National Once a pistol not always a pistol rule vs "other"

[Jbquick]

Do what you want with it and keep it to yourself, simple.

Here's the same info in video form:

 

[therealhitman]

Slightly thread drifting here...
I was puzzling a similar question today as I was waiting in A Cut Above's parking lot to buy a 9mm pistol upper from a member (who never showed or returned PMs BTW). What about a cut 80% lower in this situation? Are we just on the honor system there? Seems like the only possibility to me, but then I am not exactly the sharpest bulb in the shed.

 

[Red98422]

Slightly thread drifting here...
I was puzzling a similar question today as I was waiting in A Cut Above's parking lot to buy a 9mm pistol upper from a member (who never showed or returned PMs BTW). What about a cut 80% lower in this situation? Are we just on the honor system there? Seems like the only possibility to me, but then I am not exactly the sharpest bulb in the shed.

that would be exactly correct, it is an honor system at that point. Legally speaking I believe the burden of proof would lay with whomever was attempting to convict you of making a firearm from a rifle.

 

[quneur]

I believe the origin of other, rifle, pistol designation is with the manufacturer and not the FFL. As for the pistol to rifle to pistol question, pistols have more restrictions to purchase, BGC, waiting periods, etc. So, turning a pistol into a rifle is allowed. Turning back into a pistol is allowed due to purchaser already going through the BCG, etc.

Rifle to pistol is not allowed due to same reason except not going though BGC, waiting period, etc.

My thoughts from this thread:

Dumb question about lowers

If the buyer is from WA that is probably so he doesn't have to go through I-1639 BS. Exactly and doing that specifically to avoid the law, is in fact a felony.

www.northwestfirearms.com

 

[arakboss]

I believe the origin of other, rifle, pistol designation is with the manufacturer and not the FFL. As for the pistol to rifle to pistol question, pistols have more restrictions to purchase, BGC, waiting periods, etc. So, turning a pistol into a rifle is allowed. Turning back into a pistol is allowed due to purchaser already going through the BCG, etc.

Rifle to pistol is not allowed due to same reason except not going though BGC, waiting period, etc.

My thoughts from this thread:

Dumb question about lowers

If the buyer is from WA that is probably so he doesn't have to go through I-1639 BS. Exactly and doing that specifically to avoid the law, is in fact a felony.

www.northwestfirearms.com

My belief is that if the receiver was not manufactured as a rifle and transferred as a receiver it can be used in a firearm build and then be taken off that build and revert back to being a receiver. Otherwise you would have no legal way to transfer that receiver. FFLs will not transfer bare receivers as anything other than a receiver. It appears some FFLs will transfer receivers that have a barrel attached as a rifle but I don't believe that receiver with a barrel attached meets the legal definition of a rifle. The legal definition of rifle requires that it be designed to be shouldered (include stock). A barreled receiver is not designed to be shouldered.

 

[quneur]

"Originally bought as 'other' (lower) can sold as 'OTHER', pistol, or rifle."

 

[Mike7b]

You may find this thread interesting, go the high road, go the legal forum, go to page 4 and the thread is titled rifle masquerading as a pistol.

 

[arakboss]

You may find this thread interesting, go the high road, go the legal forum, go to page 4 and the thread is titled rifle masquerading as a pistol.

I read it all 5 pages, lots of differing opinions over there. One thing I agreed with is the member who said this:

Absolutely true. A licensee is required to record the type of firearm he receives. Period.
A Glock frame is recorded as "Other" in the bound book and on the 4473 as "Other firearm" on Que. 16 and as "Frame" on Que. 27.
That it may have been a complete pistol at some point is immaterial as to how the dealer records WHAT HE RECEIVED.

A dealer that receives a barreled action records it as "Other firearm" in the bound book, as "Other" on Que 16 and as "Receiver" on Que. 27.

It is not the dealers responsibility to determine the history of the firearm.

 

[wired]

My hang up with the BATF's opinion on not being able to make a pistol from a rifle is that they use the term "originally" (See Q&A below). This leads me to believe that it only applies to rifles manufactured as a rifle.


Can I lawfully make a rifle into a pistol without registering that firearm?
No. A firearm that was originally a rifle would be classified as a "weapon made from a rifle" if it has either a barrel less than 16 inches in length or an overall length of less than 26 inches. If an individual wishes to make an NFA firearm, they must first submit ATF Form 1 (Application to Make and Register a Firearm), pay a $200.00 making tax, and receive approval of the application from ATF before converting the firearm.

Originally means it was originally a rifle. Manufactured as such and excise tax paid by an 07 manufacturer as such and transferred to the end user as such. Lets use ATF legalese shall we? You can "make' whatever you want out of a "other" receiver. "Manufacturing" is what a 07 manufacturer does. He pays taxes and keeps bound books. Not you. There are rifles, there are pistols, and there are firearms, and there are others. Originally manufactured as a rifle means just that. Its simple. Don't read too much into it.

 

[arakboss]

Originally means it was originally a rifle. Manufactured as such and excise tax paid my an 07 manufacturer as such. There are rifles, there are pistols, and there are firearms, and there are others. Originally manufactured as a rifle means just that.

That's the answer I am hoping is the correct one. That would mean those who bought a receiver and intially built it as a rifle could still legally turn it in to a pistol. Lot's of people are of the opinion that "originally" includes those rifles built by buyer of a receiver, which doesn't make much sense to me.

 

[wired]

That's the answer I am hoping is the correct one. That would mean those who bought a receiver and intially built it as a rifle could still legally turn it in to a pistol. Lot's of people are of the opinion that "originally" includes those rifles built by buyer of a receiver, which doesn't make much sense to me.

Because that doesnt make sense. "Originally" is the key word. Not what you did after you had a dealer transfer it to you. "Originally" means what the last licensed manufacturer that had his hands on it did to it. If he paid excise tax on it and recorded it as a rifle...Its a rifle. Its always going to be a rifle. If he paid excise tax on it and recorded it as a pistol ...Its a pistol forever. If it sold as an other it was never a rifle in the eyes of the law whether you built it that way or not.

 

[arakboss]

My hang up with the BATF's opinion on not being able to make a pistol from a rifle is that they use the term "originally" (See Q&A below). This leads me to believe that it only applies to rifles manufactured as a rifle.


Can I lawfully make a rifle into a pistol without registering that firearm?
No. A firearm that was originally a rifle would be classified as a "weapon made from a rifle" if it has either a barrel less than 16 inches in length or an overall length of less than 26 inches. If an individual wishes to make an NFA firearm, they must first submit ATF Form 1 (Application to Make and Register a Firearm), pay a $200.00 making tax, and receive approval of the application from ATF before converting the firearm.

The more I research this the more I agree with the minority that believe it's OK to build a rifle from a receiver that was originally manufactured as a receiver and then later convert it to a pistol. Here are some reasons that support this belief.

The BATF says that the law prohibits converting a firearm that was originally a rifle in to a "weapon made from a rifle" with out submitting NFA paperwork first, getting stam, etc.

The law does not prohibit remaking pistols or non-rifle receivers in to other legal configurations, rifle, pistol, etc.

A receiver is just as much of a firearm under the law as a rifle, a pistol, etc.

There is no law that states that a non-rifle receiver is subject to different treatment compared to a pistol receiver.

The T/C Contender case seems to support the idea that receivers designed to be used for both rifle and pistol configurations are allowed to be changed back and forth.

I can see the difference in age requirement for receiving a rifle vs pistol as being motivation for this rifle to pistol prohibition. But that age difference doesn't exist between pistols and receivers manufactured as receivers.

We don't have any case law or BATF guidance referencing law that prohibits a person from building a rifle first and then a pistol if that person is using manufactured non-rifle receiver.

 

[MannyGlocks]

Is this thread an example of OCD or...?

Yes, I know I can skip reading it, just curious as one who at times manifests OCD himself.....and think I recognize a fellow sufferer...

Anyone, Buehler, Buehler...

 

[arakboss]

Is this thread an example of OCD or...?

Yes, I know I can skip reading it, just curious as one who at times manifests OCD himself.....and think I recognize a fellow sufferer...

Anyone, Buehler, Buehler...

I don't know about OCD but don't worry it won't last long before another topic grabs my interest, maybe I have ADHD

Plus I think I have figured out the rifle to pistol problem. If you think about the "originally a rifle" label as the firearm being born instead of built or manufactured it is easier to understand why I believe that the law only applies to manufactured rifles and receivers from manufactured rifles.

We have three basic types of firearms being involved in the discussion: Rifle, Pistol and Receiver. Each of those firearms is equally a firearm in the eyes of the law. Each of those firearms is born with a serial number and an original classification that never changes.

For a firearm born as a rifle the law says you are prohibited from changing the classification from a rifle. Born a rifle always a rifle. (except for NFA purposes)

For a firearm born as a pistol you can legally change the classification to some other legal type of firearm and change it back as you wish. The birth classification never changes.

For a firearm born as a receiver you can legally change the classification to some other legal type of firearm and change it back as you wish. The birth classification never changes.

This seems pretty straightforward so why do so many people think that it's illegal to build a rifle from a firearm born as a receiver and then change it to a pistol or other type of legal firearm? It must be because they think a firearm can be born twice. So first time it was born as a receiver and the second time it was born as a rifle, to me this seems absurd. The only way I can see a firearm being born twice would be with an NFA firearm. Even in that case it's not a true rebirth but the ATF would at least have on record the change of classification.

Hopefully this makes sense to others but if you still think a rifle built from a receiver that was born as a receiver is now forever a rifle please provide evidence that this is the case. There isn't any I could find.

OCD out.

 

[arakboss]

Do what you want with it and keep it to yourself, simple.

Here's the same info in video form:

He was right up until 5:15. I agree with him and his FFL. If you start with a receiver born as a receiver than you can make any legal firearm out of it and in any order. Rifle first then pistol, sure. Other firearm, then pistol, then rifle, sure. The receiver was not born as a rifle so there are no restrictions on what legal types of firearms you can make with it or in what order.

At 5:15 I lost him. He said you could not transfer a rifle built from a pistol as a rifle. I think that is bunk. If you bring a rifle down to your FFL then your FFL should transfer it as a rifle.