Legal Question re: bolt actions

[greywuuf]

I have a question concerning the legality of a Rifle or particularly a patialy constructed rifle.
i just put together ( well partialy anyway ) a Rhineland .45 acp kit on a small ring mauser (only I dont have a stock for it yet).... now it is a legal 16+ length barrel, but is it legal without a stock ? not sure that I ever thought about it before, i know that once its a rifle action you cant make an XP 100 out of it because it is legaly a SBR at that point... but once a rifle and having a legal rifle barrel is there and overall length requirement ? ( thinking that is only scatterguns ?)

the plan is firing a couple of "proof rounds" with this barreled action bolted to a bench or something, and just wanted to make sure the idea was legal.

Dan

[Skipper]

The other requirement is 26" OAL

[greywuuf]

so it is in fact possible that by removing your Stock for cleaning or whatever that you will be Violating a federal law ( if you have a very short barrel and action ? ) Figures.

[bydand]

It's not a rifle until it is complete, what you now have is a barreled action. HOWEVER if you install a pistol grip instead of a buttstock you are in deep kimchie:twisted:

[greywuuf]

I would argue the point that a barreled action is not "complete" in the eyes of the law. Other wise there would be no problem removing an action from the stock and cutting a barrel below 16" before permanently attaching a muzzle brake. I know that has been an issue at times. (probably of no practical concern in your own shop I know) buy as I said I want to take this to the range and fire it. I will have to measure as maybe the action is over 10" long.

Homeland defense begins at home. I'm not there. Sent from a mobile device using a commercial app.

[Mk42gunner]

So make sure that when you bolt it to something the length is over 26". Whatever you bolt it to will become the stock even if it is a 2x4.

Just my opinion, I have no idea of the legalities.

Robert

[DCM]

The other requirement is 26" OAL

+1 that IS the rule.

True benchrest railguns have no "normal" stock, but the barrel is usually much longer too.

[greywuuf]

hmmm
I agree with bolting it to something , BUT ... I just measured and if I installed the barrel right now as it is outside of the stock.... it is illegal. I wonder how many people are guilty of this ... removing a stock from a short barrel weapon and creating an AOW.

[Bret4207]

Sometimes people just seem to look for problems that don't really exist. If you were carrying that barreled action around the range and shooting it or through the mall under your trench coat I can see where the issue might arise. But if it's down in your basement in a state of obvious disassembly..., well that's kind of like the people that worry about tearing the tag off the mattress and getting arrested. You're looking at the law but not thinking of intent. The law may state possession is illegal, but it's supposed to be applied when the intent to possess it AS AN ILLEGAL weapon exists. This is a basic theory in any law, that there is always an element of intent or recklessness or callous disregard exist. Of course in todays world with our Federal alphabet agencies writing law as they go I can see your concern, but I think you are over thinking the situation in a rel world sense.

[Ed in North Texas]

so it is in fact possible that by removing your Stock for cleaning or whatever that you will be Violating a federal law ( if you have a very short barrel and action ? ) Figures.

Normal maintenance activities do not violate the law, not even technically. Removing the stock (or never putting one on) and taking the firearm out to the range to shoot it is not "normal maintenance". And, not only must there be a technical violation, but there must be an element of intent. Often, in writing an indictment, the terminology used is "did knowingly and willfully", as in "did knowingly and willfully create a rifle with an overall length of 24 inches, 2 inches less than the minimum length required by (state the applicable US Code citation)." Willfully is easy, if you did it and not by accident. Knowingly is more difficult, it requires some degree of evidence that you knew the provision of the law which you violated. Say a thread like this where you were told the requirement. [smilie=1:

Bret4207 is correct, we often look for problems where there really isn't one to be had.

[rockrat]

I guess you could duct tape a piece of copper tubing to the muzzle(flash hider ya know), making it over 26", then when you get to the range and bolt it down to your "stock", remove the tubing and shoot. Then when you get ready to leave, tape the tubing on, remove the "stock", and go home.

[Ed in North Texas]

I guess you could duct tape a piece of copper tubing to the muzzle(flash hider ya know), making it over 26", then when you get to the range and bolt it down to your "stock", remove the tubing and shoot. Then when you get ready to leave, tape the tubing on, remove the "stock", and go home.

Now there is an innovative (and tongue in cheek) alternative to bolting the "stock" on before leaving the house.

[greywuuf]

I realize that unless I do something else that makes them want to kick down my door and search through my stuff that this will not be a problem, however... How comfortable would any of you be mailing this same action of to a gumsmith to be blued...or putting it in say a breakdown shotgun size case stock and action taken apart.. and trying to fly comercial somewhere. A seemingly innocent action that could have very dire consequences..... Just something to think about.

Homeland defense begins at home. I'm not there. Sent from a mobile device using a commercial app.

[Bret4207]

To a gunsmith? No prob at all. Why would you mail the stock to a reblue outfit? Brld action and stock in a shotgun case and flying, same thing. I think you're over thinking this one. Look at the AR7 rifles or the Marlin Papoose I think it was that had the brld action go into the buttstock. The action will still fire without the buttstock, they are well under 26 inches and nary a hiccup from anyone I ever heard of about it.

No offense but you're over thinking this one.

[greywuuf]

I see your point but I completely disagree with you. YES nothing will happen unless I do this and take it some where and some one has a problem with it. But the fact that something COULD happen if someone has a problem with it an reports it means that it IS a problem. in effect you are saying that it is not illegal to posses it, but it IS unlawful to fire it in that condition. By that logic I can cut the barrel to 6" and make a full auto and be fine as long as I never intend to shoot it. INTENT is implied in the possesion why else would you store a functioning gun with out a stock ( being mindful I dont EVEN HAVE a stock for this thing yet ) ...... I believe you are well intentioned and that this is a low percentage chance, but I still beleive that to barrel this action with a 16" and a little bit While it is not in a stock COULD get you in trouble as technicly BY the LETTER of the LAW it is prohibited. now with that said I am very familiar with the AR-7's and have never measured them as i bought them all in the broken down condition new from a dealer and it never occured to me that it might be a problem. Do I WANT to make a case out of this... do I want the Law to look at this and make a ruling(concerning the take down .22's) ? Heck no, Do i think they COULD given the law and the definition of a firearm Yes I do.

Long Story short.... I am not going to screw the barrel on this thing until i have a stock, and I certainly wont be taking it to the range and checking the head space and function firing it before then which WAS and Idea I entertained briefly before asking this question.

[MtGun44]

Actually, no. Cutting a barrel short is illegal, has nothing to do with shooting it. Making a
full auto is illegal, nothing to do with shooting it.

Bill

[Bret4207]

Yeah, MtGun hit the important points with your argument you presented- intent. You intentionally cut the barrel under 16", you intentionally built a full auto. My point wasn't about shooting it, but rather that you have the intent to use it in that condition. Like I said, you conceal the barreled action under your trench coat and go stalking int he mall, yeah, then you have a problem. Having a barreled action in the process of being built into a rifle in your basement? Worry about it if you want, but in 20+ years in law enforcement I never saw anything that would lead me to believe that there is any real chance that that item alone will give you any heartache.

Believe what you want.

[leadman]

The letter the ATF published in July or August this year concerning the Contender and Encores had some verbiage like the parts to build a NFA firearm in close proxcimity. If you don't have a pistol stock that fits this action in your basement with the action I don't think you have a problem.
With the Contenders and Encores as long as you have the proper parts assembled to make a legal handgun or rifle and only assemble them to not make a NFA firearm from what I read you are o.k.

[MtGun44]

The Contender pistol/rifle situation went all the way to the Supreme Court, IIRC. I think that
the judges thought that ATF was totally full of beans and basically threw the case out. Good
to think that maybe common sense sometimes prevails.

Bill

[frnkeore]

If this is true...."The Contender pistol/rifle situation went all the way to the Supreme Court, IIRC. I think that
the judges thought that ATF was totally full of beans and basically threw the case out. Good
to think that maybe common sense sometimes prevails."

It really proves the point that the BATF does what it wants and YOU have to prove them wrong!!!! How many thousands of dollars did it take to win that one? Who was held accountable for it?

I'm 67 yr old and was raised with "intent" but, in todays USA, your intent is ALWAYS to brake the law. We have so many laws today that NOT EVEN a cop or lawyer knows them all, let alone what intent could be associated with them. But, if a cop wants to charge you with something, he can dig in his book and find something and not even worry about "intent".

I have a XP100 with a 15" 7mm TCU barrel on it. I made a butt stock for it and shot it once at the range, then thought about it and took it off and never shot it with the butt stock again for FEAR that someone might say something to a agency or a BATF agent might see me at the range with it. My intent was to be able to shoot it more accurately but, try to tell that to a federal judge.

AND that's just what they want it to be. Rule by fear!!!

[leadman]

I had a 15" Encore barrel that I had a muzzlebrake installed on then I tack welded it to make it permanent. This complies with the 16" rule so I can use it with a buttstock.

[Bret4207]

If this is true...."The Contender pistol/rifle situation went all the way to the Supreme Court, IIRC. I think that
the judges thought that ATF was totally full of beans and basically threw the case out. Good
to think that maybe common sense sometimes prevails."

It really proves the point that the BATF does what it wants and YOU have to prove them wrong!!!! How many thousands of dollars did it take to win that one? Who was held accountable for it?

I'm 67 yr old and was raised with "intent" but, in todays USA, your intent is ALWAYS to brake the law. We have so many laws today that NOT EVEN a cop or lawyer knows them all, let alone what intent could be associated with them. But, if a cop wants to charge you with something, he can dig in his book and find something and not even worry about "intent".

I have a XP100 with a 15" 7mm TCU barrel on it. I made a butt stock for it and shot it once at the range, then thought about it and took it off and never shot it with the butt stock again for FEAR that someone might say something to a agency or a BATF agent might see me at the range with it. My intent was to be able to shoot it more accurately but, try to tell that to a federal judge.

AND that's just what they want it to be. Rule by fear!!!

Well, that's kind of taking your intent argument to the other side, isn't it? You are saying that it is the intention of police everywhere to misapply the law and "they" are saying it's the intent of all firearms owners to violate the law. That's an awful lot of supposition and intent for a world where intent is said not to matter!

Truth is there are some gun owners out there who DO intend to create illegal weapons or skirt the very edges of the law. People like that do our hobby and our rights no good. And there are some police, and a lot of lawmakers, who apply no common sense to the law when written or used. It's been like that for a long as man has been around, it probably always will be. Creating and applying false stereotypes to any group and using broad terms doesn't help the situation. What would help is if there was some way to get people everywhere to follow the law, including the intent of the law, and to have the moral fiber and character to do the right thing in the first place. We pretty much killed off the chances of that happening when we pushed the 10 Commandments out of our schools and communities.

It's a sad, sad world we live in today.

[frnkeore]

What I'm implying here is, when I was young, (1950's, early 60's) the legal system "looked" at things very differently (at least in the area that I was raised) and that they did look for intent. Today, it's different as I see it. The mere fact that a guy has a short firearm does not mean that he intents to conceal it, period. If that same guy is caught with it under his coat, he does have that intent! The law was ment to make it illegal to conceal short more accurate (I guess) guns.

Here I would add that if the person has a concealed carry licence that there should not be any reason not to allow him to carry such a firearm.

Frank

[Bret4207]

I agree in spirit, but in practice I know for a fact there are a lot of people out there still applying common sense to the laws as they exist. Hey, if we had a perfect world we wouldn't need any laws in the first place!

[Larry Gibson]

I'm not really convinced the barreled action sans the stock is considered a complete "firearm" as such by the regs and subject to the 26" minimum length.

Much ado about nothing here.

Larry Gibson

[greywuuf]

Deleted because of drift from original intent.

[Ed in North Texas]

BATFE just came out with a new "interpretation" of the Contender/Encore pistol/rifle issue. Where before they held that once a rifle, always a rifle (and vice versa), with the exception of the kits the Supremes ruled on (receiver, pistol and carbine barrels, pistol and carbine stocks).

They now say that once a pistol, either a pistol or a rifle (i.e. if it left the TC factory as a pistol, it can be re-assembled into rifle configuration without violating the law).

However, they claim the reverse is not true. So once a rifle, always a rifle and never a pistol barrel and grip may legally grace it.

So they are half way to a rational position.

[MBTcustom]

Seems to me that it would be hard to test fire the rifle anyway without a stock, and a stock can be made of any piece of wood. Seems to me that this is an opertunity for you to not only set your mind at ease about a certain obscure law that would probably never apply to you in the first place, as well as giving you a way to safely function test your rifle.
Use chisels/dremel tool to cut a place for your action in a 2X4. bolt that sucker in there and go to the range. Use C-clamps to secure it to the bench, and pull the trigger with a string. You can use pieces of wood to shim up the apparatus so that you can get to the trigger with the string in the first place.
Also, if you build this right, and make it hold the action securely, it could help give you a realy good idea of what the accuracy potential is for your creation. You might get some strange looks, but if you glass beded the action to the wood, its hard to see how it gets any better from a smoke test standpoint. In fact I'm glad I read this thread, I may use this trick on the rifle I am building.

As far as the legal side of things, I am not a lawyer, but I dont see how you can ever run afoul of the law unless the people around you are incensed enough by your actions to turn you in. I have found that as long as what you are doing is safe (not legally safe but realy safe) and you have a good reputation in your community, both at the range and at home, then folks will enjoy seeing what you are building and experimenting with and would defend you if need be. I mean the problem starts behind your back, and what people think of you will make a difference. Bob turns to fred at the range and says "would you look at what that guy is doing? Is that legal?" Then fred says "Oh its OK, thats just 'ol Graywuuf He's always workin' on something, why dont you go ask him about it?"
So, its true that the law could give you some trouble if they had a reason, but thats true no matter what you are doing. The big thing is though, how would it get started? It always starts with folks who think that you are a scary threat that they can't understand. If your personality runs in amiable and nice ways, you wont ever have any trouble, and if you do, someone else will end up being the fool when its all over.
Just my take on things.

[Bret4207]

Let me give you and example of why this is over thinking things- Adultery is still illegal in NY State. 'Nuff said.

[Ed in North Texas]

Let me give you and example of why this is over thinking things- Adultery is still illegal in NY State. 'Nuff said.

Perfect! And that is true of most states, including the intended commentary on enforcing the law.

Ed

[frnkeore]

"Let me give you and example of why this is over thinking things- Adultery is still illegal in NY State. 'Nuff said"

Let me add something........ If in NY the law was "adultery while in possession of a gun", it might well be enforced and considered a felony!

Frank

[Johnk454]

So this is how internet rumors start.

A barreled action is not an unregistered illegal SBR just because it is missing a stock. Matter of fact, they are sold that way on a regular basis. Check the auction sites. Check the custom sites.

[greywuuf]

No one ever claimed it was an illegal SBR
THE POINT IS THIS.....I DOES NOT MEET THE LETTER OF THE LAW.
It has a slightly over 16" barrel and does not make minimum 26" length with out the stock. I was advised not to shoot it that way. Why then is it legal to posess but not to shoot? No other weapon law works that way. No one has explained that to me, but you have all jumped on the call him paranoid train, and made allusions to the judgment of the LEO while I have merely pointed to the law. I know what I am going to do. Thank you all. But for gawd sake let the thread die.

Homeland defense begins at home. I'm not there. Sent from a mobile device using a commercial app.

[Mooseman]

Dan ,
Respectfully , you need to go the The BATF Regs and laws online and read and try to understand the definitions of the Following Terms: "Firearm", Rifle", " Pistol" , "Shotgun"..."Destructive Device" etc.
A barreled action sans stock is a "Firearm" by Definition.
A Rifle is a shoulder fired Firearm with a stock and 16 inch min Barrel.
A pistol is a one handgrip firearm with NO shoulder stock and a less than 16" Barrel.
A shotgun is a shoulder fired largebore /smooth bore with a minimum 18" barrel , but with some models can have a pistol grip if it is over 26" with that grip.

Rifles and shotguns have Minimum OAL of 26 " ( it does not say "Firearms")
A Rifle or Pistol or Shotgun receiver is a "Firearm"...even without a barrel !
A Suppressor is a firearm ( Still , No Size restriction!).
A short Barreled Shotgun is a Destructive Device. ( whether a pistol or shoulder fired configuration makes no difference.)

What I believe is That without a stock or a grip By BATF it is just a" firearm" that is NOT meant to be used per se in that "Configuration"...It wouldnt be feasable to shoot from the shoulder.
Barreled actions are test fired all the time , By gunsmiths, and by gun and bullet/ammo manufacturers to test their products.

I hope this is insightful.
Rich

[exile]

Now you guys have got me a little concerned. The reason is that I am thinking about buying an Encore rifle sometime soon. Can anyone direct me to where I can read the regulations regarding the Encore and Contender actions recently passed by the Supreme Court?

exile

[Mooseman]

Here exile :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Thompson-Center_Arms_Company

There are links you can follow to read the legal documents and decision.

[Bret4207]

Well done Moose! There's the "letter of the law" answer the OP was looking for.

BTW Wuuf, I don't think anyone said "paranoid". I said "overthinking" and there is a difference. Please don't take it as an insult since it wasn't intended that way at all. You are just taking the law and trying to take it further than it goes.