13748 said:

Interesting. I was just in a gun store Friday and a guy was buying a  lower. The clerk asked him "Pistol or long gun" when he was filling out docs for the purchase. I found the question interesting because you really can't build an AR pistol in California any more.

 

29 minutes ago, sassnetguy50 said:

A great example of independent interpretation by the ATF agent rather than clear definition and protocols from the ATF.

Not ATF, it is California law. All stripped lowers are rifles.

 

@Pat Riot, SASS #13748, your local clerk does not have that option under California law even though there is a box on the 4473 for the designation. Your local clerk made an error under local law. Hopefully since a large number of the new gun buyers are in your state, they might learn more over time and change those laws.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to see the supremacy clause applied to firearm laws.  No additional state restrictions allowed.

I'd like to see carry permits work like a driver's license.  It's valid nationwide.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Badlands Bob #61228 said:

I'd like to see the supremacy clause applied to firearm laws.  No additional state restrictions allowed.

I'd like to see carry permits work like a driver's license.  It's valid nationwide.  

But the powers not granted to the Fed are reserved to the states, and respectively to the people. Though the 14th did change that a bit.

 

Driver's licenses -- which are a privilege and not a right -- are honored among the states due to reciprocity, not Federal mandate.

 

Saying that first since it does bring up an interesting contrast... Carry permits are treated like driver's licenses in that reciprocity agreements determine validity in other states. Yet the R2K&BA is acknowledged in the US constitution and the Fed can not abridge it, and the 14th binds this restriction on the various states.

 

And here we are, with a rogue San Diego judge actually standing up for the people. While somewhat off topic to this thread, his recent ruling re Assault Weapons is a masterpiece!

 

There is another word that I would put before "masterpiece." Rules and etiquette prevent its use as it rhymes with ducking and bucking. But the meaning of that word in this instance would be "awesome!"

Link to post
Share on other sites

personally i think the constitution gives us the right ...as it gives the main stream news and politian's  the right to lie .....to own and keep any firearm ever made including full auto , cannon and artillery but there has been a lawyer that convinced someone to 'do something' as our famous house representative' omar put it , i think its wrong , i understand why , it does not make it right , they are wrong - ATF is wrong in this whole discussion , 

 

i dont need an AR pistol , i have lots of fine pistols that will do what i need done at their range ability and i do care about those outside those parameters , i think its great that some want and own them , i actually remember being infatuated with the german mauser pistols with the stock , and even researched the old colt stocked buntlines once , learned later how ineffective they really were , but hey have at it ,  

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/28/2020 at 1:43 PM, John Kloehr said:

And when buying the stripped lower, declare it as a pistol, not a rifle on the 4473.

 

Start any pistol build with a documented pistol lower.

 

I asked the FFL about that when I bought my lower a couple months ago.  He said he marks them as neither, that way I have the leeway to build whatever I want.  I can't remember the 3rd option, but there was one.  Is that not the right answer? 

 

On 10/28/2020 at 4:39 PM, John Kloehr said:

But the powers not granted to the Fed are reserved to the states, and respectively to the people. Though the 14th did change that a bit.

 

 

 

 

You missed an important part of the 10th. 

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

 

The power to infringe our right to keep and bear arms is clearly prohibited by the constitution.  Since there's nothing about the federal government in that amendment it's obvious this was a general prohibition applying both to the feds and the state governments. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Ramblin Gambler said:

 

I asked the FFL about that when I bought my lower a couple months ago.  He said he marks them as neither, that way I have the leeway to build whatever I want.  I can't remember the 3rd option, but there was one.  Is that not the right answer? ...

“Types of firearms include, but are not limited to: pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun, receiver, frame, and firearms that are neither handguns nor long guns (rifles or shotguns), such as firearms having a pistol grip that expel a shotgun shell (pistol grip firearm) or NFA firearms (machinegun, silencer, short-barreled shotgun, short- barreled rifle, destructive device, or “any other weapon”).”

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Ramblin Gambler said:

 

I asked the FFL about that when I bought my lower a couple months ago.  He said he marks them as neither, that way I have the leeway to build whatever I want.  I can't remember the 3rd option, but there was one.  Is that not the right answer? 

 

 

 

You missed an important part of the 10th. 

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

 

The power to infringe our right to keep and bear arms is clearly prohibited by the constitution.  Since there's nothing about the federal government in that amendment it's obvious this was a general prohibition applying both to the feds and the state governments. 

My understanding is the manufacturer defines if it’s a pistol, rifle, or other.   The ffl can’t change the classification.  I have made sure and purchased only pistol frames for my contender/encore frames so it can be built in any legal configuration.  Would hate to have a rifle frame that would get built as a pistol by accident. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I bought several AR lowers last year, and all were entered into the 4473 as "other". Until it's been built into a complete weapon it isn't anything except a firearm receiver. Of course CA doesn't have to listen because they get to make up their own minds what you intend to do with it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sixgun Sheridan said:

I bought several AR lowers last year, and all were entered into the 4473 as "other". Until it's been built into a complete weapon it isn't anything except a firearm receiver. Of course CA doesn't have to listen because they get to make up their own minds what you intend to do with it.

May you have the FFL install a pistol buffer tube before you take possession or are AR pistols all illegal in CA?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.