Is it an SBR? Is it a Pistol? Are you assuming its orientation?

Totally Accurate Legal Advice

  • Total voters
    16
Tim

Tim

Checked Out
Staff member
2A Bourbon Hound 2024
2A Bourbon Hound OG
Charter Life Member
Benefactor
Vendor
Multi-Factor Enabled
Joined
Dec 17, 2016
Messages
16,462
Location
A Glass Cage of Emotion
Rating - 100%
85   0   0
What say the interwebz....

I have an AR lower that is registered as an SBR.
It is currently sporting a KAK brace.

Is it, at this very moment, a pistol covered by my NC CHP or is it a rifle?

*Note: I realize there are at least 753 different firearm types out there. It is not my intention to force a binary view on the greater firearm community. #pewpewisallthatmatters It is my understanding that a cry room will be made available to those who require it.
 
Last edited:
Pretty sure I saw a letter addressing this once. Said it's only an SBR when in SBR configuration and assuming that it was built as a pistol first, it could freely go back and forth. Take that for what it's worth, but I'm sure if you look hard enough you could find it.
 
Gear Head said:
Pretty sure I saw a letter addressing this once. Said it's only an SBR when in SBR configuration and assuming that it was built as a pistol first, it could freely go back and forth. Take that for what it's worth, but I'm sure if you look hard enough you could find it.
Click to expand...

It can go from SBR to Rifle, but can it go from rifle to pistol is the real question ..

The SBR part is a red herring...
 
The real question is whether you initially built it as a pistol before you made it into an SBR.

If the initial build was the SBR, you still have an SBR...as it’s a “weapon made from a rifle”. Even if it looks like a pistol, it’s a rifle.

If you initially built it as a pistol, then made it into the SBR, most folks will say you can go back to a pistol because pistol->rifle->pistol is OK, but rifle->pistol is not. And a short barreled rifle is just a subset of rifle.

I also keep two pistol configured lowers around, even though I don’t use them. I think that’s about to change, though. I still think there’s a gray area in the pistol->SBR->pistol scenario, but I admit I’m in the minority. To me, you file a Form 1 to make a firearm, and that firearm (reusing the SN) starts life as a rifle, so you can’t make it into a pistol.

I’ve seen the ATF answer the pistol->SBR->pistol question once in an email, and they said it was ok. But we’ve seen them go back on their decisions multiple times.

That being said...there’s nothing in the NC regulations that says AR pistols aren’t covered by our CHPs. That’s why a lot of people want to have an AR pistol concealed in their vehicle as a “truck gun”.

On top of that, any LEO interaction should end when they see the firearm. If it’s configured as a pistol, there’s no reason for them to think it’s a “weapon made from a rifle” (SBR) instead. The rise in popularity of the AR pistol should make this an even more common outcome.


...and I’m not voting until I know if it started as a pistol or a rifle. :cool:
 
It went pistol —> SBR —> ??
 
It’s an SBR from the time it becomes an SBR until it is removed from the registry(my opinion).

If not, you can remove your stock and travel across state lines without notifying the ATF?

But if you had Glock that was a legal SBR it would obviously be a pistol if you took the stock off.
 
Last edited:
JGrigg said:
It’s an SBR from the time it becomes an SBR until it is removed from the registry(my opinion).

If not, you can remove your stock and travel across state lines without notifying the ATF?
Click to expand...
That might be your opinion...but it’s not the ATF’s.

Without taking it off the registry (and they don’t ever actually take it off, they just notate the record), you can:

1. Sell the registered lower with a 16” upper attached, without any NFA paperwork
2. Sell the registered lower (stripped or built) by itself, without any NFA paperwork
3. Hunt with a 16” upper attached in places where SBRs are illegal
4. Cross state lines with either just the lower, or with a 16” upper attached, and not need a 5320.20...assuming you leave the short upper at home, or move it to a pistol-configured lower

It’s only an NFA item when configured as such, either temporarily or permanently.

The crazy issue is “configured as such” may not look like what people think. Prime example is starting with a rifle and reconfiguring as a pistol. It looks like an AR pistol, but it’s actually an SBR (assuming <16” barrel and/or <26” OAL)...because of the “weapon made from a rifle” part of the SBR definition. o_O
 
bigfelipe said:
That's all that matters...
Click to expand...
The last lowers I bought weren't marked as pistol/rifle. That being the case, I'm not betting the ATF would believe my word. Therefore would it be a good idea to assemble your new lower as a pistol and take a dated picture for future use?
 
Pink_Vapor said:
The last lowers I bought weren't marked as pistol/rifle. That being the case, I'm not betting the ATF would believe my word. Therefore would it be a good idea to assemble your new lower as a pistol and take a dated picture for future use?
Click to expand...
I guess you could? But burden of proof is on them, not you. And who’s to say you didn’t build it as a rifle, then convert to a pistol and took a pic?

No lower should be marked as a pistol or rifle, if you’re talking about the 4473. They’re all “other firearm”...whether stripped or complete. And it doesn’t even matter if they checked the wrong box. If I bought a shotgun and the dealer accidentally happened to check handgun and neither of us caught it, that doesn’t make my shotgun a pistol.

If you’re talking about the receiver itself being marked, I’ve never seen one marked “rifle”, but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist. I do have two marked “pistol”, which means absolutely nothing. I can build them into whatever I chose.

The whole issue around “pistol first” is stupid. Just like if you filed for a 10.5” 5.56 SBR and ended up wanting to make a 8” 300BLK SBR. To meet the letter of the law, you’re supposed to attach the upper that meets the specs first, then reconfigure as you wish. Who could prove that?

As far as pistol/rifle, the bigger issue would be if the ATF checked with the manufacturer to see about the SN. If that particular one was sold as a lower, it shouldn’t be an issue. Even if it was sold as a complete lower with a stock, it’s not a rifle until an upper is attached...so you could remove the stock first and build a pistol. But if it was sold as a complete rifle, or better not look like a pistol unless there’s a $200 stamp around.
 
Don’t ask, don’t tell
 
I'm going with rifle because the tax you paid was to make a rifle. I'd say DADT also but there's a paper trail now, and zero evidence it was ever a pistol. You could make an argument either way but the one backed up with paperwork is "rifle".
 
Hmmm. My Sbr was originally a pistol, then filed for Sbr.

So I can just stick a brace on it and it’s back to a pistol. Hadn’t thought of that. Interesting. Because hey now have braces that fit a carbine tube.
 
Pink_Vapor said:
The last lowers I bought weren't marked as pistol/rifle. That being the case, I'm not betting the ATF would believe my word. Therefore would it be a good idea to assemble your new lower as a pistol and take a dated picture for future use?
Click to expand...


@BigWaylon beat me to the response. I agree with his response...
 
This was all beat to death by the Thompson Center crowd before the internet existed, I remember dad having conversations with friends about it in the eighties, the endurance is the only interesting thing about the topic.
Well that and how dumb the law is.

pistol -> rifle -> pistol: fine
rifle -> pistol: OMFG! CRIMINAL SCUM!
 
Beef15 said:
This was all beat to death by the Thompson Center crowd before the internet existed, I remember dad having conversations with friends about it in the eighties, the endurance is the only interesting thing about the topic.
Well that and how dumb the law is.

pistol -> rifle -> pistol: fine
rifle -> pistol: OMFG! CRIMINAL SCUM!
Click to expand...
They used a case decided in 1992 to argue a topic in the 80’s? :p

The pistol->rifle->pistol issue is definitely clearly defined. If anybody hasn’t read it, ATF Ruling 2011-4 is a pretty decent read and references the Thompson case.

The gray area I mentioned earlier in the thread and which @Catfish also alluded do is regarding SBRs. The argument/discussion has two sides to it, which I also mentioned:
1. P->R->P is legal, and SBR is a subset of R, so P->SBR->P is legal.
2. R->P is not legal, and when you filed a Form 1 to Make and Register an NFA Firearm, you made a new firearm that started life as an SBR instead of a pistol, so SBR->P is not legal.

It’s a topic that I deal with every couple months as a mod on ARF. It’s also very easily avoided by having a pistol-configured lower in the safe.

Two ATF employees have said it’s legal to sub SBR for R in the equation above. But I can also show you emails where I asked questions I already knew the answer to and the ATF answered incorrectly.

And the reality is it would take a mess of a situation for this to ever be a legal issue. Plus the old “free people do free stuff” adage. So while I personally won’t convert an SBR to a pistol, mainly because I don’t shoot AR pistols, I’d have no problem telling somebody is was fine. And I do have two pistol-configured lowers here that I keep in case I ran across a short upper deal I couldn’t pass up...and I build dedicated rifles instead of swapping uppers around. And FWIW, both of them are marked “Pistol” as an additional way to convince LEO they’re not rifles...even though that engraving has absolutely zero legal value. :cool:
 
BigWaylon said:
They used a case decided in 1992 to argue a topic in the 80’s? :p
Click to expand...

Being as I was quite young and thought single shots were uninteresting I have no idea what they were basing their discussions on, just they were very much the same discussions, no one had ATF letter or other docs that I recall. Had to have been pre-92 dad pretty much boxed up the T/Cs in '93.

Of course most if not all I witnessed was non-NFA, I think it usually started from unsolicited commentary about having a short barrel without pistol configured receiver, reassemble in the right order, or the like.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom