My current build is going to be an SBR with a 10.5" barrel.... while the paperwork is getting done, i want to make the stripped reciever into a pistol so i can at least shoot it.  i have an excess of carbine buffer tubes so i want to make the pistol with a non-pistol buffer tube.  i know there's legality issues here as it could be construed as intent to make an SBR, especially since i do have spare buttstocks.  So the plan was to make two small tackwelds at the end of the buffer tube where the buttstock would slide on.  So if for any wild reason, a LEO shows up at my house one day wanting to randomly check my weapons lol, i have my backside covered.  Just wanted to hear everyone's thoughts and opinions

This has been argued on this board for years.  Don't expect a definative answer.  I say play it safe and get a pistol buffer.

Not to thread jack but while I'm here... I have a question too.

To build an AR pistol do you need any special paperwork?

Roll the dice and send the ATF a letter asking what they think.
If the reply says no just buy a pistol tube.
If they say yes keep a copy of the letter with you until you get your Form 1 back.

Or just say fuck it and send in the Form 1, as the wait for the letter will be just as long.

First off, no one can just come to your house and ask to inspect your fire arms with out a search warrant.  In order for the authorities to get a search warrant you have to have committed something illegal.

If you add two welds to the end of the RE take stops the stock from being installed you are GTG.  You can fill the adjustment holes with epoxy and be GTG, wrap the RE with para cord and be GTG(maybe).  ATF&E isn't going to split hairs about the minor BS, UNLESS you have also committed other ATF&E violations.  If you have, then they pile everything on they can think of.

Besides, ATF&E is way too bust hiding emails and looking for guns down Mexico way to worry about RE's.

I've been down this road before, and went ahead and did the pistol tube until the stamp arrived.  They can be bought for around $20-30 bucks, and guarantees you're in compliance.

Dont use any extension capable of taking a telestock stock of any kind....there is something called contructive intent.I know they make a atctical entry or stubby stock that takes a carbine spring and buffer but the extension is made like a standard stocks extension so maybe that with the threads on the rear dremeled out so you cant attach the stock should fly while aloowing you to use standard recoil parts.

No.

.........and we also have an AR Pistol subforum here: http://www.ar15.com/forums/f_3/122_AR_Pistols.html

Consider the rules for permanently attaching a flash suppressor to make a barrel 16”.
Do you really think a couple of small tacks would cut it?

Topic Moved

The whole "constructive intent" boogy man discussion really doesn't take into account that you can legally go from pistol to rifle and back to pistol.  

So if it is legal to do this, and it is per the BATF, it is perfectly acceptable to have a stock laying around that can be installed on the pistol.  It doesn't become illegal or a crime unless you install the stock prior to removing the short barrel and installing a barrel of sixteen inches or longer.

I don't understand why this is such a difficult concept to grasp.  A carbine buffer tube on a pistol is completely legal in every respect as a buffer tube is not a stock.  Even if you have a stock body capable of being installed on that same buffer tube you are legal, assuming you also have a barrel of sixteen inches or more available for your conversion.  If the constructive intent police ever come knocking, sure you have intent to legally convert your pistol to a rifle and back to a pistol.

But as someone pointed out above, this debate just won't die.  If we continue to abide by "stricter than the law" self imposed restrictions, how long before the legal line in the sand is moved forward.  And then people will say well now "to be on the safe side", let's abide by these new, stricter than the law, self imposed regulations.  I just don't get it.  Keep up to date on laws and BATF decisions, follow the law and forget the bs.

And in short order someone will be along to chastise me and tell me how wrong I am and what about that guy that got busted blah blah blah....

eta: The preceding should not be considered as legal advice as I am not a lawyer.....I just happen to be able to read and comprehend the words.

I can see why the question would be asked, but I would think it would be difficult to prove "constructive intent" or "constructive possession," that seems to be into the realm of the thought police.  How can that be proven beyond reasonable doubt unless they have incriminating evidence (you bragged to someone or on a message board about what you "could" do to add a stock, etc.)

And really, if you have a cover or paracord over a carbine buffer, it is no more readily convertible to accept a stock than simply unscrewing a pistol buffer tube and installing a separate carbine tube, which you stated you already have.  OR installing any stock that will attach directly to a pistol buffer tube (ACE for example).

It is just a receiver extension (buffer tube) ... nothing special. There's no law or official opinion that says you cannot use any specific receiver extension (buffer tube) on any AR pistol.

I would just get a pistol buffer tube so you don't have to explain/defend yourself. I have an extra one with foam on it from the Spike's pistol I SBRed, but do not know where it is. If I can find it, I will let you know and you can send it back when your stamp comes in.

Quoted:




I completely agree, i have read an argument on this topic before but it was mostly badgering.  Just wanted to get some fresh ideas. i like how you put it though, and you're right.  i think i'll just throw some 550 cord on it and call it a day. plus i have so many spare parts layin around it wouldn't matter.  appreciate all the opinions and input guys.

This is the route I went too- most officers aren't very up on gun laws so it's a cheap and easy way to show them and the average range Fudd that your gun is legal.  While I could go through all the hassle of trying to educate them, it's not worth my time in most cases.  I'd rather be shooting or on my way.

550 works for waiting on a stamp.

http://i48.tinypic.com/2zsz3sy.jpg

What "laws" are you guys referring to? There are no laws that specify what receiver extension can and cannot be used.

You guys are probably referring to someone's opinion at the BATF? Other than some person's opinion ... there is no law.

Someone's opinion at the BATF? You really have no idea how the ATF and the FTB work and what their opinions really are.





The Firearms Technology Branch (
) provides expert technical support to
, other Federal agencies, State and local law enforcement, the firearms industry, Congress, and the general public.





This Branch is also responsible for the technical determination
concerning types of firearms approved for importation into the United
States. Further,
provides the U.S. Department of
Justice, State prosecutors’ offices, district attorneys’ offices, and
military courts with expert firearms testimony. This testimony includes
the identification and origin of firearms and other matters relating to
firearms and the firearms industry, and
is responsible for rendering opinions regarding the classification of suspected illegal firearms and newly designed firearms.





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).






 

This, as I have argued for years the BATF is smart enough to know that uppers are easily swapped. If in fact they were worried about it there would be a regulation stating the exact tube to be used on a pistol build. Anyone who has a rifle and a pistol could throw together a SBR in about a minute.

Great post!  Can you point to what RandyStacyE was actually referring to?  I can't find a reference to buffer tubes in the official ATF Laws, Regulations and Rulings page.  And I can't find the official Opinions page.  Are you sure opinions are law?

Anyone with a hacksaw and a rifle can make a short barreled rifle in about 25 seconds.

You will not find a reference to "buffer tube". In the BATF letters they refer to it as a 'receiver extension'. Their opinion is that the receiver extension is a necessary part of the weapon in order to function and is in NO way a stock. Receiver extensions are in no way designed to facilitate firing the weapon from the shoulder. Modifying a receiver extension to facilitate firing the weapon from the shoulder or using a receiver extension that was designed to facilitate firing the weapon from the shoulder would classify an AR pistol as an unregistered SBR.

The BATF enforces their opinion as though it is law. You can find MANY BATF letters collected & posted here. It has been said that these letters which state their 'opinion' do not necessarily reflect the 'official opinion' of the BATF, but merely the opinion of the agent that responded to your letter at that time. So what 'officially' do we have to go by? Just the law and for those who are interested in the BATF agent 'opinion letters' ... have at them. Read them and use your best judgment. Many were scared to use a Magpul angled foregrip, but then the BATF said they are not "vertical/perpendicular" therefore they are ok to use. When in doubt don't ... or trust the opinion of the BATF guy who's opinion was that angled foregrips are ok to use. There are many more BATF 'opinions' about similar topics an no 'official rule' written in stone because there is no law that specifies. For this reason many choose to NOT install an angled foregrip.

Much like the Federal Income Tax. There is absolutely no law in existence that states that the average Joe must file, but millions voluntarily file. There are actually laws that state that you do NOT have to file if you do not believe that you must.

There is absolutely no law that states that one must fill out a W-9 tax form or that one must ask someone to fill one out. There are laws that clearly state that you cannot be penalized for not filling one out and cannot be penalized for not requesting people to fill them out.

The list goes on & on.

I've posted my reference to my position. Please post yours. Please show me ONE letter that states it is not the offical opinion of the ATF. You still haven't got the foggest idea of how those "opinions" are determined. It is not "some" agent that answers the questions and states "his opinion". It is the FTB that is a whole agency unto itself that researches the questions and renders it's decision based on case law, legislative actions, US code, CGA, NFA...  Very much as a Judge renders his opinion on cases brought to his court. These ATF letters are very much as valid as a Judges decision.
Are they always right? No. Just like all Judges findings are correct, that is why there are appellate courts. But the fact remains that the decision the ATF renders is every bit as legal and binding as a Judges decision. Both can be overturned but is is rarely the case, and it is never overturned on a whim.
As for your tax BS please respond to the following:
USC Title 26 › Subtitle F › Chapter 61 › Subchapter A › Part II › Subpart A › § 6011
(a) General rule




When required by regulations prescribed by the Secretary any person made liable for any tax imposed by this title, or with respect to the collection thereof, shall make a return or statement according to the forms and regulations prescribed by the Secretary. Every person required to make a return or statement shall include therein the information required by such forms or regulations.
USC Title 26 › Subtitle F › Chapter 61 › Subchapter A › Part II › Subpart B › § 6012
(a) General rule




Returns with respect to income taxes under subtitle A shall be made by the following:




(1)




(A) Every individual having for the taxable year gross income which equals or exceeds the exemption amount.
There are many more laws like these but I'm sure you'll just insist that the United States Codes are not "law".
Good luck with that argument.
eta: As far as the "laws that state that you do NOT have to file if you do not believe that you must" Please post a link to these too. But you may want to look at Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192 (1991)  John Cheek himself was charged with six counts of willfully failing to file Federal income tax returns under 26 U.S.C. § 7203 for 1980, 1981, 1983, 1984, 1985 and 1986. He was also charged with tax evasion under 26 U.S.C. § 7201 for years 1980, 1981, and 1983. John Cheek was convicted, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit upheld the conviction. The conviction was reversed by the Supreme Court, but it was based on a
error made in instructions to the jury in the original trial, not
because Cheek was not guilty.
1. A genuine, good faith belief that one is not violating the
Federal tax law based on a misunderstanding caused by the complexity of
the tax law (e.g., the complexity of the statute itself) is a defense to
a charge of "willfulness", even though that belief is irrational or
unreasonable.





2. A belief that the Federal income tax is unconstitutional is not a
misunderstanding caused by the complexity of the tax law, and is not a
defense to a charge of "willfulness", even if that belief is genuine and
is held in good faith.





But then again this is only the Supreme Courts opinion right?





Oh, and as far as Cheek goes, the Supreme Court granted him a re-trial in which he was found guilty. He had to pay all his payments on tax due, interest and penalties to the IRS and spent a year and a day in prison. He is now a convicted felon.












 

I hope it didn't take you long to write all that stuff for your sake.

So long story short, just as a simple example ... one day before the all mighty BATF offered their opinion (only after having been asked in writing) that a cane foot is ok to be placed on the end of a receiver extension, it was illegal by a law that doesn't exist?

My ONLY question is where's the law? Oh ... they change it at will as people ask for the all mighty's permission.

Watch this video starting at 10:00 up until 44:00 with regard to the illegality of the income tax. Don't be stubborn, just watch the damn thing and if you think you can call BS on it then PM me about it because it doesn't belong here and that I admit.

oops

What the hell are you talking about? How are you trying to give an example in the from of a question?


Are you trying to say that because a question was answered that somehow means that it was illegal beforehand?

Do you think asking about the legality of something is akin to asking permission?





I resend my opinion that you don't know how the ATF works, it is very apparent from your posts that you don't have a clue as to how anything actually works.


You can go back to watching your cartoons now, a intelligent discussion with you is quite simply irrealizable.
 

edit, it just isn't worth my time.
 

While I'm watching Sponge Bob, watch that video

That video is 14 years old, I've seen it. See my post about Cheek v US. This was one of the augments he used in his defense. He lost, case closed.

By the way where is the references I asked for to back up your :law: claims?



I give you several references of actual case law and you counter with a youtube conspiracy crackpot video? Well if its on the internet it must be true.
 

You are missing the point entirely I'll take you step by step.

The OP was asking if it is ok to use a regular receiver extension on an AR pistol.

People began talking about some law.

I asked "what law"? There is no law.

Seeing how there is no law, someone (in the past) had to be the first to write the BATF and ask, "is it ok to use a regular receiver extension on my AR pistol"? The BATF's replies, "yes you can, a receiver extension is not a stock and does not facilitate firing the pistol from the shoulder". That was the BATF's opinion.

My point was ... was it illegal to use a regular receiver extension prior to receiving the OPINION from the BATF? How could it be illegal because there IS NO LAW that says you cannot.

What if they said, "no it is not ok". Well golly gee ... that would be enforcing their opinion as though it is law (even though there was no law prior to giving their opinion). You may say that their opinion IS law ... whatever. Hopefully now you understand.

It is you that is failing to see the point. Of course it was not illegal before the answer to the question. If it was the answer would not have been no. If the response was yes then it is not because they are making a law where no law previously existed. A yes answer would mean that according to the law as it stands it is not legal to do.
The law may not be a clear as saying "you may not use a standard buffer tube on an AR pistol" but may be something along the lines of "being in possession or control of parts capable of being assembled as a..." which would then pertain to the question of using the tube in question.
Therefore the illegality would not be in the use of the tube for a pistol but rather in being in control of the parts capable of being assembled as a...
Which leads to it being illegal to use the tube on a pistol where no actual law stating that exists.
I am not saying this law is real, it is just to illustrate a point.
Another example: It is a fact  that a SBR is not a SBR unless complete.

However a person is in possession of a SBR if they have a short barrel upper and
only a rifle even if that rifle has a legal 16" barreled upper attached
to it. (US v. Kent 11c 97-8425 5-4-99). So now how can that be if a no SBR actually existed?
 

 

Got my personalized letter from the Tech Branch.  100% legal w/o a buttstock.

There is no question that it is legal. Some people simply choose to pay the $25 so there is no question.

Legal doesn't always mean advisable. It's 100% legal to wear a tee shirt emblazoned with White Power in day-glo block letters while taking a casual midnight stroll through the streets of South Central L.A. too. But that's probably not the best idea either.