AR Sponsor
Posted: 10/10/2011 6:06:18 AM EDT
|
I hope I am not dragging out an old thread.
I am wondering as someone new to the pistol arena, is there a buttstock that adapts to both pistol and carbine role with just the attachment of a should section? For example, the Ace SOPMOD stock basically looks like a foam wrapped buffer tube with a stubby shoulder assembly on the end. If that assembly can be removed or attached depending on what upper you have on it, that would be great. Or would it? |
| Bad idea legally speaking. A standard carbine buffer tube would work just fine for what you're suggesting. Just pull the stock off, takes a couple seconds. ATF isn't going to like that though. There's a reason pistol buffer tubes are built so that it's not easy to install a stock on them. |
|
http://i834.photobucket.com/albums/zz267/edmateo50/hk416c_03-tfb.jpg
While probably ideal for a small PDW/sbr. The HK 416 PDW version is the best I've seen. I really don't see it working too well in a more traditional carbine role. As far as I know, it is not commercially available. |
|
Quoted:
Bad idea legally speaking. A standard carbine buffer tube would work just fine for what you're suggesting. Just pull the stock off, takes a couple seconds. ATF isn't going to like that though. There's a reason pistol buffer tubes are built so that it's not easy to install a stock on them. The frowning upon the std. carbine tube is typical, but isn't illegal. The real problems start when you have an extra buttstock in drawer/bag/box lying around so it could be installed in a moments notice, this is when constructive intent begins. |
|
Quoted:
Bad idea legally speaking. A standard carbine buffer tube would work just fine for what you're suggesting. Just pull the stock off, takes a couple seconds. ATF isn't going to like that though. There's a reason pistol buffer tubes are built so that it's not easy to install a stock on them. Posted by lastrites: The frowning upon the std. carbine tube is typical, but isn't illegal. The real problems start when you have an extra buttstock in drawer/bag/box lying around so it could be installed in a moments notice, this is when constructive intent begins. It's only a problem if you're getting arrested by the ATF at home and they have a search warrant and they confiscate all your gun parts. ATF does not have ESP or remote viewing abilities. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Bad idea legally speaking. A standard carbine buffer tube would work just fine for what you're suggesting. Just pull the stock off, takes a couple seconds. ATF isn't going to like that though. There's a reason pistol buffer tubes are built so that it's not easy to install a stock on them. Posted by lastrites: The frowning upon the std. carbine tube is typical, but isn't illegal. The real problems start when you have an extra buttstock in drawer/bag/box lying around so it could be installed in a moments notice, this is when constructive intent begins. It's only a problem if you're getting arrested by the ATF at home and they have a search warrant and they confiscate all your gun parts. ATF does not have ESP or remote viewing abilities. Don't forget about posting it on ARFCOM. OP, what you're describing is an unregistered SBR. $250k fine, 10 years in the slammer. 'Course, what with that recent ATF letter, you can put a long barrel on it, then the stock, and as long as the OAL is greater than 26", you're legal! Best way is to pay the tax and get the stamp. |
|
Just to be clear on my end. I found these photos on either this forum or one like this one. This would only be legal on a fully auto PDW .mil type gun or an SBR. Below is AAC's new 300 BLK. I believe it also has a pistol length gas system and buffer tube
http://i834.photobucket.com/albums/zz267/edmateo50/tapatalk_1318287995648.jpg http://i834.photobucket.com/albums/zz267/edmateo50/tapatalk_1318287983381.jpg |
|
Quoted:
http://i834.photobucket.com/albums/zz267/edmateo50/hk416c_03-tfb.jpg While probably ideal for a small PDW/sbr. The HK 416 PDW version is the best I've seen. I really don't see it working too well in a more traditional carbine role. As far as I know, it is not commercially available. While not exactly the same, this company makes a similar buttstock, and they do sell them. It doesn't say on their website, but they will sell them individually, I think for around $200 (but don't quote me). Supposedly, it will work on a regular lower. http://www.lokiweaponsystems.com/products/lwsf-gat-rifle/ |
|
Yes, I know it's an SBR. I like it! Goosie give it up, details, lots of details please... 
Forend? Can? Buffer tube/Stock assy? |
|
Nordic makes a similar sliding stock for bufferless or .22 AR's, I've got one of the first run and it's nice.
Nordic Stock Thread Here |
|
If you have an extra 16" barrel around, then an ar pistol with a carbine milspec buffer tube may be attached to the pistol and a stock in your pocket.
check out this letter |
|
Quoted: Bad idea legally speaking. A standard carbine buffer tube would work just fine for what you're suggesting. Just pull the stock off, takes a couple seconds. ATF isn't going to like that though. There's a reason pistol buffer tubes are built so that it's not easy to install a stock on them. Yeah, I have an AR pistol and its imperative to me that the buffer tube is NOT able to accept any stock so that I never run afoul of the law. I am NOT trying to get into any heat with the .gov, all my stuff is legal and above board, and its of utmost importance to me that it stays that way. |
|
Quoted: If you have an extra 16" barrel around, then an ar pistol with a carbine milspec buffer tube may be attached to the pistol and a stock in your pocket. check out this letter You seem to conveniently overlooking this paragraph from the letter in your link: "Although shoulder stocks may be attached to certain receiver extensions, conventional receiver extensions as described above do not constitute shoulder stocks. Accordingly, any conventional AR-15 receiver extension (buffer tube) may be utilized to assemble an AR-15 pistol. We caution however, that possessing a buttstock that could readily be installed on your pistol could constitute possession of a short barreled rifle." |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
If you have an extra 16" barrel around, then an ar pistol with a carbine milspec buffer tube may be attached to the pistol and a stock in your pocket. check out this letter You seem to conveniently overlooking this paragraph from the letter in your link: "Although shoulder stocks may be attached to certain receiver extensions, conventional receiver extensions as described above do not constitute shoulder stocks. Accordingly, any conventional AR-15 receiver extension (buffer tube) may be utilized to assemble an AR-15 pistol. We caution however, that possessing a buttstock that could readily be installed on your pistol could constitute possession of a short barreled rifle." I read the letter asking for the opinion. The writer gives a scenario where he says, "I intend to possess all of the parts to readily convert the firearm from a pistol to firearm and rifle." The reply letter from the atf says, "the above described scenario is lawful." The warning from the atf does not say it is unlawful to have the parts, only that it "COULD" be unlawful. You seem to be conveniently overlooking the fact that it is legal to have a m4 buffer tube on a pistol, a stock which can fit on that receiver extension, and a 16 inch barreled upper, all next to each other. The possession of a gun could be illegal if carried. Carrying while robbing a bank is illegal. Carrying while threatening someone is illegal. Not all instances of carry are illegal which is why the atf used the word "COULD". If they meant to say it was illegal in all instances they would have used the word "IS". |
|
It's the "could" part that comes back and bites you in the ass. The ATF says could because they do not judge. If it a clear violation of the NFA or GCA they will say it is a violation of the act, they will not say it is illegal, that is for the courts to decide. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: It's the "could" part that comes back and bites you in the ass. The ATF says could because they do not judge, that is for the courts. The letter asks if the parts may be possessed together and the response says yes. They have said that for the past 36 years that I've been building and collecting ARs. It's not a new answer. They have also always said it may be possession of a SBR. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It's the "could" part that comes back and bites you in the ass. The ATF says could because they do not judge, that is for the courts. The letter asks if the parts may be possessed together and the response says yes. They have said that for the past 36 years that I've been building and collecting ARs. It's not a new answer. They have also always said it may be possession of a SBR. Because if the stock is attached to the pistol with a barrel of less than 16 inch it would then be illegal. That is where the word "could" comes in. If the stock is not attached to a pistol with a barrel of less than 16 inches the "could" doesn't come into play. If the stock is possessed along with a pistol with a barrel less than 16 inches and another upper or 16" + barrel which may be placed on that upper then it is okay. If possessed without an upper that has a 16 inch barrel, or without a 16" barrel capable of being installed on the pistol upper it could be constructive possession or intent. |
|
The clarified position issued a few months ago that supersedes all previous opinion letters is that you can have an AR pistol and a kit of parts to convert it, temporarily, into a rifle with a barrel of over 16" without requiring NFA registration.
I think the only way .gov could successfully construe constructive possession would be if you had a butt that could fit on the receiver extension of the pistol that was not being put to licit use. That was what was argued in the sucessiful prosecution of the guy who had the extra commando upper. |
|
Quoted: "We Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: It's the "could" part that comes back and bites you in the ass. The ATF says could because they do not judge, that is for the courts. The letter asks if the parts may be possessed together and the response says yes. They have said that for the past 36 years that I've been building and collecting ARs. It's not a new answer. They have also always said it may be possession of a SBR. Because if the stock is attached to the pistol with a barrel of less than 16 inch it would then be illegal. That is where the word "could" comes in. If the stock is not attached to a pistol with a barrel of less than 16 inches the "could" doesn't come into play. If the stock is possessed along with a pistol with a barrel less than 16 inches and another upper or 16" + barrel which may be placed on that upper then it is okay. If possessed without an upper that has a 16 inch barrel, or without a 16" barrel capable of being installed on the pistol upper it could be constructive possession or intent. caution however, that possessing a buttstock that could readily be installed on your pistol could constitute possession of a short barreled rifle." This clearly states that the possession alone is enough for the possible possession of a SBR. It has nothing to do with if it is installed, that is clearly a violation. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
"We caution however, that possessing a buttstock that could readily be installed on your pistol could
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It's the "could" part that comes back and bites you in the ass. The ATF says could because they do not judge, that is for the courts. The letter asks if the parts may be possessed together and the response says yes. They have said that for the past 36 years that I've been building and collecting ARs. It's not a new answer. They have also always said it may be possession of a SBR. Because if the stock is attached to the pistol with a barrel of less than 16 inch it would then be illegal. That is where the word "could" comes in. If the stock is not attached to a pistol with a barrel of less than 16 inches the "could" doesn't come into play. If the stock is possessed along with a pistol with a barrel less than 16 inches and another upper or 16" + barrel which may be placed on that upper then it is okay. If possessed without an upper that has a 16 inch barrel, or without a 16" barrel capable of being installed on the pistol upper it could be constructive possession or intent. constitute possession of a short barreled rifle." This clearly states that the possession alone is enough for the possible possession of a SBR. It has nothing to do with if it is installed, that is clearly a violation. Why doesn't the wording say, "possession of a stock which may be readily installed on a pistol constitutes possession of a short barreled rifle". The reason why is that the possession of the stock is not always a crime. It is only a crime when there is intent or if there is no other reason for the possession other than install on a pistol lower, that would be constructive possession. |
|
Quoted: There is no such thing as constructive possession, there is only possession. The ATF and in fact the NFA and the GCA spell out that possession of parts capable of being assembled into a firearm is a firearm.Quoted: Quoted: "We caution however, that possessing a buttstock that could readily be installed on your pistol could Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: It's the "could" part that comes back and bites you in the ass. The ATF says could because they do not judge, that is for the courts. The letter asks if the parts may be possessed together and the response says yes. They have said that for the past 36 years that I've been building and collecting ARs. It's not a new answer. They have also always said it may be possession of a SBR. Because if the stock is attached to the pistol with a barrel of less than 16 inch it would then be illegal. That is where the word "could" comes in. If the stock is not attached to a pistol with a barrel of less than 16 inches the "could" doesn't come into play. If the stock is possessed along with a pistol with a barrel less than 16 inches and another upper or 16" + barrel which may be placed on that upper then it is okay. If possessed without an upper that has a 16 inch barrel, or without a 16" barrel capable of being installed on the pistol upper it could be constructive possession or intent. constitute possession of a short barreled rifle." This clearly states that the possession alone is enough for the possible possession of a SBR. It has nothing to do with if it is installed, that is clearly a violation. Why doesn't the wording say, "possession of a stock which may be readily installed on a pistol constitutes possession of a short barreled rifle". The reason why is that the possession of the stock is not always a crime. It is only a crime when there is intent or if there is no other reason for the possession other than install on a pistol lower, that would be constructive possession. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
There is no such thing as constructive possession, there is only possession. The ATF and in fact the NFA and the GCA spell out that possession of parts capable of being assembled into a firearm is a firearm.
Quoted:
Quoted:
"We caution however, that possessing a buttstock that could readily be installed on your pistol could
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It's the "could" part that comes back and bites you in the ass. The ATF says could because they do not judge, that is for the courts. The letter asks if the parts may be possessed together and the response says yes. They have said that for the past 36 years that I've been building and collecting ARs. It's not a new answer. They have also always said it may be possession of a SBR. Because if the stock is attached to the pistol with a barrel of less than 16 inch it would then be illegal. That is where the word "could" comes in. If the stock is not attached to a pistol with a barrel of less than 16 inches the "could" doesn't come into play. If the stock is possessed along with a pistol with a barrel less than 16 inches and another upper or 16" + barrel which may be placed on that upper then it is okay. If possessed without an upper that has a 16 inch barrel, or without a 16" barrel capable of being installed on the pistol upper it could be constructive possession or intent. constitute possession of a short barreled rifle." This clearly states that the possession alone is enough for the possible possession of a SBR. It has nothing to do with if it is installed, that is clearly a violation. Why doesn't the wording say, "possession of a stock which may be readily installed on a pistol constitutes possession of a short barreled rifle". The reason why is that the possession of the stock is not always a crime. It is only a crime when there is intent or if there is no other reason for the possession other than install on a pistol lower, that would be constructive possession. Have you read 2011-4? |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: There is no such thing as constructive possession, there is only possession. The ATF and in fact the NFA and the GCA spell out that possession of parts capable of being assembled into a firearm is a firearm.Quoted: Quoted: "We caution however, that possessing a buttstock that could readily be installed on your pistol could Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: It's the "could" part that comes back and bites you in the ass. The ATF says could because they do not judge, that is for the courts. The letter asks if the parts may be possessed together and the response says yes. They have said that for the past 36 years that I've been building and collecting ARs. It's not a new answer. They have also always said it may be possession of a SBR. Because if the stock is attached to the pistol with a barrel of less than 16 inch it would then be illegal. That is where the word "could" comes in. If the stock is not attached to a pistol with a barrel of less than 16 inches the "could" doesn't come into play. If the stock is possessed along with a pistol with a barrel less than 16 inches and another upper or 16" + barrel which may be placed on that upper then it is okay. If possessed without an upper that has a 16 inch barrel, or without a 16" barrel capable of being installed on the pistol upper it could be constructive possession or intent. constitute possession of a short barreled rifle." This clearly states that the possession alone is enough for the possible possession of a SBR. It has nothing to do with if it is installed, that is clearly a violation. Why doesn't the wording say, "possession of a stock which may be readily installed on a pistol constitutes possession of a short barreled rifle". The reason why is that the possession of the stock is not always a crime. It is only a crime when there is intent or if there is no other reason for the possession other than install on a pistol lower, that would be constructive possession. Have you read 2011-4? Yes, the day it came out. You seem to have just discovered it and want to post your "new" find in every thread. Please show me anything official with the words " constructive possession". |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
There is no such thing as constructive possession, there is only possession. The ATF and in fact the NFA and the GCA spell out that possession of parts capable of being assembled into a firearm is a firearm.
Quoted:
Quoted:
"We caution however, that possessing a buttstock that could readily be installed on your pistol could
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It's the "could" part that comes back and bites you in the ass. The ATF says could because they do not judge, that is for the courts. The letter asks if the parts may be possessed together and the response says yes. They have said that for the past 36 years that I've been building and collecting ARs. It's not a new answer. They have also always said it may be possession of a SBR. Because if the stock is attached to the pistol with a barrel of less than 16 inch it would then be illegal. That is where the word "could" comes in. If the stock is not attached to a pistol with a barrel of less than 16 inches the "could" doesn't come into play. If the stock is possessed along with a pistol with a barrel less than 16 inches and another upper or 16" + barrel which may be placed on that upper then it is okay. If possessed without an upper that has a 16 inch barrel, or without a 16" barrel capable of being installed on the pistol upper it could be constructive possession or intent. constitute possession of a short barreled rifle." This clearly states that the possession alone is enough for the possible possession of a SBR. It has nothing to do with if it is installed, that is clearly a violation. Why doesn't the wording say, "possession of a stock which may be readily installed on a pistol constitutes possession of a short barreled rifle". The reason why is that the possession of the stock is not always a crime. It is only a crime when there is intent or if there is no other reason for the possession other than install on a pistol lower, that would be constructive possession. Have you read 2011-4? Yes, the day it came out. You seem to have just discovered it and want to post your "new" find in every thread. If you read it, you may want to reread it. You clearly do not not understand it or the letter I linked to. |
|
Well I for one have many extra parts laying around and many rifles they could go on. I'm sure many here do.
I have a couple extra VFG's. Because I have railed hand guards on my pistols, does that constitute a violation? I don't think so until I install them. Dave N |
|
Quoted:
Well I for one have many extra parts laying around and many rifles they could go on. I'm sure many here do. I have a couple extra VFG's. Because I have railed hand guards on my pistols, does that constitute a violation? I don't think so until I install them. Dave N That is right. The only time it might be an issue is if someone ONLY had one ar pistol, a rail for that pistol which would accept a vertical front grip, and a grip which may be readily installed on that rail. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
"We caution however, that possessing a buttstock that could readily be installed on your pistol could
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It's the "could" part that comes back and bites you in the ass. The ATF says could because they do not judge, that is for the courts. The letter asks if the parts may be possessed together and the response says yes. They have said that for the past 36 years that I've been building and collecting ARs. It's not a new answer. They have also always said it may be possession of a SBR. Because if the stock is attached to the pistol with a barrel of less than 16 inch it would then be illegal. That is where the word "could" comes in. If the stock is not attached to a pistol with a barrel of less than 16 inches the "could" doesn't come into play. If the stock is possessed along with a pistol with a barrel less than 16 inches and another upper or 16" + barrel which may be placed on that upper then it is okay. If possessed without an upper that has a 16 inch barrel, or without a 16" barrel capable of being installed on the pistol upper it could be constructive possession or intent. constitute possession of a short barreled rifle." This clearly states that the possession alone is enough for the possible possession of a SBR. It has nothing to do with if it is installed, that is clearly a violation. Why doesn't the wording say, "possession of a stock which may be readily installed on a pistol constitutes possession of a short barreled rifle". The reason why is that the possession of the stock is not always a crime. It is only a crime when there is intent or if there is no other reason for the possession other than install on a pistol lower, that would be constructive possession. Or when that particular agent decides it is an issue. An agent could easily argue a lack of all of the necessary tools to complete said conversion shows intent to circumvent the law. That is just one example of how to get around it. Postings from the internet, who you associate with, organizations you belong to, what you read etc could influence an agent to think you have the intent. The reason they don't flat out commit to yep do it and include the could inwith every yes is not because the man loves you. He wants to keep his options open. Sometimes, even when they committ, they later change their minds. Remember the cool little .22 set up for the 10/22 that got around full auto (was it the Atkins can't recall). Bottom line, you can do it. Most folks will never have an issue doing it. If you are part of the minority that attracts attention, even through no fault of your own, then it could be a very big problem. You might win, you might not. But either way you pay. Basically, do a risk assessment, make your decision and if it goes sideways no whining. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
"We caution however, that possessing a buttstock that could readily be installed on your pistol could
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It's the "could" part that comes back and bites you in the ass. The ATF says could because they do not judge, that is for the courts. The letter asks if the parts may be possessed together and the response says yes. They have said that for the past 36 years that I've been building and collecting ARs. It's not a new answer. They have also always said it may be possession of a SBR. Because if the stock is attached to the pistol with a barrel of less than 16 inch it would then be illegal. That is where the word "could" comes in. If the stock is not attached to a pistol with a barrel of less than 16 inches the "could" doesn't come into play. If the stock is possessed along with a pistol with a barrel less than 16 inches and another upper or 16" + barrel which may be placed on that upper then it is okay. If possessed without an upper that has a 16 inch barrel, or without a 16" barrel capable of being installed on the pistol upper it could be constructive possession or intent. constitute possession of a short barreled rifle." This clearly states that the possession alone is enough for the possible possession of a SBR. It has nothing to do with if it is installed, that is clearly a violation. Why doesn't the wording say, "possession of a stock which may be readily installed on a pistol constitutes possession of a short barreled rifle". The reason why is that the possession of the stock is not always a crime. It is only a crime when there is intent or if there is no other reason for the possession other than install on a pistol lower, that would be constructive possession. Or when that particular agent decides it is an issue. An agent could easily argue a lack of all of the necessary tools to complete said conversion shows intent to circumvent the law. That is just one example of how to get around it. Postings from the internet, who you associate with, organizations you belong to, what you read etc could influence an agent to think you have the intent. The reason they don't flat out commit to yep do it and include the could inwith every yes is not because the man loves you. He wants to keep his options open. Sometimes, even when they committ, they later change their minds. Remember the cool little .22 set up for the 10/22 that got around full auto (was it the Atkins can't recall). Bottom line, you can do it. Most folks will never have an issue doing it. If you are part of the minority that attracts attention, even through no fault of your own, then it could be a very big problem. You might win, you might not. But either way you pay. Basically, do a risk assessment, make your decision and if it goes sideways no whining. The supreme court has already said that a pistol/rifle kit was not illegal. Did Thompson send out the parts for their kit seperately? NO. Were owners allowed to possess the parts in close proximity? YES. The letter clearly says that someone can make a kit and possess the parts in close proximity. |
|
Browning, as I pointed out, the AR requires tools to change out. The TC contender does not. I also pointed out that ATF has reversed itself in the past. Neither point was addressed by your oh so emotional jerk knee response.
The letter also stated it could be considered an illegal SBR. At no time did I say you could not do it. I merely pointed out potential issues with doing so, and advised people to 1. weigh the pro's and cons for them and two not to whine if it did not work out in the long run. |
AR Sponsor