Lets say I was in the market for a Encore action only and wanted to build it myself? Add barrel, grips and forend. Can you just buy the action? And if so where?

Most actions come with furniture, although you can sell the existing stuff if you want custom. Check GunBroker as they come up now and again, with and without. Various forum classifieds are a good place to look or post a WTB (wanted to buy)

If you buy an action only make sure it has never been a rifle as they cannot be used to form a pistol.

Wow glad you said that. I thought all the actions were the same. I would have probably owned a encore rifle soon.
Thanks

It is a rediculous law, but it is the law.

Is that law for the U.S. I work at a gun store in Va. and it has never been brought up. I use my frames back and forth. I don't think I know wich one is which. If I understand, if you have a frame reg. as rifle you can not make it into pistol or once it is reg. for one it can not be used as the otherI will have to check on that.

According to the LETTER OF THE LAW, and I have a copy of a letter FROM the law, once a rifle, always a rifle, whether it started as a pistol or not. You will get all sorts of arguements one way or the other by many "experts" but the LAW says NO return to a pistol.

You would have to do something very bad with your T/C to ever warrant an investigation into its origin, and I doubt it would ever be an issue. And there is no way that anyone could determine if you switched your own around unless you got busted with an illegal setup, but better safe than sorry IMO.

Thanks for the info. I will ask at work and see if anybody else knows. I agree in my life time there should not be a problem I hope. Just thinking....Would an accident come in affect with the frame or would it take more to invistigate.

I spent an hour on the phone with the ATF talking about this issue around a year ago. Their opinion was "as long as you don't have a rifle stock on it with a handgun barrel installed, you're good."

Brian.

Did you get that in writing? Signed by whom? As said, better safe than sorry.

I think what Rod is trying to say that even though the Supreme Court ruled just because a car has the ability to go over 100 doesn’t mean that is driven that way... (or something to that affect.) The problem lies with trickle down affect of law enforcement officials. Just like in Texas when the Concealed Handgun Licence came out. The people taking the CHL spent over 8 hours in class learning “the rules” and more time on the range. The Cops were given a 45-60 briefing and they are suppose to be “good to go.” Well, you wouldn’t believe the problems they actually had.

When it comes down to it I would ask the person who is going to write you the ticket. Rod’s right, it is better to be safe than sorry. The law enforcement’s job is to enforce the law, not interpret it. That’s the courts job. Calling someone is a LOT cheaper than trying to figure it out in court.



It does seem pretty cut and dry though... ... ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thompson_Center_Arms

In the case of 1. United States v. Thompson/Center Arms Co. (1992), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the company's favor by deciding that the rifle conversion kit that Thompson sold with their pistols did not constitute a short barreled rifle under the National Firearms Act of 1934.[7]
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms contended that the mere possession of a pistol, having a barrel less than sixteen inches (406 mm) long, with a shoulder stock and rifle-length (more than sixteen inches) barrel constituted constructive intent to "make" an illegal short-barreled rifle (by combining the pistol's frame, the pistol-length barrel, and the shoulder stock).
This decision clarified the meaning of the term "make" in the National Firearms Act by stating that the pistol had to be assembled with a barrel less than 16 inches (410 mm) long with a stock directly attached to it to constitute a short-barrelled rifle under the National Firearms Act, and that the mere possession of components that theoretically could be assembled in an illegal configuration was not in itself a violation, as long as the components could also be assembled into legal configurations.[8]

Please forgive the lousy image but this IS the letter from the LAW
See queston #1 Their answer doesn't leave much gray area.

LOL!

All I think that does is solidify both of our answers. They are all under the same “government,” but they are under different jurisdictions. I bet if you got a letter from Homeland Security that it would say something different. Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha.

It isn’t a perfect system, but it is the best in the world IMHO.

Next year I am going to be in a Texas law enforcement agency. Hopefully my first choice. I promise I am at least going to find out how Texas law interprets this ruling.

Duane

As said, better safe than sorry. Buy a pistol if you want a pistol. Buy a rifle if you want a rifle. Don't assume that you can have your cake and eat it too ;-)

Hey guys that is some real good info. I understand.....AH maybe. I all ways thought it was the over all lengths of combo on the the rifle(18">, 26"overall length) and pistol that was the law. Not the frames. I am going to check on this here and get back . Thanks again.

I agree we all need to be safe now a days.......

The thing is, it is likely to never be an issue, ever. But, if for some crazy reason it should come up, I will have done all I can to CYA.

"interprets"

That, Duane, is the prablem. Too much interpretation going on in this country. I thought the Constitution was law, but all anyone talks about is how a Judge should "interpret" the paper that our way of life depends on.

Good thread guys!

TCMAN,

My understanding of the Supreme Court ruling is that it only addressed "the kit" that TC once sold (rifle & pistol furniture together) ---- not an individual changing a frame from one type to another.

The safe thing to do is don't, IMHO.

Oh I agree!! There is another ruling I am still looking for that had to deal with changing them back and forth. There is a Game Warden I have been working with down here that knows the law quite well. But his opinion might be the way he “interprets” the law. LOL