Sgt. Fox Posted March 20, 2005 Report Share Posted March 20, 2005 Hi there guys, I know I've seen this topic on the board before, but I couldn't turn it up with a search and I'm not sure if the expiration of the AWB affects it either, so I figured I'd ask. Sorry if this is a repeat! I'm looking to modify my SA Kahr 1927A1 with one of those detachable buttstock kits. Are there any legal hurdles / roadblocks to doing this? I.e., is there a minimum length requirement that would be violated by such a change. Also, I'm SBR'ing it with a Form 1, so would the fact that it's now a NFA toy affect the legality of such a change? Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Chris Posted March 20, 2005 Report Share Posted March 20, 2005 I may be wrong on this, but I thought the law was completely about the length of the barrel (NFA of 1934) for SBR and SBS, and not of the weapon itself. With the AWB sunset, it might have been a provision to ban "scary" features like removable buttstocks, but since the law is history it is a moot point. I would think Lionhart or Damon could chime in with more educated answers, but since tommygunner.com has them for sale, I think its probably a good sign that you are okay. Chris. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LIONHART Posted March 20, 2005 Report Share Posted March 20, 2005 There was NO problems with installing such a set up during the Ban, nor is there an issue now.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norm Posted March 20, 2005 Report Share Posted March 20, 2005 PK or Tommygunner.com (Damon) can do this for you and make it look good. Norm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldFalGuy Posted March 21, 2005 Report Share Posted March 21, 2005 I believe the only question to be asked regarding this subject is whether, with the buttstock removed, the overall length of the weapon is equal to or greater than 26 inches (including the barrel). Don't have my thompson handy to see if the receiver is 10 inches or not. Always has been a stupid aspect of the law. Mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill in VA Posted March 21, 2005 Report Share Posted March 21, 2005 (edited) A couple of points.... Whether or not a firearm is an SBS/SBR is not strictly dependent upon the barrel length, but also upon the overall length. 18USC CH44 921(a)(6) and 921(a)(8) are the operative definitions. For an SBS, if the barrel is less than 18 inches or the overall length is less than 26 inches it is an SBS. For a rifle, the OAL is the same, but the barrel length needs to be at least 16 inches or else it is an SBR. Thus, you could have a rifle with a 16 inch barrel but an OAL of 20 inches and it would still need to be registered as an SBR. Secondly, under federal law the OAL is determined with the stock in its extended position and the barrel length is determined by measuring from the bolt face to the muzzle (see CFR 179.11 under "firearm" for how to measure a firerm's OAL/bbl length.) As far as a semi-auto Thompson rifle, I have no idea what the OAL is either with or without a butt stock, but I'd assume that with a detachable stock that is detached it'd still have to meet the minimum OAL. Lastly, the "assualt weapons' ban" was 18USC CH 44 922(v) which prohibited more than one evil feature. Even if the ban was still in effect (it is not) a detachable stock was not an evil feature...the law specifically said "folding or telescoping stock." For the record, none of the Thompson semi-auto rifles ever qualified as an "assault weapon" under 921(a)(30). "Assault weapons," as defined by 921(a)(30) had to have: A) a detachable magazine, and http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/cool.gif at least two "evil" features. The only "evil feature" the semi-auto thompson rifles ever had was a pistol grip. Damn! OldFALGuy beat me to it! Edited March 21, 2005 by Bill in VA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LIONHART Posted March 21, 2005 Report Share Posted March 21, 2005 A SA Thompson meets the overall length minimum (26") with the Stock detached... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt. Fox Posted March 21, 2005 Author Report Share Posted March 21, 2005 (edited) ^ but would it still meet the OAL requirement with the short barrel as opposed to the stock full barrel? And more importantly, if it's registered as a SBR with the short barrel on it, does it even have to meet a minimum OAL? Edited March 21, 2005 by Sgt. Fox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill in VA Posted March 21, 2005 Report Share Posted March 21, 2005 Once it's an SBR there are no limits on its OAL, (even though your Form 1 asks for an OAL. If you're overly concerned, you can always put "less than 26 inches" in the box for the OAL.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zamm Posted March 21, 2005 Report Share Posted March 21, 2005 Sgt. Fox, as long as the barrel is 16", the Semi 27 will meet overall Fed length requirement with the buttstock removed ( it's around 28 and 3/4" ). So, go ahead, live a little and remove that stock on and off as quick as you like! But do it now so it's nicley grandfathered in just in case of things to come http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/wink.gif Zamm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt. Fox Posted March 21, 2005 Author Report Share Posted March 21, 2005 Thanks for all your help guys. http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldFalGuy Posted March 21, 2005 Report Share Posted March 21, 2005 Thanks Bill, your description of the facts is what I was thinking about but couldn't recall the exact reference. I was also thinking about the semi thompson pistol that can't be had WITH a stock or its an SBR- only alternative woudl be if the weapon wouldn't fire with the butt detached. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TommyGunner Posted March 21, 2005 Report Share Posted March 21, 2005 I have a letter from the ATF folks on this one stating that it is ok. It is only about a year old. Will try to get it posted later this morning. Damon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now