AR-15 how to tell rifle or pistol

[wired]

If the dealer transferred it as a pistol he did so mistakenly. If he transferred it as a rifle he did so mistakenly. A receiver is never a rifle or a pistol until it is built as such no matter what the 4473 says..

 

[Member 3687]

Legal in oregon pistol rifle or vise versa Washington must say pistol on it

I have not heard this but it could be true.

I have not looked at Washington law in a while but I know a few things have changed.

The problem is very few receivers have pistol marked on them anymore and you have to order it special usually.

If you look at most receivers they will not say a caliber on them either they will say Multi Cal or something like that because they do not know what your building or what caliber.

With the way the AR lowers are used any more it could be built into a single shot, bolt action, semi auto, magazine fed or even belt fed and calibers range from 22 lr to 50 BMG in both rifle and pistols. (never seen a 50BMG pistol yet though. " OUCH")

No matter what you do please look into the state and federal laws and even that is no guarantee as we seen with the way they looked at the Sig brace. Still legal as long as you do not shoulder it. It is up to the interpretation of the officer at the time your question.

 

[wired]

I have not heard this but it could be true.

Its not true.

 

[Member 3687]

Its not true.

I did not think so but Like I said it has been a while sense I looked into Washington law and I do not want to give false info.

Thanks

 

[etrain16]

How about inviting @NWCustomFirearms into the discussion - he's a Washington FFL and can probably clear this up pretty easily with regard to the WA requirements for marking (or not) of lowers.

One thing he did note regarding lowers in WA was in the thread about the NWFA custom lowers that he is engraving and selling for Joe. Since he's a WA FFL, some of us in OR asked about buying from him directly - and he said, even though the lowers are transferred as "other", we, as OR residents could not buy them in Washington like we can with long guns. So our only option is to have them shipped to an Oregon FFL. I can only assume because an "other" designation means it could be built into a pistol, that it hangs up due to the ATF rules on interstate transfer of handguns. They sure find ways to make this stuff complicated.

 

[Member 3687]

How about inviting @NWCustomFirearms into the discussion - he's a Washington FFL and can probably clear this up pretty easily with regard to the WA requirements for marking (or not) of lowers.

One thing he did note regarding lowers in WA was in the thread about the NWFA custom lowers that he is engraving and selling for Joe. Since he's a WA FFL, some of us in OR asked about buying from him directly - and he said, even though the lowers are transferred as "other", we, as OR residents could not buy them in Washington like we can with long guns. So our only option is to have them shipped to an Oregon FFL. I can only assume because an "other" designation means it could be built into a pistol, that it hangs up due to the ATF rules on interstate transfer of handguns. They sure find ways to make this stuff complicated.

Yes that is federal law because you can build a pistol you have to be 21 to purchase and a resident of that state. Same as a pistol.

 

[fredball]

ATF Questions
1-206-204-9836
1-206-204-9835

 

[IronMonster]

Just build a dang 80% lower, problem solved.

 

[wired]

I spent many years as a 02/07 FFL licensee in Washington. " Other" guns such as receivers cannot be purchased across state lines unlike rifles and shotguns ( from dealers ) . No receiver is an actual gun until it is built as such so there is no way to tell if it will be built as a pistol or rifle. The ATF and 68 GCA prohibit individuals from buying pistols across state lines so thats why you cant buy a receiver across state lines. It could be used to build a pistol. Thats also why once a rifle always a rifle USED to be the in stone ruling from the ATF. Its a little more squishy now because of a few court cases.

 

[Pandaz3]

Well I'll say again that this is a informative thread.