Waiting on Stamp

Spikes Stripped Upper
Spikes CJ-15 Jolly Roger Lower
Spikes 9 inch BAR
8.2 inch barrel
KX3 Pig

Rockin setup. Very clean. Always loved the kx3 setup on sbr's

This look IS what inspired the design of todays Compressor.

http://www.lawofficer.com/article/tactics-and-weapons/spikes-tactical-compressor-556

If only I had the cash to fund one.  The Compressor is one well thought out piece of art.  Love it!

I'm not sure it's legal to be using a rifle receiver extension without making it incapable of placing a stock on it.

It is completely legal to use a rifle tube, just so as long as you do not have an extra Buttstock laying around that can be put on it as that can be seen as constructive intent.

Citation?  You're walking a pretty thin line there...  Especially if you have other ARs around the house with adjustable stocks that could easily be slid off and onto that one.



 

Incorrect.  You cannot have the means to assemble without tools.  Anyone can quickly put a stock on that tube without tools.  Doesn't matter if you have no other weapons with compatible stocks in the house or not.  I can bring in a MOE stock and put it on in about 5 secs with just my hands.  Since there is now evidence that the upper was put on that lower, it has already crossed the line.  Anyone that tells you otherwise is an internet ninja that has a low understanding of the NFA.  No ATF rules allow for an unlicensed manufacturer to temporarily assemble a Title II firearm without first having an approved Form 1 or submitted Form 2.



The OP should delete all copies of this photo and request the thread be deleted.  And in the future, do not mount the buffer tube on the lower until you have an approved Form 1 if you want to see what it looks like.



 

Ah...dude. Photoshop or edit, delete.

Horrible idea with the buffer tube.. Do NOT push the grey area when it comes to the ATF.

Someone has insomnia. It's 5:00 in the afternoon here in Guam Wednesday. That means it's 3:00am in Florida.

Most of my work gets done at night time when no one can bother me... It's 2:07 here now.

This is my thought as well. ATF can really be dicks and put a major hurt on you.

Pulled this from the tacked thread in the AR Pistols section.  It's not illegal, just can't keep the extra stock laying around.

Very nice!  And apparently, very Legal!  

"... possession of a rifle buttstock that could be readily installed on your pistol could constitute possession of s short barreled rifle."

it doesn't say SPARE buttstock, or LOOSE buttstock, meaning, if you have another M4 stock around even on a rifle it could be readily installed in a matter of seconds.

you're really pushing your luck here.  When I built my SBR I kept the completed upper in a safe at my parents house that I didn't even know the combination of and kept my dad's AR in my safe at my house so that it would be extremely difficult to constitute "intent" when the other components where no where near each other. and the fact that the halves were completed was still gray area.

I'll have to clarify that this wasn't put on with a stock to "see what it looked like".  There is no stock to go with the buffer tube.  See form letter above for legality concerns.  At no time has this been a Title II firearm.  It is and will continue to be a Title I pistol until the tax stamp comes in.  Lower receiver has not had a stock on it at any time.

If you get the warm and fuzzy from using a special pistol buffer tube that's fine, but there is no legal need to use the pistol tube.  Just cannot have a compatible stock that could be readily installed along with it.  Going to the store, buying it and returning home then installing doesn't meet the definition of readily installed.

PS- I am not an internet ninja.

I'm sure they could make a big deal out of that if they chose, however in court it doesn't hold up.  I read up on a few cases about it recently.  

If I have this upper on a lower with a pistol buffer installed and also possess a 20 inch AR am I in possession of an illegal SBR due to constructive possession/intent (or whatever we are calling it)?  NO.  I have a legal use for all the items and as long as they aren't configured in an illegal manner, I have not done anything wrong.  I'm sure plenty of folks on this forum have a legal pistol and AR above 16 inches sitting next to each other in their safe and they are not breaking the law.  Neither would having another rifle with compatible stock be an issue, as there is a legal use for it.  I can swap uppers just as quickly as I can swap the stock, but that isn't an issue either.

I'll have to see if I can find the cases when I get home today.

At the end of the day its your short barrel rifle pistol, but the next day it could become theirs.  Why chance it on self made translations of someone else's letter.  

Just do me one favor; if you're going to sacrifice your pistol to the ATF, let me switch receivers with you, so I can enjoy having a 5th Jolly Roger while you're making license plates or picking up your dropped soap in the shower.

It's not just my interpretation of someone else's letter.  Here is a synopsis of the US v Thompson Center Supreme Court ruling on Constructive possession.  Pay close attention to the pieces that speak to other legal uses.  Pretty clear that in order for Constructive possession to be applied, there must be only 1 configuration that can be assembled from the parts.  


This probably should be moved to a tech section at this point.  I have no dog in this fight as I don't have a stock to put on this anyway, but want to help clear up the misinformation in this thread.

U.S. v. Thompson/Center Arms Co., - U.S.- (1992)
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.

Read the ruling itself: http://www.titleii.com/bardwell/thompson.txt

The second and third paragraphs state:

JUSTICE SOUTER, joined by THE CHIEF JUSTICE and JUSTICE
O'CONNOR, concluded that the Contender and conversion kit when
packaged together have not been ``made'' into a short-barreled
rifle for NFA purposes. Pp.3-13.

(a) The language of sec. 5845(i)-which provides that ``[t]he
term `make', and [its] various derivatives . . . , shall include
manufacturing . . . , putting together . . . , or otherwise
producing a firearm''- clearly demonstrates that the aggregation of
separate parts that can be assembled only into a firearm, and the
aggregation of a gun other than a firearm and parts that would have
no use in association with the gun except to convert it into a firearm,
constitute the ``making'' of a firearm. If, as the Court of
Appeals held, a firearm were only made at the time of final
assembly (the moment the firearm was ``put together''), the
statutory ``manufacturing . . . or otherwise producing'' language
would be redundant. Thus, Congress must have understood
``making'' to cover more than final assembly, and some
disassembled aggregation of parts must be included. Pp.4-7.

it's your butthole man, you do what you want with it.

Justify it any way you want, but you do have a dog in this fight, its your gun.  I don't have a dog in this fight because it doesn't sound like you're going to trade receivers with me.  

Just remember, prisons can get cold at night, hope your cellmate has warm hands.

Should have known you can't have an intelligent discussion on most of Arfcom, even outside GD

Be sure to let everyone in this thread that has a rifle buffer to watch their buttholes and hide their dogs....

http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_122/245757_AR_Pistol_Picture_ONLY_Thread_.html&page=3

Guess I'll stay in the dedicated tech forums from now on so I can have logical discussions.  Bye.

ATF does and says what they want. Letters mean more when they are directed to you.

An Agent could say you had intention to put a Marlin .22 stock on that thing..

Don't push the grey area. It's not worth it.

People always push these grey areas and argue on the internet that an arrest won't hold up in court, and it may or may not, but it's your time and legal fees you will never back.

I'm not here to argue...I think that thing is kick ass....

next time just dont post 'waiting on my stamp'.  Around here that is the same difference as a naked man running through a gay bar where all the gay guys are drinking tequila and eating viagras...you just became the engineer on the fuck train LOL

I am jealous.  That looks damn nice.