Why We Tell You Not To Have The Parts To Make An SBR - Even If Not Installed - Page 2

Armory » General NFA Questions

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Why We Tell You Not To Have The Parts To Make An SBR - Even If Not Installed (Page 2 of 4)

Posted: 9/1/2009 7:37:31 AM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:I dont think stupid is a crime

It depends how Florida's law reads. This apparently is not an NFA issue, but rather some sort of State law violation.

Posted: 9/1/2009 8:45:50 AM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:
The NFA and ATF and now his local SO can suck a fat one. Hope he beats this one and doesn't lose everything in the process.

Why do you feel this way ? This guy is no different then anyone else who breaks the law.

He should have checked things out but now the worse case is that this clown very well might meet Buba. Get over here Boy- you gonna be my girlfriend.

The least is he might just get a nice fine and they keep his weapon.

Posted: 9/1/2009 8:55:31 AM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
This guy is no different then anyone else who breaks the law.

Do we KNOW that laws have been broken? (evidently the Sheriff's Office think so

) I hope Mr. Helper continues to post specific in his case... especially if actual charges are brought against him.

but now the worse case is that this clown very well might meet Buba. Get over here Boy- you gonna be my girlfriend.

Didn't take long to go down the "Bubba" hyperbole road.

Posted: 9/1/2009 12:20:38 PM EDT

[#4]

I have a 9mm Husqvarna L40 that (according to the internet) is supposed to be able to accept the Luger stock. Guess how they have interpreted the rules for my C&R pistol?

-only an ORIGINAL SWEDISH shoulder stock is allowed on my pistol w/o creating a SBR.

Seen one of those for sale in the US - ever?

I can think of better uses of a $200 stamp than for a weird C&R SBR. It will stay a handgun, thanks.

Quoted:
It is one thing to collect Lugers (and I do), including models which under federal law allow you to own shoulder stocks and models which are prohibited from using shoulder stocks. As long as you possess the firearms which are legally allowed to be accompanied by shoulder stocks, under the law you are legal, and ATF cannot prosecute you.

However, if you owned 100 Lugers but none of those 100 examples were recognized by ATF as being legally combined with shoulder stocks without SBR registration, then yes, you would be subject to prosecution under existing law.

From the facts stated, this is not a situation where the possessor had a legal use for the items. And that is all that matters, in the eyes of the court.

Posted: 9/1/2009 6:48:01 PM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The NFA and ATF and now his local SO can suck a fat one. Hope he beats this one and doesn't lose everything in the process.

Why do you feel this way ? This guy is no different then anyone else who breaks the law.

He should have checked things out but now the worse case is that this clown very well might meet Buba. Get over here Boy- you gonna be my girlfriend.

The least is he might just get a nice fine and they keep his weapon.

You sound like a mindless robot, with no common sense. "its the law, thats why"

Isn't this America, where your innocent until proven guilty? What part of thought crime do you like? Maybe next time they arrest you and send you to jail because you have intent to rob a bank. You don't? You have a gun, and a Halloween costume you must be up to something wrong - you must be a criminal. Im glad this guy is off the streets I feel much safer

Posted: 9/1/2009 7:04:40 PM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
This guy is no different then anyone else who breaks the law.

Except, of course, for the part where he didn't actually do anything that, you know, hurt somebody.

Posted: 9/2/2009 5:21:19 AM EDT

[#7]

Neither does speeding hurt anyone. Hi officer, what are you pulling me over for ? Speeding ? Oh well you shouldn't give me a ticket because I wasn't hurting anyone- LOL.

Quoted:

Quoted:
This guy is no different then anyone else who breaks the law.

Except, of course, for the part where he didn't actually do anything that, you know, hurt somebody.

Posted: 9/2/2009 5:24:34 AM EDT

[#8]

Doesn't deserve a reply.

Sigh !

Quoted:

Quoted:
The NFA and ATF and now his local SO can suck a fat one. Hope he beats this one and doesn't lose everything in the process.

Why do you feel this way ? This guy is no different then anyone else who breaks the law.

He should have checked things out but now the worse case is that this clown very well might meet Buba. Get over here Boy- you gonna be my girlfriend.

The least is he might just get a nice fine and they keep his weapon.

You sound like a mindless robot, with no common sense. "its the law, thats why"

Isn't this America, where your innocent until proven guilty? What part of thought crime do you like? Maybe next time they arrest you and send you to jail because you have intent to rob a bank. You don't? You have a gun, and a Halloween costume you must be up to something wrong - you must be a criminal. Im glad this guy is off the streets I feel much safer

Posted: 9/2/2009 7:45:55 AM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
I, for one, am thrilled that we've moved beyond pre-crime (evil gun ownership) to pre-pre-crime (evil gun pre-ownership).

+1
I think the next step is to charge people for just thinking about making an illegal SBR and not even owning the parts.
Dustin

Posted: 9/2/2009 8:13:44 AM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I, for one, am thrilled that we've moved beyond pre-crime (evil gun ownership) to pre-pre-crime (evil gun pre-ownership).

+1
I think the next step is to charge people for just thinking about making an illegal SBR and not even owning the parts.
Dustin

You joke, but this is how absurd I see this "constructive" horse shit to be.

What if have internet access? You have the ability to ORDER an SBR upper from Bravo Company USA! THUS, you have constructive possession via WEB!

Posted: 9/2/2009 8:28:01 AM EDT

[#11]

Never mind

Posted: 9/2/2009 8:49:13 AM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
You joke, but this is how absurd I see this "constructive" horse shit to be.

What if have internet access? You have the ability to ORDER an SBR upper from Bravo Company USA! THUS, you have constructive possession via WEB!

I can't believe the number off comments like this, and about pre-crime.

This guy has no reason to own a stock/vfg and a pistol. The only function the stock/vfg has is to be fitted onto the firearm pictured. it has no other use.

the comments about owning a hacksaw and a shotgun being constructive intent is a different subject. a hacksaw has other uses, unlike a stock/vfg its primary function is not to modify a firearm.

so here's my question to all those who are so against this law: What reason would this guy have owning a stock/vfg for a pistol, other than to assemble them? You know its illegal to assemble them without a tax stamp, and if they serve no other function, why would he own them?

Posted: 9/2/2009 8:57:21 AM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
so here's my question to all those who are so against this law: What reason would this guy have owning a stock/vfg for a pistol, other than to assemble them? You know its illegal to assemble them without a tax stamp, and if they serve no other function, why would he own them?

So lets say he owned them and was going to Form 1 it to an SBR but decided not to because he needed some cash, and could easily sell it as a title 1 gun, and tell the person buying it they can do the Form 1 paperwork on it if they want to install the accesories on the firearm.

Posted: 9/2/2009 9:06:14 AM EDT

[#14]

That isn't the point Shermantor. He with or without knowledge broke the law evidently or it seems so according to the officer who arrested him.

Ignorance is no excuse.

Lets see how this plays out.

Quoted:

Quoted:
so here's my question to all those who are so against this law: What reason would this guy have owning a stock/vfg for a pistol, other than to assemble them? You know its illegal to assemble them without a tax stamp, and if they serve no other function, why would he own them?

So lets say he owned them and was going to Form 1 it to an SBR but decided not to because he needed some cash, and could easily sell it as a title 1 gun, and tell the person buying it they can do the Form 1 paperwork on it if they want to install the accesories on the firearm.

Posted: 9/2/2009 9:14:25 AM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
So lets say he owned them and was going to Form 1 it to an SBR but decided not to because he needed some cash, and could easily sell it as a title 1 gun, and tell the person buying it they can do the Form 1 paperwork on it if they want to install the accesories on the firearm.

Except they're still illegal to own together with a pistol. In your scenario, he has intent to manufacture a (legal) short barreled rifle. I don't think the ATF would care if you planned on registering it or not. I can understand the reason for your scenario, but that still doesn't make it legal to own them without a tax stamp.

It's the same with building codes in most cities, you can't legally put a shed up in your backyard and then get the building permit.

Posted: 9/2/2009 9:26:45 AM EDT

[#16]

This is the very reason I will never have an AR pistol in my house. I own AR rifles and have spare parts including extra butt stocks, which is the STUPID intent part.

You can't PROVE intent you can only convince or not convince a jury, you go to Jail or you don't but nothing was proved.

Until they can make an AR pistol that requires machineing to convert it to a rifle or SBR I won't own one.

An AK pistol has a completely differnt type of rear trunion riveted into the receiver and cannot accept a buttstock, so you can have a spare butt stock and an AK pustol has no intent non-sense.

Posted: 9/2/2009 10:26:56 AM EDT

[#17]

In the end the guy is an idiot for posting the pics and selling this stuff together. He knew it would be illegal if the stock was placed on the gun, or even that foregrip included. He informed people that it was illegal and it couldnt be installed without a tax stamp. I could understand if it was some ignorant fool that bought all the stuff together from someone else, But this guy knew. Its the same thing as having and ar15 and a unregistered lightning link. None of you can seriously sit here and argue that he never placed the stock on the gun. And im sure it can be proved that the stock has been placed on the gun before.

I could care less what illegal activities people do in there own home that do not effect the lives of other people. The real problem is this guy posted his crap for all to see.

I hope the guy beats his case none the less! It will mean a victory to gun owners. And less power for atf etc etc etc

Posted: 9/2/2009 10:51:13 AM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:

Except they're still illegal to own together with a pistol. In your scenario, he has intent to manufacture a (legal) short barreled rifle. I don't think the ATF would care if you planned on registering it or not. I can understand the reason for your scenario, but that still doesn't make it legal to own them without a tax stamp.

Is this actual LAW somewhere? I'm not being a smart ass... I guess if there is a law that specifies what gun parts someone can have then we wouldn't even be debating this. Fore grips and Buttstocks are not restricted items. And Intent is internut echo chamber fantasy. Possession is the only viable pass they can TRY to make at the guy.

It's the same with building codes in most cities, you can't legally put a shed up in your backyard and then get the building permit.

Not a valid comparison. If he build the SBR then applied for a stamp, your comparison would be valid.

Posted: 9/2/2009 10:54:49 AM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:

Its the same thing as having and ar15 and a unregistered lightning link.

No it's not. An unregistered lightening like is a per se violation of law as it is contraband no matter what.

I hope the guy beats his case none the less! It will mean a victory to gun owners. And less power for atf etc etc etc

ATF doesn't appear to be involved so far. I'm really hoping they don't even chime in on this silly case.

Posted: 9/2/2009 10:59:49 AM EDT

[#20]

I know it has been pointed out that he was in violation of FL law. Could someone please link the actual law from FL that he was or will be charged with?

Most of us don't live in FL and know the federal NFA regulations, and we don't know if he will even be charged for a federal violation.

Posted: 9/2/2009 11:05:39 AM EDT

[#21]

100.00USD Carbine barrel with all that shit and there would be no case. Just like a Thompson Contender with a buttstock and a Carbine Barrel.

Dude is an IDIOT.

Posted: 9/2/2009 11:06:30 AM EDT

[#22]

This guy will most likely be charged federally. Had a guy here in Tampa arrested with sbs, Atf came to the jail to inform the guy that he will be charged federally, I'm sure the same thing will happen to this guy. He will end up in federal court.

Posted: 9/2/2009 11:18:26 AM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:
I know it has been pointed out that he was in violation of FL law. Could someone please link the actual law from FL that he was or will be charged with?

Most of us don't live in FL and know the federal NFA regulations, and we don't know if he will even be charged for a federal violation.

Heres the ATF website that links to all the STATE laws: http://www.atf.gov/firearms/statelaws/26thedition/index.htm

Here's what Florida says:

790.221. Possession of short-barreled rifle,
short-barreled shotgun, or machine gun;
penalty.
(1) It is unlawful for any person to own or to
have in his or her care, custody, possession, or
control any short-barreled rifle, short-barreled
shotgun, or machine gun which is, or may readily
be made, operable; but this section shall not
apply to antique firearms.

Quoted:

It's the same with building codes in most cities, you can't legally put a shed up in your backyard and then get the building permit.

Not a valid comparison. If he build the SBR then applied for a stamp, your comparison would be valid.

Under the law, just having the parts is the same as building it. Valid comparison.

Posted: 9/2/2009 11:21:55 AM EDT

[#24]

Ok found the Florida Gun Laws:

790.221 Possession of short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun, or machine gun; penalty.––

(1) It is unlawful for any person to own or to have in his or her care, custody, possession, or control any short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun, or machine gun which is, or may readily be made, operable; but this section shall not apply to antique firearms.

(2) A person who violates this section commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(3) Firearms in violation hereof which are lawfully owned and possessed under provisions of federal law are excepted.

History.––s. 10, ch. 69-306; s. 1, ch. 89-312; s. 21, ch. 93-406; s. 1217, ch. 97-102.

I guess at the heart of the issue is what is in red, but does that apply to SBR, SBS, and MG or does it just apply to MG?

But if you read this law, if you have an AR-15 pistol and AR-15 rifle, you are in violation of 790.221 because you can make the AR-15 Rifle readily into an operable SBR. It does not address "intent" or exempts that situation.

Posted: 9/2/2009 11:22:38 AM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:
[

Is this actual LAW somewhere? .

Bueller?

Posted: 9/2/2009 12:12:00 PM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:

Quoted:
[

Is this actual LAW somewhere? .

Bueller?

He posted it above. I have seen that before now that I read it again. Quite vague, but I don't think is is vague surreptitiously. I mean... you can't expect the law to lay out every possible contingency for every weapon system out there. In other words the law isn't going address every goofball with 1 AR pistol, 3 Title 1 ARs and a single SBR... and which spare uppers/barrels he can have. It would be absurd.

For guys with NFA upper awaiting approval, for example, that leaves a lot of gray area. Is a separate room good enough to make it not "readily" assembleable? The garage? A locked tool box? Good old Grandma's house? etc.

I see this law as a CYA thing. Where the authorities have the latitude to use it to pile on an individual who is actually engaged in other quantifiable illegal activity. (there's actually some case law where this was used - can't remember the scumbag that was charged off hand though)

Although the guy in question isn't up againse the federal law cited, how "readily" assemble worthy is a stock on an MP5 clone?

Posted: 9/2/2009 1:38:27 PM EDT

[#27]

Here is a great link about this case from a law firm. Evidently, they are under the impression Mr Amador is completely fuckered.

Interestingly, I own a gun shop in the area and know Jesus quite well. I registered with this site just to follow the case. I believe it won't be much of a case, more of a conviction, and Jesus whether he wants to believe it or not is going to do some very long time over something very stupid.

link

Posted: 9/2/2009 1:45:34 PM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:
Here is a great link about this case from a law firm. Evidently, they are under the impression Mr Amador is completely fuckered.

Interestingly, I own a gun shop in the area and know Jesus quite well. I registered with this site just to follow the case. I believe it won't be much of a case, more of a conviction, and Jesus whether he wants to believe it or not is going to do some very long time over something very stupid.

link

He posts under the name 'joshuap', and has already commented in this thread.

http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=6&f=17&t=289525

Of course he is fucked. He is incriminating himself because he does not know the law. He foolishly thinks he is OK because the stock/grip was not installed, but Florida law (as posted earlier) states:

790.221 Possession of short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun, or machine gun; penalty.––

(1) It is unlawful for any person to own or to have in his or her care, custody, possession, or control any short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun, or machine gun which is, or may readily be made, operable; but this section shall not apply to antique firearms.

The picture he posted and his own comments show that an SBR can be "or may readily be made, operable" in a matter of seconds.

Posted: 9/2/2009 1:52:34 PM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:
In the end the guy is an idiot for posting the pics and selling this stuff together. He knew it would be illegal if the stock was placed on the gun, or even that foregrip included. He informed people that it was illegal and it couldnt be installed without a tax stamp. I could understand if it was some ignorant fool that bought all the stuff together from someone else, But this guy knew. Its the same thing as having and ar15 and a unregistered lightning link. None of you can seriously sit here and argue that he never placed the stock on the gun. And im sure it can be proved that the stock has been placed on the gun before.

I could care less what illegal activities people do in there own home that do not effect the lives of other people. The real problem is this guy posted his crap for all to see.

I hope the guy beats his case none the less! It will mean a victory to gun owners. And less power for atf etc etc etc

Maybe I am missing something, but couldn't the stock and VFG be used on a regular old AR15 rifle?

So if I have a AR pistol, I can't have any extra parts, VFG, stocks lying around?

I wouldn't own a SBR lower and a SBR upper without the tax stamp. You're right - it's just two pins and you are making a SBR without the required paperwork.

But look at WA state - you can have a suppressor, you can put it on a weapon. You just can't pull the trigger, yet people in that state have suppressors. They aren't expensive paperweights, men - but these folks aren't being "hunted" as far as I know.

In the end, this is just another way to create criminals and all the tax stamp amounts to is a permission slip.

Fuckin' ATF makes the whole gun ownership a damned mine field.

Posted: 9/2/2009 1:55:56 PM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:
Ok found the Florida Gun Laws:

790.221 Possession of short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun, or machine gun; penalty.––

(1) It is unlawful for any person to own or to have in his or her care, custody, possession, or control any short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun, or machine gun which is, or may readily be made, operable; but this section shall not apply to antique firearms.

(2) A person who violates this section commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(3) Firearms in violation hereof which are lawfully owned and possessed under provisions of federal law are excepted.

History.––s. 10, ch. 69-306; s. 1, ch. 89-312; s. 21, ch. 93-406; s. 1217, ch. 97-102.

I guess at the heart of the issue is what is in red, but does that apply to SBR, SBS, and MG or does it just apply to MG?

But if you read this law, if you have an AR-15 pistol and AR-15 rifle, you are in violation of 790.221 because you can make the AR-15 Rifle readily into an operable SBR. It does not address "intent" or exempts that situation.

That's just insane. You have a AR pistol means you can not own any other AR15s? That can't be right, or can it?

Posted: 9/2/2009 2:01:59 PM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:
Here is a great link about this case from a law firm. Evidently, they are under the impression Mr Amador is completely fuckered.

Interestingly, I own a gun shop in the area and know Jesus quite well. I registered with this site just to follow the case. I believe it won't be much of a case, more of a conviction, and Jesus whether he wants to believe it or not is going to do some very long time over something very stupid.

link

Isn't this princelaw the firm that fear mongers on the interwebs and scares people into using their firm to create their Revocable Living Trusts?

Posted: 9/2/2009 2:06:25 PM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:
That's just insane. You have a AR pistol means you can not own any other AR15s? That can't be right, or can it?

<snip>

oops! I thought we were on the Federal level.... not Florida.

Posted: 9/2/2009 2:09:40 PM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:
The picture he posted and his own comments show that an SBR can be "or may readily be made, operable" in a matter of seconds.

If that is the case, he screwed up. It will be interesting to see if anyone finds this case worthy of a trial. I mean... you have to hope that a prosecutor passes on even pursuing this nonsense. There has to be a nugget of common sense at some point in this saga.

Posted: 9/2/2009 2:28:00 PM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Here is a great link about this case from a law firm. Evidently, they are under the impression Mr Amador is completely fuckered.

Interestingly, I own a gun shop in the area and know Jesus quite well. I registered with this site just to follow the case. I believe it won't be much of a case, more of a conviction, and Jesus whether he wants to believe it or not is going to do some very long time over something very stupid.

link

Isn't this princelaw the firm that fear mongers on the interwebs and scares people into using their firm to create their Revocable Living Trusts?

Why yes, yes it is and I created my own quiet nicely done I might add. $650 for a 45 minute job

I give 'em out FREE.

Posted: 9/2/2009 2:28:33 PM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The picture he posted and his own comments show that an SBR can be "or may readily be made, operable" in a matter of seconds.

If that is the case, he screwed up. It will be interesting to see if anyone finds this case worthy of a trial. I mean... you have to hope that a prosecutor passes on even pursuing this nonsense. There has to be a nugget of common sense at some point in this saga.

We can only hope.

Posted: 9/2/2009 2:43:03 PM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Isn't this princelaw the firm that fear mongers on the interwebs and scares people into using their firm to create their Revocable Living Trusts?

Why yes, yes it is and I created my own quiet nicely done I might add. $650 for a 45 minute job

I give 'em out FREE.

I read that there was some firm trolling the boards trying to scare guys into thinking their RLTs wouldn't hold up under scrutiny.

Posted: 9/2/2009 2:52:58 PM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Isn't this princelaw the firm that fear mongers on the interwebs and scares people into using their firm to create their Revocable Living Trusts?

Why yes, yes it is and I created my own quiet nicely done I might add. $650 for a 45 minute job

I give 'em out FREE.

I read that there was some firm trolling the boards trying to scare guys into thinking their RLTs wouldn't hold up under scrutiny.

Same place.

Posted: 9/2/2009 2:56:00 PM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Isn't this princelaw the firm that fear mongers on the interwebs and scares people into using their firm to create their Revocable Living Trusts?

Why yes, yes it is and I created my own quiet nicely done I might add. $650 for a 45 minute job

I give 'em out FREE.

I read that there was some firm trolling the boards trying to scare guys into thinking their RLTs wouldn't hold up under scrutiny.

Yep - they tell you just enough to make you worry. IANAL; however I have a brain and I have some jurisprudence experience and some courtroom experience.

Again - I give them away free to anyone who wants one. I should put it on my server and provide a link, just too lazy.

BTW, I saved a buddy 22K plus change at a closing and recently saved him 540K on a mortgage renegotiation. Not to shabby for a pipefitter from the wrong side of the tracks. I have access to WestLaw and some other pay sources. In reality, I like a law library, a legal pad, one good pen and my brain. Amazing what a person can do if they pound away.

It does take time, it does take hard work, it does take a certain aptitude. Not some shit spit out by WillMaker but a quality, hand crafted Trust I have confidence in - oh and the ATF issued the Tax Stamp, which actually means nothing

I had a bit of a pissing match with a lawyer on this board - $650 for a cookie-cutter document you tweak. FUCK THAT. Lots of defenders, but you know lawyers (and not all of them either - I know some real nice and generous ones).

It was so cold this morning, I saw a lawyer with his hand in his own pocket

Posted: 9/2/2009 2:57:36 PM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Ok found the Florida Gun Laws:

790.221 Possession of short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun, or machine gun; penalty.––
(1) It is unlawful for any person to own or to have in his or her care, custody, possession, or control any short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun, or machine gun which is, or may readily be made, operable; but this section shall not apply to antique firearms.
(2) A person who violates this section commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(3) Firearms in violation hereof which are lawfully owned and possessed under provisions of federal law are excepted.
History.––s. 10, ch. 69-306; s. 1, ch. 89-312; s. 21, ch. 93-406; s. 1217, ch. 97-102.

I guess at the heart of the issue is what is in red, but does that apply to SBR, SBS, and MG or does it just apply to MG?
But if you read this law, if you have an AR-15 pistol and AR-15 rifle, you are in violation of 790.221 because you can make the AR-15 Rifle readily into an operable SBR. It does not address "intent" or exempts that situation.

That's just insane. You have a AR pistol means you can not own any other AR15s? That can't be right, or can it?

No, what it means is that you can only have spare parts that are legally usable with the guns you currently possess. If the only gun you own is an AR15 pistol, you cant have a telestock or VFG lying around, just like if the only gun you own is an AR15 rifle, you cant have a 11.5" upper sitting next to it in the safe.

Kharn

Posted: 9/2/2009 3:12:04 PM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Ok found the Florida Gun Laws:

790.221 Possession of short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun, or machine gun; penalty.––
(1) It is unlawful for any person to own or to have in his or her care, custody, possession, or control any short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun, or machine gun which is, or may readily be made, operable; but this section shall not apply to antique firearms.
(2) A person who violates this section commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(3) Firearms in violation hereof which are lawfully owned and possessed under provisions of federal law are excepted.
History.––s. 10, ch. 69-306; s. 1, ch. 89-312; s. 21, ch. 93-406; s. 1217, ch. 97-102.

I guess at the heart of the issue is what is in red, but does that apply to SBR, SBS, and MG or does it just apply to MG?
But if you read this law, if you have an AR-15 pistol and AR-15 rifle, you are in violation of 790.221 because you can make the AR-15 Rifle readily into an operable SBR. It does not address "intent" or exempts that situation.

That's just insane. You have a AR pistol means you can not own any other AR15s? That can't be right, or can it?

No, what it means is that you can only have spare parts that are legally usable with the guns you currently possess. If the only gun you own is an AR15 pistol, you cant have a telestock or VFG lying around, just like if the only gun you own is an AR15 rifle, you cant have a 11.5" upper sitting next to it in the safe.

Kharn

Kharn,

I will have to disagree with you, as it is the Florida Regulation, not federal. 790.221 does NOT have any vergage to exempt having spare parts for even valid firearms and if you own one that is not valid. At least that is the way I am reading it.

Posted: 9/2/2009 3:16:58 PM EDT

[#41]

The idiot wants a suggstion? Get ready to take it in the ass, idiot. He obviously knew he was not supposed to possess the parts to make an SBR.

Posted: 9/2/2009 5:22:15 PM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:
The idiot wants a suggstion? Get ready to take it in the ass, idiot. He obviously knew he was not supposed to possess the parts to make an SBR.

I disagree. If he knew better I doubt he would have posted it on the interwebs. He, like many guys on the web, has HIS interpretation of these ass fucking silly laws.

Posted: 9/2/2009 6:27:26 PM EDT

[#43]

If that stock has been on that gun just once it's over for Jesus. I would think they could inspect the grooves on the reciever and obviously tell it had been assembled at some point. With all the forensics they have at their disposal, and the interpretive nature of "constructive posession", LE may attack the case that he was selling a disassembled sbr, not one that could be assembled. Same goes for the k grip...

Now, what are the odds dude didn't slap the stock and grip on the weapon just once to see how cool it looked?

Posted: 9/2/2009 7:11:11 PM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:
I believe that "constructive possession" only occurs if there is NO LEGAL use for the (NFA relevant) parts in question. In other words, possessing a Luger board stock, an Artillery Luger, AND a standard Luger is okay, since the stock can be used on the Artillery model. Conversely, owning the stock and only a standard Luger would be constructive possession, since there would be no legal use for the stock.

Unfortunately, I think this guy might be in for The Ride...

The precedent has already been set by that guy that had a commando upper along w/ his rifle w/o having either a pistol or SBR lower for it to legitimately be on. The courts stated that even though the upper was not installed nor was there any conclusive proof that it necessarily ever had been installed, but possession of it w/o lawful lower for it to go with he was in "constructive possession" & he was sent up the river.

The other relevant president was that case w/ the guy w/ the TC pistol who also had a stock & a barrel to convert it into a rifle. He was acquitted b/c he has a legitimate place to put his butt stock, which was on his pistol AFTER the rifle barrel is installed.

I feel bad for this guy, but he sort of has it coming. He should have never posted that pic nor been in possession of it.

Posted: 9/2/2009 7:16:01 PM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:
I have a 9mm Husqvarna L40 that (according to the internet) is supposed to be able to accept the Luger stock. Guess how they have interpreted the rules for my C&R pistol?

-only an ORIGINAL SWEDISH shoulder stock is allowed on my pistol w/o creating a SBR.

Seen one of those for sale in the US - ever?

I can think of better uses of a $200 stamp than for a weird C&R SBR. It will stay a handgun, thanks.

Yes, the exemption only works if BOTH the pistol & the stock are original & proper to eachother.

Posted: 9/2/2009 7:21:24 PM EDT

[#46]

Quoted:
Neither does speeding hurt anyone. Hi officer, what are you pulling me over for ? Speeding ? Oh well you shouldn't give me a ticket because I wasn't hurting anyone- LOL.

Quoted:

Quoted:
This guy is no different then anyone else who breaks the law.

Except, of course, for the part where he didn't actually do anything that, you know, hurt somebody.

You're absolutely right. Putting a shoulder stock on a pistol is recklessly endangering the lives of countless people. I stand corrected. Think of the children! [faints]

Posted: 9/2/2009 7:22:07 PM EDT

[#47]

Good thing that a real buyer didn't get it first. It is shitty that the guy was selling all this stuff together b/c some poor buyer could have ended up getting prosecuted for SBR or AOW possession based on Jesus's legal advise.

So, he can get prosecuted for violation of both FL law & Fed law in two separate cases?

I don't suppose the FL court is bound to obey the Fed precedent I mentioned above, but it isn't hard for them to come to the same conclusion.

Can someone please post a sticky that discusses relevant NFA precedent, especially relative to the two cases involving constructive possession.

Posted: 9/3/2009 1:38:00 AM EDT

[#48]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Ok found the Florida Gun Laws:

790.221 Possession of short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun, or machine gun; penalty.––
(1) It is unlawful for any person to own or to have in his or her care, custody, possession, or control any short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun, or machine gun which is, or may readily be made, operable; but this section shall not apply to antique firearms.
(2) A person who violates this section commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(3) Firearms in violation hereof which are lawfully owned and possessed under provisions of federal law are excepted.
History.––s. 10, ch. 69-306; s. 1, ch. 89-312; s. 21, ch. 93-406; s. 1217, ch. 97-102.

I guess at the heart of the issue is what is in red, but does that apply to SBR, SBS, and MG or does it just apply to MG?
But if you read this law, if you have an AR-15 pistol and AR-15 rifle, you are in violation of 790.221 because you can make the AR-15 Rifle readily into an operable SBR. It does not address "intent" or exempts that situation.

That's just insane. You have a AR pistol means you can not own any other AR15s? That can't be right, or can it?

No, what it means is that you can only have spare parts that are legally usable with the guns you currently possess. If the only gun you own is an AR15 pistol, you cant have a telestock or VFG lying around, just like if the only gun you own is an AR15 rifle, you cant have a 11.5" upper sitting next to it in the safe.

Kharn

Makes more sense - hey show up at a HTF Dinner sometime. I'd like to grab a beer and shoot the shit with you.

Posted: 9/3/2009 1:38:27 AM EDT

[#49]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Ok found the Florida Gun Laws:

790.221 Possession of short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun, or machine gun; penalty.––
(1) It is unlawful for any person to own or to have in his or her care, custody, possession, or control any short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun, or machine gun which is, or may readily be made, operable; but this section shall not apply to antique firearms.
(2) A person who violates this section commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(3) Firearms in violation hereof which are lawfully owned and possessed under provisions of federal law are excepted.
History.––s. 10, ch. 69-306; s. 1, ch. 89-312; s. 21, ch. 93-406; s. 1217, ch. 97-102.

I guess at the heart of the issue is what is in red, but does that apply to SBR, SBS, and MG or does it just apply to MG?
But if you read this law, if you have an AR-15 pistol and AR-15 rifle, you are in violation of 790.221 because you can make the AR-15 Rifle readily into an operable SBR. It does not address "intent" or exempts that situation.

That's just insane. You have a AR pistol means you can not own any other AR15s? That can't be right, or can it?

No, what it means is that you can only have spare parts that are legally usable with the guns you currently possess. If the only gun you own is an AR15 pistol, you cant have a telestock or VFG lying around, just like if the only gun you own is an AR15 rifle, you cant have a 11.5" upper sitting next to it in the safe.

Kharn

Kharn,

I will have to disagree with you, as it is the Florida Regulation, not federal. 790.221 does NOT have any vergage to exempt having spare parts for even valid firearms and if you own one that is not valid. At least that is the way I am reading it.

There goes my clarity

Posted: 9/3/2009 2:16:09 AM EDT

[#50]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Ok found the Florida Gun Laws:

790.221 Possession of short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun, or machine gun; penalty.––
(1) It is unlawful for any person to own or to have in his or her care, custody, possession, or control any short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun, or machine gun which is, or may readily be made, operable; but this section shall not apply to antique firearms.
(2) A person who violates this section commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(3) Firearms in violation hereof which are lawfully owned and possessed under provisions of federal law are excepted.
History.––s. 10, ch. 69-306; s. 1, ch. 89-312; s. 21, ch. 93-406; s. 1217, ch. 97-102.

I guess at the heart of the issue is what is in red, but does that apply to SBR, SBS, and MG or does it just apply to MG?
But if you read this law, if you have an AR-15 pistol and AR-15 rifle, you are in violation of 790.221 because you can make the AR-15 Rifle readily into an operable SBR. It does not address "intent" or exempts that situation.

That's just insane. You have a AR pistol means you can not own any other AR15s? That can't be right, or can it?

No, what it means is that you can only have spare parts that are legally usable with the guns you currently possess. If the only gun you own is an AR15 pistol, you cant have a telestock or VFG lying around, just like if the only gun you own is an AR15 rifle, you cant have a 11.5" upper sitting next to it in the safe.

Kharn

Kharn,

I will have to disagree with you, as it is the Florida Regulation, not federal. 790.221 does NOT have any vergage to exempt having spare parts for even valid firearms and if you own one that is not valid. At least that is the way I am reading it.

There goes my clarity

Depends on the rule of lenity an whether Fl. follows it.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Why We Tell You Not To Have The Parts To Make An SBR - Even If Not Installed (Page 2 of 4)

Armory » General NFA Questions

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us