AR lower (stripped) designation upon FFL purchase

[DP641]

Question: When buying a stripped lower from a dealer (in Washington State), is one required to "declare" the purpose of the lower? ... Meaning is one required to state the intention to build a rifle or pistol. As I understand it the ATF 4473 is required, and the item is listed as "other". Then if one mentions it is intended for a pistol build the WA (gun registration form) is filled out. However if the intent is unclear, and later a pistol is built, is there an issue, since the WA form wasn't done? I'm also in being educated on changing configuration from pistol to rifle, or in reverse. Primarily, though, it's the dealer paperwork the has me frustrated.

Read More

 

[Garg]

Can't help you on the WA law, but when I buy a lower, I always declare it as other/receiver, then always build it as a pistol, document it, and move on.

 

[DP641]

Can't help you on the WA law, but when I buy a lower, I always declare it as other/receiver, then always build it as a pistol, document it, and move on.

I get the 'declare and move on part', but it's the requirement of what paperwork, I'm questioning.

 

[IronMonster]

For the most part all lowers are sold as "other" Unless its a rifle or pistol when its sold, its marked "other"

That does not mean everyone everywhere does that all of the time. But that is the norm.

 

[DP641]

For the most part all lowers are sold as "other" Unless its a rifle or pistol when its sold, its marked "other"

That does not mean everyone everywhere does that all of the time. But that is the norm.

So, does this mean that if one is undecided what they might do with the lower (whether to build a pistol or rifle) that they MUST make that decision at the time of sale to "designate" it?

 

[IronMonster]

No, An "other" listed lower can be legally built as either, But once a rifle it can never be a pistol

 

[DP641]

No, An "other" listed lower can be legally built as either, But once a rifle it can never be a pistol

This was my understanding. I was "lied to" by a dealer who pressured me into purchasing a lower under the "pistol" designation, and having to fill out the WA State form. I actually think it was a CYA move, on his part, in case I decided to "pistolize" the lower and ATF came to him for an explanation of the sale. I actually hadn't and still haven't decided. I have a both a nice 16" 6.8 and a 7.5" 5.56 upper, so it could go either way. Now I have this "declared" lower. I hate misinformed dealers.

 

[coctailer]

A lower receiver is "other".

There is never a need to pre-determine what you build.

 

[DP641]

A lower receiver is "other".

There is never a need to pre-determine what you build.

As I thought. Thanks

 

[mjbskwim]

But since you can make a pistol into a rifle,there isn't a problem

 

[Roger65]

I could be wrong, but I would list it as a pistol. If it is listed as "other" and then first built as a rifle, it cannot then be turned into a pistol. You can build an other as a pistol only if it is a virgin receiver, never built.

If listed as a pistol on the 4473, you build it as a pistol, rifle, and go back and forth as you please.

You can read a big discussion on it here

http://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=6&f=50&t=355144

 

[Garg]

If listed as a pistol on the 4473, you build it as a pistol, rifle, and go back and forth as you please.

This is also true of an "other".
IMHO it is a really stupid law/rule, but as long as you built it into a pistol first, you can go back and forth. Unless it is designated a rifle at purchase.

 

[Redcap]

This is also true of an "other".
IMHO it is a really stupid law/rule, but as long as you built it into a pistol first, you can go back and forth. Unless it is designated a rifle at purchase.

That is just asinine.

 

[Garg]

That is just asinine.

I have often wondered, how in the heck they could possibly police it. Or if they even do. I just (like I have stated before) build them as pistols, photograph them, and then do whatever I want with them. At least I know I am following the (stupid) rule.

 

[Redcap]

I have often wondered, how in the heck they could possibly police it. Or if they even do. I just (like I have stated before) build them as pistols, photograph them, and then do whatever I want with them. At least I know I am following the (stupid) rule.

Seems like another unenforceable piece of idiocy, much like I-594. I don't own any ARs anymore, so it doesn't bother me much anymore but still...completely stupid.

 

[mjbskwim]

OK,think of changing the AR back and forth like the proverbial tree in the forest making noise.

If the AR never goes to a shop and gets put into their book (or the serial # is never shown online) was it built as a pistol or a rifle?
I would never encourage anyone to break the law

 

[Roger65]

OK,think of changing the AR back and forth like the proverbial tree in the forest making noise.

If the AR never goes to a shop and gets put into their book (or the serial # is never shown online) was it built as a pistol or a rifle?
I would never encourage anyone to break the law

Read that thread I linked. Some people seem to think that a receiver transfered as other must be virgin to be built as a pistol. In other words, if you build it as a rifle first you can't then make it a pistol. There is of course no way to prove what was done to it first, but some are taking photos of the pistol build as proof that the first build was as a pistol.

The law seems a little murky here, read that thread

 

[Garg]

Yeah, the law/rule makes absolutely no sense. You can go one way, but not the other. Really stupid....

 

[mjbskwim]

I've seen those threads all over the netterwebber and my statement is still true.
If the serial # is never seen by another human being,it's still a virgin lower you started the build with.......any build.

 

[coop44]

this is the sort of thing the atf is counting on you to hang yourself with. If asked if your pistol was ever a rifle you are supposed to answer truthfully so they can lock you up.