We Answer Your Questions About Gutting The NFA

[jdege]

They explain how removing the tax also removes the reporting requirements.

To wit, the language applies the tax and reporting requirements to firearms.

Their change removes suppressors and SBRs and SBSs from the category of firearms.

[xd ED]

That’s the most complete explanation I’ve heard. I hope it works.

[Lumpy]

Is it actually law as of today?

[xd ED]

Is it actually law as of today?

The commentary was in regards to some proposed changes the Senate is considering adding to the budget reconciliation bill that was recently passed in the House. As I understand it, The goal of some is for a Senate vote on it by July 4th.

[Lumpy]

Some time back I posted about considering going NFA to replace the arm brace on my Springfield Saint Victor with a stock. If this goes through I'll do it.

[xd ED]

Some time back I posted about considering going NFA to replace the arm brace on my Springfield Saint Victor with a stock. If this goes through I'll do it.

The upside to an SBR would be a better stock,
BUT
As state law exists, you can carry an arm-braced pistol AR... as a pistol.
Even though the transport law refers to long guns, I suspect an SBR'd AR would be subject to the transport laws of rifles, and shotguns.
'Transport' laws are DNR regs; far more restrictive than MN Carry Law...
...generally understood to mean in a closed gun case, unloaded, and separate of ammo, in the trunk/ rear of a vehicle.
And then there's the
‘Once a Rifle, Always a Rifle’ Doctrine:
Converting a pistol to a rifle is legal, going back from a rifle to a pistol would not be.

[Lumpy]

Forgot about the DNR rules. While we really don't want hunting from vehicles, is there any way those laws could be made less restrictive?

[Scratch]

And then there's the
‘Once a Rifle, Always a Rifle’ Doctrine:
Converting a pistol to a rifle is legal, going back from a rifle to a pistol would not be.

From what I’ve understood, if it started life as a rifle, then it can’t be converted to a pistol, but if it starts life as a pistol, it can be made to a rifle, then back to a pistol, then back to a rifle, and so on.

Not sure if that’s true but years ago, I’ve heard of people buying a stripped lower, building it as a pistol, taking a pic of it in that form then they were safe to do whatever they want with it in the future.

[xd ED]

And then there's the
‘Once a Rifle, Always a Rifle’ Doctrine:
Converting a pistol to a rifle is legal, going back from a rifle to a pistol would not be.

From what I’ve understood, if it started life as a rifle, then it can’t be converted to a pistol, but if it starts life as a pistol, it can be made to a rifle, then back to a pistol, then back to a rifle, and so on.

Not sure if that’s true but years ago, I’ve heard of people buying a stripped lower, building it as a pistol, taking a pic of it in that form then they were safe to do whatever they want with it in the future.

In the short bit of interweb research I have done, the following came up;
All remarks were in context of ‘AR’ type firearms

* Yes, can convert a rifle to a pistol (no qualifications mentioned)

* No, you cannot convert a rifle to a pistol

* Yes, You can only convert a rifle to a pistol if it started life as a pistol

* Yes, you can convert a rifle to a pistol if the receiver is marked as a pistol

The practice of photographing the receiver as part of a pistol was mentioned. My first thought about that is it does not create any proof the pistol was the original build….

If I personally were considering a conversion (back) to a pistol, I would consult a more knowledgeable source than myself.