Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 2/12/2012 3:45:02 PM EDT
I'll be sending off my paperwork and check later this week. So 6, 7, 8 months from now I should get my stamp. Is there a timeframe that I have to complete my weapon within?

Also, when I so order my upper (definately 10.5") but not sure if I'll build using my Noveske uppper receiver or go with the Vltor VIS setup, do I have to send them proof I have my stamp?
Link Posted: 2/12/2012 3:52:18 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/12/2012 3:54:24 PM EDT by die-tryin]
Originally Posted By itschris:
I'll be sending off my paperwork and check later this week. So 6, 7, 8 months from now I should get my stamp. Is there a timeframe that I have to complete my weapon within? WHo said you have to complete it? Many people will send multi Form 1s for lowers they "intend" to build, there is no time limit, infact you dont even have to build it. You can SBR a lower and put it away

Also, when I so order my upper (definately 10.5") but not sure if I'll build using my Noveske uppper receiver or go with the Vltor VIS setup, do I have to send them proof I have my stamp? Youd have to call the company your ordering from, but most times you dont, but there are a few that are asses about sending less than 16" barrels to us common people


I also wouldnt order your Upper until you get the stamp.

Link Posted: 2/12/2012 6:39:44 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/12/2012 6:41:25 PM EDT by bradpierson26]
Originally Posted By die-tryin:
Originally Posted By itschris:
I'll be sending off my paperwork and check later this week. So 6, 7, 8 months from now I should get my stamp. Is there a timeframe that I have to complete my weapon within? WHo said you have to complete it? Many people will send multi Form 1s for lowers they "intend" to build, there is no time limit, infact you dont even have to build it. You can SBR a lower and put it away

Also, when I so order my upper (definately 10.5") but not sure if I'll build using my Noveske uppper receiver or go with the Vltor VIS setup, do I have to send them proof I have my stamp? Youd have to call the company your ordering from, but most times you dont, but there are a few that are asses about sending less than 16" barrels to us common people. tell them to FOAD, it's for a pistol build. How would they have any liability if you were to put it on an unregistered lower? Not their issue as far as I'm concerned.


I also wouldnt order your Upper until you get the stamp. I went with the alternative suggestion - build a pistol lower to insure everything functions properly before having your hopes up and your first range trip with your new SBR is a bust because of XYZ problem



Link Posted: 2/12/2012 10:15:13 PM EDT

Originally Posted By bradpierson26:
Originally Posted By die-tryin:
Originally Posted By itschris:
I'll be sending off my paperwork and check later this week. So 6, 7, 8 months from now I should get my stamp. Is there a timeframe that I have to complete my weapon within? WHo said you have to complete it? Many people will send multi Form 1s for lowers they "intend" to build, there is no time limit, infact you dont even have to build it. You can SBR a lower and put it away

Also, when I so order my upper (definately 10.5") but not sure if I'll build using my Noveske uppper receiver or go with the Vltor VIS setup, do I have to send them proof I have my stamp? Youd have to call the company your ordering from, but most times you dont, but there are a few that are asses about sending less than 16" barrels to us common people. tell them to FOAD, it's for a pistol build. How would they have any liability if you were to put it on an unregistered lower? Not their issue as far as I'm concerned.


I also wouldnt order your Upper until you get the stamp. I went with the alternative suggestion - build a pistol lower to insure everything functions properly before having your hopes up and your first range trip with your new SBR is a bust because of XYZ problem





Yup, this is what I'm doing... I may have two like this before Stamps come back...
Link Posted: 2/13/2012 3:46:04 AM EDT
Yup...build it as a pistol if you're starting with a fresh lower and make sure it works first...

Link Posted: 2/13/2012 5:52:07 AM EDT
Originally Posted By cms81586:
Yup...build it as a pistol if you're starting with a fresh lower and make sure it works first...

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y7/cms81586/100_0863.jpg


I'm not here to start fights, but is that legal since you have a rifle tube instead of a pistol tube on there?
Link Posted: 2/13/2012 6:04:06 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/13/2012 6:10:06 AM EDT by cms81586]
Originally Posted By thehaitianactual:
Originally Posted By cms81586:
Yup...build it as a pistol if you're starting with a fresh lower and make sure it works first...

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y7/cms81586/100_0863.jpg


I'm not here to start fights, but is that legal since you have a rifle tube instead of a pistol tube on there?


As long as you don't have a stock on hand to toss on there...yeah. There's no constructive intent if you don't have the parts to make an illegal SBR.

ETA...that's been my translation of the law anyways and while I don't have an ATF letter addressed specifically to me, others have had the issue clarified.
http://www.jcweaponry.com/images/ar15/BB.JPG

CMS
Link Posted: 2/13/2012 9:17:59 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/13/2012 9:27:26 AM EDT by Homeinvader]
Originally Posted By cms81586:
Originally Posted By thehaitianactual:
Originally Posted By cms81586:
Yup...build it as a pistol if you're starting with a fresh lower and make sure it works first...

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y7/cms81586/100_0863.jpg


I'm not here to start fights, but is that legal since you have a rifle tube instead of a pistol tube on there?


As long as you don't have a stock on hand to toss on there...yeah. There's no constructive intent if you don't have the parts to make an illegal SBR.

ETA...that's been my translation of the law anyways and while I don't have an ATF letter addressed specifically to me, others have had the issue clarified.
http://www.jcweaponry.com/images/ar15/BB.JPG

CMS


It's called Constructive Possession. Big difference.

And it would be much better to use a dedicated pistol receiver extension. A rifle extension will be looked at suspiciously and CP could still apply if you have another AR rifle in your possession. The argument is strong that you do not have a pistol but a rifle with the stock removed...
Link Posted: 2/13/2012 9:38:51 AM EDT
If there is nothing stopping you from having a pistol i would build it up that way. I have one I built as an 11.5" pistol I built about a year ago, and just sent it for engraving today, when it gets back I'll send in my form 1. I know that I won't have a bunch of issues with it working once I change the pistol tube out and throw a stock on it after approval. Just a little peace of mind knowing it will work like I want it too.
Link Posted: 2/13/2012 9:39:21 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Homeinvader:
Originally Posted By cms81586:
Originally Posted By thehaitianactual:
Originally Posted By cms81586:
Yup...build it as a pistol if you're starting with a fresh lower and make sure it works first...

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y7/cms81586/100_0863.jpg


I'm not here to start fights, but is that legal since you have a rifle tube instead of a pistol tube on there?


As long as you don't have a stock on hand to toss on there...yeah. There's no constructive intent if you don't have the parts to make an illegal SBR.

ETA...that's been my translation of the law anyways and while I don't have an ATF letter addressed specifically to me, others have had the issue clarified.
http://www.jcweaponry.com/images/ar15/BB.JPG

CMS


It's called Constructive Possession. Big difference.

And it would be much better to use a dedicated pistol receiver extension. A rifle extension will be looked at suspiciously and CP could still apply if you have another AR rifle in your possession. The argument is strong that you do not have a pistol but a rifle with the stock removed...


If I dont have a single AR stock in the house how am I guilty of constructive intent/constructive possession/etc.? Not being a dick...just saying. I've been out of AR-15's for a while...this is the only one in my home.
Link Posted: 2/13/2012 10:17:59 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/13/2012 10:20:51 AM EDT by Homeinvader]
Originally Posted By cms81586:
Originally Posted By Homeinvader:
Originally Posted By cms81586:
Originally Posted By thehaitianactual:
Originally Posted By cms81586:
Yup...build it as a pistol if you're starting with a fresh lower and make sure it works first...

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y7/cms81586/100_0863.jpg


I'm not here to start fights, but is that legal since you have a rifle tube instead of a pistol tube on there?


As long as you don't have a stock on hand to toss on there...yeah. There's no constructive intent if you don't have the parts to make an illegal SBR.

ETA...that's been my translation of the law anyways and while I don't have an ATF letter addressed specifically to me, others have had the issue clarified.
http://www.jcweaponry.com/images/ar15/BB.JPG

CMS


It's called Constructive Possession. Big difference.

And it would be much better to use a dedicated pistol receiver extension. A rifle extension will be looked at suspiciously and CP could still apply if you have another AR rifle in your possession. The argument is strong that you do not have a pistol but a rifle with the stock removed...


If I dont have a single AR stock in the house how am I guilty of constructive intent/constructive possession/etc.? Not being a dick...just saying. I've been out of AR-15's for a while...this is the only one in my home.


Constructive Intent is a legal structure used to apply charges of Intent, like drug possession with intent to distribute. There are no such charges pertaining to firearms. Constructive Possession is used to establish an actual possession charge and that's what is applicable here.

You are correct in that without a collapsible stock present, there is no CP issue, however this is precisely the rub. With a rifle extension the firearm has the capacity to readily accept a collapsible stock, which makes you vulnerable wherever there may be a spare buttstock. You have not eliminated your legal vulnerability, you've just narrowed it down a bit. In this condition, you need to be very careful of who you are associating with at the range and what they may have in their range bag. With a pistol extension, it simply wouldn't matter.

It also creates the perception of an incomplete rifle rather than a complete pistol. No one will question a complete pistol, but an incomplete rifle may well pique the interest of an LEO, range master or concerned citizen. You are asking for a confrontation.

Link Posted: 2/13/2012 10:20:16 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Homeinvader:
Originally Posted By cms81586:
Originally Posted By Homeinvader:
Originally Posted By cms81586:
Originally Posted By thehaitianactual:
Originally Posted By cms81586:
Yup...build it as a pistol if you're starting with a fresh lower and make sure it works first...

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y7/cms81586/100_0863.jpg


I'm not here to start fights, but is that legal since you have a rifle tube instead of a pistol tube on there?


As long as you don't have a stock on hand to toss on there...yeah. There's no constructive intent if you don't have the parts to make an illegal SBR.

ETA...that's been my translation of the law anyways and while I don't have an ATF letter addressed specifically to me, others have had the issue clarified.
http://www.jcweaponry.com/images/ar15/BB.JPG

CMS


It's called Constructive Possession. Big difference.

And it would be much better to use a dedicated pistol receiver extension. A rifle extension will be looked at suspiciously and CP could still apply if you have another AR rifle in your possession. The argument is strong that you do not have a pistol but a rifle with the stock removed...


If I dont have a single AR stock in the house how am I guilty of constructive intent/constructive possession/etc.? Not being a dick...just saying. I've been out of AR-15's for a while...this is the only one in my home.

Constructive Intent is a legal structure used to apply charges of Intent, like drug possession with intent to distribute. There are no such charges pertaining to firearms. Constructive Possession is used to establish an actual possession charge and that's what is applicable here.

You are correct in that without a collapsible stock present, there is no CP issue, however this is precisely the rub. With a rifle extension the firearm has the capacity to readily accept a collapsible stock, which makes you vulnerable wherever there may be a spare buttstock. In this condition, you need to be very careful of who you are associating with at the range and what they may have in their range bag.

It also creates the perception of an incomplete rifle rather than a complete pistol. No one will question a complete pistol, but an incomplete rifle may well pique the interest of an LEO, range master or concerned citizen. You are asking for a confrontation.




It's a non-issue in my instance since it will be sitting in the safe until my F1 comes back but I can see where issues could arise for others.
Link Posted: 2/13/2012 10:31:34 AM EDT
Originally Posted By cms81586:
Originally Posted By Homeinvader:
Originally Posted By cms81586:
Originally Posted By Homeinvader:
Originally Posted By cms81586:
Originally Posted By thehaitianactual:
Originally Posted By cms81586:
Yup...build it as a pistol if you're starting with a fresh lower and make sure it works first...

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y7/cms81586/100_0863.jpg


I'm not here to start fights, but is that legal since you have a rifle tube instead of a pistol tube on there?


As long as you don't have a stock on hand to toss on there...yeah. There's no constructive intent if you don't have the parts to make an illegal SBR.

ETA...that's been my translation of the law anyways and while I don't have an ATF letter addressed specifically to me, others have had the issue clarified.
http://www.jcweaponry.com/images/ar15/BB.JPG

CMS


It's called Constructive Possession. Big difference.

And it would be much better to use a dedicated pistol receiver extension. A rifle extension will be looked at suspiciously and CP could still apply if you have another AR rifle in your possession. The argument is strong that you do not have a pistol but a rifle with the stock removed...


If I dont have a single AR stock in the house how am I guilty of constructive intent/constructive possession/etc.? Not being a dick...just saying. I've been out of AR-15's for a while...this is the only one in my home.

Constructive Intent is a legal structure used to apply charges of Intent, like drug possession with intent to distribute. There are no such charges pertaining to firearms. Constructive Possession is used to establish an actual possession charge and that's what is applicable here.

You are correct in that without a collapsible stock present, there is no CP issue, however this is precisely the rub. With a rifle extension the firearm has the capacity to readily accept a collapsible stock, which makes you vulnerable wherever there may be a spare buttstock. In this condition, you need to be very careful of who you are associating with at the range and what they may have in their range bag.

It also creates the perception of an incomplete rifle rather than a complete pistol. No one will question a complete pistol, but an incomplete rifle may well pique the interest of an LEO, range master or concerned citizen. You are asking for a confrontation.




It's a non-issue in my instance since it will be sitting in the safe until my F1 comes back but I can see where issues could arise for others.


If you don't have another AR in the house, this is a non issue to the point of not needing any type of extension whatsoever. You're better off removing the rifle extension altogether, leaving the stripped receiver alone with the short upper.
Link Posted: 2/13/2012 10:35:01 AM EDT
True. Assembly was mostly to ensure proper function so I didn't have a single shot once the stamp gets here. Maybe I'll wrap the stock in paracord just to be safe.
Link Posted: 2/13/2012 11:42:09 AM EDT



form 1's don't "expire" per se, but you'd probably have some issues with the ATF if you told them you were going to build an MG now from a form 1 you had approved back in the day...

Link Posted: 2/13/2012 11:50:36 AM EDT

It's a non-issue in my instance since it will be sitting in the safe until my F1 comes back but I can see where issues could arise for others.


Not trying to start shit, but it would be an issue if you had a house fire.
Link Posted: 2/13/2012 12:35:50 PM EDT
Originally Posted By slipjett:

It's a non-issue in my instance since it will be sitting in the safe until my F1 comes back but I can see where issues could arise for others.


Not trying to start shit, but it would be an issue if you had a house fire.


Yeah but who's going to try to prove I have a stock in my possession (which I obviously don't anyhow). I get that we're playing devils advocate here...but I refuse to fear my own government when absolutely no laws have been broken.
Link Posted: 2/14/2012 7:01:19 AM EDT

Originally Posted By bullyforyou:



form 1's don't "expire" per se, but you'd probably have some issues with the ATF if you told them you were going to build an MG now from a form 1 you had approved back in the day...



No you wouldn't. As far as they're concerned, the MG could have already been built. It was registered, it's legal, and you're just doing what you said you were going to do pre-May '86.
Link Posted: 2/14/2012 7:23:08 AM EDT
Originally Posted By viperashes:

Originally Posted By bullyforyou:



form 1's don't "expire" per se, but you'd probably have some issues with the ATF if you told them you were going to build an MG now from a form 1 you had approved back in the day...



No you wouldn't. As far as they're concerned, the MG could have already been built. It was registered, it's legal, and you're just doing what you said you were going to do pre-May '86.



The ATF still looks at it a manufacturing a post-sample machinegun if a AR lower was registered but never converted after the ban. There's DOJ letters out there clarifying this. Yes you could probably get away with it...but in all reality there's probably very few papered MG's out there that were never built these days. In the years following 86 I'm sure it happened a lot. With as expensive as registered MG's are these days some entrepreneur somewhere would have converted them by now. Yes you can technically get away with it but in their eyes (and if you're caught milling a sear pin hole on an AR lower) it's illegal.
Link Posted: 2/14/2012 9:39:29 AM EDT
Originally Posted By cms81586:
Originally Posted By viperashes:

Originally Posted By bullyforyou:



form 1's don't "expire" per se, but you'd probably have some issues with the ATF if you told them you were going to build an MG now from a form 1 you had approved back in the day...



No you wouldn't. As far as they're concerned, the MG could have already been built. It was registered, it's legal, and you're just doing what you said you were going to do pre-May '86.



The ATF still looks at it a manufacturing a post-sample machinegun if a AR lower was registered but never converted after the ban. There's DOJ letters out there clarifying this. Yes you could probably get away with it...but in all reality there's probably very few papered MG's out there that were never built these days. In the years following 86 I'm sure it happened a lot. With as expensive as registered MG's are these days some entrepreneur somewhere would have converted them by now. Yes you can technically get away with it but in their eyes (and if you're caught milling a sear pin hole on an AR lower) it's illegal.


+1

I've run into this scenario not once but twice in the last 15 years. Approved pre-86 Form 1s and corresponding ARs that were never converted. While they approved the action pre-86, the act of making the MG is what is now illegal for civilians and it cannot be done today.
Link Posted: 2/14/2012 6:56:10 PM EDT
I wasn't planning on a pistol build for testing. I have other uppers I can use to make sure my lower functions correctly.
Link Posted: 2/15/2012 11:54:38 AM EDT
Originally Posted By itschris:
I wasn't planning on a pistol build for testing. I have other uppers I can use to make sure my lower functions correctly.


other way around.

Use a pistol lower to test the SBR upper to make sure it doesn't short stroke or any other nonsense. No one is worried if their lower works. What I was saying was use the pistol lower to insure everything is GTG and you don't have an out of spec gas port of the likes.
Link Posted: 2/15/2012 9:46:32 PM EDT

Originally Posted By cms81586:
Originally Posted By Homeinvader:
Originally Posted By cms81586:
Originally Posted By thehaitianactual:
Originally Posted By cms81586:
Yup...build it as a pistol if you're starting with a fresh lower and make sure it works first...

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y7/cms81586/100_0863.jpg


I'm not here to start fights, but is that legal since you have a rifle tube instead of a pistol tube on there?


As long as you don't have a stock on hand to toss on there...yeah. There's no constructive intent if you don't have the parts to make an illegal SBR.

ETA...that's been my translation of the law anyways and while I don't have an ATF letter addressed specifically to me, others have had the issue clarified.
http://www.jcweaponry.com/images/ar15/BB.JPG

CMS


It's called Constructive Possession. Big difference.

And it would be much better to use a dedicated pistol receiver extension. A rifle extension will be looked at suspiciously and CP could still apply if you have another AR rifle in your possession. The argument is strong that you do not have a pistol but a rifle with the stock removed...


If I dont have a single AR stock in the house how am I guilty of constructive intent/constructive possession/etc.? Not being a dick...just saying. I've been out of AR-15's for a while...this is the only one in my home.


I would wind some para-cord around the tube, from front to back, just to be safe!!!!
Link Posted: 2/16/2012 12:49:51 AM EDT
Originally Posted By amos1909:

Originally Posted By cms81586:
Originally Posted By Homeinvader:
Originally Posted By cms81586:
Originally Posted By thehaitianactual:
Originally Posted By cms81586:
Yup...build it as a pistol if you're starting with a fresh lower and make sure it works first...

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y7/cms81586/100_0863.jpg


I'm not here to start fights, but is that legal since you have a rifle tube instead of a pistol tube on there?


As long as you don't have a stock on hand to toss on there...yeah. There's no constructive intent if you don't have the parts to make an illegal SBR.

ETA...that's been my translation of the law anyways and while I don't have an ATF letter addressed specifically to me, others have had the issue clarified.
http://www.jcweaponry.com/images/ar15/BB.JPG

CMS


It's called Constructive Possession. Big difference.

And it would be much better to use a dedicated pistol receiver extension. A rifle extension will be looked at suspiciously and CP could still apply if you have another AR rifle in your possession. The argument is strong that you do not have a pistol but a rifle with the stock removed...


If I dont have a single AR stock in the house how am I guilty of constructive intent/constructive possession/etc.? Not being a dick...just saying. I've been out of AR-15's for a while...this is the only one in my home.


I would wind some para-cord around the tube, from front to back, just to be safe!!!!


Buying a pistol extention is a waste of money for a gun that is just going to be in pistol config for a short time. Para cord on the extension or what I did was to get some plasti dip, the stuff that is on plier handles, and dip it a few times. A stock cannot be put onto the tube and it creates a barrier between your face and the metal tube. When your form 1 comes in, rip it off, it's a clean, easy removal.

Top Top