All purpose NFA questions thread

[hatchtrikk]

So, uhhh, screw you asshats... this thread has convinced me to go ahead and get the ball rolling to register one of my lowers as a SBR

Two questions though, and they're both pretty much purely hypothetical:
-if I have an AR originally papered as a rifle, then I fill out the paperwork and have it registered as an SBR, can I convert it to an AR pistol? I would assume so since what I would be doing is just removing the buttstock from my SBR, but OTOH no one ever said firearm laws had to make sense. I have a couple AR "virgin" lowers sitting around but all things being equal I'd prefer registering my BCM carbine's lower as my SBR. If registering it as an SBR prevents you from equipping it as a pistol... I'm still going to register my BCM lower. This is just a point of curiosity for me. However...
-if I did so, could I legally carry it under my concealed handgun license in the state of Ohio? Again, an AR pistol is rather impractical as a weapon in a firefight, but I just want to know


The decision to register a lower as an SBR was made prior to taking my meds for my back. The meds make me a little goofy, try to allow for that in your response to the two bullshit questions posted above that were made AFTER the meds kicked in.

Also, I'm no expert, but the rule of thumb that I remember is: 'Once a rifle, always a rifle. A pistol can become rifle, but never pistol again' or some shit like that.

Basically, you can build an AR pistol if the lower is registered as such then later convert it into a rifle with no issue. To convert a registered rifle into a pistol, you must file the appropriate paperwork with the BATFE.

YMMV

[Regular Guy]

http://www.titleii.com/bardwell/law.html

All BATF letters and rulings in one place. You could lose a few days reading all that.

[JTNieman]

This thread would be at least 10x better if people didn't post what they "think" they know, or "what they heard" and instead only posted cited factual statements.

Otherwise this thread is just another opinion column written by the same guys in the gun store who stand around drinking the free coffee and telling customers that Obama is gonna ban their pistol grip shotguns any minute.

[hatchtrikk]

http://www.titleii.com/bardwell/law.html

All BATF letters and rulings in one place. You could lose a few days reading all that.

Whoa


You give good link


Edit:

@James

Only people who work specifically in the NFA branch of the BATFE then? Basically, are you saying that unless you hear info directly from the source regarding NFA law, it's incorrect? I don't know about everyone else, but I use the words, 'I believe' 'I think' I'm pretty sure' or close with 'YMMV' so that people understand that although my advice may be valid, I am not, in fact, currently employed by the BATFE and since NFA laws seem to change almost hourly, it would behoove them find out for themselves before proceeding.

I don't know if your comment was directed towards me, but whether it was or not, we are here to meld minds and learn from one another, right?

[Greg Focker]

So, uhhh, screw you asshats... this thread has convinced me to go ahead and get the ball rolling to register one of my lowers as a SBR

Two questions though, and they're both pretty much purely hypothetical:
-if I have an AR originally papered as a rifle, then I fill out the paperwork and have it registered as an SBR, can I convert it to an AR pistol? I would assume so since what I would be doing is just removing the buttstock from my SBR, but OTOH no one ever said firearm laws had to make sense. I have a couple AR "virgin" lowers sitting around but all things being equal I'd prefer registering my BCM carbine's lower as my SBR. If registering it as an SBR prevents you from equipping it as a pistol... I'm still going to register my BCM lower. This is just a point of curiosity for me. However...
-if I did so, could I legally carry it under my concealed handgun license in the state of Ohio? Again, an AR pistol is rather impractical as a weapon in a firefight, but I just want to know

The decision to register a lower as an SBR was made prior to taking my meds for my back. The meds make me a little goofy, try to allow for that in your response to the two bullshit questions posted above that were made AFTER the meds kicked in.

OK, I spoke with an ATF agent. Here's the deal, an item is not an NFA item until you get a tax stamp. Therefore, it can not be in a NFA configuration. Do not have an upper and a lower together.
As far as having a AR in a pistol configuration, yes, it can be. A pistol is a pistol if it is in a pistol configuration. Now, for the AR 15 configuration you HAVE to have a pistol buffer tube on it. Taking the buttstock off is not rendering the AR into a pistol. If you can still put a buttstock on it, it's a rifle.
So to convert your rifle to a pistol you must put the pistol buffer on.
IDK if an AR-15 pistol is lawful for carry in Ohio. In SC it is not. Here a pistol is defined by weight and dimensions. The AR-15 pistol is not a approved CCW pistol here. Check your laws.

That's what I meant by "have it registered", I'd be waiting until I actually got the tax stamp. Right now I'm not looking to actually "do" anything with an SBR registered lower, but that may change in the future, and this way if I decide I want a shorty AR upper, I'll have already completed the months long waiting game. Call it a $200 insurance policy against going stir crazy waiting for the ATF to approve me if at some point I decide I want an SBR upper.

[Regular Guy]

When you register your lower on the form you must state a NFA configuration. Ex. 10.5" 5.56. After It's registered then you must send in a letter stating different ways it maybe temporarily configured in to the atf. In the mean time if you desire to configure the lower as a pistol, you may. Just don't configure it as a rifle, ever.

[agent-smith]

This thread would be at least 10x better if people didn't post what they "think" they know, or "what they heard" and instead only posted cited factual statements.

Otherwise this thread is just another opinion column written by the same guys in the gun store who stand around drinking the free coffee and telling customers that Obama is gonna ban their pistol grip shotguns any minute.

Unfortunately, when dealing with the ATF it often comes down to what an agent "thinks" the law happens to be.

Search around and you'll multiple instances where people post letters from the ATF giving conflicting answers regarding whether or not "something" is legal.

[JTNieman]

This thread would be at least 10x better if people didn't post what they "think" they know, or "what they heard" and instead only posted cited factual statements.

Otherwise this thread is just another opinion column written by the same guys in the gun store who stand around drinking the free coffee and telling customers that Obama is gonna ban their pistol grip shotguns any minute.

Unfortunately, when dealing with the ATF it often comes down to what an agent "thinks" the law happens to be.

Search around and you'll multiple instances where people post letters from the ATF giving conflicting answers regarding whether or not "something" is legal.

A lot of questions on here are simple, cut and dry, yet are still met with grey-answers or simply -wrong- answers (met later with correction) and this is because people post without -knowing- the reality, or realizing their source is "joe blow gun counter guy" or someone equally as untrustworthy (as evident by the false answers)

If a thread is meant to be a proper and legit Q/A thread, wouldn't it seem to make sense that the A's be vetted? Otherwise this is just bar-talk and bullshitting.

@James
Only people who work specifically in the NFA branch of the BATFE then? Basically, are you saying that unless you hear info directly from the source regarding NFA law, it's incorrect?

Simply put; yes. Absolutely. However, given that it's obviously not viable to restrict it only those employees and judiciaries, the next best thing would be to post direct copies of their word. If summations or interpretations (as 'legalese' often requires) are required, at least post the source legalese for others to vet, confirm, or deny (peer-review) the posts.

I don't know about everyone else, but I use the words, 'I believe' 'I think' I'm pretty sure' or close with 'YMMV' so that people understand that although my advice may be valid, I am not, in fact, currently employed by the BATFE and since NFA laws seem to change almost hourly, it would behoove them find out for themselves before proceeding.

That was kinda my point. If you can only say "I think" and not "I know" then maybe it should be left unsaid, in case you're mistaken, and you further spread dangerous misinformation.

This isn't a thread about the best tent, what's good/bad about Brand-X aftermarket bolt carriers, or why this butt stock won't work on Gun-X. This is a fucking thread dispensing legal advice. Prudence need be the governing virtue here. If there's any thread around here, I think the "noise to signal ratio" here needs to be toned as far to 'signal' as possible. If it means someone's question goes unanswered for 4-5 days, until someone with a real answer can reply, so be it. Or maybe it means that the people who HAVE to reply to a forum thread ASAP take 5-10 more minutes to research their answer.

Just my opinion. This is a SRS BSNS thread, guys. SRSLY. 4 SRS.

[JTNieman]

This thread would be at least 10x better if people didn't post what they "think" they know, or "what they heard" and instead only posted cited factual statements.

Otherwise this thread is just another opinion column written by the same guys in the gun store who stand around drinking the free coffee and telling customers that Obama is gonna ban their pistol grip shotguns any minute.

Unfortunately, when dealing with the ATF it often comes down to what an agent "thinks" the law happens to be.

Search around and you'll multiple instances where people post letters from the ATF giving conflicting answers regarding whether or not "something" is legal.

I'm the first one to make a "Don't shoot my dog, bro!" joke, but PRACTICALLY speaking, if we're going to be gun owners living within the system, we have to do our due diligence in performing our best efforts to work within the letter of the law. It's all we can do. If your attitude is exhausted into action, we'd just sit around without guns, because obviously any ATF agent can, at some point, do as they please and say you're wrong.

Practicality, though, dictates that we do as best we can within the laws we're presented with. You can either work within these concepts by reading the letter of the law on books, the clarification letters written since, and also in actual active precedent through enforcement. If your posts on the internet contains none of those three, then it's worth the paper it's written on. I think maybe this thread could use a little more clout, is all, else it's just a bunch of bullshitting. Yes, you may feel like you can trust your answer, because you know you... but I, nor any other average user, don't know y'all from Adam, so back your shit up, please.

That's all I got. I'm done.

[hatchtrikk]

I agree wholeheartedly with you James. You have a very logical thought process.

[agent-smith]

This thread would be at least 10x better if people didn't post what they "think" they know, or "what they heard" and instead only posted cited factual statements.

Otherwise this thread is just another opinion column written by the same guys in the gun store who stand around drinking the free coffee and telling customers that Obama is gonna ban their pistol grip shotguns any minute.

Unfortunately, when dealing with the ATF it often comes down to what an agent "thinks" the law happens to be.

Search around and you'll multiple instances where people post letters from the ATF giving conflicting answers regarding whether or not "something" is legal.

I'm the first one to make a "Don't shoot my dog, bro!" joke, but PRACTICALLY speaking, if we're going to be gun owners living within the system, we have to do our due diligence in performing our best efforts to work within the letter of the law. It's all we can do. If your attitude is exhausted into action, we'd just sit around without guns, because obviously any ATF agent can, at some point, do as they please and say you're wrong.

Practicality, though, dictates that we do as best we can within the laws we're presented with. You can either work within these concepts by reading the letter of the law on books, the clarification letters written since, and also in actual active precedent through enforcement. If your posts on the internet contains none of those three, then it's worth the paper it's written on. I think maybe this thread could use a little more clout, is all, else it's just a bunch of bullshitting. Yes, you may feel like you can trust your answer, because you know you... but I, nor any other average user, don't know y'all from Adam, so back your shit up, please.

That's all I got. I'm done.

No arguments at all; it is still frustrating.

If I have any questions regarding Title 2 firearms I rely on my attorney and I'll no longer attempt to provide any answers for others.

[Regular Guy]

ATF engraving and marking instructions. If you're in SC I found a place that is more than happy to engraved for NFA purposes.
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/guides/impo ... rview.html

[Liff]

This thread would be at least 10x better if people didn't post what they "think" they know, or "what they heard" and instead only posted cited factual statements.

To a very large extent, you are right. Also, to a very large extent, you are wrong.

What about suppressors? When someone asks what a good suppressor, wouldn't people want to know what someone heard from first hand experience? So someone can seek an objective opinion and get one. No facts involved, just opinion.

I am 99% sure that you meant very specifically in reference to regulation pertaining to the NFA and what the ATF thinks of that. And I agree. Except when negative facts are involved. Good background: http://www.phil.gu.se/gunnar/Negative%20Facts.pdf . In case you are not familiar with a negative fact, here is an example: There are no hippos in Lake Baikal.

The fun with that negative fact is that you can not reference it in any way. If you doubt this, please cite a scientific study that shows that indeed there are no hippos in Lake Baikal. The point here is that not everything can be a 'cited factual statement'. Back on topic of this thread, how about an M16 bolt carrier in a semi auto AR? We all "know" that a person can run an M16 bolt carrier in an AR, anyone want to find the citation for that? How about using an M16 hammer in a semi auto AR? They are different, is that still legal? How about putting a 24 inch upper on an AR pistol? Can anyone cite an ATF ruling that that is allowable?

And then what should we do when regulations or the interpretations of those regulations change? I am pretty sure most of us know the rules for importing firearms have changed once or twice in the history of the United States, so what do we do then? At different times we would have more than one cited factual statements, and one of which is wrong.

On topic again, I moved from Arizona to Washington. I asked an ATF Special Agent about the SBR rules. I was told that the registered part is the receiver, and that that receiver is always an SBR. So if I took my SBRs to Washington, no matter the upper, that I would be in possession of an SBR. Even if it was just a stripped lower, it was still an SBR, just like a machine gun. Now there is a link from the ATF that says it is only an SBR when in SBR configuration. What I was told was wrong, but I posted it, so I was wrong.

The point I am getting at is that as far as I know, ZS is not a legal website. No one should come here for legal advise, and not everyone can afford that advise. So people come here to discuss issues with backpacks, stored food, financial advise, reloading questions, and in the case of this thread, All purpose NFA questions. Not every question can be answered with a 'cited factual statement' (Citation needed).

But with all discussion forums, the exchange of ideas is valuable. And to inhibit that exchange is not always good. Past and present experiences of people who have been there and done that are valuable, even if they can't be cited. This is an internet forum, and all of the information and opinions that everyone gets here is worth exactly what everyone paid to obtain that information.

If I have any questions regarding Title 2 firearms I rely on my attorney and I'll no longer attempt to provide any answers for others.

I am sorry to hear this. The more viewpoints expressed, where people are free to be wrong, is a valuable thing. Otherwise we are a bunch of blind men trying to discern the nature of an elephant. (Citation needed.)

[agent-smith]

If I have any questions regarding Title 2 firearms I rely on my attorney and I'll no longer attempt to provide any answers for others.

I am sorry to hear this. The more viewpoints expressed, where people are free to be wrong, is a valuable thing. Otherwise we are a bunch of blind men trying to discern the nature of an elephant. (Citation needed.)

Well, what I meant is that I won't be answering any questions unless I take the time to find a 100% reliable source to cite.

The problem is that answering NFA questions with 100% certainty is VERY time consuming.

[Liff]

Ah, I understand. Right on then, thanks for the clarification.

[JTNieman]

@Liff
It's my understanding that this forum thread was for the asking of legal or technical questions regarding NFA processes, freedoms, and restrictions, and -not- simply who has the most peachy-keen NFA-related gear. I haven't read the -whole- thread, probably, but it seems like the law was the concern here. Hence... no opinions should be levied.

Your negative-fact issue is a non-issue. You can do anything you want that isn't forbidden by law. That's the study. That's all you need to know.

As for laws changing... oh well, that's life. It's your own fucking problem if you read 30 year old statements and assume they're still valid. ZS isn't your lawyer. I just think that the posters here could do their best to not be wrong.

Why are you even arguing? I failed to see one positive suggestion to correct the problems you foresee. The exchange of ideas isn't -always- good. Some people have Really Stupid Shit to say here. That shit should be curb stomped. End of story. I can't believe you're actually advocating that we allow people to spew whatever unsupportable bullshit they want, simply because this forum is free to read. GDIAF

[Biggin]

ban their pistol grip shotguns any minute.

As someone who works behind the counter, I'd be ok with banning PGO shotguns.....

[Regular Guy]

Deleted due to ATF clarification.

[Liff]

@James,

I tried hard in the diction that I used in my post to be reasonable and non-threatening to anyone. Sorry if that was taken wrong.

Why are you even arguing? I failed to see one positive suggestion to correct the problems you foresee. The exchange of ideas isn't -always- good. Some people have Really Stupid Shit to say here. That shit should be curb stomped. End of story. I can't believe you're actually advocating that we allow people to spew whatever unsupportable bullshit they want, simply because this forum is free to read. GDIAF

I very much agree that, "Some people have Really Stupid Shit to say here." Some people even tell others who disagree with them to, "Go Die In A Fire." I absolutely agree with you that when we get trolls here who attack someone else with the insult to Go Die In A Fire that, "That shit should be curb stomped." "End of story."



So if you want a positive suggestion from me, here it is: Relax. Take a break. Realize that there is a human on the other end of the keyboard. And maybe, if I may also suggest, do not tell people to go die in a fire.

I am thinking as the title suggests, that this is an All purpose NFA questions thread. Not just a "Legal questions only NFA thread". I suggest that we allow the thread to remain "All purpose" as the title suggests and welcoming for people to ask questions about anything even if the question is downright stupid to someone who has been around the NFA world for just a little while.

[JTNieman]

You're right, this thread should be allowed to continue as a bastion of unreliability, unaccountability, and general bullshitting.

I retract my suggestion for you to DIAF, and replace it with a friendly EABOD.

I don't understand how -anyone- could argue -against- a friendly suggestion that people try to be more factual in their friendly legal advice, rather than spreading misinformation, rumors, and bullshit. I'm fucking done with this shit. This forum is simply becoming way too much anymore to even briefly monitor.

When confronted with a suggestion to favor factual posts, less often, instead of spewing hordes of posts off the top of your heads, which are often wrong, or at best helpless, I find it all too common that people will instead fight to turn every thread into a chat thread, further degrading any value that could be obtained.

[TDW586]

EDIT: Was kinda harsh. James, chill the fuck out, man. Maybe you need to take a break from teh interwebz for a while.

[Big B]

I get what you're saying James, I hate it when people just regurgitate a bunch of BS here that they "heard from a guy who knows a guy". But this is an internet discussion forum, not a consultation with an attorney. Anything read here, or any other forum discussing NFA items and process, should really be double checked with an attorney who deals with NFA items, the ATF, or a credible dealer.

Calm down dude

[Trebor]

Okay, confirmed via ATF letters.
1. If you buy an unassembled AR-15 lower receiver you can assemble it however you wish ie; a pistol or a rifle.
2. You may never convert that pistol into a rifle. You may never convert the rifle into a pistol. You may convert either into an NFA item.
"

Yes, but remember that newer ATF rulings change the validity of older rulings or guidance letters.

The ATF recently came out with a clarification on the whole "Pistol to a rifle and back to a pistol" issue. That would overule what they said earlier in a letter. (I don't have a link handy, but it was all over the web a couple weeks ago).

Just be careful what ATF letters or rules guidelines you are relying on is all. Make sure you have the most up-to-date info in case things have changed

[Regular Guy]

Okay, confirmed via ATF letters.
1. If you buy an unassembled AR-15 lower receiver you can assemble it however you wish ie; a pistol or a rifle.
2. You may never convert that pistol into a rifle. You may never convert the rifle into a pistol. You may convert either into an NFA item.
"

Yes, but remember that newer ATF rulings change the validity of older rulings or guidance letters.

The ATF recently came out with a clarification on the whole "Pistol to a rifle and back to a pistol" issue. That would overule what they said earlier in a letter. (I don't have a link handy, but it was all over the web a couple weeks ago).

Just be careful what ATF letters or rules guidelines you are relying on is all. Make sure you have the most up-to-date info in case things have changed

If I get a chance, I'll call them again to ask about this. The last I heard was a pistol is a pistol if it's in a pistol configuration and a rifle is a rifle if it's in the rifle configuration. Which means you can switch them back and forth however, I have not seen this in writing so it's just hearsay.

Confirmed via ATF clarifcation.