Not a product I'd care to own

You state above, "ATF's position is that the receiver is the gun, and a rifle receiver is thus a rifle,..."

This "ATF position" may be what I've been looking for since I read the Aug 08 American Rifleman article on slugs in which rifled barrels on shotguns were mentioned.

I have always been of the possibly mistaken opinion that any shoulder fired firearm with a smooth bore is a shotgun and any long gun with a rifled barrel is a rifle regardless of the action behind the firing chamber. The author of the American Rifleman article responded to my e-mail request for clarification by stating the industry recognizes the "term rifled barrels" for shotguns and Wikipedia stated that ATF had ruled that a shotgun with a rifled barrel is still a shotgun.

To date, I have been unable to find the ATF ruling that says a shotgun with a rifled barrel is not a rifle. It sounds to me that somebody has decided a duck is a goose.

I would appreciate a cite on the ATF ruling. A number, date or something I can read for myself. Any help will be greatly appreciated.

Also, If the "receiver is the gun" what ATF logic, if any, makes a pistol receiver a short barrel rifle if a shoulder stock is attached?

http://www.midwayusa.com/eproductpage.exe/showproduct?saleitemid=389832&t=11082005

Bare 10/22 style recievers are available. Couldn't someone use this to build a pistol without running afowl of the law, similar to what is done with AR pistols?

Rossell that would be legal, I think the reason that you didn't see very many of them is the expence. Before ruger introdouced the Charger the cheapest you could buy a 10/22 bare and never assembled reciver was over $200, a new 10/22 carbine can be had for less than $150.Rossell that would be legal, I think the reason that you didn't see very many of them is the expense. Before Ruger introduced the Charger the cheapest you could buy a 10/22 type bare and never assembled receiver was over $200, a complete pistol was well over $1000, a new 10/22 carbine can be had for less than $150.

Would this be a good test case on the NFA? Apply for a SBR with the ATF assemble a 10/22 pistol and then sue for your $200 back claiming that the SBR is Really a pistol and no additional tax should be necessary?

Russel:

Couldn't someone use this to build a pistol without running afowl of the law, similar to what is done with AR pistols?

When your FFL received it, it'd have to be registered as a pistol on your 4473.

Then again ATF may clear this up and make exceptions, like were made with NFA issues with the M1 Carbine (certain number of M2 parts, even lacking Full-Auto ability, can be considered a MG, even though LOTS of retired M1's had 4 or more M2 parts in them)

Joat:

Would this be a good test case on the NFA? Apply for a SBR with the ATF assemble a 10/22 pistol and then sue for your $200 back claiming that the SBR is Really a pistol and no additional tax should be necessary?

IIRC, only if ATF issues a ruling reversing a previous position. Then you could get your money back. Like when they removed registered AK-47 auto-sears from the NFA registry because you had to modify the receiver to get it to go in there anyway (hence converting the receiver and making a MG by installing the part, another MG).

I'm not sure if theres even a ruling on 10/22 pistols. ATF-FTB might (emphasis on "might") be able to help, or your regional office.

Maybe I'm missing something...

But can anyone explain to me why a shortened rifle is deemed an offensive threat? I mean what was the justification for that?

I understand that a shotgun when shortened can become a roomsweeper. Hence they regulated that. But if I cut a .22 rifle barrel to six inches. How does that differ from a Ruger MK III with a 6" barrel?

I am really confused....why is this such a bad thing? What 'evil' advantage does it provide that I am unaware of that we have legislation to turn anyone who shortens a rifle into a felon.

Jason wrote: "Maybe I'm missing something...

But can anyone explain to me why a shortened rifle is deemed an offensive threat? I mean what was the justification for that?

I understand that a shotgun when shortened can become a roomsweeper. Hence they regulated that. But if I cut a .22 rifle barrel to six inches. How does that differ from a Ruger MK III with a 6" barrel?

I am really confused....why is this such a bad thing? What 'evil' advantage does it provide that I am unaware of that we have legislation to turn anyone who shortens a rifle into a felon."

Reading Congressional transcripts of the 1934 hearings illustrate that neither Congress nor the Attorney General knew anything about what they were doing. One assumes that the earnest young Roosevelt Administration lawyers that drafted the NFA did.

Initially, the goal was to control all firearms, but that quickly failed the common sense test. However, all of what we now call '"Class III" or Title II" or "NFA" firearms were outside the experience of the drafters of the bill, even though they were commonly available (as opposed to 'common'). Think of Jim Zumbo's comments on AR-15s. Even today, most 'shooters' are hunters and most hunters see no purpose for anything other than a lever-action 30-30; bolt action .270 or a 12 gauge shotgun.

The best I can discern is that a cut-down Remington Model 8 (or 81), concealed under a coat, gave a bank robber considerable firepower over a cop armed with a .38 Special S&W Hand Ejector. Then, as now, the failure of law enforcement to purchase adequate firearms created a 'ban' mentality.

Today, its silly. Then, there were no manufactured rifle-caliber handguns - today there are AR-15 pistols, AK pistols, etc.

The thing that bothers me about the whole Ruger charger issue is that the ATF can claim you had constuctive intent to build an SBR if you own both a charger and a 10/22.

Major Mike,
They had .44-40, and various other calibers fired out of both a revolver and a rifled long gun. (e.g. a Colt SAA chambered in .44-40 and a Winchester '66 or '73 chambered in the same caliber.)

This is not about logic, it's about arbitrary rules and "gotcha". At one time (and probably still), put a shoulder stock on a Remington XP-100, you've made a sawed-off rifle, with all of the woes thereof. Just as sawing off the barrel of Remington 600 rifle and puttin a pistol stock on it doesn't make it an XP-100.

Gregg

Those were pistol caliber carbines (carbines and rifles chambered for pistol ammunition) rather than pistols chambered for rifle amunition.

Major Mike said:
Those were pistol caliber carbines (carbines and rifles chambered for pistol ammunition) rather than pistols chambered for rifle ammunition.

I'm willing to bet the term 'carbine' was invented just to make a sales pitch for something new and exciting. All them cowboys with a .44-40 in their saddle carrier called it a 'rifle', whether it shot the same caliber as the gun on their hip or not.

We've let the enemy choose the battlefield by defining the terms and nuancing the legality. "The right to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed" is distinctly and expressly confirmed in the Constitution.

(Should be "bear arms", of course...)

Jim D

I don't know why we've gotten so side-tracked in this discussion, but the term "carbine" wasn't an old west marketing term. Carbines were orginally shortened muskets used by musket-armed heavy cavalry, orginally French (carbineers). Carbineers also fought mounted as heavy cavalry, where dragoons used full-size muskets and dismounted to fight.

A carbine came to mean, in American usage, a short, light shoulder arm intended to arm cavalry (mounted troops).

In the post-Civil War American West, Winchester (and other companies) used the term to mean shorter barreled versions of their rifles, normally with a 'shotgun' style butt, saddle ring, round barrel instead of octagon or half octagon and a barrel band on the forearm. These features differentiate between a lever action 'rifle' and a lever action 'carbine'.

Many lever action carbines made by Winchester (and others) were chambered in pistol caliber ammunition like .32-20 and .44-40 - but it is a sub-type of rifle. Lever action rifles also came in rifle calibers like .38-55, .45-60, .50-95, etc, but it depended on the design of the rifle. The 1866, 1873 and 1892 are not capable of handling higher pressure rifle cartridges and are limited to pistol calibers. The 1876, 1886, 1894 and 1895 can handle full-scale rifle cartridges. There are "carbine" versions of these. Winchester (and others) would make customers hat ever they wanted.

My point was unlike 1934, today 5.56mm AR15 pistols with 30-round magazines exist (as well as 7.62x39mm and 5.45x39mm AK pistols with 30-round magazines and Kel-Tec PLR-16 5.56mm pistols with 30-round magazines), so lawmakers getting their panties in a bunch over an less-than-18" (orginally - now 16") barreled rifle is stupid.

Criminals don't need to "cut down" rifles into illegal SBRs to pack more-than-pistol caliber firepower. All they have to do is steal a Kel-Tec PLR-16 or any one of a number of AR pistols.

The inclusion of SBRs in the NFA '34 (as amended by the GCA '68) has been overcome by reality. They need to be removed from the NFA.

I think we're saying the same thing, with slightly different perspectives. Handgun, carbine, rifle, machine gun, shotgun: they are all personal firearms and should be free from abridgement.

That the government can slice off 'machine guns' because there aren't many machine gun owners, or 'carbines' because they shoot handgun calibers, or 'assault weapons' because they aren't going after hunters with 'rifles' is all an affectation under a term of art.

The mods available to a Ruger 10/22, including the one here as well as the stock that allows "more than one shot to be fired with a single pull of the trigger" show that these definitions are arbitrary and not holding up well under the pressure of innovation.

Next come personal weapons that are not 'firearms' because they use a gauss field to project pellets, or a centrifuge to sling golf ball-sized projectiles. These are just BB guns grown large. The government, of course, will argue that they are too dangerous to be possessed by the public and not constitutionally protected because 1) they are not 'firearms', 2) were never imagined by the Founding Fathers and so are not covered by the 2nd Amendment and 3) not in common usage (stopped before adoption).

Creeping Federalism requires that the government MUST maintain control.