TexasCHLforum.com

I wanted to confirm what I read before I make a legal mistake

SBR is considered a barrel less than 16 inches or a total length of less than 26”. I get this part

What I want to confirm as it says it varies by state... i believe in Texas this is measured with the extendable buttstock fully extended. Is this correct?

If the above assumption is correct, my lower with fully extended buttstock is 18 inches, with a 10 1/2 inch upper would make this a legal rifle ...Correct?

Are there any pitfalls I should be aware of if I go this route?

Thank you in advance

SRO1911 wrote: Tue Mar 12, 2019 10:04 pm 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 twenty-six inches.[18 USCS § 921]

The way I read it, and it has been enforced is not the greater of the two but separate measuress that must both be met. So a 10 inch barrel with a rifle stock would be a sbr.

Right. And Federal Law is the controlling law on this in Texas. One other thing.... flashhiders and muzzle brakes, if they are pinned and welded on to the end of the barrel, such that they are not removable, count as part of the total barrel length. So if you have a 14.5” barrel, with a pinned and welded flashhider or muzzle brake that brings the total length up to 16”, you’re good to go and don’t need a stamp.

Edited to add.... you can also buy/build an AR pistol with a short barrel, and a stabilizing brace that can be shouldered, and you don’t need a stamp at all - no matter how short your barrel is.

wrote:"The Annoyed Man" post_id=1242368 time=1552448667 user_id=2929
Edited to add.... you can also buy/build an AR pistol with a short barrel, and a stabilizing brace that can be shouldered, and you don’t need a stamp at all - no matter how short your barrel is.

Read these for background and current decision.

https://www.atf.gov/file/11816/download 1st open letter

https://www.sigsauer.com/wp-content/upl ... 1-2017.pdf 2nd letter which explains their current position.

I personally don't trust their inability to make a decision and stick with it.

ScubaSigGuy wrote: Wed Mar 13, 2019 12:57 am

wrote:"The Annoyed Man" post_id=1242368 time=1552448667 user_id=2929
Edited to add.... you can also buy/build an AR pistol with a short barrel, and a stabilizing brace that can be shouldered, and you don’t need a stamp at all - no matter how short your barrel is.

Read these for background and current decision.

https://www.atf.gov/file/11816/download 1st open letter

https://www.sigsauer.com/wp-content/upl ... 1-2017.pdf 2nd letter which explains their current position.

I personally don't trust their inability to make a decision and stick with it.

Is that first link more recent than the letter written to Mark Barnes, Esq? Or restated, which predates the other? I’ve seen the 2nd one before, but not the first one, and it has no date-stamp on it.

wrote: Is that first link more recent than the letter written to Mark Barnes, Esq? Or restated, which predates the other? I’ve seen the 2nd one before, but not the first one, and it has no date-stamp on it.

The 1st link predates the 2nd link, and is the letter the 2nd link references. I think they found their original position, or at least the point they were using to make it, to be indefensible.

ScubaSigGuy wrote: Wed Mar 13, 2019 4:44 pm

wrote: Is that first link more recent than the letter written to Mark Barnes, Esq? Or restated, which predates the other? I’ve seen the 2nd one before, but not the first one, and it has no date-stamp on it.

The 1st link predates the 2nd link, and is the letter the 2nd link references. I think they found their original position, or at least the point they were using to make it, to be indefensible.

Cool, thanks! Yeah, I'm very aware that the ATF is fickle, and under the pressure of political winds, their interpretations are fungible. What they allow today, could change tomorrow....and completely without involving Congress or voters in the process. Darned inconvenient, it is.

The Annoyed Man wrote: Wed Mar 13, 2019 7:55 pmtheir interpretations are fungible

with manure