ccwinstructor
Centurion
6 August, 2011:
In a surprise ruling issued on 25 July, 2011, acting director Kenneth Melson changed nearly 20 years of BATFE policy to bring the agency rules into compliance with a 1992 Supreme Court decision on the legal conversion of pistols to rifles and back again.
To understand the ruling, it is necessary to go back to the legislative history of the National Firearms Act of 1934, which was the first federal gun control law to be ruled as constitutional in the infamous Miller decision.
In the original version of the 1934 law promoted by the Franklin Roosevelt administration, it would have been illegal to own a handgun without a federal license. That provision was defeated in the House of Representatives.
Because requiring handguns to be licensed would have been meaningless when any person could take a shotgun or a rifle and a hacksaw, and end up with the functional equivalent of a handgun in a few minutes, the original law had made it illegal to possess a short barreled rifle or shotgun. With the handgun licensing scheme removed from the law, the prohibition on short barreled rifles or shotguns made no sense, but as few people owned short barreled rifles or shotguns, the law passed with that provision.
This led to the silly situation where it was legal to own a 15 shot 10mm handgun, legal to own a full sized rifle, legal to own a handgun with a 15 inch barrel, but not legal to own a single shot .22 rifle with a 15 inch barrel.
Thompson Contender makes rifles and handguns. Thompson wanted to sell a kit with a Thompson single shot handgun, a shoulder stock, and a 21 inch barrel. It is legal to own a Thompson handgun and legal to own a Thompson rifle with a 21 inch barrel. BATFE argued that possession of the kit was illegal because, in effect, the owner “owned” a short barreled rifle, because the shoulder stock could be installed on the receiver with a barrel less than 16 inches.
The case went all the way to the Supreme Court, where in 1992, the Court ruled that it was not illegal to merely posses the kit as long as the short barrel and the stock were not installed on the frame at the same time.
The BATFE then interpreted the Supreme Court ruling to mean that the decision only applied to kits, and not to people who put together their own kit by buying a barrel over 16 inches and a stock to make a legal pistol into a legal rifle. Those people could convert the pistol to a rifle, but they could not legally convert the rifle back to a pistol!
At least that was the interpretation until 25 July, 2011, when Acting Director Melson applied some common sense and brought the BATFE administrative rulings into line with the 1992 Supreme Court ruling.
This does not change the absurd law that makes it illegal to own a short barreled shotgun or rifle without paying a federal tax and applying for federal permission complete with fingerprints and a signed letter from your local sheriff.
While you can convert a pistol to a rifle and back again without federal permission, you cannot simply add a shoulder stock to your pistol. That would be a short barreled rifle, which you must have a federal tax stamp and federal permission to own.
In addition, you may not make a pistol from a rifle, even though you can make a rifle from a pistol and convert it back. If it sounds like Alice in Wonderland, blame the anti-freedom forces who have been trying to leverage laws passed by gangsters that required the licensing of pistols in New York into federal laws that could be used to disarm all of us.
http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/zimring68.htm
http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/tc.html
http://www.atf.gov/regulations-rulin...ing-2011-4.pdf
http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-350377.html
Dean Weingarten
In a surprise ruling issued on 25 July, 2011, acting director Kenneth Melson changed nearly 20 years of BATFE policy to bring the agency rules into compliance with a 1992 Supreme Court decision on the legal conversion of pistols to rifles and back again.
To understand the ruling, it is necessary to go back to the legislative history of the National Firearms Act of 1934, which was the first federal gun control law to be ruled as constitutional in the infamous Miller decision.
In the original version of the 1934 law promoted by the Franklin Roosevelt administration, it would have been illegal to own a handgun without a federal license. That provision was defeated in the House of Representatives.
Because requiring handguns to be licensed would have been meaningless when any person could take a shotgun or a rifle and a hacksaw, and end up with the functional equivalent of a handgun in a few minutes, the original law had made it illegal to possess a short barreled rifle or shotgun. With the handgun licensing scheme removed from the law, the prohibition on short barreled rifles or shotguns made no sense, but as few people owned short barreled rifles or shotguns, the law passed with that provision.
This led to the silly situation where it was legal to own a 15 shot 10mm handgun, legal to own a full sized rifle, legal to own a handgun with a 15 inch barrel, but not legal to own a single shot .22 rifle with a 15 inch barrel.
Thompson Contender makes rifles and handguns. Thompson wanted to sell a kit with a Thompson single shot handgun, a shoulder stock, and a 21 inch barrel. It is legal to own a Thompson handgun and legal to own a Thompson rifle with a 21 inch barrel. BATFE argued that possession of the kit was illegal because, in effect, the owner “owned” a short barreled rifle, because the shoulder stock could be installed on the receiver with a barrel less than 16 inches.
The case went all the way to the Supreme Court, where in 1992, the Court ruled that it was not illegal to merely posses the kit as long as the short barrel and the stock were not installed on the frame at the same time.
The BATFE then interpreted the Supreme Court ruling to mean that the decision only applied to kits, and not to people who put together their own kit by buying a barrel over 16 inches and a stock to make a legal pistol into a legal rifle. Those people could convert the pistol to a rifle, but they could not legally convert the rifle back to a pistol!
At least that was the interpretation until 25 July, 2011, when Acting Director Melson applied some common sense and brought the BATFE administrative rulings into line with the 1992 Supreme Court ruling.
This does not change the absurd law that makes it illegal to own a short barreled shotgun or rifle without paying a federal tax and applying for federal permission complete with fingerprints and a signed letter from your local sheriff.
While you can convert a pistol to a rifle and back again without federal permission, you cannot simply add a shoulder stock to your pistol. That would be a short barreled rifle, which you must have a federal tax stamp and federal permission to own.
In addition, you may not make a pistol from a rifle, even though you can make a rifle from a pistol and convert it back. If it sounds like Alice in Wonderland, blame the anti-freedom forces who have been trying to leverage laws passed by gangsters that required the licensing of pistols in New York into federal laws that could be used to disarm all of us.
http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/zimring68.htm
http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/tc.html
http://www.atf.gov/regulations-rulin...ing-2011-4.pdf
http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-350377.html
Dean Weingarten
