possible 9mm AR project

[wired]

Heres another way that illustrates how to bend the laws. Say I had a SBR that I registered in another state then moved to Washington with. To bring it into Washington I would have to remove the buttstock. According to the state law it would not be a SBR. Barrel under 16 inches and no buttstock .It would be a pistol by the state definition as long as I did not put a stock on it. . It would still be on the books at the federal level as being an SBR but in Washington its a pistol as much as a pistol can be. Take it out of the state its an SBR. Possible problem in that case that I don't know how the ATF would respond with is filing the 5320 to travel with to travel in and out of state with. Its one of those things you don't know about until you try it and theres no penalty for trying...At least for filing a form 1 for.

 

[cyclesarge]

"A short barreled rifle is a rifle (which is defined as a shoulder
fired, rifled bore firearm) with a barrel length of less than 16",
or an overall length of less than 26", or any weapon made from a
rifle falling into the same length parameters (like a pistol made
from a rifle). "

"A short barreled rifle (SBR) is defined in the law as:
26 U.S.C. sec. 5845(a)
* * * *
(3) a rifle having a barrel or barrels less than 16 inches
in length;
(4) a weapon made from a rifle if such weapon as modified
has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or
barrels of less than 16 inches in length;"

Coming back to this. I think (3) and (4) are 2 (of 4) definitions of the same thing, a SBR. I suspect (1) and (2) pertain to pistols made into SBR's. (3) is obvious and (4) answers the question "What if you take a rifle, and shorten it, BUT you don't add or retain the stock making a weapon that's not a rifle in the traditional sense?".

 

[wired]

Coming back to this. I think (3) and (4) are 2 (of 4) definitions of the same thing, a SBR. I suspect (1) and (2) pertain to pistols made into SBR's. (3) is obvious and (4) answers the question "What if you take a rifle, and shorten it, BUT you don't add or retain the stock making a weapon that's not a rifle in the traditional sense?".

Then you have a pistol by what Washington State calls a pistol. It wouldnt get a second look at a range in Washington. Its not an SBR according to the state. Take it across the border and it has all the necessary federal paperwork to add a stock and still be legal.

 

[cyclesarge]

What I am saying is that (4) is not another classification of weapon, it is another definition of an SBR, which is not legal in Washington.

 

[wired]

What I am saying is that (4) is not another classification of weapon, it is another definition of an SBR, which is not legal in Washington.

That depends on what the Washington State Statutory definition of what is a pistol is and what an SBR is. Going the other way if I have a federally registered SBR lower and put a full length barrel on it then it is not an SBR in the state of Washington . It is a rifle with a bunch of engraving on it. The opposite should hold true. If I have a federally registered SBR lower and put a pistol barrel with no stock on it then I have a pistol to the state of Washington.

 

[cyclesarge]

That depends on what the Washington State Statutory definition of what is a pistol is and what an SBR is. Going the other way if I have a federally registered SBR lower and put a full length barrel on it then it is not an SBR in the state of Washington . It is a rifle with a bunch of engraving on it. The opposite should hold true. If I have a federally registered SBR lower and put a pistol barrel with no stock on it then I have a pistol to the state of Washington.

If the feds say you cannot turn a rifle into a pistol(configuration) without a tax stamp, what the state says doesn't matter, except to further limit what you can have. The feds define a rifle turned into a pistol as a SBR.

Basically it all comes down to whether or not there is a "weapon made from a rifle" CATEGORY, which I don't believe there is. I believe this is a DESCRIPTION of an SBR.

 

[wired]

No one said you didnt need a stamp. The feds are satisfied that you have a stamp on an SBR when its in SBR configuration. States can say otherwise but if the state statute is met then they cannot prosecute. You have 2 different legal entities you are dealing with. State and Federal . If its not in SBR configuration then according to the state it is not an SBR even if you have federal paperwork saying it is an SBR or a "weapon made from a rifle" which according to the letter of the law might or might not be synonymous with being an SBR on the federal level. The OP question was whether he can build a SBR in WA. Answer is clearly no but can he make a rifle into a "pistol" on the federal level? Yes. According to the NFA he can. It would not be legal to put a stock on in WA but according to the letter of the law he could do it. Only thing stopping him is an issued tax stamp and it does not hurt to file for one even if they do not approve it.

 

[wired]

In further checking it seems the WA state RCW has this covered...

(17) "Short-barreled rifle" means a rifle having one or more barrels less than sixteen inches in length and any weapon made from a rifle by any means of modification if such modified weapon has an overall length of less than twenty-six inches.


It appears the only way around this is to register in another state as an SBR and then install a longer barrel when in the State of WA to make it a regulation rifle. The federal FAQ is very clear that SBR's when in long barrel form are not truly SBR's but retain their tax stamp status..

 

[toolfan]

I'm not sure I totally understand this, but -

If someone in WA builds a 9mm AR-pistol, how can they also claim it is a "weapon made from a rifle?"

It's registered as a pistol, yeah? So if they take it the SBR route, it would be a SBR made from a pistol...

 

[wired]

Registered pistol isnt a problem. Once you put a rifle barrel on a pistol lower and install a buttstock it is forever more a rifle unless you NFA it back to a pistol configuration ..."made from a rifle" aka SBR. Thats true even if you didnt tell anyone and splatter pics all over the internet. You will know !!! Once a rifle...always a rifle even if it started as a pistol. That is unless its a thompson contender because they won a court case that the ATF still to this day says ONLY applies to Thompson. Don't makemedrag out the ATF opinion letter.

 

[toolfan]

Registered pistol isnt a problem. Once you put a rifle barrel on a pistol lower and install a buttstock it is forever more a rifle unless you NFA it back to a pistol configuration ..."made from a rifle" aka SBR. Thats true even if you didnt tell anyone and splatter pics all over the internet. You will know !!! Once a rifle...always a rifle even if it started as a pistol. That is unless its a thompson contender because they won a court case that the ATF still to this day says ONLY applies to Thompson. Don't makemedrag out the ATF opinion letter.

I thought half the point of building an AR pistol is that if it starts as a pistol you can switch back and forth, but if you start as a rifle it's always a rifle and you'd have to go SBR to use a <16" barrel?

 

[wired]

Absolutely not true. Make a pistol into a rifle . Its always a rifle unless its NFA'd back. Like I said there is ONE exception and thats the Thompson Contender. AR-15's are not exempt.

 

[sothereiwas]

So what steps do I need to take when purchasing my stripped lower for a 9mm pistol to make sure I'm legal. Do I just have to let the FFL know that it will be a pistol so the paperwork is done properly. What about buying a lower from a private party.

 

[wired]

Thats about it. On the newer 4473's they arent really supposed to transfer as a pistol but theres no penalty for doing it. Ive gone so far as to have Washington state pistol transfer paperwork drawn up at time of sale. A stripped receiver is supposed to be transferred as a receiver. From then on its up to you how you build it but once a rifle its a rifle. Ive seen a ATF opinion letter in the case of an AR 15 where the person writing the letter wanted to know if they could build a pistol out of a rifle that was originally a pistol and the ATF said H3LL no but they could register it as a "weapon made from a rifle" if they wanted it to be a pistol. Thats where the seed of my idea to get a federally legal SBR style stamped lower came from. Wouldnt be legal in WA as an SBR but it would not actually be in WA in SBR configuration.


Stripped receiver from an individual. Its up to you. If your satisfied its never been built into anything than go ahead. Pretty much the honor system on most of this and how much you like to hug the law as written. Some people hug closer than others.