Has there been any updates to SBR laws?

[solidgun]

http://www.armslist.com/posts/3354352/m ... pper-only-

I ran into this listing and thought taking that Glock out would make it illegal as you cannot make long gun into handgun without paperwork with ATF. Just wanted to refresh NFA stuff with anyone that has looked into it recently as the information seems to be everywhere and a few years old.

Thank you.

[TTS]

http://www.armslist.com/posts/3354352/minneapolis-minnesota-rifles-for-sale--glock-17-mech-tech-carbine-kit--upper-only-

I ran into this listing and thought taking that Glock out would make it illegal as you cannot make long gun into handgun without paperwork with ATF. Just wanted to refresh NFA stuff with anyone that has looked into it recently as the information seems to be everywhere and a few years old.

Thank you.

You can make a pistol into a rifle but not the other way around. This clearly started as a Glock and someone added a mech tech upper.

ETA: just read the ad, it looks like it is just for the upper, to add to your existing pistol lower. This is kosher in the eyes of our overlords at the ATF.

[linksep]

I could be wrong and often am, but I think the OP is getting at the idea that the photo shows a full gun and is wondering: Why not sell the gun whole? By removing the Glock from the Mech Tech the seller basically owns a Glock frame that can never be used again unless it's attached to another rifle upper.

[photogpat]

I'll have to dig for the citation, but you can make a legal pistol into a legal rifle (>16" barrel >26" OAL) and then go back to a legal pistol again....so long as its never in an NFA configuration...

You just can't take something originally designed as a rifle and turn it into a handgun.

[TTS]

A Pistol can legally be converted to a rifle, then back to a pistol.

A rifle can NOT be converted to a pistol.

The Glock frame is the "pistol" hence started as a pistol. Putting a 16" barrel and stock on it is fine and it can be made back into a pistol.

Here is the ATF ruling on this:
https://www.atf.gov/files/regulations-rulings/rulings/atf-rulings/atf-ruling-2011-4.pdf

[jshuberg]

It does get goofy when you introduce the NFA however. If you manufacture a registered SBR from a pistol, the original pistol ceases to exist as a title I weapon, and only the title II (SBR) weapon exists. The weapon is considered to have been originally manufactured when it was converted to an SBR, rather than when the pistol the SBR was built from was manufactured.

It is possible to convert an SBR into a normal rifle by reconfiguring it and notifying the BATFE in writing that the SBR has been converted into a normal rifle, and to remove it from the registry. However, an SBR manufactured from a pistol can never be returned back to a pistol, since it lost it's pistol status when it was converted to an SBR. Whenever a new weapon is "made", and when a requirement to engrave new manufacturing information on the receiver exists, any firearms used in the build ceases to exist in their previous form or classification. Because a new weapon is not "made" when converting from a title II to a title I weapon (no additional engraving requirements exist), an SBR cannot be converted into a pistol, even if the original weapon the SBR was built from was a pistol.

There's a similar thing with shotguns. In MN it's illegal to own a short barrel shotgun (SBS) unless it's a curio relic. However, a shotgun is a firearm designed to be fired from the shoulder, and requires a stock. A shotgun-like weapon that was originally manufactured without a stock, and that has never had a stock added cannot be converted to an SBS, since it has never been a shotgun in the first place. A shotgun-like weapon that was manufactured without a stock and has a barrel length of less than 18" is an AOW under the NFA, which is *not* prohibited under MN law. However, if at any point a stock is added, it becomes a SBS rather than an AOW which requires a new stamp from BATFE (for other states), and isn't legal in MN as it isn't a curio relic.

This stuff is all subject to change at the whim of the BATFE, and while reading through stuff on the internet posted by people familiar with the NFA is interesting, no one should consider anything they read online to be legal advice. Even ATF rulings should be taken with a grain of salt until you confirm that there have been no contradictory rulings after it. The NFA has serious legal consequences if you get it wrong, and the BATFE has imprisoned people for what most would recognize to be simple clerical mistakes. Read up on the subject, but double check everything with the BATFE NFA branch to maker sure the information you get is accurate and up to date and get your paperwork and stamp in hand before beginning a build.

[Drizzle]

I've been working a lot of gun dealers shows and distributor's shows, and have seen several AR pistols. I haven't had much interest until I realized the SIG brace is approved, and functions essentially like a stock. One could buy an AR pistol, a SIG brace, attach one to the other and have an SBR like item without the necessity of a tax stamp, or all the paperwork. The brace isn't considered a stock, and since the AR lower has never had a stock attached, it's considered a pistol, no?

I mentioned the possibility of the ATFE reversing itself to a Colt rep, and saying the SIG brace is, in fact, a stock, and he made the following point. There are a lot of disabled veterans out there without use of both of their arms, and for the G to say this brace that can aid them to be able to shoot is now illegal without much additional paperwork seemed to him to be unlikely. Anyhow, it's an interesting way to get something almost like an SBR...

[Randygmn]

I've been working a lot of gun dealers shows and distributor's shows, and have seen several AR pistols. I haven't had much interest until I realized the SIG brace is approved, and functions essentially like a stock. One could buy an AR pistol, a SIG brace, attach one to the other and have an SBR like item without the necessity of a tax stamp, or all the paperwork. The brace isn't considered a stock, and since the AR lower has never had a stock attached, it's considered a pistol, no?

I mentioned the possibility of the ATFE reversing itself to a Colt rep, and saying the SIG brace is, in fact, a stock, and he made the following point. There are a lot of disabled veterans out there without use of both of their arms, and for the G to say this brace that can aid them to be able to shoot is now illegal without much additional paperwork seemed to him to be unlikely. Anyhow, it's an interesting way to get something almost like an SBR...

There are many things that make the AR pistol w/brace more attractive than an SBR (assuming you have a Minnesota PTC). The pistol can be carried on your person, concealed or not. It can be carried in a case, concealed, on your person. It can be carried, loaded, in your vehicle, not just in the trunk, unloaded. The pistol can be taken across state lines without prior approval. It can be carried (in the manner described above) in all the states that currently honor the MN PTC. Also, the pistol does not need to be registered, nor does a $200 tax need to be paid. And finally, should the need arise, it can be sold easily. In fact, it can be sold privately without any paperwork at all. I can't think of one single reason where an SBR is preferable. everyone interested in this platform owes Alex Bosco a debt of gratitude.

Ps, I keep a copy of the ATF letter that comes with the sig brace folded up, inside a zip lock Baggie, inside my pistol grip. Just in case I run into a cop, range manager, etc, who doesn't know the deal.

[jshuberg]

The one thing you can't do is fire it from the shoulder. Don't you have to strap it to your arm to be effective? Yeah, I'll pass on the pistol/brace thingee. Glad it exists for people who want one tho.

Also, unless you've examined all of the carry laws for the states that recognize the MN permit, to claim that you can carry it with the MN permit is a reckless statement to make.

[Mn01r6]

The one thing you can't do is fire it from the shoulder.

I thought you could fire the sig brace from the shoulder?

[TTS]

The one thing you can't do is fire it from the shoulder.

I thought you could fire the sig brace from the shoulder?

You can, ATF confirmed this as well... I'm not going to dog for the ATF letter again, it's easy enough to google.

I lied, I will post it.
http://www.gunsandammo.com/gun-culture/atf-response-firing-ar-15-pistols-shoulder-sig-pistol-brace/

[Randygmn]

The one thing you can't do is fire it from the shoulder. Don't you have to strap it to your arm to be effective? Yeah, I'll pass on the pistol/brace thingee. Glad it exists for people who want one tho.

Also, unless you've examined all of the carry laws for the states that recognize the MN permit, to claim that you can carry it with the MN permit is a reckless statement to make.

You can shoulder the pistol, fire it with your feet or any other way you'd wish. The ATF has ruled there is no legal/illegal way to fire a pistol. As far as carrying in other states: any state that allows you to carry a pistol, with a MN PTC, allows this. Why? Its a pistol.

[jshuberg]

I wasn't suggesting that it isn't physically possible to fire a Sig brace from the shoulder, or that it would change it's legal status. My observation is that not being a proper shoulder shock, using it as one simply wouldn't work the way a proper stock works by providing a solid and ergonomic firing platform. It's intended to be fired while strapped to the forearm, which if that is what you want to do, it's a perfect option for doing so. If a person doesn't want to strap a stockish-thingee to their arm, and in fact wants a rifle with a short barrel, he should jump through the few legal hoops that exist and make/purchase an actual SBR.

I can put a spoiler and low clearance tires on a 1977 Ford Pinto. Doesn't make it a race car. Just makes it ridiculous looking. The Sig brace has a proper application, but IMHO most who buy one and put in on an AR-15 aren't using it for the intended purpose, but instead using it to pretend they have something they think is cool, but don't actually have.

$0.02

[Uffdaphil]

I wasn't suggesting that it isn't physically possible to fire a Sig brace from the shoulder, or that it would change it's legal status. My observation is that not being a proper shoulder shock, using it as one simply wouldn't work the way a proper stock works by providing a solid and ergonomic firing platform. It's intended to be fired while strapped to the forearm, which if that is what you want to do, it's a perfect option for doing so. If a person doesn't want to strap a stockish-thingee to their arm, and in fact wants a rifle with a short barrel, he should jump through the few legal hoops that exist and make/purchase an actual SBR.

I can put a spoiler and low clearance tires on a 1977 Ford Pinto. Doesn't make it a race car. Just makes it ridiculous looking. The Sig brace has a proper application, but IMHO most who buy one and put in on an AR-15 aren't using it for the intended purpose, but instead using it to pretend they have something they think is cool, but don't actually have.

$0.02

And how do you arrive at the conclusion that it won't work as a "proper stock"? Do you think the thousands of us who use it cannot judge whether it provides "a solid ergonomic firing platform"? Good cheek weld - check. Firm support against shoulder - check. The only functional drawback is the LOP cannot be quickly changed. Neither can an A2. So what is the real complaint? That is is ugly? Small price to pay for the freedom to travel, loan, carry, sell easily, save $200, and avoid bureaucratic red tape and delays. The brace opponents seem to be the ones concerned with maintaining the "cool" status quo.

[photogpat]

I wasn't suggesting that it isn't physically possible to fire a Sig brace from the shoulder, or that it would change it's legal status. My observation is that not being a proper shoulder shock, using it as one simply wouldn't work the way a proper stock works by providing a solid and ergonomic firing platform. It's intended to be fired while strapped to the forearm, which if that is what you want to do, it's a perfect option for doing so. If a person doesn't want to strap a stockish-thingee to their arm, and in fact wants a rifle with a short barrel, he should jump through the few legal hoops that exist and make/purchase an actual SBR.

I can put a spoiler and low clearance tires on a 1977 Ford Pinto. Doesn't make it a race car. Just makes it ridiculous looking. The Sig brace has a proper application, but IMHO most who buy one and put in on an AR-15 aren't using it for the intended purpose, but instead using it to pretend they have something they think is cool, but don't actually have.

$0.02

It works just fine from the shoulder. Let me know if you'd like to meet out at Oakdale some afternoon/evening and you can try it.