What's new

Is ATF Going To Make Pistols, Based On Rifles, NFA Items Because of Weight?

M92PV4U

Falling Down
Joined
May 19, 2020
Member Number
110
Messages
3,884
Loc
D.p. Ca.
https://www.ammoland.com/2020/10/atf-to-make-pistols-based-on-rifles-nfa-items/

Read more: https://www.ammoland.com/2020/10/atf...#ixzz6cAkScQ2t
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook

Is ATF Going To Make Pistols, Based On Rifles, NFA Items Because of Weight?

Ammoland Inc. Posted on October 27, 2020 by John CrumpDisclosure: Some of the links below are affiliate links, meaning at no additional cost to you, Ammoland will earn a commission if you click through and make a purchase.
Wiley-Rein-ATF-Client-Alert-Screengrab-600x257.jpg
Wiley Rein ATF Client Alert Screengrab
WASHINGTON, DC-(Ammoland.com)-The law office of Wiley Rein caused a stir on the internet by releasing a client alert where they theorized the ATF might move to make AK pistols and AR pistols NFA items.

Firearms are generally not importable under 18 USC 922(l). However, there is an exception for importable guns in 18 USC 925(d)(3), for any firearm that is (1) not an NFA firearm, (2) not a military surplus firearm, and (3) meets the “sporting purposes” test; however, ATF chooses to define that test? There is not a clear definition.

The ATF has always stated that pistols derived from rifles meet the standard for “sporting purposes.” Now, mere weeks before the election, the rogue agency has reversed course and has taken the position that these guns are “too long” or “too heavy” to meet the sporting purpose test.
According to the ATF, these guns fail the test because the manufacturers did not design them for the user to fire them from one hand.

The gun control act (GCA) defines a “handgun” in 18 USC 921(a)(29) as a firearm with a “short stock” that the manufacturer designed for the user to fire with one hand. If a gun is not a “handgun” or a “rifle” (921)(a)(7) or a “shotgun” (921)(a)(5), then it is just a “firearm” (921)(a)(3) under the GCA. The ATF considers stripped AR-15 lowers as only firearms. So even if ATF thinks an AR or AK pistol isn’t a “handgun,” it would still be a “firearm” under the GCA. This reclassification doesn’t affect the pistol under the GCA.
The problem is the National Firearms Act (NFA).


The NFA defines what constitutes an NFA “firearm” in 26 USC 5845. This definition is separate from a GCA firearm. The only conceivable NFA classification into which an AK or AR pistol could fall is “any other weapon” (AOW).
An AOW is defined as: “any weapon or device capable of being concealed on the person from which a shot can be discharged through the energy of an explosive, … Such term shall not include a pistol ….”

The NFA does not define what is and isn’t a pistol. The ATF defines a pistol in 27 CFR 478.11 as “A weapon originally designed, made, and intended to fire a projectile … when held in one hand….”​

The ATF uses the GCA definition of a “handgun” for the NFA term “pistol.” This definition means that the firearm manufacturer did not design it to fire it with one hand.
ATF is now saying that pistols based on rifles weigh too much or are too long to be fired with one hand.

PSA-AKV003-600x400.jpg
Palmetto State Armory AKV Pisol
The theory proposed in the Wiley Rein’s alert is if the ATF says certain handguns aren’t importable because they aren’t sporting because they aren’t designed and intended for the user to fire them with one hand. Since they are not importable, then those same handguns could be classified as “AOWs” under the NFA for the same reason. The gun owner could conceal the firearm, and they are not pistols because the manufacturer did not design the gun for the user to fire with one hand.

The alert is speculation, but it is conceivable. The timing of the reverse course on the importation rules seems suspect. Some speculate it is just another move by an out-control agency to hurt President Trump in the eyes of gun owners. Others think it is the ATF gearing up for an all-out assault of the Second Amendment if Biden is elected.

Whether ATF has some master plan in store to turn all AK pistols and AR pistols into AOWs remains to be seen.


I feel safer already :mad3::flipoff:
 
I don't see this ending well for brace fans. You are claiming that a firearm with a pistol grip AND a fore grip is designed to be fired from one hand. The only argument the ATF needs to make is "If it was designed for single handed shooting, then why does it have a second grip?"
 
I don't see this ending well for brace fans. You are claiming that a firearm with a pistol grip AND a fore grip is designed to be fired from one hand. The only argument the ATF needs to make is "If it was designed for single handed shooting, then why does it have a second grip?"

I don't see this ending well for anyone owning or manufacturing a pistol based off of a rifle action.
 
I see the same fucking divide with this as we did with Bumpstocks.
"Well, I think that an AR or AK pistol is stupid/unpractical/novelty because of XYZ and this does not pertain to me so I do not see the issue"

Guess what shitbird.. this is how you boil a frog in water. When you allow a small portion of your rights to slip, a landslide is looming behind it. They are saying their OPEN ENDED and VAGUE REASONING for banning this is based upon weight. WEIGHT.
 
I see the same fucking divide with this as we did with Bumpstocks.
"Well, I think that an AR or AK pistol is stupid/unpractical/novelty because of XYZ and this does not pertain to me so I do not see the issue"

Guess what shitbird.. this is how you boil a frog in water. When you allow a small portion of your rights to slip, a landslide is looming behind it. They are saying their OPEN ENDED and VAGUE REASONING for banning this is based upon weight. WEIGHT.

True, but since when did the ATF give a rat's ass about public opinion?
 
True, but since when did the ATF give a rat's ass about public opinion?

That does not mean you just roll over and allow rights to be stripped because it isn't important to/affect you on the surface level..
 
You can do what a bunch of us in the gun community do and call your legislators, reps and such. There are organizations out there who will actually fight for your rights in court that could use support too.
 
how hard should I be pounding the table. What kind of harsh words should I be using? :flipoff2:

Big and naughty words. The bigger and naughtier the better! :laughing:

I emailed my reps, I fully expect a few bullshit form letters and zero action in return.
 
I don't see this ending well for brace fans. You are claiming that a firearm with a pistol grip AND a fore grip is designed to be fired from one hand. The only argument the ATF needs to make is "If it was designed for single handed shooting, then why does it have a second grip?"

There’s a bunch of arbitrary statements about what they consider a “handgun” on there. Not being “muzzle heavy” and “easy to fire with one hand.” My Smith and Wesson 6” .44 Magnum violates both of those, but is clearly a handgun. I wonder about the rifle caliber bench rest pistols like 12” bolt action .308’s also.

Hopefully the ATF pisses off enough people fast enough that everyone just tells them to fuck off. It’s completely ridiculous to have a bunch of people on an agency who hate what it stands for. I understand they have a duty to enforce the law, but this is basically like having Muslims be USDA pork processing inspectors. Their goal is to shut them down, not to make sure that people operating legally.
 
Last edited:
And compliance will be roughly the same as it was for bumpstocks. By adding more and more unregistered items to the list, and thereby making law abiding citizens felons, they are effective rendering the NFA moot. Why stop at 1 NFA violation when you can collect the whole set.

Yep. Be nice if everyone just mailed the ATF their pistol braces with an anonymous note saying “Thanks, since I’ve got an SBR now, I put a real stock on it.” :flipoff2:
 
I see the same fucking divide with this as we did with Bumpstocks.
"Well, I think that an AR or AK pistol is stupid/unpractical/novelty because of XYZ and this does not pertain to me so I do not see the issue"

Guess what shitbird.. this is how you boil a frog in water. When you allow a small portion of your rights to slip, a landslide is looming behind it. They are saying their OPEN ENDED and VAGUE REASONING for banning this is based upon weight. WEIGHT.


your anger is premature at your fellow gun owners. No one on this forum has Fudded yet. But if you want to be mad at someone, just know there are people out there with mp5ks that will likely be under the weight cutoff:flipoff2:
 
your anger is premature at your fellow gun owners. No one on this forum has Fudded yet. But if you want to be mad at someone, just know there are people out there with mp5ks that will likely be under the weight cutoff:flipoff2:

I never said that my post was solely about anyone *here*. I said I was seeing the same divide... as in a general statement. Believe it or not, there are other places on the internet besides here :flipoff2:
 
next week is gonna tell the story, if Biden gets in, everyone better get ready for a boating accident..:stirthepot: Definitely agree with Jeeper., that give an inch and all.

BTW, how do you put someone on an ignore list.
 
There’s a bunch of arbitrary statements about what they consider a “handgun” on there. Not being “muzzle heavy” and “easy to fire with one hand.” My Smith and Wesson 6” .44 Magnum violates both of those, but is clearly a handgun. I wonder about the rifle caliber bench rest pistols like 12” bolt action .308’s also.

Agreed but the biggest problem we face right now is how easy it is for the ATF to argue that a "pistol" with a forward grip (handguard) is not designed to be fired from one hand. I think the best counter argument is that they would fall under the generic firearm definition but I don't know how well that would fly.
 
article said:
The theory proposed in the Wiley Rein’s alert is if the ATF says certain handguns aren’t importable because they aren’t sporting because they aren’t designed and intended for the user to fire them with one hand. Since they are not importable, then those same handguns could be classified as “AOWs” under the NFA for the same reason.

here's something that i think everyone missed in their outrage. The ATF is discussing barring import of certain pistols because of their reasons, but it IMPLIES this would then be tossed upon all rifle based pistols currently owned and in the US. This seems to be a stretch, based on their current and past SOP. Though, we all know the ATF can change their minds always.

Examples:

Banned imports of "assaulty weapons", but they can be manufactured in the US.

Ban imports on pistols with threaded barrels. Threaded pistol barrels are common in country.

No AP ammo can be imported. we make all sorts of flavors of ammo here.



That the ATF would suddenly start linking something POSSIBLY on their import ban list to legally made firearms in the US, would be pretty far out there.


Im not saying they wont or cant do it, im just saying its not to that point yet and we are connecting dot prematurely that arent there. but we should still be beating a path to our Reps and Senators about the import ban issue.
 
Top Back Refresh