Measuring the overall length of rifles and shotguns with folding or collapsible stock
I have observed that there is an essentially universal understanding that rifles and shotguns with folding or collapsible stocks are to be measured with the stock extended. It is often stated as "fully extended." I have been unable to find anything that would clearly constitute the original reference for a stock with adjustable length (i.e., variable length in the configuration in which the firearm is intended to be fired).
In "atf-p-5320-8.pdf," the ATF National Firearms Act Handbook (which does not appear to have been updated to incorporate 41(f) procedures since that was established), the discussion of AOWs on p. 9 includes the following:
Quote:
NOTE: One version of the Marble’s Game Getter was produced with 18-inch barrels and a folding
shoulder stock. This model of the Game Getter, as manufactured, is not subject to the provisions of the
NFA because it has barrels that are 18 inches in length and the overall length of the firearm, with stock
extended, is more than 26 inches. However, if the shoulder stock has been removed from the 18-inch
barrel version of the Game Getter, the firearm has an overall length of less than 26 inches and is an
NFA weapon. Specifically, the firearm is classified as a weapon made from a rifle/shotgun.
(bold added)
The "FEDERAL FIREARMS REGULATIONS REFERENCE GUIDE 2014," defines:
Quote:
The overall length of a weapon made from a shotgun or rifle is the distance between the extreme ends of the weapon measured along a line parallel to the center line of the bore.
(bold added)
Those are the only reference materials I have been able to find published by the ATF.
The folding shoulder stock of the Game Getter discussed is only folding. It's in or out. In makes it not ready to fire, out is the configuration intended for firing. The configuration intended for firing is the only implication provided by the discussion there. The Game Getter folding stock has no adjustment, based on the photo in the document. The sections of the NFA Handbook covering shotguns and rifles say nothing about folding or collapsible stocks.
Some discussion focuses on the "extreme ends" language in the reference guide and says that means the stock fully extended. But that interpretation is not unambiguously clear by the plain language. Extreme ends are still extreme ends with a stock fully extended or at its minimum length intended for firing. And since the regulation concerns a lower limit, it would be logical to focus on the lower bound of any configuration in which the firearm is intended to be fired.
Lots of links keep going back to the same ATF publications that don't actually say anything about adjustable-length stocks that may or may not also fold. Even Adam Kraut has a video where he says it's measured with the stock fully extended, and it's "Federal law," but I can't find any reference to the actual law or any kind of document at all published by any part of the Federal government that says that, including in the links that follow Kraut's video around as if they may have been provided with the original. Just 1000 people repeating each other on the internet.
Have I found all that there is, or is there additional material in the form of opinion, guidance letter, code, case law, court briefs filed by the government, etc. published somewhere?
Someone will read this post and think I'm being intentionally obtuse. I have found great value in seeking out original sources, and on this point, I'm not convinced that the sources I've found actually say what "everybody" says they do. It certainly seems to be the case that there is established practice, but I've only found other people saying that in writing, not the people who matter: the ATF and the courts.
ETA: The 2011 ruling clarifying ATF's position on Thompson/Center pistol/rifle kits and conversion of a pistol into a rifle and back does not deal with the question of folding/collapsible/adjustable stocks. However, it references the court's application in a 1992 case of the “rule of lenity." I can see how that would be combined with "extreme ends" to yield "fully extended." However, I have not found that pairing or connection discussed anywhere in writing prior to this paragraph.
