Bad News For 18-20 Year Old AR-15 Builders

[Flintlock]

Well I guess the only tools would be the threat of prosecution like anything else.

Correct, but I guess theres no active task force or something of the sort going around checking AR lower serials to make sure they were not purchased as a rifle.

Sinner, I'm not the one instigating the arguement.

 

[Michiana]

Correct

Well I guess the only tools would be the threat of prosecution like anything else.

The "tools" come into effect if a person takes a lower purchased to make into a long gun and uses it to make a pistol and is not of legal age; and then only when caught with the handgun. It would be no different than any person taking a regulation shot gun and cutting the stock and barrel down.

 

[Sinner Man]

Fortunately I have never experienced this comparison or even have a interest in doing so in the future but I will take your word for it. Thanks for the information, I think. Is this how you got the "sinner man" handle?

Ok I'm glad I just now saw the smiley. I thought I was gonna have to get worked up here.

Yeah, no, I like the version of Sinner Man that Nina Simone did for the Miami Vice movie with Colin whats-his-face a few years back (06 I think).

Can you guys all just relax? I don't want anyone to think I don't want 18 year olds to have AR15s. I know that when I was 13 I could be responsible with one and handle it pretty well.

I don't even like new laws or changing laws. Screw that.

All I was saying, was something that wasn't even that important- that I DO happen to notice a lot of younger guys screwing around or being more immature than older guys. That's all. I see plenty of older guys that still buy junk stuff like junk spotting scopes. One of them even talked my dad into buying a not so great spotting scope. No better than my garbage scope (yes, I have a barska spotter for seeing better at 100yds when zeroing. beyond that, i just shoot and go check later.) and a lot more money!

I feel bad that this has come down to removing more rights away from a certain age group. It's stupid, it's BS but I sure as hell don't need to be labeled as an idiot for "not knowing that some 18 year olds are more responsible than some 40 year olds". Yes I know this is true. Don't make me out to be evil.

To anyone jumping in and handing out negative rep without following along, you're truly a moron.

The rest of you, sorry I offended you or made you feel offended because of your age.

 

[techres]

Out of curiosity, does this alleviate the need to specify "Pistol" for a lower at the time of purchase and/or the common practice of putting "Pistol" stamp on the lower itself as a way to "prove" it is not a stockless rifle?

If so, there may be a slight silver lining to an otherwise ratcheting down of laws just to do so.

 

[wally05]

Cool it, Sinner. I didn't hear any whining. But, I do think you have something against younger people with AR15s. I've seen PLENTY of adults that do the same thing, so let's just stop that right there.

That's you showing your immaturity and your inability to use logic. You're basically throwing a childish fit, but in a more grown up way.

There's a difference between "everyone under 21 will commit murder with an AR15" and "We've been seeing a lot of irresponsible people under the age of 21 buying more and more high powered, high capacity rifles. Maybe we shall do something about it."

Quit your whining. It's a done deal. Go bitch to someone else. I didn't write the law nor would I have supported it. I'm just explaining why it's probably the way it is.

 

[Sinner Man]

Correct, but I guess theres no active task force or something of the sort going around checking AR lower serials to make sure they were not purchased as a rifle.

Sinner, I'm not the one instigating the arguement.

You weren't all that involved and noone addressed you as they did me.

Furthermore, you DID instigate the whole "just because someone can't afford a $500..." argument. That was stupid, ignorant and very much trollish. We weren't talking about that. I like to stay away from those arguments and almost never bring them up. If you can't see what I was trying to say then don't comment on anything I say until you do.

 

[Sinner Man]

Cool it, Sinner. I didn't hear any whining. But, I do think you have something against younger people with AR15s. I've seen PLENTY of adults that do the same thing, so let's just stop that right there.

Look two posts up above you. The reason you think I have something against younger guys is because you are practically one of those younger guys.

I have nothing against younger guys. I happen to see more younger guys than older guys act foolishly on the range. Is that my fault?

That's all.

 

[Flintlock]

Out of curiosity, does this alleviate the need to specify "Pistol" for a lower at the time of purchase and/or the common practice of putting "Pistol" stamp on the lower itself as a way to "prove" it is not a stockless rifle?

If so, there may be a slight silver lining to an otherwise ratcheting down of laws just to do so.

I believe so. As long as the receiver is transferred to you without a stock, it is simply a receiver. You can then do whatever you like on the receiver; whether you decide to make it a pistol or rifle, it does not matter. At least that is how I understand it to be.

 

[wally05]

Look two posts up above you. The reason you think I have something against younger guys is because you are practically one of those younger guys.

I have nothing against younger guys. I happen to see more younger guys than older guys act foolishly on the range. Is that my fault?

That's all.

ummm... actually, no, I'm not one of "those younger guys." You want to attack an age group on here, do it in another thread. You want to discuss the law, then do it.

 

[wally05]

I believe so. As long as the receiver is transferred to you without a stock, it is simply a receiver. You can then do whatever you like on the receiver; whether you decide to make it a pistol or rifle, it does not matter. At least that is how I understand it to be.

Yeah, I think the atf is being kind of ridiculous on this one. If you get caught with an AR "pistol," Then you can be punished. But, they seem to be punishing before the fact.

 

[curraheeguns]

As the original poster I take no side in this fight but I do love a good forum fight.

Ready on the right, ready on the left.......KUMITE!!!

 

[Michiana]

Correct

I believe so. As long as the receiver is transferred to you without a stock, it is simply a receiver. You can then do whatever you like on the receiver; whether you decide to make it a pistol or rifle, it does not matter. At least that is how I understand it to be.

That is why the ATF does not allow a FFL to sell ANY stripped or complete lower that does not have a rifle stock to any person under the age of 21. Again, I really don't understand their thinking on this but I just sell and transfer the stuff.

 

[wally05]

That is why the ATF does not allow a FFL to sell ANY stripped or complete lower that does not have a rifle stock to any person under the age of 21. Again, I really don't understand their thinking on this but I just sell and transfer the stuff.

btw, I'll pm you for a lower! To the op, this is good stuff. I didn't hear anything about this until your post.

 

[Sinner Man]

ummm... actually, no, I'm not one of "those younger guys." You want to attack an age group on here, do it in another thread. You want to discuss the law, then do it.

Not by 2 years, yes...

I'm not attacking a group. Open your eyes and read. I can't say it all again.

The ATF started having the forms differentiate so that they could start telling how receivers were going out because they knew people would be buying them up. This also gives them a way to force dealers to document a pistol versus rifle, allowing them to enforce a "no AR15 pistol to a person under 21" type rule, law whatever.

What's the problem anyway?

18 year olds can still buy an AR15 rifle, right? Did you really want a pistol? You aren't allowed to buy any pistol anyway so it's really no big deal.

Let this be a lesson to us- this is how they sneak in a new way to enforce laws!

 

[Michiana]

Not at all

Out of curiosity, does this alleviate the need to specify "Pistol" for a lower at the time of purchase and/or the common practice of putting "Pistol" stamp on the lower itself as a way to "prove" it is not a stockless rifle?

If so, there may be a slight silver lining to an otherwise ratcheting down of laws just to do so.

The new 4473 forms now have a place to check receiver besides rifle or handgun. Sort of like "other" catch all from my prospective. I have never seen a AR-15 pistol up close and have no interests in them so really can't say if there is any difference in the receiver setup except the stock area.

 

[shooter521]

Let's everybody just take a half-step back and a little bit, OK? Please keep commentary civil and pertinent on the ATF ruling at hand.

 

[wally05]

Not by 2 years, yes...

I'm not attacking a group. Open your eyes and read. I can't say it all again.

The ATF started having the forms differentiate so that they could start telling how receivers were going out because they knew people would be buying them up. This also gives them a way to force dealers to document a pistol versus rifle, allowing them to enforce a "no AR15 pistol to a person under 21" type rule, law whatever.

What's the problem anyway?

18 year olds can still buy an AR15 rifle, right? Did you really want a pistol? You aren't allowed to buy any pistol anyway so it's really no big deal.

Let this be a lesson to us- this is how they sneak in a new way to enforce laws!

No, what's irritating is the fact that they can't build their own... but the younger crowd shouldn't be allowed to do that anyway, right? (sarcasm off). Of course, 18 year olds can go to war, fire automatic weapons in the military and operate other tools of the trade. But, it's bad if they buy a stripped lower? Another useless rule.

 

[techres]

The new 4473 forms now have a place to check receiver besides rifle or handgun. Sort of like "other" catch all from my prospective. I have never seen a AR-15 pistol up close and have no interests in them so really can't say if there is any difference in the receiver setup except the stock area.

A receiver is a receiver and pistol ones are no different. But for marketing reasons, and to gain some kind of theoretical protection from the ATF, some receivers that were to be used as pistols, sold as pistols were sold with roll marks saying "Pistol" or "Pistol Only".

That is what I was referring to.

 

[Michiana]

Thougth so

A receiver is a receiver and pistol ones are no different. But for marketing reasons, and to gain some kind of theoretical protection from the ATF, some receivers that were to be used as pistols, sold as pistols were sold with roll marks saying "Pistol" or "Pistol Only".

That is what I was referring to.

I know RRA has complete pistol lowers in their catalog and sell complete pistols but they look to me like cut down rifles and I really don't see much of a use for them. What are they used for?

 

[techres]

I know RRA has complete pistol lowers in their catalog and sell complete pistols but they look to me like cut down rifles and I really don't see much of a use for them. What are they used for?

They are mostly a toy, or a launching point for making an SBR. With a pistol you can have your fun while you wait for the form, and once cleared change the buffer tube out.

Tactically, they have the same use as SBR's but they have down sides too. Reliability lessens with cheap ones (short stroking events seem to go higher), the speed of the .223 goes down and so the chances of yawing and lethal effect decreases, and noise levels increase (not by much).

That's about it. Been there, done that, not the way I went with SBR in the end.