Armory Sponsor
Posted: 11/10/2016 10:10:33 AM EDT
|
So I have a complete MP5 pistol clone waiting on a stamp. It has an end cap. Can I order the stock to have it lying around for when the time comes?
Shouldn't this be viewed as a complete firearm, similar to an AR pistol with a dedicated pistol tube on it? Title updated |
| technically no you are not supposed to, but when I was waiting for my evo stamp, I ordered the 922 kit with stock as soon as someone had it available as it was hard to find someone having it in stock. I just kept it all in original shipping package unopened and separate from evo until my stamp came in. |
|
1st - it's constructive possession, not constructive intent.
2nd - yes you could get charged unless you have some other legal use for a stock that fits a MP5 pistol (like a HK {or clone} rifle) If you want to get the stock before the paperwork comes back (maybe you found a sweet deal) send it to a trusted relative or friend that can hold onto it until your paperwork clears |
|
Quoted:
So I have a complete MP5 pistol clone waiting on a stamp. It has an end cap. Can I order the stock to have it lying around for when the time comes? Shouldn't this be viewed as a complete firearm, similar to an AR pistol with a dedicated pistol tube on it? Is there some reason the BATFE agents will be over at your house for a mixer or pool party? If so, I would put all the pieces on different continents to be safe, and hide your dag. |
|
The fact you're waiting on the stamp shows intent to follow the law. I wouldn't stress it.
I had an 11.5" upper in my safe for 9 months before I got my stamp, I ran it on postie lowers at work and was waiting on the stamp for my lower. Can't believe it would ever be an issue. |
When I was building my SBR's I had all the parts when deals could be had and way before my first stamp arrived, My intent was clear when I sent in the form and paid the $200.00 Tax.
If you listen to some opinions on this subject, anyone who owns a rifle and has a hacksaw blade is guilty. 
|
|
Quoted:
Ain't that the truth! Quoted:
Quoted:
.... If you listen to some opinions on this subject, anyone who owns a rifle and has a hacksaw blade is guilty.[url]http://www.ar15.com/images/smilies/smiley_freak.gif[/ Ain't that the truth! Hell, applying for the stamp proves constructive intent! Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
I wouldn't even think it would be an issue. My understanding is that the ATF would normally view a complete pistol as just a complete gun that's it.
Having parts around to make it otherwise wouldn't matter since it is already a completed gun. Same reason you can have a 16" complete AR and a 10.5" complete upper (no SBR stamp in possession), provided you don't have another lower around to throw it on. |
|
Quoted: I wouldn't even think it would be an issue. My understanding is that the ATF would normally view a complete pistol as just a complete gun that's it.
Having parts around to make it otherwise wouldn't matter since it is already a completed gun. Same reason you can have a 16" complete AR and a 10.5" complete upper (no SBR stamp in possession), provided you don't have another lower around to throw it on. Er, come again? You don't want to do that. If you don't have a stamp, and you don't have a pistol lower, don't have a 10.5" complete upper if all you've got is rifle lowers. Cheap thing to do is buy a stripped lower, then it's your pistol lower for your 10.5" upper. |
|
Quoted:
Er, come again? You don't want to do that. If you don't have a stamp, and you don't have a pistol lower, don't have a 10.5" complete upper if all you've got is rifle lowers. Cheap thing to do is buy a stripped lower, then it's your pistol lower for your 10.5" upper. Quoted:
Quoted: I wouldn't even think it would be an issue. My understanding is that the ATF would normally view a complete pistol as just a complete gun that's it.
Having parts around to make it otherwise wouldn't matter since it is already a completed gun. Same reason you can have a 16" complete AR and a 10.5" complete upper (no SBR stamp in possession), provided you don't have another lower around to throw it on. Er, come again? You don't want to do that. If you don't have a stamp, and you don't have a pistol lower, don't have a 10.5" complete upper if all you've got is rifle lowers. Cheap thing to do is buy a stripped lower, then it's your pistol lower for your 10.5" upper. Well, don't have that problem anyway, have 3 SBR lowers. I remember reading that if you only have a complete AR rifle and a pistol/sbr upper, they don't view having that pistol upper as constructional possession, because the ATF doesn't view the complete rifle as 2 halves - readily convertible to create an SBR. |
|
Quoted: Well, don't have that problem anyway, have 3 SBR lowers.
I remember reading that if you only have a complete AR rifle and a pistol/sbr upper, they don't view having that pistol upper as constructional possession, because the ATF doesn't view the complete rifle as 2 halves - readily convertible to create an SBR. I believe the court precedent - which sent someone to prison - is exactly the opposite. If you have parts that can ONLY be assembled in an illegal manner, then you run the real risk of being convicted of possessing an illegal SBR. Hence the advice in the AR world to have an extra virgin receiver handy, as clearly you're starting a pistol build. |
|
When in doubt, see what the U.S. Supreme Court says:
U.S. v. Thompson/Center Arms Co.,-U.S.-(1992) Attorney James Bardwell's synopsis of the ruling: This is another recent examination of the meaning of the language of the NFA by the Supreme Court, along with Staples. Neither involves constitutional law. In this case the court was called upon to decide what constituted a short barreled rifle. T/C wanted to market a kit consisting of one receiver for their Contender gun, a 16"+ barrel, a >16" barrel, a pistol grip and a shoulder stock. This kit could be used, as intended, to assemble a rifle or a pistol, or it could also be used to assemble a SBR. As it could be so used, ATF decided it was a SBR. T/C made one unit on a Form 1, then sued for a tax refund, claiming it wasn't subject to the NFA. This is the way to challenge such a classification. Doing the thing York or SWD did, in those cases, is an invitation to a prosecution. The Staples case will limit such things, but one can easily lose....Here all that was at stake was money. The court decided that the language of the definition of a SBR was vague, and gave it the reading most favorable to the taxpayer, T/C. They decided the kit was not a SBR, nor was any set of parts where they could be used for a legitimate purpose, even if they could also be used to assemble a SBR. However a SBR fully assembled was also clearly a SBR. Thus the other grey area was a SBR in parts form, like an Uzi carbine and a Uzi SMG barrel. A lower court had held in a prior case that that set of parts was a SBR. The court agreed; that if the parts had only one use, to make a SBR, and a person possessed them all that was a SBR also. |
|
The moment you file paperwork you have proven "intent" to build or buy a SBR and that isn't the issue, the issue is possession, and particularly possession of all of the parts needed to assemble an illegal weapon and only an illegal weapon. If the parts can be assembled to make a legal weapon then you have no issues. No specific statute or regulation would be required for "constructive possession" since you have the illegal weapon, just in an unassembled state.
My opinion is that if you have filed a From 1 to build a SBR and, for example, have a short upper laying around waiting for the stamp you don't have a problem because you have shown that you intend to follow the law, and to assemble the SBR when you have the stamp, but that is only my take, not legal advice. JPK |
|
Quoted:
Anyone ever see the statute for "constructive intent" or "constructive possession"? There is no 'statute"......"Constructive possession" is a legal fiction (a fact assumed or created by courts which is then used in order to apply a legal rule) Constructive possession "Constructive intent" is an ARFcom term used by those who don't know WTF they are talking about. |
|
Quoted:
There is no 'statute"......"Constructive possession" is a legal fiction (a fact assumed or created by courts which is then used in order to apply a legal rule) Constructive possession "Constructive intent" is an ARFcom term used by those who don't know WTF they are talking about. And when you are arrested, the charge will be simply "possession." |
|
Quoted:
This is correct. I think Dogtown Tom meant legal construct and not "fiction" as is created out of thin air. JPK Nope. Legal fiction definition |
|
Your most recent Wikipedia citation is interesting. It describes the term as I have understood it, which is pretty much within the common law arena. Common has been largely superseded by statute based law.
But constructive possession does not rely on a common law legal fiction, it is actual possession of an illegal firearm, though possesion in a diasasembled state. There is no legal fiction, as defined by the Wikipedia citation in your most recent post, no assumption of a fictional fact. JPK |
|
Quoted:
Your most recent Wikipedia citation is interesting. It describes the term as I have understood it, which is pretty much within the common law arena. Common has been largely superseded by statute based law. Quoted:
Your most recent Wikipedia citation is interesting. It describes the term as I have understood it, which is pretty much within the common law arena. Common has been largely superseded by statute based law. Huh?
I think you need to do a bit of reading. "Common law" is also known as case law or precedent set by the courts. But constructive possession does not rely on a common law legal fiction, Yes, it does. it is actual possession of an illegal firearm, though possesion in a diasasembled state. That's the legal fiction.......that it CAN be assembled from parts in close proximity. There is no legal fiction, as defined by the Wikipedia citation in your most recent post, no assumption of a fictional fact. Sure there is...just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's not there. |
|
Case law is not the same as common law. Common law = there is no statute that makes murder a crime, but, even in the absence of a statute, it is known to be a crime, and punishable by imprisonment or death. That is common law and that was the situation in England and the US. Over time, in the US, common law has been largely replaced by statute law as legislatures wrote common law into federal and state codes which superseded common law. Case law today is based on reported trial or appellate cases which merely explain a court's interpretation of the statue or the application of specific facts to the statute or both. The weight reported cases carry is variable, and depends on what court issued the opinion.
It is no fiction that possession of all parts required for a weapon is the possession of the weapon. That the weapon is disassembled is irrelevant. JPK |
|
Quoted:
Case law is not the same as common law. Common law = there is no statute that makes murder a crime, but, even in the absence of a statute, it is known to be a crime, and punishable by imprisonment or death. That is common law and that was the situation in England and the US. Over time, in the US, common law has been largely replaced by statute law as legislatures wrote common law into federal and state codes which superseded common law. Case law today is based on reported trial or appellate cases which merely explain a court's interpretation of the statue or the application of specific facts to the statute or both. The weight reported cases carry is variable, and depends on what court issued the opinion. Quoted:
Case law is not the same as common law. Common law = there is no statute that makes murder a crime, but, even in the absence of a statute, it is known to be a crime, and punishable by imprisonment or death. That is common law and that was the situation in England and the US. Over time, in the US, common law has been largely replaced by statute law as legislatures wrote common law into federal and state codes which superseded common law. Case law today is based on reported trial or appellate cases which merely explain a court's interpretation of the statue or the application of specific facts to the statute or both. The weight reported cases carry is variable, and depends on what court issued the opinion. No shit Sherlock.
It is no fiction that possession of all parts required for a weapon is the possession of the weapon. That the weapon is disassembled is irrelevant. Again, you don't know what a legal fiction is. 
|
|
Quoted:
No shit Sherlock.
Again, you don't know what a legal fiction is. If the info I provided deserved a "No shit Sherlock," why is it that you confused common law and case law in your post? If you buy an AR and shoot the hell out of it, then remove the BCG, the magazine, the upper, the FCG for a deep cleaning, do you still own that SBR? JPK |
|
Quoted:
If the info I provided deserved a "No shit Sherlock," why is it that you confused common law and case law in your post? Quoted:
Quoted:
No shit Sherlock.
Again, you don't know what a legal fiction is. If the info I provided deserved a "No shit Sherlock," why is it that you confused common law and case law in your post? I didn't. You'll notice that my post reflects these perfectly. Common law and another definition and yet another definition So, the reason I wrote "No shit Sherlock" is because you just took three hundred words to say what I did in twelve.........and yet you don't even know what it means. If you buy an AR and shoot the hell out of it, then remove the BCG, the magazine, the upper, the FCG for a deep cleaning, do you still own that SBR?
Are you drunk?
I ask because "ownership" has fuck all to do with this thread. Possession and ownership are two entirely different things. |
|
Quoted:
Huh? "Common law" is also known as case law or precedent set by the courts. OK Clarence Darrow, quoted above is the pertinent part of your prior post, which directly contradicts your most recents several posts. When I last posted I was not drunk, but I was tired, and you have a point re ownership vs possession. So swap out ownership and insert possession and answer the Q. JPK |
|
Quoted:
OK Clarence Darrow, quoted above is the pertinent part of your prior post, which directly contradicts your most recents several posts. Quoted:
Quoted:
Huh? "Common law" is also known as case law or precedent set by the courts. OK Clarence Darrow, quoted above is the pertinent part of your prior post, which directly contradicts your most recents several posts. For fucks sake. This is why a lot of ARFcommers who joined after 2012 get made fun of.......inability to read and understand fucking English. Meaning those of us old enough to drive our own cars have to effing spoon feed you because you can't be troubled to look it up yourself. The "pertinent part" of that post above?.........taken DIRECTLY from the first fucking line of the Wikipedia definition of Common law. Common law From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Common law (also known as case law or precedent) is law developed by judges, courts, and similar tribunals, stated in decisions that nominally decide individual cases but that in addition have precedential effect on future cases Not a word of that contradicts any of my posts. If you had done even a half ass job of Googling you could have found the same definitions and maybe understood what was being discussed at the grown up table. When I last posted I was not drunk, but I was tired, and you have a point re ownership vs possession. So swap out ownership and insert possession and answer the Q. Your question: "If you buy an AR and shoot the hell out of it, then remove the BCG, the magazine, the upper, the FCG for a deep cleaning, do you still Yes, you possess the firearm. And its a stupid question. It doesn't matter if you've shot it, or completely disassembled the entire firearm. If you have the receiver your possess the firearm.
The firearm is an SBR while in SBR configuration. If you want to reassemble the AR with a barrel 16" or longer.....it's not an SBR. |
|
Quoted:
For fucks sake. This is why a lot of ARFcommers who joined after 2012 get made fun of.......inability to read and understand fucking English. Meaning those of us old enough to drive our own cars have to effing spoon feed you because you can't be troubled to look it up yourself. The "pertinent part" of that post above?.........taken DIRECTLY from the first fucking line of the Wikipedia definition of Common law. Common law From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Common law (also known as case law or precedent) is law developed by judges, courts, and similar tribunals, stated in decisions that nominally decide individual cases but that in addition have precedential effect on future cases Not a word of that contradicts any of my posts. If you had done even a half ass job of Googling you could have found the same definitions and maybe understood what was being discussed at the grown up table. Your question: "If you buy an AR and shoot the hell out of it, then remove the BCG, the magazine, the upper, the FCG for a deep cleaning, do you still Yes, you possess the firearm. And its a stupid question. It doesn't matter if you've shot it, or completely disassembled the entire firearm. If you have the receiver your possess the firearm.
The firearm is an SBR while in SBR configuration. If you want to reassemble the AR with a barrel 16" or longer.....it's not an SBR. So, you rewrite your definition of common law, again... I've lost count of how many times now. Go back to where you agreed case law is not that same as common law and quit there. Thank you for agreeing that it doesn't matter if the firearm is disassembled, you finally got it right. JPK |
|
Quoted:
So, you rewrite your definition of common law, again... Quoted:
Quoted:
For fucks sake. This is why a lot of ARFcommers who joined after 2012 get made fun of.......inability to read and understand fucking English. Meaning those of us old enough to drive our own cars have to effing spoon feed you because you can't be troubled to look it up yourself. The "pertinent part" of that post above?.........taken DIRECTLY from the first fucking line of the Wikipedia definition of Common law. Common law From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Common law (also known as case law or precedent) is law developed by judges, courts, and similar tribunals, stated in decisions that nominally decide individual cases but that in addition have precedential effect on future cases Not a word of that contradicts any of my posts. If you had done even a half ass job of Googling you could have found the same definitions and maybe understood what was being discussed at the grown up table. Your question: "If you buy an AR and shoot the hell out of it, then remove the BCG, the magazine, the upper, the FCG for a deep cleaning, do you still Yes, you possess the firearm. And its a stupid question. It doesn't matter if you've shot it, or completely disassembled the entire firearm. If you have the receiver your possess the firearm.
The firearm is an SBR while in SBR configuration. If you want to reassemble the AR with a barrel 16" or longer.....it's not an SBR. So, you rewrite your definition of common law, again... Horseshit. Either English isn't your first language or you have the reading comprehension of a first grader. 1. I didn't "define" jack shit. 2. You need to read what was actually posted. I've lost count of how many times now. You are lost, that's for damn sure. Go back to where you agreed case law is not that same as common law and quit there. I never said that. And the reason I never said that is detailed in those links above. You can see the links I posted above can't you? If so READ THEM. Thank you for agreeing that it doesn't matter if the firearm is disassembled, you finally got it right. I didn't agree with jack shit. You asked a question, I answered. |
Armory Sponsor