SBR in WA

[FourTeeFive]

I have an AR pistol receiver waiting for me at an FFL. I was going to pick up and then submit paperwork to turn it into an SBR. Am I better off registering it initially as an SBR receiver?

 

[codezilla]

Here's my understanding of the law:
Lower receivers are just receivers when purchased. If you build it into a pistol, it remains a pistol until you attach a stock- at which point it becomes a rifle. When you build it into a rifle, cannot be converted back into a pistol. Once NFA paperwork is approved, you can convert it to a SBR.

 

[FourTeeFive]

Actually, AR receivers can be invoiced and sold as a pistol receiver (same with something like a Remington 700 receiver), so long as it was never registered as a rifle receiver. This one waiting for me was invoiced to the dealer as a pistol receiver, and will be papered as such when I pick it up. I just wasn't sure if papering from the beginning as an SBR would make more sense.

NOTE: Telero pointed out in the post below that I am incorrect. I'll leave there here so the thread continues to make sense.

 

[telero]

I have an AR pistol receiver waiting for me at an FFL. I was going to pick up and then submit paperwork to turn it into an SBR. Am I better off registering it initially as an SBR receiver?

Your best bet would be to build it into a pistol first. Not sure if that has any special requirements in WA, but then your parts would be specific to a pistol. Once the law goes into affect and if you're allowed to register as an SBR on a Form 1, then fill that out. Once the form is approved and received back, then install the stock.

Actually, AR receivers can be invoiced and sold as a pistol receiver (same with something like a Remington 700 receiver), so long as it was never registered as a rifle receiver. This one waiting for me was invoiced to the dealer as a pistol receiver, and will be papered as such when I pick it up. I just wasn't sure if papering from the beginning as an SBR would make more sense.

AR receivers (or Rem 700 receivers) cannot be sold as pistols (or rifles). They must transfer as other firearms (frame or receiver). If an FFL were to record a receiver as a pistol, they would be perjuring themselves on the 4473.

http://www.atf.gov/files/press/releases/2009/07/070709-openletter-ffl-gca.pdf

 

[telero]

Here's my understanding of the law:
Lower receivers are just receivers when purchased. If you build it into a pistol, it remains a pistol until you attach a stock- at which point it becomes a rifle. When you build it into a rifle, cannot be converted back into a pistol. Once NFA paperwork is approved, you can convert it to a SBR.

Receiver built into a pistol, then converted to a rifle, can be converted back into a pistol. Receiver built into a rifle can never be a pistol, but it could resemble one by being registered as an SBR.

http://www.atf.gov/files/regulations-rulings/rulings/atf-rulings/atf-ruling-2011-4.pdf

 

[FourTeeFive]

I stand (sit) corrected. Thank you Telero!

So I guess the answer is that I should build this up as a pistol, and then apply for the NFA paperwork to eventually turn it into an SBR.

 

[FourTeeFive]

Receiver built into a pistol, then converted to a rifle, can be converted back into a pistol. Receiver built into a rifle can never be a pistol, but it could resemble one by being registered as an SBR.

That's where it gets confusing. If the paperwork for selling the receiver doesn't indicate pistol or rifle, how does anyone know that it was built into a rifle in the first place? Or are you saying it really only applies if someone builds it into a rifle, and then sells it and papers it as a rifle?

 

[telero]

That's where it gets confusing. If the paperwork for selling the receiver doesn't indicate pistol or rifle, how does anyone know that it was built into a rifle in the first place? Or are you saying it really only applies if someone builds it into a rifle, and then sells it and papers it as a rifle?

They don't know for sure. All someone could do is verify with the manufacturer that is wasn't sent out as a complete rifle, and check on the 4473 that it wasn't sold as a rifle. I wouldn't trust anything but a stripped receiver from the manufacturer, manufacturer verified pistol from the factory, or completed 80% build for building a pistol.

 

[jekbrown]

The whole pistol/rifle thing is such a damn joke. The only people worried about that crap are law abiding citizens that are afraid of the cat stompers. No criminal ever gave a damn.

I have a lower that was apparently manufactured as a pistol, is engraved pistol, and described as a pistol on the 4473 (or whatever the transfer form is). It's always been an unbuilt lower though, AFAIK. I didn't fill out any of those forms sooooo...yeah.

Stupid rules.

 

[FourTeeFive]

They are very stupid rules. Nice that we can legally own and shoot SBR's now, but no SBS's. It is all ridiculous. By the way, as restrictive as Canada is regarding firearms, SBR's are fairly common up there and are no different from other "military-style" weapons. Go figure. And suppressors are non-regulated in some European countries.

 

[PDXSparky]

..... And suppressors are non-regulated in some European countries.

As they should be here as well. It is so much more fun to be able to safely shoot a suppressed firearm without the need for earplugs.

 

[Doc In UPlace]

Actually there are semi bolt carriers and there are auto bolt carriers, and his was an auto one, of course. I should have added carrier, my omission.

As others have posted, having a short barrel upper and no pistol lower or no stamp for an SBR lower sounds like a poor recipe to me.

 

[mjbskwim]

That's where it gets confusing. If the paperwork for selling the receiver doesn't indicate pistol or rifle, how does anyone know that it was built into a rifle in the first place? Or are you saying it really only applies if someone builds it into a rifle, and then sells it and papers it as a rifle?

OK if you buy a receiver,which will be AOW,you can build it as you please.No matter what it says on the side
Now if the weapon never goes in any books for repair or to sell (ie consignment,etc) it will always be an AOW.
If it never is shown online to reveal the serial # it will always be an AOW

Keep pictures of your shyte off line and do as you please.
Just don't get caught out at a range with a barrel too short with a stock and without a tax stamp

Flame me all you want. I am not promoting any wrong doing just stating some facts

 

[del_and_bones]

Not to be a pain, but it is good to be precise as the law is precise.

Stripped receivers transfer as "other" on a 4473. They are not AOWs. They do not have to be engraved "pistol" to be pistol, the sole requirement is that they have never had a stock attached. A shotgun receiver can be built as an AOW until a stock is attached.

Read the relevant parts of the 1968 GCA and the 1934 NFA. It helps to understand the law in order to not get hosed.

 

[captqc]

The problem with trying to figure out the crazy laws and following them is the ATF boys don't! I don't know what their attitude is now but awhile ago it was that if you had ANY component from a full auto in your semi then it was considered a full auto! Crazy but true.

 

[Doc In UPlace]

I think this is pretty accurate, as far as few people know for sure how BATFE will decide what the law is in any particular circumstance.

Colt Defense has published a BATFE letter that exempts the Colt FA bolt carrier from being considered an "automatic only" part. That it's issued in the form of a letter instead of a court ruling or statute demonstrates how fragile and arbitrary the BATFE is allowed to be regarding intent, use, possession of NFA type parts such as baffles, bolt carriers, and short barrels.

This is a topic of discussion in a silencer forum I visit occasionally, as well as here, where the meaning of the word acquire is a matter of debate and how that may relate to manufacturing.

One BATFE letter and some previously considered safe items can become felonies to possess.

The one reliable thing I take away from this situation is, if you have an appropriate stamp to make or possess or transfer something, then you are protected. Otherwise it's a roll of the dice.

 

[Nwcid]

The problem with trying to figure out the crazy laws and following them is the ATF boys don't! I don't know what their attitude is now but awhile ago it was that if you had ANY component from a full auto in your semi then it was considered a full auto! Crazy but true.

Then all guns would be illegal............ Semi autos share the majority of parts with FA guns.

 

[captqc]

Then all guns would be illegal............ Semi autos share the majority of parts with FA guns.

The feds were saying this in relationship to AR's. They were saying that the trigger, safety, bolt, etc were different and you were not allowed to use any auto component in a semi-auto because they then considered the semi an auto even though we all know that you need a combination of parts to make it happen. I know it's crazy, but we are talking about the feds here! This was going on about five years ago,I haven't heard lately if they are still on this kick or not. Here's some info that may clarify this....
Suppressors and machine guns are the most heavily regulated. For example, in Ruling 81-4, BATFE declared that any AR-15 Drop-in Auto-Sear (DIAS) made after November 1, 1981 is itself a machine gun, and is therefore subject to regulation.[8] While this might seem to mean that pre-1981 sears are legal to possess without registration, BATFE closes this loophole in other publications, stating, "Regardless of the date of manufacture of a drop in auto sear, possession of such a sear and certain M-16 fire control parts is possession of a machinegun as defined by the NFA. Specifically, these parts are listed as "(a) combination(s) of parts" designed "Solely and exclusively" for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun and are a machinegun as defined in the NFA." ATF machinegun technology letters written between 1980 and 1996 by Edward M. Owen – the then-chief of the ATF technology division defined "solely and exclusively" in all of his published and unpublished machinegun rulings with specific non-ambiguous language.
Owning the parts needed to assemble other NFA firearms is generally restricted. One individual cannot own or manufacture certain machine gun sear (fire-control) components unless he owns a registered machine gun. The <broken link removed> trigger pack is such an example of a "combination of parts" that is a machinegun in and of itself. Most of these have been registered as they were pulled from stores of surplus rifles in the early 1960s. In some special cases, exceptions have been determined to these by the BATFE. A string or shoelace that could be looped around the cocking handle of a semiautomatic firearm and then behind and in front of the trigger in such a way as to allow the firearm to be fired automatically is no longer considered a machinegun unless it is attached in this manner.[9]
Most current fully automatic trigger groups will not fit their <broken link removed> look-alike counterparts – the semi-automatic version is specifically constructed to reject the fully automatic trigger group by adding metal in critical places. This addition is required by the ATF to prevent easy conversion of Title I firearms into machine guns. Additionally, some fully automatic trigger groups are also permanently modified in such a way that they can no longer be made to function as fully automatic fire control devices. The ATF has listed required manufacturing procedures for modifying these fully automatic trigger groups to make them into legal semi-automatic trigger-groups for civilian sales.[ <broken link removed> ]

 

[Nwcid]

I fully agree with what you just posted and it is correct. That is not what you said before though. You had said "if you had ANY component from a full auto in your semi then it was considered a full auto", the bold ANY being yours.

So it is not "ANY" part from a full auto. It is ANY part(s) that can only be used in an illegal NFA item that is illegal.

Those are 2 very different things.

 

[captqc]

Yea, my wife accuses me of not using complete sentences all the time and I think that the older I get the worse it's getting! Obviously "Any" component was not a correct statement. Gary