OK...one more time.....

************************************************
From The Gun Control Act of 1968, Public Law 90-618.

Sec 921 Definitions

(7) The term "rifle" means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to befired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosivein a fixed metallic cartridgeto fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger.

(8) The term "short-barreled rifle" means a rifle having one or more barrels less than sixteen inches in length and any weapon made from a rifle (whether by alteration, modification, or otherwise) if such weapon, as modified, has an overall length of less than 26 inches.
*************************************************

Since a contender or encore, that is shipped from the factory with a barrel over 16" in length and with a buttstock intended for firing from the shoulder, is, by definition, a RIFLE..........

and

..........Since a weapon, made from a RIFLE ("whether by alteration, modification or otherwise"), having a barrel or barrels less than 16" in length or overall length less than 26"IS, by definition, a short-barreled rifle........

How can anyone argue that a contender or encore, that left the factory as a rifle, isn't, by definition, a short-barreled rifle, if converted to handgun configuration?

Let's look at two examples:

Take a new Remington model 7 rifle, remove the stock and unscrew the barrel, install a 14" barrel from a barrel supplier and bolt the barreled action into an HS precision XP 100 stock.

or

Take a new Encore rifle, remove the stock, push out the barrel pin and remove the barrel, install a 14" barrel, replace the barrel pin and bolt on a pistol grip and forearm.

Almost everyone agrees that the first "conversion" is illegal, but many insist that the second is perfectly legal.
What is different about the two conversions? Is there something magic about pushing out a pin verses unscrewing a barrel? Why would the second example be legal but the first illegal?

Where do you find that "the ATF sees them differently"?

Getting more like the GB site all the time
Fireball

Gonhuntin:

quote:

---

Where do you find that "the ATF sees them differently"?

---

If one act of conversion IS legal and the other NOT the two acts� are different BECAUSE you posted that ATF treats them differently.

Asking me a question, you wrote:

quote:

---

And, finally, why do you believe a factory configured contender carbine is any different, legally, than a Remington model 700, Winchester 70 or NEF Handi Rifle? And why is it legal to convert a factory configured Contender carbine into pistol configuration but it's not legal to convert any of the other mentioned rifles without first registering them as NFA weapons?

---

I seem to be alone in recognizing there are two issues in your quote.

1) It IS legal to convert a factory configured Contender carbine into (a) pistol configuration.

And:

2) It is "NOT legal to convert any of the other mentioned rifles (the 700, 70 or NEF) without first registering them as NFA weapons"

Because I do not have to register the resultant firearm as a consequence of the first type of conversion (the T/C) but DO have to register the second type of conversion (rifle receivers) in order to be considered as legal as I am in the first conversion, that makes the conversions different.

Clearly the conversions are different because they involve two DIFFERENT types of firearms.

So what makes one legal and the other not. Simple� two different starting points.

It is not a matter of what you END UP with, rather it is what you STARTED WITH that is relevant to the issue of NFA jurisdiction.

That's why I believe a factory configured contender carbine is different, legally, than a Remington model 700, Winchester 70 or NEF Handi Rifle.

Once again, a point of clarification:

The ease of conversion of Encore/Contender rifles/carbines to handguns Vs changing bolt action or falling block rifles/carbines to handguns does not somehow change or alter their legal status, nor does the design **intent** of the engineer or manufacturer behind them change or alter their legal status.

What determines their legal status is "how were they classed, numbered and shipped."

Concerning whether T/C **marks them all as handguns,** this again really sounds like an urban legend. Can anyone verify in Gustaffsen's or Pankurak's own official writing that they are shipped this way?

NOTE: If they say yes, they are ***wrong,*** as I have received FULLY ASSEMBLED 209x50 T/C Encore muzzle loaders direct from Jerry's Sport Center, Camfour, Henry's, etc and they all come in with reciepts stating that they are ***RIFLES.*** There is no way an assembled RIFLE which is shipped as a RIFLE in a rifle box from the manufacturer can in any way legally be considered a handgun.

Just as I may place a longer barrel and butt stock on my Contender handgun frame, so I may do the same with an XP 100 Frame, HS 2000 frame, etc. Ease of conversion has nothing whatever to do with legality, nor does the ***Intent*** of the producer or corporation.

I may not legally take a Ruger #1, Rem 700, or and NEF handi rifle, and put a short barrel and pistol grip on them. This is a violation of law and subject to a fine up to $250,000.00 and up to sentencing of up to 10 years in prison.

The Handi Rifle is an excellent example and 'foil' for our purposes. If I started putting out aftermarket pistol grips and short barrels for the NEF Handi-rifles, even though they are just as mechanically easy to physically convert as a Contender (easier, as there isn�t even a hinge pin!) everyone would think me NUTS, as no one EVER questions the illegal nature such a conversion would have! Yet some still seem to develop a blindness and mental block regarding the SAME EXACT type of conversion on a Contender or Encore carbine/rifle when originally SOLD AS A CARBINE/RIFLE!

An Encore/Contender Carbine/Rifle/209 muzzle loader logged and sold **as a rifle** is legally NO DIFFERENT than an H&R/NEF Handi-Rifle, a Ruger #1, a Rem 700, a Savage 112, etc etc.

As an FFL I have had to research the issue, and as a result of that research, my conclusions are identical to GonHuntin�s.

SeanHHI#7364:

quote:

---

As an FFL I have had to research the issue, and as a result of that research, my conclusions are identical to GonHuntin�s.

---

A question then, with a simple "Yes" or "No" remembering that Gonhuntin posted that ATF treats the conversions differently.

Do you agree that ATF considers converting a contender carbine to a pistol as different than converting a Remington rifle, et al to a pistol ?

Whatever your answer, please consider the following a rhetorical question:

How can two separate acts, with different outcomes, be the same ?

As an aside, if you have letters from ATF that says the conversions of a T/C and a Remington et al� are the same, even tho such letters would contradict both Gonhuntin's post that they're different and "common sense", maybe we should see them to settle the issue a bit earlier.

I'll post the image(s) of ATF's reply to my question on the matter, as available, when I figure out the technology for doing so.

[ 06-11-2002, 10:02: Message edited by: centerpunch ]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by centerpunch:
[QB]

Do you agree that ATF considers converting a contender carbine to a pistol as different than converting a Remington rifle, et al to a pistol ?

Whatever your answer, please consider the following a rhetorical question:

How can two separate acts, with different outcomes, be the same ?

Centerpunch,

Centerpunch,

No, I do not consider that they are different. Others may disagree, yet hear me out, and you may see why I say such. The relevant point is this:

According to the ATF- "Utilizing the receiver of an existing rifle for the purposes of manufacturing a handgun would constitute the making of a firearm as defined above. Individuals desiring to make such a firearm must first submit an ATF Form 1, Application To Make And Register a Firearm and pay the applicable $200 making tax."

Now, the only possible exception to this above is this qualification from the ATF also posted by Gonhuntin':

According to the ATF- "If an individual were to obtain a rifle type receiver ***that had not previously been utilized in the assembly of a rifle,*** a handgun could be made and not be subject to the provisions of the NFA. ***Verification must be obtained from the manufacturer of the receiver to establish its authenticity.*** "

I maintain that a Contender/Encore ***Carbine/Rifle*** is NOT treated differently, as it is already assembled and sold AS AN Contender/Encore ***Carbine/Rifle*** and subject to the first clause quoted above. ONLY when a rifle ***TYPE*** reciever ***that had not previously been utilized in the assembly of a rifle*** is in question, is it treated any differently, and then it does not matter whether it is a Contender/Encore OR Remington Bolt Action, Or a Ruger Falling Block, etc.

My point is addressing those frames ALREADY assembled and shipped AS rifles, which clearly falls into the category of the first quoted section from the ATF.

Remember as well, the ATF is only one of many player's in the game. There are the courts, Judges, US attourneys, etc etc. Consulting one source is only a piece of the overall puzzle, as the case involving T/C has indicated.

A final note regarding frames shipped with buttstocks and not assembled: T/C cannot possibly verify to a court of law that a rifle frame shipped from them, through a distributor, to an FFL and then sold, had NEVER been assembled as a rifle. All they can at best state is that it was not assembled as such when it left their premises, and then there is the issue of test firing i.e. was it EVER test fired with a barrel, in what configuration, etc? As you can see, the components of the case militate heavily against being able to actually prove to a court of law that a given frame, especially a T/C frame, did NOT start life wearing a rifle/carbine barrel and buttstock when it was sold specifically AS a rifle/carbine frame.

At any rate, in the case of my actual point in the previous post, my position stands: an T/C frame shipped as a complete rifle/carbine may NEVER be made into a handgun, of course save for the $200.00 tax etc as mentioned above, which is the same condition as regards any mechanical configuration (bolt, falling block, break-open etc) of rifle/carbine receiver.

FOR YOUR POINT TO STAND, you would have to be able to legally take the actions from Remington Mohawk 600 rifle/carbines, or Remington 7 rifles/carbines etc and convert them to XP 100 & 100r's, handguns with 14" barrels, WITH NO TRANSFER TAX OR FORM OR PERMISSION TO DO SO, as the actions of these firearms are mechanically identical and Remington used the same action designs to build and produce both types of firearms. That you will not, and cannot legally do so is of course directly analagous to the issue at hand.

[ 06-11-2002, 10:42: Message edited by: Sean HHI #7364 ]

Centerpunch

Wake Up! I didn't say, and I don't believe, that the BATF considers the conversion of a factory contender carbine any different than converting a Remington model 7!

When I posted:
**********************************************
"And, finally, why do you believe a factory configured contender carbine is any different, legally, than a Remington model 700, Winchester 70 or NEF Handi Rifle? And why is it legal to convert a factory configured Contender carbine into pistol configuration but it's not legal to convert any of the other mentioned rifles without first registering them as NFA weapons?"
**************************************************

You apparently took the second question out of context. The second question is based on the fact that YOU, not me, think that the conversions are legally different! The first question is, why do you believe they are different and the second, separate question is a follow-up assuming that you, in fact, do believe they are different. It may be a poorly worded question, but it is not a statement of fact or belief on my part!

You just can't seem to accept and understand that the frame of a TC that was shipped from the factory in rifle form, is legally a RIFLE just like a NEF Handi Rifle frame is legally a RIFLE!

You have bought into the Tim Pancurak/TC line that the USSC case somehow provided an exemption for the TC carbine/rifle and that just isn't true! Go back and read the decision and show me any mention of converting a factory produced rifle........you won't find one because TC did not offer a complete rifle at the time the case was first filed. The case decides the legality of converting a Contender Handgun through the use of a carbine kit. PERIOD!

Please post the wording of the letter you sent to BATF, I'm interested in what questions you asked.

Thanks

[ 06-11-2002, 18:04: Message edited by: GonHuntin ]

Gonhuntin'

I am grateful for your response to Fireball's statement, and I fully agree: this forum is better than the "pond" expressly ***because*** the really diagrammatic, illustrative, and informative threads like this one do NOT get deleted!

This is American freedom of expression and freedom of speech: to be able to freely discuss and debate all relevant points pertaining to the controversial topics, regardless of the parties involved on either side!

Gonhuntin:

quote:

---

And why is it legal to convert a factory configured Contender carbine into pistol configuration but it's not legal to convert any of the other mentioned rifles without first registering them as NFA weapons?

---

Daddgummit�

quote:

---

The second question is based on the fact that YOU, not me, think that the conversions are legally different! The first question is, why do you believe they are different and the second, separate question is a follow-up assuming that you, in fact, do believe they are different. It may be a poorly worded question, but it is not a statement of fact or belief on my part!

---

And if I hadn't been such a pain in the ass, sticking to my guns through thick and thin (mostly thin), I would still be interpreting your second question as the clear indication you believed what it indicated; and what I believe to is correct� converting TC carbines is different than converting Remington 700's et al.

Because ATF views them differently.

Anyway, we each stuck to our guns and we got the subleties of the argument and the misunderstanding resolved. It would be nice if we all could express ourselves without any confusion as to what we mean. We can either agree on the principal points in a thread or can agree to disagree, but "changing the channel" or throwing in the towel out of frustration and anger, in my mind� is a failure to communicate. And a rejection of a basic right of an American, freedom of expression.

Thank you, Saeed for the restraint of censorship through this three month ordeal.

I now will shut up and post no more.

[ 06-11-2002, 20:46: Message edited by: centerpunch ]

ATF has replied to my question, can you change configurations of a TC Contender/Encore without having to register it with NFA/ATF.

Those who disagreed with my position and rationale, have a p.m. from me. I will not go into it on this forum, since trying to convince a fanatic who thinks he's RIGHT is a waste of time, similar to teaching a pig to sing.

Those who tried to prove I was WRONG , now know better. I do however expect they will still argue they are right, as any fanatic would.

Centerpunch wrote:
"As I said, your position regarding TC Contender/Encore conversions ****from rifle to pistol AND back**** along with a requirement of NFA registration was incorrect.And the above text demonstrates that."

Centerpunch,

You are arguing against a straw man. Both GonHuntin' and I were arguing about conversions of T/C Encore rifles or Contender carbines that ***STARTED LIFE AS A RIFLE OR CARBINE*** and NOT regarding those that were a combo kit or that started life as pistols. This is a whole different issue and not addressed by your ATF letter as you posted it in the private message. Again, we are concerned with the conversion of "rifles to pistols," not the conversion of "pistols to rifles to pistols".

And no, we who disagree are not fanatics [as to your rhetorical device to attempt to discredit in advance any who would answer you in the negative] but rather interested in the truth and specific detail of the debate. Your letter [as posted to me in the PM] does not address the actual question at hand, so therefore it is worthless to the discussion.

[ 08-03-2002, 05:48: Message edited by: Sean HHI #7364 ]

Fireball,

Naaaa, just a Theology/Philosophy student

I change my frames back and forth from pistol to rifle and rifle to pistol all the time. There is no difference between a pistol frame and a rifle frame.
If you are going to point out the model 7 - XP similarity, I'm going to say read the writing stamped on the frame.
If this were an issue, I'd worry. It's not, and I don't.
T.D.

T.D.

If your frame started life as a pistol, then there is no problem. REMEMBER, WE ARE STRICKLY ADDRESSING A FRAME THAT STARTED LIFE AS A RIFLE OR CARBINE, not a combo kit etc.

It IS an issue when one purchases an Encore 209x50 rifle, or any version of Encore or Contender that came through the dealers books from the distributer, STRICTLY AS A RIFLE. This is how the 209x50's are shipped to me, marked from the distributer, and how they are logged in my book. They are rifles.

I am not addressing how realistic it is that someone can tell the difference just by looking at the frame: a visual inspection would reveal nothing, just as with a fully finished XP100 that utilized a Rem Model 7 rifle frame in the making.

Let's say you are ticketed by a game warden and your Encore or Contender pistol is confiscated, or lets say for another reason, a zelous LEA confiscates it. When the ATF or any LEA runs a trace on the serial number of the firearm, just as with a stolen/lost firearm or criminal use trace, they start with the maker, then move on to the distributer, then the first FFL, and so on. By this common method of trace, it is singularly EASY for them to tell that the Encore 209x50 was just that from the factory and/or distributer, a rifle, and then BY LAW you are guilty of manucaturing a handgun from a rifle.

These are distinctions that Centerpunch and others are completely missing, and they ARE such that are tracable by the ATF. The ATF letter put forth as evidence ONLY addressed those frames which came as a part of the combo kit, and clearly, as miniscule as it seems to us, the ATF etc WERE and ARE motivated to persue such matters to the hilt, as in the case of the combo kits, it went through the courts in a major legal battle!

THIS particular issue has not been brought forth to the courts YET, as this was not the legal question of the case which the ATF letter is concerned with, and I would definately not hang my hat solely upon any percieved good intentions or common sense of the ATF!!!

I do not like it at all. I think it is ridiculous. But it is the law, and very rarely do the courts ever smile upon the gunowner under such circumstances. This is mine, and GonHuntin's point throughout the entire thread.

[ 08-03-2002, 18:35: Message edited by: Sean HHI #7364 ]

Well, Sean said most everything I would have said.....so just let me add this.....

Centerpunch......if you will remember, I asked to see a scanned copy of the letter you wrote to the ATF......BECAUSE......I figured (correctly) that you wouldn't ask the question that this entire discussion is based on......and that is:

Can a Contender/Encore that shipped from the factory as a R I F L E be converted into handgun configuration (barrel less than 16" and grips instead of stock) without it becoming a NFA regulated Short Barreled Rifle........

Unless your letter to the ATF is very different than what you sent me, their response is not revelant to the discussion because you didn't ask the question that the discussion is based on!

so can anyone tell me the longest barrel that is alowed on a handgun? am I safe in assuming that 16 1/4 is legal handgun barrel?I had a 24 inch 300WSM barrel cut down to 16 1/4 .I got the barrel for 100.00 and didnt want to go with the extra expence of buying a stock and forend

trckr

I HAVE ONE QUESTION!!

Will the factory or ATF confirm if the frame was shipped as a rifle or a pistol???

If not, then this whole discussion is for not!

Magnum...DEPENDS!!.. I posted somewhere her...Maybe in the begining about my Experiance...To which Most get made about when I post..so here goes anyway.

I was at the range about a year ago. The police shooting team from LongBeach Ca. was here.
After talking with them the conversation came up about frame serial numbers and conversions...here goes the info I got.......No TEMPERS PLEASE.

1) NO we will not go around checking serial numbers..until such time a law is passed or a direct order to go out and check at ranges..or hunting areas to check for serila numbers...not likley in the near future.

2) EVEN though the frame is registered as a HAND GUN..it is Illegal to posses a FIREARM that could be Taken as a SHORT barreled rifle!!...WHAT?? YUP if you got into trouble with the law...mistaken for a robbery suspect...Murder...Whatever,,,and where found to have a Contender Handgun...Pistol grip in tack..but a 18" barrel and the firearm was Under 26" total length(may have the lentgh wrong)...then YOU WILL BE CITED AND FINED for owning a Undersize rifle...whatever they call it!!
This was scary for me since I hade a Pistol with a bullberry 7-30 20" long on it at the time...They said not to worry..they were gun Lovers also and unless you were Convicted..or a suspect...you would not be bothered...WHEW!!!!

3) NEVER will a rifle frame be alowed to have a pistol grip on it.

Ok All the Butt head that wish to aRGUE??? GO AHEAD!! tHIS Was a stupid thing to have arguments over in the first place.

ATF has replied, re: TC/Encore rifle to pistol conversions.

They can be reached at:

Dept of the Treasury
Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms
Washington DC 20226-0001.

Your answer will take 30-45 days since they test for anthrax contamination. Of course, asking a question which you think is "on point" but they do not, will require you to ask them AGAIN.

Good Luck.

btt

Bill
What is the reason to bring this back to the top ? This subject is like beating a dead horse. I just don't understand why this needs to be brought up again.
Rich Jake

Rich,

I didn't bring it back up for discussion, but rather for background/information. The issue reared its' ugly head on a different thread....

Bill