Converting Pistol to Firearm/Other

[ArmedCorgi]

Okay let's throw in another plot twist. What if you built said firearm from an 80% lower. Then it's not a pistol,rifle or an other because it's a nothing.

I do believe the ATF feels the pain of every mm of aluminum you shave off that 80% lower in real time. So they would decend upon you with fury only seen in bukkaki films and haul your ass to jail for not committing any crime.

 

[spat]

That’s not correct. It’s the other way around. The ATF actually has letters written that say that you can do pistol to rifle to pistol but not rifle to pistol.

The ATF wrote that letter, but that's not what the law says.

 

[spat]

All these gun laws are dumb. Some more so than others.

Anyway, does anyone know if you can turn a pistol into a firearm and then back into a pistol again? In this case since our pistols are registered, it matters.

In NY a pistol *is* a firearm.

 

[BDinPutnam]

All these gun laws are dumb. Some more so than others.

Anyway, does anyone know if you can turn a pistol into a firearm and then back into a pistol again? In this case since our pistols are registered, it matters.

In NY, or generally?

In NY I would guess no (though maybe technically by the letter of the law, yes though I wouldn't do it). We've had this discussion, havent we (in terms of buying "other firearms" off the shelf)? I dont know why it would differ if you did the work yourself.

Technically legal under letter of the law? Yeah kinda maybe sorta in my non lawyer opinion but... you first.

Federally? It didnt start life as a rifle, have at it as far as being charged with having an SBR.

None of which is legal advice IANAL tho I did spend a lot of time today emailing with a bunch of them- which had nothing to do with guns, lol.

 

[spat]

But it was never officially transfered as a rifle. This whole argument is retarded, because if they are serious about it, they should get rid of the "other" designation and make the ffl transfer it as what the buyer plans to build it into. Or make the buyer report that they built it into xyz....this is so dumb.

What if I want to buy one and hang on to it without deciding.


The fix is to regulate this stuff like the basic tools they are, i.e. not at all.

We do not need to have discussions about turning wrenches into hammers and if you can legally use a wrench to drive a nail.

 

[ArmedCorgi]

Anyway, does anyone know if you can turn a pistol into a firearm and then back into a pistol again? I

According to what you say the ATF says, no. Why would it be okay to turn one into the other but not the otherway around?

 

[ArmedCorgi]

What if I want to buy one and hang on to it without decidi

This is what I am saying. If they wanted it regulated, they would require it be transfered as xyz at the date of sale. Otherwise what is the point? They cannot enforce it.

 

[BDinPutnam]

THIRD BASE!!!

 

[Marine Cpl]

In NY a pistol *is* a firearm.

Correct but a firearm like the OP pictures are not pistols.

 

[Marine Cpl]

According to what you say the ATF says, no. Why would it be okay to turn one into the other but not the otherway around?

No. The ATF has made rulings that you can flip flop from pistol to rifle back to pistol again but not if it was first built into a rifle.

They do not have such rulings on firearm to pistol or pistol to firearm. That’s why I’m asking the question.

 

[spat]

No. The ATF has made rulings that you can flip flop from pistol to rifle back to pistol again but not if it was first built into a rifle.

They do not have such rulings on firearm to pistol or pistol to firearm. That’s why I’m asking the question.

So, why don't the manufacturers just mark everything as an other.

They all start as bare receivers.

 

[Marine Cpl]

So, why don't the manufacturers just mark everything as an other.

They all start as bare receivers.

Because once you add a stock to it, it becomes a rifle. Don’t argue with me. Argue with the ATF. That’s what they say. Not me.

 

[ArmedCorgi]

No. The ATF has made rulings that you can flip flop from pistol to rifle back to pistol again but not if it was first built into a rifle.

They do not have such rulings on firearm to pistol or pistol to firearm. That’s why I’m asking the question.

Yes, I understand that, but tell me what the actual difference between the two is? It doesn't make any sense. Why is a rifle always a rifle, but a pistol can be turned into a rifle and back again? What is the logic here?

 

[ArmedCorgi]

Yes, I understand that, but tell me what the actual difference between the two is? It doesn't make any sense. Why is a rifle always a rifle, but a pistol can be turned into a rifle and back again? What is the logic here?

Especially when we are talking about a platform as modular as the AR.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Yes, I understand that, but tell me what the actual difference between the two is? It doesn't make any sense. Why is a rifle always a rifle, but a pistol can be turned into a rifle and back again? What is the logic here?

I’ll tell you what I just told Spat. Why are you arguing with me? Argue with the ATF. I didn’t make these laws and determinations. I’m just asking what the law or determination is on pistol to firearm and back to pistol again.

 

[Marine Cpl]

I may have to make another thread on this and ask the same question because somehow it’s turned into a shitfest asking me why the ATF does what the ATF does.

To answer y’all’s question is because the ATF is the ATF.

 

[spat]

Because once you add a stock to it, it becomes a rifle. Don’t argue with me. Argue with the ATF. That’s what they say. Not me.

But you just said, if it was an other and I put a stock on making it a rifle, that I can go back to an other.

Why not start them all as others.

 

[Marine Cpl]

But you just said, if it was an other and I put a stock on making it a rifle, that I can go back to an other.

Why not start them all as others.

Dude. Ask the ATF that. What’s the matter with you? You think I write ATF determination letters?

 

[ArmedCorgi]

I’ll tell you what I just told Spat. Why are you arguing with me? Argue with the ATF. I didn’t make these laws and determinations. I’m just asking what the law or determination is on pistol to firearm and back to pistol again.

Sorry man, I'm not arguing with you at all. Just expressing my frustration at how rediculous these laws are.

 

[spat]

Dude. Ask the ATF that. What’s the matter with you? You think I write ATF determination letters?

It's not a question for the ATF, it would be a question for the manufacturers.

If Anderson can make a batch of receivers and sell them as others to PSA who then make them into rifles, but they are different than if Anderson made them rifles themselves ?

Why not just make the "receiver production" a separate business unit that sells others to the "rifle production" business. Then all of this stupidity goes away.

My only guess is that the ATF wouldn't like it and would extort them to stop by threatening to "enforce the shit out of everything else".

 

[BDinPutnam]

I’ll tell you what I just told Spat. Why are you arguing with me? Argue with the ATF. I didn’t make these laws and determinations. I’m just asking what the law or determination is on pistol to firearm and back to pistol again.

AFAIK there isnt one or CAA wouldn't be in business.

I again think it really depends. Are you asking about the United States or New York? A whole lot of this would come down to who arrested you, where, and why.

 

[Marine Cpl]

It's not a question for the ATF, it would be a question for the manufacturers.

If Anderson can make a batch of receivers and sell them as others to PSA who then make them into rifles, but they are different than if Anderson made them rifles themselves ?

Why not just make the "receiver production" a separate business unit that sells others to the "rifle production" business. Then all of this stupidity goes away.

My only guess is that the ATF wouldn't like it and would extort them to stop by threatening to "enforce the shit out of everything else".

Maybe I’m misinterpreting what you are saying but it goes like this. A virgin receiver once made into a rifle, is always a rifle forever. The key is a virgin receiver.

The same applies to shotguns. If a virgin mossberg receiver is made into a shotgun complete with stock by either you or a manufacturer, it’ll always be a shotgun. You can’t take your regular shotgun, remove the stock, cut the barrel and turn it into a Mossberg Shockwave. Doing so makes it a short barreled shotgun.

But you can take a virgin receiver that was built into a Mossberg Shockwave which never was a shotgun, add a stock to it and put a longer barrel on it to turn it into a shotgun. After you are tired of the shotgun, you can legally turn it back into a shockwave.

Not my rules but that’s how the ATF wants it. The key is virgin receiver to rifle. Once that’s done it’s a rifle forever.

 

[Marine Cpl]

AFAIK there isnt one or CAA wouldn't be in business.

I again think it really depends. Are you asking about the United States or New York? A whole lot of this would come down to who arrested you, where, and why.

New York. But that doesn’t matter since no mention of these Firearms exist. That’s the loophole and why they sell the Mossberg Shockwaves. I would have to abide by Federal laws.

 

[spat]

Maybe I’m misinterpreting what you are saying but it goes like this. A virgin receiver once made into a rifle, is always a rifle forever. The key is a virgin receiver.

The same applies to shotguns. If a virgin mossberg receiver is made into a shotgun complete with stock by either you or a manufacturer, it’ll always be a shotgun. You can’t take your regular shotgun, remove the stock, cut the barrel and turn it into a Mossberg Shockwave. Doing so makes it a short barreled shotgun.

But you can take a virgin receiver that was built into a Mossberg Shockwave which never was a shotgun, add a stock to it and put a longer barrel on it to turn it into a shotgun. After you are tired of the shotgun, you can legally turn it back into a shockwave.

Not my rules but that’s how the ATF wants it. The key is virgin receiver to rifle. Once that’s done it’s a rifle forever.

So, my Anderson lower that I bought as an other and built into a pistol would be illegal if I'd first assembled it as a rifle ?

But since I put the brace and pistol upper on it first I can do what I want ?

So, you are saying that in order to do what I am saying the manufacturers would just need to put the stock on the buffer tube *after* the rest of the components are assembled ?

Since the weapon would be legally an other until that point?

 

[BDinPutnam]

So, my Anderson lower that I bought as an other and built into a pistol would be illegal if I'd first assembled it as a rifle ?

But since I put the brace and pistol upper on it first I can do what I want ?

So, you are saying that in order to do what I am saying the manufacturers would just need to put the stock on the buffer tube *after* the rest of the components are assembled ?

Since the weapon would be legally an other until that point?

Somewhere in here I'm going to step on my own dick but I'm good with that.

Once you finish ("manufacture") an unfinished receiver it is no longer an "other" as far as ATF is concerned.

If you buy a poverty pony lower and don't build it into anything at all and you want to sell it to me, it transfers as "other" in NY on a 4473, no? Not "rifle", not "pistol", not "shotgun." If you build a rifle out of it, you transfer it as a "rifle", do you not?

Once you build it into something, it's that something. Under NFA, some "somethings" can change into other "things" and some "things" always need to be the "things" they were originally built into. The original intent of this shit didn't contemplate that people would on a large scale be buying unfinished receivers as private citizens and build whatever they wanted. NFA tells ATF that the problem child is cut down rifles. It says nothing about making pistols into rifles.

The Shockwave is easy in NY because it is a smooth bore pump action. Some of these "other others" we've discussed (I thought pretty much ad naseum) are so grey under NY law and enforcement they would likely get you jammed up even if you're right and ultimately prevail. Again see: "who arrested you, why, and where?" for how much that will cost you and how much your (presumed) victory would advance the gun rights agenda in NY.

For my risk tolerance in NY, no matter who makes it, a "manufacturer" or me, I don't want any part of anything that is semiautomatic and takes a detachable magazine like this - again, in New York.

You'll note that Remington, Mossberg, etc don't sell unfinished "shotgun" receivers, for the most part, to the public. This tells me everything I need to know about ATF's determination as to whether an AR lower is a "gun" or not (hint: it isn't, according to their own definitions, since an AR lower does not among other things house the chamber and firing mechanism).

So no, @Marine Cpl, I wouldn't, but that's just me. I do think there is no guidance or caselaw on "pistol to 'other firearm'" at the federal level, which gives me pause on your first option, even outside of NY. Most of my trepidation has to do with NY and UNSAFE but ATF is a fickle beast. Far as I know CAA won't sell the Roni in NY so that should be your answer there.

 

[ArmedCorgi]

Once you finish ("manufacture") an unfinished receiver it is no longer an "other" as far as ATF is concerned.

What happens when you "unfinish" it? So, once you populate a stripped receiver that was not transferred as a rifle, pistol or shotgun with components, it suddenly legally becomes whatever configuration you built it into and cannot be re-stripped to suit another purpose? Again, turned into a non-NFA item and something that is legal to own in your state.

 

[BDinPutnam]

What happens when you "unfinish" it? So, once you populate a stripped receiver that was not transferred as a rifle, pistol or shotgun with components, it suddenly legally becomes whatever configuration you built it into and cannot be re-stripped to suit another purpose? Again, turned into a non-NFA item and something that is legal to own in your state.

See my second to last paragraph above.

I would add it isnt about the "components." ATF does not care if an AR lower has or had a trigger pack installed or not for purposes of what I was talking about above.

 

[Marine Cpl]

The

What happens when you "unfinish" it? So, once you populate a stripped receiver that was not transferred as a rifle, pistol or shotgun with components, it suddenly legally becomes whatever configuration you built it into and cannot be re-stripped to suit another purpose? Again, turned into a non-NFA item and something that is legal to own in your state.

They only seem to care about turning a rifle into an SBR because they aren’t getting the 200 bucks.

 

[SuffolkArms]

Anyway, does anyone know if you can turn a pistol into a firearm and then back into a pistol again? In this case since our pistols are registered, it matters.

To figure out if an action is illegal, figure out what possible law you could be breaking.

If you build a pistol or SBR from a rifle, it is illegal because the ATF says you can not make a “weapon made from a rifle”. A “weapon made from a rifle” is a rifle which has a barrel shorter than 16 inches, or an OAL less than 26 inches.

As far as I know, there’s no ATF regulation that bans “weapon made from an other firearm”, so I can’t see what would be illegal about going from a pistol to an other and back at the federal level.

In terms of the state legality question. Who the hell knows. I’m sure some asshole judge could decide that converting a pistol to an other you’ve “manufactured” an assault weapon, and then switching it back you’ve remanufactured an unregistered firearm.

 

[Xae289]

To figure out if an action is illegal, figure out what possible law you could be breaking.

If you build a pistol or SBR from a rifle, it is illegal because the ATF says you can not make a “weapon made from a rifle”. A “weapon made from a rifle” is a rifle which has a barrel shorter than 16 inches, or an OAL less than 26 inches.

As far as I know, there’s no ATF regulation that bans “weapon made from an other firearm”, so I can’t see what would be illegal about going from a pistol to an other and back at the federal level.

In terms of the state legality question. Who the hell knows. I’m sure some asshole judge could decide that converting a pistol to an other you’ve “manufactured” an assault weapon, and then switching it back you’ve remanufactured an unregistered firearm.

I agree with Suffolk. Based on no more evidence than gut feeling, my guess is that if you register a firearm on your permit as a pistol, then convert it to an other firearm then got into some legal trouble with it as an other firearm, a prosecutor would probably argue the hell out of the idea that it's an assault weapon on this basis:

1) You registered the weapon as a pistol on your NY license.
2) Because you registered it as a pistol, it's a pistol. As evidence, here's your firearms license with this weapon listed as a pistol.
2a) We don't give a damn what category the Feds consider it. This is NY and in NY, you already admitted it's a pistol when you registered it as a pistol.
3) Now, because it's clearly a pistol and you added all these evil "military" features, you created an assault weapon, specifically an assault pistol.
4) Prison.

I think the only place it can break down is at step 2. Is there any precedent of removing a firearm from a pistol permit to turn it into a rifle? Maybe someone decided to get rid of their pistol barrels for their Thompson Center and only keep a rifle barrel, so then removed it from his license? If that's possible, then I don't see why you couldn't do that in NY with an other and not be any worse off than you are just by having an other at all.

Now switching back and forward frequently between them like with a Roni without getting it off your pistol license? I wouldn bank on that being NY legal.

The fact is, I think anything to do with an other is a "put on your big-boy pants and proceed at your own risk" proposal. Do whatever you want. I don't think anyone will bother you at the range or going about your business. I like them, but I really don't want one to be the gun I used to justifiably defend myself. Your lawyer might well easily get you cleared of any charges regarding self-defense, but now you're almost definitely going to have to fight possession of an assault weapon charge also, which you may well lose if the jury isn't sympathetic to gun rights. In NY, I wouldn't bank on having even 1 juror of 12 be so pro-gun and pro-freedom that he's willing to hang a jury of Karens to protect you. I'd bet it would be easier to get 12/12 jurors that say "they're pro-gun BUUUUUUT, not for those nasty military assault rifles".

But IANAL, so I don't actually know shit regarding this.