quote:

Originally posted by arabiancowboy:
That note is interesting. However, it doesn't say what you said it says. It says "possessing a rifle butt stock that could readily be installed on your pistol could constitute possession of an SBR."

Couple problems:
1. "could constitute possession of an SBR" is meaningless. Does it or doesn't it?
2. What is the definition of readily installed?
3. What is the definition of possession? Physically near you? Something you own?

Like all these rules, they're ill worded and able to mean whatever the enforcers want them to mean. You are assuming you know the implied intent, which I appreciate, but respectfully your interpretation isn't gospel. I practice a philosophy of getting no where near the edges of firearms rules, no matter how dumb, because the consequences are too serious for me to treat lightly. But I don't think there's anything wrong with the OPs question and there is room to argue either way.

quote:

Originally posted by arabiancowboy:
Kilyung, from your link: “....it does not matter what buffer tube you use so long as you are not in possession of a buttstock that “could readily be installed” on the resulting pistol.”

This does not address questions 2 or 3 above. I’ve been places where storing loaded magazines separately was required, for example. “Separately” was interpreted by some to mean different rooms and by others to mean having a partition in the same case. No one had any idea what the standard was, as is the case here.

My point is, this wording is unclear and the lawyer you linked merely repeated the unclear claims. And that is unfortunately common with the ATF.

quote:

Originally posted by kilyung:

quote:

Originally posted by arabiancowboy:
Kilyung, from your link: “....it does not matter what buffer tube you use so long as you are not in possession of a buttstock that “could readily be installed” on the resulting pistol.”

This does not address questions 2 or 3 above. I’ve been places where storing loaded magazines separately was required, for example. “Separately” was interpreted by some to mean different rooms and by others to mean having a partition in the same case. No one had any idea what the standard was, as is the case here.

My point is, this wording is unclear and the lawyer you linked merely repeated the unclear claims. And that is unfortunately common with the ATF.

Of course it’s unclear (as are most BATFE opinions). I’m merely pointing out that it’s technically ok (per the letter) to use a carbine buffer tube for a pistol build. The use of the carbine buffer tube isn’t the problem.

We don’t know the OP’s situation. He may not have any AR style rifles with buttstocks in his house and could (according to this opinion letter) use a carbine buffer tube with a brace. However, as is more likely the case, he probably does have an AR rifle and so shouldn’t risk constructive intent by using a carbine buffer tube for a pistol build.