Ruger turns the 10/22 into a handgun

[Michael Bane]

Hazcat has the right of it...receivers get registered as either handgun receivers or rifle receivers, and never the twain shall meet. You see the same thing with AR receivers. If it's a bare receiver, my understanding is that whatever the first configuration the gun is built into is its permanent configuration...once a pistol, always a pistol. Here are the ATF rules on SBRs from the NFA FAQ:

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/nfa_faq.txt

SHORT BARRELED RIFLES

    A short barreled rifle (SBR) is defined in the law as:
    26 U.S.C. sec. 5845(a)
    *  *  *  *
    (3) a rifle having a barrel or barrels less than 16 inches
    in  length;
    (4) a weapon made from a rifle if such weapon as modified
    has an  overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or
    barrels of less than 16 inches in length; * * *

    The NFA law also  defines "rifle":

    26 U.S.C. sec. 5845(c)  "The term 'rifle' means a weapon
    designed or  redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be
    fired from the shoulder  and designed or redesigned or made
    or remade to use the energy of an  explosive in a fixed
    cartridge to fire only a single projectile through  a rifled
    bore for each pull of the trigger, and shall include any
    such  weapon which may be readily restored to fire a fixed
    cartridge.

    Thus you can see why a machine gun is not also a short barreled
rifle; it is not a rifle.  And you can see why a barrel is not
subject to regulation, or registration, in itself. It is a barrel,
it cannot discharge a shot.  A receiver alone is also not a short
rifle; a short rifle is  only a complete weapon that fits into the
length parameters outlined.

    ATF takes the position that this definition includes any
combination of parts from which a short barreled rifle can be
assembled.  And they said this included a set of parts with dual
uses.  In the Supreme court case of U.S. v. Thompson/Center Arms
Co., 504 U.S. 505 (1992) ATF said a set consisting of a receiver,
a 16"+ barrel, a pistol grip stock, a shoulder stock, and a barrel
less than 16 inches long was a short barreled rifle.  The idea of
the kit was that you needed only one receiver, and you could have
both a rifle and pistol in one gun. While making a pistol out of a
rifle is making a short rifle, ATF has approved of converting a
pistol into a rifle, and then converting it back into a pistol,
without "making" a short barreled rifle when it is converted back
into a pistol; that was not an issue.  See, for example Revenue
Rulings 59-340, 59-341 and 61-203.  T/C made one set on a Form 1,
then sued for a tax refund, claiming the set was not a SBR, unless
it actually was assembled with the shoulder stock, and short
barrel, something they instructed the purchaser of the set not to
do.  The Supreme court disagreed with ATF, and agreed with
Thompson/Center.

    The Court said that a set of parts was not a short barreled
rifle, unless the only way to assemble the parts was into a short
barreled rifle.  As this set had a legitimate, legal, use for all
the parts it was OK.  However they also approved of lower court
cases holding that the sale by one person, at the same place, of
all the parts to assemble an AR-15, with a short barrel, was sale
of a SBR, even if they weren't assembled together at the moment of
the bust, and had in fact never been assembled.  See U.S. v.
Drasen, 845 F.2d 731 (7th Cir. 1988).  This was because the only
use for the parts in that case was a SBR.  If the person in that
case also had a registered M-16, then there would be a legitimate
use for the SMG barrel, and there shouldn't be a problem.  And the
Court agreed, of course, that a fully assembled rifle with a barrel
less than 16", or an overall length of less than 26" was also
subject to registration.  Although it was not addressed in the
case, the rule is that an otherwise short barreled rifle that is
very easily restored to firing condition (readily restorable);
e.g., one missing a firing pin, but for that pin one may substitute
a nail or other common object, is also subject to the law.


Back in the early 1980s I got a T/C Contender with a 10-inch 45/70 barrel from J.D. Jones. Years later, in a moment of fairly spectacular brain-fade, J.D. convinced me that the .50/750 — a .50 caliber case from a 50/90 necked to fit a 750-grain .50 BMG bullet — would be just ducky in a lightweight Contender. Anyway, aside from the sheer stupidity of the project, in order to be by-the-book legal, I got the 16 1/2 inch .50 barrel first, because a pistol can have any length barrel. Then, when I got the barrel, I got a Choate folding stock. When I came to my senses, I sold the .50 barrel to another idiot, but not before I got a 16 1/2-inch .223 barrel so I wouldn't stuck with "the only way to assemble the parts was into a short-barreled rifle."

Michael B

[52449]

It does seem to me, if I read this correctly, I could legally take the charger action and add a rifle stock with a >16 inch barrel but I couldn't change it back into a handgun.  Or am I reading way more into this?  This is also taking this thread way off topic. 

The Charger has a lot of accuracy potential and might make an excellent Unlimited gun.  You wouldn't have to change position to load or work a bolt.  That is why I though a silhouette Tactical Solution barrel/receiver for a ruger MK II would be so nice.

[Hazcat]

MB,

Are black powder guns exempt?  Reason I ask is about 6-8 months ago I was in a local gun shop that had BP revolvers with about an 8 or 9 inch barrel that was sold with a shoulder butt stock that could be easily added or removed from the firearm (remember the gun Angle Eyes used in "For A Few Dollars More?).

That is what I would like.  No forearm but a shoulder stock.