Originally Posted By: DustTory, it's called being extra safe. I know what has been said, but that doesn't mean that it won't be changed in 3 months. It is the government you know. I like the word intent, and I think that a pic with the FFL paperwork and lower with no riflestock attached shows more intent to build a pistol than the removal of a buttstock before the arbitrary attachment of an upper. Intent is left to interpretation. A dated pic of said lower with buffer tube doesn’t leave much to interpretation. I'd even pay my FFL to install a pistol buffer tube before signing and paying just to make sure.
Totally understand, although if you ever in a position where someone is challenging the legality of what configuration it was originally in there is probably more of a reason the BATFE is banging down the door. Although big brother does over step his bounds more often than not I don't know anyone that has had them visit because of the validity of a single rifle in a legal configuration....but I am sure it has happened.
Totally understand, although if you ever in a position where someone is challenging the legality of what configuration it was originally in there is probably more of a reason the BATFE is banging down the door. Although big brother does over step his bounds more often than not I don't know anyone that has had them visit because of the validity of a single rifle in a legal configuration....but I am sure it has happened.