80% Lowers are Back on the Menu as Well!

[Silentweapon338]

Looks like a good win win today for the constitution.

"The agency rule at issue here flouts clear statutory text and exceeds the legislatively-imposed limits on agency authority in the name of public policy. Because Congress has neither authorized the expansion of firearm regulation nor permitted the criminalization of previously lawful conduct, the proposed rule constitutes unlawful agency action, in direct contravention of the legislature’s will."


https://www.breitbart.com/2nd-amendm...rule-unlawful/

[Palmetto Bug]

Speaking of 80% lowers, what are the rules on selling or transferring a rifle that was built from an 80% lower? If you turn one into a SBR, I assume the tax rules still apply but what about whether the lower is officially a pistol or rifle? Can you swap the barrel and stock and make a rifle into a pistol? It was never registered or serialized as either so conceivably nobody would know. Asking for a friend.

[Chuck the Duck Slayer]

Speaking of 80% lowers, what are the rules on selling or transferring a rifle that was built from an 80% lower? If you turn one into a SBR, I assume the tax rules still apply but what about whether the lower is officially a pistol or rifle? Can you swap the barrel and stock and make a rifle into a pistol? It was never registered or serialized as either so conceivably nobody would know. Asking for a friend.

If you want to sell a completed 80% lower you are the manufacturer and have to engrave and serialize it. This also applies if you turn it into an sbr because nfa rules still apply.

[Silentweapon338]

You can go from a pistol to a rifle, you can not go from Rifle to pistol.

[WoodieSC]

You can go from a pistol to a rifle, you can not go from Rifle to pistol.

I’ve read that before, but should we assume that means one has to possess a receipt that shows the lower was sold as a pistol lower? If so, doesn’t that mean that everyone who possesses an AR pistol also has to have an original(?) receipt for it?

[Silentweapon338]

It would have been marked on the 4473

[WoodieSC]

It would have been marked on the 4473

I understand that. But does the buyer and all subsequent buyers have to possess a copy of that 4473 to prove it’s a pistol lower?

The same issue has hounded owners of Thompson Contender frames for decades, but I’ve never read about anyone ever being challenged or fined for not being able to prove it isn’t a pistol frame.

Seriously, not trying to be argumentative, just trying to understand how this law is, or would be enforced.

[Silentweapon338]

I understand that. But does the buyer and all subsequent buyers have to possess a copy of that 4473 to prove it’s a pistol lower?

The same issue has hounded owners of Thompson Contender frames for decades, but I’ve never read about anyone ever being challenged or fined for not being able to prove it isn’t a pistol frame.

Seriously, not trying to be argumentative, just trying to understand how this law is, or would be enforced.

Ask 10 agents get 10 answers
Technically you the customer should not have a copy of the 4473

But technically the ATF shouldn’t either unless a crime has been committed with in 20 years of the purchase of the fire arm and the dealer had not gone out of business.

However now that has changed. A dealer can not destroy his her records ever.

So the ATF has a defacto gun registration and no congress critter is saying anything about that.

This is not legal advice.

Do not take it as such.

But it would be a hard case to make on their end unless you bought the gun in a complete rifle configuration.

Because if you bought a lower they now say it’s “other” on the 4473
There is no rule that’s says a “other” can’t become a pistol???

Again this isn’t legal advice.

I post a whole lot.
I also deal a whole lot with these folks.

I personally have a good relationship with them until I don’t.

I realize that.

Your on you own but reference what I said earlier assuming you didn’t check “rifle” it’s hard to make a case.

A whole lot of the original case which turned into the ruling that originally banned the braces came from this logic.

Let that sit in.

Now.

The moment and Time you shoulder that “brace” is it truly a brace or a sub in butt stock???

I’ve spent hours conversing with people way smarter than I am and ATF agents.

I personally believe the industry pushed the issue to far in the wrong direction and here is where we are.

Many “agents” understand the logic behind the original banning of SBR are antiquated. It was the sleight of hand that pisses them off.

But the issue with that is there were not 1 but hundreds of letters issued under Obama that allowed these weapons of mass destruction.

I will be chastised but if we are rule of law people and going with it.

I believe this is an end around

However the bump stock is not it meets the definition set by the 1934 law just like reset triggers do.

So it’s hard to have it both ways.

I believe the ‘68 GCA is totally illegal.

The ‘34 act is borderline
But the ‘86 amendment is totally illegal.

But if you follow that logic you have to accept that the moment and time you shoulder the pistol brace you just broke the law as it is written for the SBR law of ‘34

[Palmetto Bug]

The law against SBRs is ludicrous considering we are allowed to have pistols of any caliber. How does a shoulder stock or arm brace make it any more or less lethal?

[WoodieSC]

I get where you’re coming from… it’s basically jacked-up, which is one reason I haven’t bothered with any braced/‘long-barreled’ pistols.

I’ve always, or at least since I began to learn of their existence, believed that the NFA, GCA, and the ‘86 amendment were illegal. Hell, in various European/Scandinavian countries they consider it rude to not use a suppressor and they can be purchased OTC just like ammo.

Thanks.

[Silentweapon338]

I get where you’re coming from… it’s basically jacked-up, which is one reason I haven’t bothered with any braced/‘long-barreled’ pistols.

I’ve always, or at least since I began to learn of their existence, believed that the NFA, GCA, and the ‘86 amendment were illegal. Hell, in various European/Scandinavian countries they consider it rude to not use a suppressor and they can be purchased OTC just like ammo.

Thanks.

You are correct! It's actually considered uncouth to paraphrase Highstrung, not to shoot a can in may of those places you mentioned.

Palmetto Bug, you have to go back to the time and era. Forget ballistics......a scary SBR hidden under a trench coat may kill someone faster than a long barrel..... Doesnt matter I can kill you with either at 20 yards but at 100 yards all of a sudden one becomes nearly obsolete back then.


Interesting tid bit. The '34 law said SBS & SBR were the same at 18" it wasnt until after WW2 that the rifle section on the SBR length form got changed to 16" rather than 18". This was due to all the 16" .30 carbines coming back into the states by the bazillions. Yet to this day SBS still stays at 18"

You wanna tell a guy who just stuck it all on the line he cant keep his weapon back in 1945/46?

I would also say if a man or woman fought in any war for this nation they should be able to keep their weapon. Not just back then but to this day! What is the difference?

Hell there are still plenty of 1919's and Thompson's that are being destroyed by cops who grandpa stowed aways but didnt register in the '68 "amnesty" because he didnt trust the .gov he saw what happened in Nazi Germany na realized where we were heading.

May wanna take not from Grandma for keeping her mouth shut all these years, and not grand-daughter, and her woke boy friend.