What's the legal current status of AR-15 "Other" firearms?
- Thread starter Aguila Blanca
- Start date
It said the crutch tip was OK.
Very Good.... And that is sensible. But still, its a letter from 2009.
We'll see what happens, but I suspect an AR Pistol carefully built to comply with the BATF Open Letter of 2017 may not be a "Pistol" by Jan 1 2023.
If you do a search for "BATF form 4999 Worksheet" you should be able to find a PDF file from the ATF of the form to evaluate your gun.
I learned some things from it. I've had some things wrong.
If you go to the worksheet, look at section 2 ; Then see "Rear Surface Area"
I'll concede the Buffer tube is not an accessory. But they really don't like "Increasing the surface area"
Very Good.... And that is sensible. But still, its a letter from 2009.
We'll see what happens, but I suspect an AR Pistol carefully built to comply with the BATF Open Letter of 2017 may not be a "Pistol" by Jan 1 2023.
If you do a search for "BATF form 4999 Worksheet" you should be able to find a PDF file from the ATF of the form to evaluate your gun.
I learned some things from it. I've had some things wrong.
If you go to the worksheet, look at section 2 ; Then see "Rear Surface Area"
I'll concede the Buffer tube is not an accessory. But they really don't like "Increasing the surface area"
Last edited:
I got interested in this area some years back when I got a Broomhandle Mauser. At one point having the stock made it an NFA item. Later as a curio & Relic you could have a stock and it wasn't an NFA item.
Then later they changed it again, and only original period stocks qualified as C&R non NFA items. Which is where I think it still is, today.
Barking stupid really. IF I had a 1920s made pistol and a 1920s made stock it was ok, but the same pistol with a physically identical stock made say in the 50s or 60s was an NFA item.
I know they need limits to use in laws but really, change the size of something by 1/4" and it goes from being completely legal to a Federal Felony? Just where is the logic in that??
I suppose I'm just biased...
Then later they changed it again, and only original period stocks qualified as C&R non NFA items. Which is where I think it still is, today.
Barking stupid really. IF I had a 1920s made pistol and a 1920s made stock it was ok, but the same pistol with a physically identical stock made say in the 50s or 60s was an NFA item.
I know they need limits to use in laws but really, change the size of something by 1/4" and it goes from being completely legal to a Federal Felony? Just where is the logic in that??
I suppose I'm just biased...
Although not the same CA does something just as stupid , maybe more so . We have an approved firearms list aloud to be sold in CA . The approval is based on the model number rather then the firearms function or design . This means if the manufacturer makes an approved firearm in a new color . The new colored firearm will not be approved for sale even though it’s the exact same firearm functionally just a different color and because so , it will have a new model number . So dumb !
Also, if I remember correctly, firearms makers have to PAY CA to get their gun(s) tested in order to go on the allowed list. Some makers now refuse to do that. Particularly when the change that CA says requires new testing and certification is only a cosmetic change.
Yes, its stupid, IMHO.
But, it makes money for CA and keeps some guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens, so win, win, for the people who put that law in place.
Which I think was their entire objective in the first place.
Yes, its stupid, IMHO.
But, it makes money for CA and keeps some guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens, so win, win, for the people who put that law in place.
Which I think was their entire objective in the first place.