That is a long article, but you conveniently left out a few of the paragraphs that lend credibility to what I have been saying all along. Let me underline a few of the more applicable points:"There should be some mention somewhere that the US Supreme Court case the TC letter (posted below) speaks of did not deal with converting contenders that left the factory in rifle configuration.....it only addressed the legality of converting a contender handgun into a rifle through the use of a "carbine kit"......
TC did not offer a factory contender carbine at the time the case was filed......
thus, the decision cannot be used to infer the legality of converting contenders/encores that left the factory as rifles...... "
"With these systems, a receiver may be assembled either with a pistol grip and pistol barrel, or with a shoulder stock and rifle barrrel (minimum length 16 inches). A barrel under 16 inches in length must never be assembled onto the reciever when the shoulder stock is attached. Within that parameter,
the consumer may use the parts to make a pistol or carbine, and may change the configuration at will."
"In 1988, Thompson/Center filed suit against the United States alleging that the pistol and carbine kit used above do not constitute a rifle with a barrel less than 16 inches in length, a weapon made from a rifle with an overall length less than 26 inches, or a restricted "firearm" as otherwise defined in the National Firearms Act.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court agreed with Thompson/Center. Their opinions are cited as United States v. Thompson/Center Arms Co., 504 U.S. 505 (1992), affirming 924 F.2d 1041 (Fed. Cir. 1991). In the trial court and in the Federal Circuit, the United States argued both that (1) the mere unassembled parts constituted a rifle with a barrel under 16 inches in length, and that (2) use of the receiver to assemble a pistol after a rifle had been assembled constituted making a weapon from a rifle with an overall length less than 26 inches.
The Federal Circuit rejected both arguments. See 924 F.2d at 1043, citing 26 U.S.C. 5845 (a) (3) and (4). The United States abandoned the latter argument in the Supreme Court, which held generally for Thompson/Center. Accordingly, both issues (1) and (2) were decided in favor of Thompson/Center and are not now open to question." So the coin turns again. Same article, only a little higher up, you have more opinion from the same writer that favors my position. I am legal with my Contenders. I do not own a "G2 Contender". I do not own an "Encore". ALL of my convertible Thompson Center frames and barrels were and are made for the Thompson Center Contender. All of them are legally configured with grip and barrel, or with butt stock and barrel 16" or longer.
I am not advocating breaking the law, in fact I am 100% AGAINST IT!! If I saw you with an illegal firearm, you can be darned sure I would call the authorities.
I am 100% PRO-GUN and have studied the associated laws pertaining to the states I live and travel in. You also left out the writer's bullet points that he was using to make his point. Let me post and underline some important points there also:"The response I received from the Technology Branch confirmed what I had said all along (the original letter I wrote and the BATF response are posted on this forum and available for you to read).
1. A firearm
that left TC in rifle configuration (equipped with a buttstock) *IS* legally a rifle and is subject to all rules and regulations pertaining to rifles.
2.
It is NOT legal to convert a rifle into pistol configuration without first registering it with the BATF as a Title 2 weapon, (short barreled rifle). 3.
The legal status of a TC, whether rifle or pistol, is based on the configuration of the firearm when it leaves the factory. 4.
The legal status of a frame that left the factory with no other parts (bare frame without stock or grips) is determined by the way it is FIRST assembled. If it is first assembled as a rifle, it will always legally be a rifle, if first assembled as a pistol, it will always legally be a pistol.
5.
A dealer cannot change the legal status of a firearm by listing a rifle as a handgun on the form 4473. Listing an Encore rifle as a pistol on the 4473 does not alter the fact that it is and will always legally be a rifle.
6.
A person who buys a Contender or Encore that was illegally converted from a rifle to a pistol can be prosecuted for possession of an unregistered Title 2 weapon.....*EVEN IF THAT PERSON DID NOT KNOW THE WEAPON WAS ILLEGALLY CONVERTED*!!! (a call to TC with the serial number of the frame will determine whether it is legally a rifle or pistol) "
I hope you read the writers bullet points and consider his points: 1) he stated way up in the article that TC
DID NOT offer a factory Contender Carbine at the time the case was filed. A rifle leaving TC with a buttstock in rifle configuration cannot be reassembled as a pistol. I agree. If anyone has a Thompson Center Contender Carbine that came from the TC factory in a factory box as a carbine, I would like to see it. I have never seen one and would like photos of the gun and box for my records.
2.) It is not legal to convert a rifle to a pistol. I agree with this also. I could have a whole lot more hand cannons if I could use rifle actions rather than searching out XP-100 actions.
3.) Legal definition of the TC
is as it leaves the factory. See also #5. A dealer cannot change the status of the rifle to a handgun on the 4473. HOWEVER, if you find a "Contender" (not "G2 Contender" and not "Encore") for sale that has both the buttstock and carbine barrel,
AND pistol grip and pistol barrel, you can have the gun configured with pistol grip and barrel to purchase on the 4473 as a pistol. There would be no additional paperwork required to purchase the buttstock and carbine barrel to go with it.
EXCEPT!! if the FFL holder has the gun in his registry as a rifle. NOW it is a rifle and you have to keep it as a rifle.
4.) No one, not even TC, can determine the original configuration of a bare frame EXCEPT the original owner.
5.) see 3.
6.) This statement could be true, but you must also consider the information contained in #4. TC may not know what the original configuration was.
So, we hash and bash at each other with our words of wisdom only to have adverse opinions throw additional wood onto the fire. As I stated in my prior posts, I have my letters, case files, photos, and I have done my research. I am 100% legal per the supreme court case and, until it is overthrown, I will continue to legally carry my Thompson Center Contenders in the configuration in which they were intended, and are legally protected, to be carried.
Have a good day and please, please, take a kid shooting!
Steve
