Pistol to rifle conversions

[Erik N.]

Recently a Facebook thread was started to discuss switching an AR-15 from a rifle to pistol configuration.

Key points that were raised that if the firearm in question was sold as a rifle, it cannot be reconfigured into a pistol.

If the owner uses a rifle-style buffer tube in the pistol, ownership of the stock can be construed as constructive intent.

The safe and sure bet is to obtain a lower that is registered as a pistol and configure it accordingly, rather than attempting to swap a receiver back and forth between the two and potentially run afoul of the ATF'S rather arcane definitions of what constitutes a rifle, pistol, or SBR.

 

[MojoNixon]

Recently a Facebook thread was started to discuss switching an AR-15 from a rifle to pistol configuration.

Key points that were raised that if the firearm in question was sold as a rifle, it cannot be reconfigured into a pistol.

If the owner uses a rifle-style buffer tube in the pistol, ownership of the stock can be construed as constructive intent.

The safe and sure bet is to obtain a lower that is registered as a pistol and configure it accordingly, rather than attempting to swap a receiver back and forth between the two and potentially run afoul of the ATF'S rather arcane definitions of what constitutes a rifle, pistol, or SBR.

"Ownership of the stock",or is it "ownership of any stock"can be construed as constructive intent? I can see how things could get really twisted , for instance, if you have an SBR and remove the stock but leave the extension tube as is, is the constructive intent then a pistol? I don't do Facebook so if weird iterations like this were covered there, my apologies for bringing it back up.

 

[Longeye]

Articulation is important in these kinds of cases. A prosecutor can construe all he wants. So can the defense attorney.

A look at most any serious or semi serious AR guys gun room will show enough parts to build or modify several rifles/carbines/SBR/pistol, etc. Does that rise to the level of intent? Maybe. Maybe not. Intent is hard to prove. As long as you have one receiver that is legally configured (SBS or pistol lower) for the parts you have, you are good to go, because you can articulate that the other parts were spares or you were trying different things on the legal configuration over time, etc.

You have flour, sugar, and eggs in your pantry. You have a Fannie Farmer cookbook in the same pantry. It is hard to prove you have intent to create a cake, when there are some many other uses that those same components can be used for. But if you have posted on social media that you intended to make a cake and consume it this evening, then you have a different trail of facts.

 

[MojoNixon]

Articulation is important in these kinds of cases. A prosecutor can construe all he wants. So can the defense attorney.

A look at most any serious or semi serious AR guys gun room will show enough parts to build or modify several rifles/carbines/SBR/pistol, etc. Does that rise to the level of intent? Maybe. Maybe not. Intent is hard to prove. As long as you have one receiver that is legally configured (SBS or pistol lower) for the parts you have, you are good to go, because you can articulate that the other parts were spares or you were trying different things on the legal configuration over time, etc.

You have flour, sugar, and eggs in your pantry. You have a Fannie Farmer cookbook in the same pantry. It is hard to prove you have intent to create a cake, when there are some many other uses that those same components can be used for. But if you have posted on social media that you intended to make a cake and consume it this evening, then you have a different trail of facts.

Thanks.

 

[Dave_Thomas]

Articulation is important in these kinds of cases. A prosecutor can construe all he wants. So can the defense attorney.

A look at most any serious or semi serious AR guys gun room will show enough parts to build or modify several rifles/carbines/SBR/pistol, etc. Does that rise to the level of intent? Maybe. Maybe not. Intent is hard to prove. As long as you have one receiver that is legally configured (SBS or pistol lower) for the parts you have, you are good to go, because you can articulate that the other parts were spares or you were trying different things on the legal configuration over time, etc.

You have flour, sugar, and eggs in your pantry. You have a Fannie Farmer cookbook in the same pantry. It is hard to prove you have intent to create a cake, when there are some many other uses that those same components can be used for. But if you have posted on social media that you intended to make a cake and consume it this evening, then you have a different trail of facts.

This is by far the best explanation of this process I have read to date.