A little Legal Help Please...

[JohnH]

Couple years back, TC took the ATF to court over the pistol/rifle configuration of the Contender/Encore series. Courts finally ruled that the frames could be legally used in either configuration, regardless of how the frame was sold on the 4473, so long as when used as a handgun, the configuration would meet the legal definition, and configured as a rifle, it would meet legal definition. (pistol grip and less than 16" barrel for handgun, full shoulder stock barrel greater than 16" for rifle) I want to find a copy of the ruling for use on a facebook page I belong to where the guys are having a conversation about building AR-15 pistols, I cannot help but think the TC ruling directly affects the build of an AR, meaning, one lower, two sets of uppers and stocking, configuration would be legal, so long as it met definitions, regardless of language on 4473. Can someone help me find the ruling? Thanks.

[bhn22]

US vs Thompson Center Arms

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-0164.ZO.html

[JohnH]

US vs Thompson Center Arms

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-0164.ZO.html

Thank You, Thank You :)

[C.F.Plinker]

This letter says that you can convert a pistol to a rifle and back without violating federal law. However, converting a firearm originally sold as a rifle to a pistol violates federal law.

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

[Grump]

The full citation is:


United States v. Thompson/Center Arms Co., 504 U.S. 505, 112 S.Ct. 2102, 119 L.Ed.2d 308, 60 USLW 4480 (1992)

My source says it's still good law, as far as court decisions go.

I have NOT looked into whether the Congresscritters in their legislative activism activities since 1992 have re-written the governing statute in a way to make the case no longer controlling.

Good judges will consider themselves sort of handcuffed to the language of statutes, at least when not "ambiguous" in some real or imagined way. Their ability to avoid "absurd results" is a bit variable.

I should know this off the top of my head, but it's been a while and I don't read the gunzines that much any more.

[JohnH]

This letter says that you can convert a pistol to a rifle and back without violating federal law. However, converting a firearm originally sold as a rifle to a pistol violates federal law.

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

That's what TC-ATF were arguing over. Court sided with TC, but the language in the last paragraph of the ruling is going to be the sticking point, "sold as a kit". ATF is going to take this to mean the arm, regardless of its configuration, must have been sold as a convertible kit. Don't know if TC even does this any more, but I'm certain there is not an AR convertible kit. ( which was an offshoot of the discussion elsewhere) I'm more than positive that even having a TC Contender/Encore frame, one will be in trouble converting a rifle to pistol configuration just buying the neccisary parts to do so. Who's gonna know? possession of the parts ain't problematic. I have a Contender, bought it as a pistol, have no idea what it may have been sold as originally, it is an early model but who knows? How would you know? Gun could have been through 10 hands before mine.

Thanks again for all the help guys.

[Dryball]

Sounds like the same thing Sig Sauer is going through, now, with the ATF (concerning their wrist braced AR pistol).

[Tar Heel]

It's all ambiguous and open to interpretation. Even the ATF is in argument over the use of a single word used in multiple context. Even a student of Logic can't decipher the argument due to its (purposeful) complexity which creates (by design) holes in the argument. For example, define "close proximity" or "held". These are the arguments presented to leaned scholars of law and language.

Bottom line is: if they want you....they will have you....unless you can tie it up in the court system with gobs and gobs of money.

Just like grabbing a greased pig huh?

[dragon813gt]

This letter says that you can convert a pistol to a rifle and back without violating federal law. However, converting a firearm originally sold as a rifle to a pistol violates federal law.

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

Thank you, I knew my FFL was wrong on Saturday. He didn't want to do the extra paperwork required for pistols in PA. We have to fill out a separate form that is then submitted to State Police. Good thing I ordered two more lowers from him. The entire reason for the one on Saturday was the make a pistol out of. I knew I couldn't make a pistol out of a rifle. I don't know why I believe people after I've done the research.

[MostlyOnThePaper]

It's all ambiguous and open to interpretation. Even the ATF is in argument over the use of a single word used in multiple context. Even a student of Logic can't decipher the argument due to its (purposeful) complexity which creates (by design) holes in the argument. For example, define "close proximity" or "held". These are the arguments presented to leaned scholars of law and language.

Bottom line is: if they want you....they will have you....unless you can tie it up in the court system with gobs and gobs of money.

Just like grabbing a greased pig huh?
More like grabbing a greased pig covered in razor blades.

[rockrat]

I believe an exception to the TC ruling was frames that were marked, I believe, "rifle only". Those, IIRC, you could'nt change between rifle and pistol configurations.

[beagle]

I think Auto Ordnance went through that not long ago as I notice that some of their "thompsons" are sold as pistols with a short barrel and no shoulder stock. Maybe they can be modified for a shoulder stock after purchase which would turn them into a rifle with a shorter than legal barrel making them illegal. Having carried an M1A1 Thompson in VN for a while with no shoulder stock, it makes me wonder why anyone would want a semi auto pistol that cumbersome and heavy...but each to his own./beagle

[Jupiter7]

Thank you, I knew my FFL was wrong on Saturday. He didn't want to do the extra paperwork required for pistols in PA. We have to fill out a separate form that is then submitted to State Police. Good thing I ordered two more lowers from him. The entire reason for the one on Saturday was the make a pistol out of. I knew I couldn't make a pistol out of a rifle. I don't know why I believe people after I've done the research.

As lowers can be either, they can be sold as "other". They do not have to be defined on 4473, unless they have different rules there in Pa. Just to be safe, I bought a pistol marked lower and when doing paperwork I had my FFL declare it as a semi-auto pistol. I know the law, other yokels may not.

[badbob454]

Thank you, I knew my FFL was wrong on Saturday. He didn't want to do the extra paperwork required for pistols in PA. We have to fill out a separate form that is then submitted to State Police. Good thing I ordered two more lowers from him. The entire reason for the one on Saturday was the make a pistol out of. I knew I couldn't make a pistol out of a rifle. I don't know why I believe people after I've done the research.

pictures please when you are finished with the semi -auto pistol ...

[dragon813gt]

As lowers can be either, they can be sold as "other". They do not have to be defined on 4473, unless they have different rules there in Pa. Just to be safe, I bought a pistol marked lower and when doing paperwork I had my FFL declare it as a semi-auto pistol. I know the law, other yokels may not.

PA has a separate registration form for pistols. And it's a defacto registration because the State Police don't destroy the forms. We have to transfer pistols through an FFL when selling. Unlike long guns which can be face to face. The line is to grey in my opinion to risk it. I know this is more of a federal issue but I'd rather fill out one extra form and not worry about it.

[Walter Laich]

Having carried an M1A1 Thompson in VN for a while with no shoulder stock, it makes me wonder why anyone would want a semi auto pistol that cumbersome and heavy...but each to his own./beagle

We had an LT that carried one with shoulder stock. How he did it was beyond me. My M-16 + all the ammo we humped was quite enough--thank you.

[leadman]

rockrat, never saw a Contender frame or read or heard of one marked "rifle only". Not saying they don't exist but I have been playing with these for over 20 years. Also was in the TCA for awhile.

[TXGunNut]

I like my Contender pistols but will not keep a shoulder stock or rifle-length barrel under my roof. If a SBR can be assembled from components in my safe it's not worth the risk. One misled ATFE agent can ruin your hole day and absolutely wipe out a large pile of cash in legal fees...even if you win.

[BossMaverick]

This letter says that you can convert a pistol to a rifle and back without violating federal law. However, converting a firearm originally sold as a rifle to a pistol violates federal law.

This was my exact understanding of it. When I had an AR pistol, I bought a lower that was sold as a pistol and was marked as one. It was before the form came out with "other" option. Now that they have the "other" option, I would feel safe with building an AR pistol using a lower that was sold as "other". I still would not take a new complete AR rifle and convert it to a pistol.