If I build an AR15 (my plan is an SBR in .300 Blackout), and then want to slap a 5.56 sbr upper on it, do I have to get it registered again basically apply for another sbr?

No. The lower is the registered part. Once approved. You can slap whatever uppers you want on it. SBRs or not it's up to you.

He speaks the truth.  No notification to ATF required.

I'm not trying to argue, just truly want to know. So having other AR15'S in my possession and multiple SBR uppers is not a problem. None of those would ever be used on any other AR except the registered lower, but would there ever be a chance the argument could be used?

No problem whatsoever.

Not a problem but if you change it over to 5.56 for good or change the barrel length for good notify the ATF in writing to cover your rear.

 

Nope you just need a possible legal configuration.  One tax gives you that.

This is not required to cover your rear.

Thanks for the info all

This is true when all other compatible firearms are complete and in legal configurations, but the presence of a registered SBR itself does not automatically eliminate Constructive Possession vulnerability on all other firearms in your control. If you have, say, a registered SBR or MG, spare short uppers and a stripped or partially assembled AR-pattern lower that cannot legally become a "pistol", then CP is alive and well here.

Put your registered SBR aside, if you have any other "firearm" present that can only be completed with one of the spare short uppers in your possession and if that configuration -being the only way assemble that firearm- is illegal, then Constructive Possession is still possible.

A registered SBR with accessory short uppers alongside completed AR rifles or pistols is totally fine, but mere presence of the registered SBR does not provide total immunity to further NFA issues with other firearms that might also be present.

You are incorrect unless you are talking about diffrent types of guns.

Say for instance you have a registered AR lower but posses a short ruger 10/22 barrel that is CP. but on the other hand if you have a registered AR lower you can posses as many SBR uppers in what ever calibers that fit that lower as you like as well as long uppers. You just can never put one of your short uppers on a not registered lower.

Not true at all....constructive possession only applies when the only possible use is illegal. IE no SBR lowers or pistol lowers. It doesn't matter if u have 100 SBR uppers, and 100 partially assembled rifle lowers, as long as you have 1 SBR lower, then there is a legal configuration. Now if you put one of those SBR uppers on a non SBR rifle lower, then that would be illegal.  But just having the parts, as long as there is at least one legal avenue, is all you need to be legal.

You are correct

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that because you legally possess a registered SBR, that any additional short barreled uppers you might possess as spares or accessory barrels cannot be used to establish CP with another compatible firearm in your possession because you have a "legal use" for that or those uppers. Fair?

I think we're all talking about the protection afforded us under U.S. V Thompson Center, however you are both reinterpreting and overextending that protection to a situation it did not address. TC was about a single firearm that could be configured both legally and illegally, the TC Contender kit featuring a single receiver with various barrels and a shoulder stock.  This one firearm receiver could be built into a legal rifle, legal pistol or an illegal rifle, so the idea of LE using CP to force a possession charge for this kit was ruled against. Having a legal use for the short pistol barrel -merely a part- was not the basis of the decision, but was simply inherent to assembling a legally configured firearm. The ruling was based on being able to actually configure the firearm -the predicate for a possession charge- both legally and illegally that revealed enough ambiguity in the law that the Rule of Lenity forced the assumption of legality in this situation.

It clearly doesn't extend any protection to a second or subsequent firearms present simply because the first firearm is covered. There is certainly no legal mechanism afforded by Thompson Center by which an unused part -spare or otherwise- maintains a protected association to another assembled firearm. To suggest that TC covers one in totality simply by having some registered NFA firearm is not something at all covered in case law, especially TC. Just because you possess a registered NFA firearm doesn't mean LE cannot use CP with another firearm you might possess, and do so using spare parts you might have for your registered SBR or MG.

There is no issue when all your other ARs are fully and legally configured as either rifles or pistols, but there are situations where CP vulnerability can still exist despite any and all registered NFA firearms you might possess.

To be clear, I'm not saying you are factually wrong in your interpretation, it may well be correct if ever heard by the courts, however it's not a legal opinion validated by SCOTUS and certainly beyond anything in Thompson Center.

Best course of action is to establish that legal configuration, fully assemble all your compatible firearms if you have a mixed NFA and non-NFA collection.

There probably never will be a case to ever reference because it isn't illegal to own legal things. And trust me, speaking as an LEO at a fairly large, well informed agency, I've never heard the term constructive possession ever used, prior to coming here.  We tend to enforce laws that are actually broken, not "could be broken."  I imagine my sergeant would blow a gasket if I arrested a guy for DUII because he was drunk and owned a car, meaning he had everything necessary in his possession to drive drunk.  But alas, that is not the ATF.  But if you research the legal theory behind constructive possession, its possessing something that can only be assembled into something illegal.

You need to loosen the straps on your tinfoil hat my friend.  CP only exists if there is NO LEGAL way to configure the items you own, not the other way around.  If some LEO and prosecutor were to ever bring such a case, any competent lawyer should be able to invalidate the charge and have the judge throw it out with prejudice.  Or, at least, have the jury find for the defendant.  Assuming, of course, that there aren't other primary charges involved.

There is always a chance.

No there isn't. Trolls need to stop trying to spread false info.

This was what I was wondering.  Thank you.
 

I find it amusing that there are folks calling two of the most knowledgeable people on this site "trolls" and "tin foil hat wearers". Homeinvader and RenegadeX know what they are talking about and you would be wise to listen to them.

There is no chance you know what you are talking about.

When you own guns, NFA or otherwise, there is always a chance of getting arrested for it. Plenty of folks on this forum have documented it. Most are innocent, and charges dropped, but ignorant LEO everywhere.

There has already been a case, several cases.

NFA gun law has over 80 years of history (Case Law), there is little undiscovered. Odds are someone already did it decades ago.

Most folks want to avoid trials, as well as charges. Spending 6 figures to prove you were right all along is not seen as a victory. So when they ask for advice, they are looking to beat the ride, not just the rap. Might want to keep that in mind.

An interesting letter from the ATF in June of 2012 addresses this question exactly.

Here is the link to a discussion: http://www.weaponsguild.com/forum/index.php?topic=31866.0

Question 5 on page 2 is the important one for this discussion:

Read it again. It is not even close to exact.

The OP is asking about spare uppers, that Q/A does not involve spare uppers. Just complete rifles and complete handguns.

They project the air of paranoia. they also present discombobulated theories that either make no sense and involve to much detail or lack all detail. What gains them the title of "most knowledgeable" members of this "internet" forum?

First off why would a Leo be in my house looking at my guns? Second off I have paperwork (tax stamps and trust) for all my suppressors and SBRs. Third when I travel I have all the proper paper work.

Funny story. I thought the same way.

Then one day lightning strikes my house, it catches fire and I am not home. VFD puts it out, but in the process they see some interesting things in the garage.

Like an AR-15 lower in a vise that appears to have been just milled and drilled. In fact the bit to drill the sear hole was still in the drill with shavings. and a MK18 upper nearby, and the Paladin Press book "AR-15 Full Auto Conversion Guide on table. M16 FCG installed.

They refer it to cops already on scene. What do you think it looks like to them? Exacty what it was - I was converting an AR-15 to Full-Auto. Duh. Everyone knows that has been illegal since 1986.

How do you think that ended? So that is one way cops can be in your house looking at your guns. Highly likely? No, Possible? Yes.

I'm assuming this story is fiction.  If not, you are an idiot and deserve what you get.  If so, this is a prime example of reductio ad absurdum.

My how far we have strayed from the original question.....


The answer is still no.  The first SBR tax covers you for any upper you wish to attach to that specific lower.  And no, you don't have to tell uncle sugar.

Can you get in trouble other ways, sure.  Don't be stupid, don't try to "get around" anything.  Otherwise you will be fine.

Of course it is not fiction.

The Poster asked "why would a Leo be in my house looking at my guns" and I gave him a real life, first-hand example. MYOB.

Over the years it has become completely obvious to me that POST COUNT does not necessarily equal knowledge or wisdom.

While the two referenced members are correct in many areas I believe they are both wrong in this instance.  CP is likely only to be used to "add on" additional charges to a primary offense and then used as a bargaining tool to avoid expensive and/or embarrassing legal proceedings.  CP as a primary charge is unlikely in the extreme and there is adequate case law to get those charges thrown out in most jurisdictions.

So you are saying there is a chance?

Which is what I said yesterday.

Glad you saw the light.

Unless you are a 07/02 FFL holder then you are certainly a convicted felon and prohibited from owning firearms.  Explain to me why you should be held up as an expert in CP.   Assuming you are not an 07/02, what you built was a machine gun and CP doesn't even come close to being an issue.  The sear pin hole makes the receiver a illegal in and of itself without any other contributing factors.  This is yet another straw man argument.

About 25 years ago a friend of mine was going through a rather nasty divorce and the soon to be ex-wife called ATF and invited them over to look at his unregistered SBR (14.5" barrel with un-pinned FH). He did not serve any jail time, but the legal fees bankrupted him.

Sure, there may not be much chance of any of this happening to most folks, but when someone asks about the legality of something it always gets turned into a "how would they know" thing. How about you just let them know yes or no on the legality and let them make up their mind if they want to risk it or not.

As far as what makes them "most knowledgeable" members, comes from what I have learned from them and others over a long time on this site. Some of these folks have provided a lot of sage advice over the years and I trust their opinion a lot more than someone who comes in, disagrees and then resorts to name calling.

Just my humble opinion, YMMV.

I do believe that RenegadeX is (or was) and 07/02 FFL/SOT.

There is a "chance" I will be named as a terrorist by the feds, after all I am white, male, christian, a gun owner, and didn't vote for the current regime.  

The "chance" that I would be called a terrorist is far higher than the "chance" that CP would be used for a primary charge.  There is no light to be seen.

Newbies.

Come on to a forum think they have all the answers. Instead of listening, learning, asking intelligent questions, they feel the need to shout and put others down with name calling. And be wrong at the same time. Too bad they are too stupid to think before posting.

Should be a rule they cannot post for first 6 months so they do not makes asses of themselves.

That does not change the fact that he was using a straw man argument that has absolutely no bearing on the original question.  That only changes the fact of whether or not he was guilty of a felony.

Sorry can backtrack out of that one by changing scenario.

You clearly stated there was a chance as an "add-on", and a less likely chance as a primary.

Which is what I stated yesterday - "There is always a chance."

He is more interested in arguing, than thinking. He is new, wants to get instant respect. Thinks shouting down the big dogs is the way. Does not work that way, Then after posting I am an idiot, he realizes he is wrong and has to re-post cleaning up his earlier ignorance.

we have seen is his type come and go over the years, he will not be here long.

"is" is the correct answer, and it ended with a whole bunch of demo letters and new found shooting friends! Woo Hoo.!!!

So, simply because I haven't read your 28,700 posts and absorbed your wisdom, I was shouting you down and calling you names?  And wrong, and stupid?  Hello Kettle, meet Pot.

What I was doing was stating my opinion and why I thought you were wrong in yours.  Your feeling have may been hurt, but you need to stand down on the name calling.

Continues to double down on stupid, as answer was exactly what poster asked.

Probably still trying to figure out how I am not in jail and is hurting his head cause he cannot figure it out, cause he does not know much about NFA and does not know how one can make a MG in their garage and not go to jail.

Feels foolish cause he realizes it took him 24 hours just to wind agreeing with me that heir is a chance of bad juju.

14'ers, gotta love em!

You don't seem to understand that Constructive Possession is not a charge, but a perfectly legal shortcut that allows LE to charge you with actual possession. That's about as weighty a charge as there is in the NFA. There is absolutely no difference in weight between a possession charge for having a complete unregistered SBR and a possession charge resulting from CP. Same thing. To suggest that it's a throwaway or of some lesser weight shows a laughable and dismissible lack of understanding of NFA.

The very first words you posted in this thread were "You need to loosen the straps on your tinfoil hat". That is not "stating your opinion",

You leave out the vital piece of information that you had the proper licenses to manufacture a post-sample and then use that omission to claim that I am stupid?  You also continue with the name calling and make assumptions about my length of time in the NFA game and my knowledge level.  Your assumptions are incorrect.

These are the hallmarks of a bully and a "keyboard commando".  I will once again ask you to stand down on the name calling.

This is a valid argument.  I apologize for this statement.  I was wrong to have made it.

What your friend did was not legal. He had an unregistered SBR. Not the question the OP asked.

The only issue with having multiple SBR uppers with 1 registered SBR lower that the previous posters can bring up is "what ifs". No solid information in their 13 years on an Internet "forum" besides made up stories. Please lay down some actual knowledge on us not your biased "opinions" on how any situation can go wrong.

My comment was in reference to the "why would LEO be in my house" that I highlighted in red. We all know it was illegal.

Double tap.