Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 8/14/2010 2:28:28 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/14/2010 2:28:49 PM EDT by zandyco]
I understand that in order to posses a short barreled rifle I need the tax stamp from ATF, do I need the stamp before I buy the parts (specificaly the Barrel) or do I just need it for when the rifle is completely assembled? Found a limited supply of the barrels I want but I havent had the chance to talk to the local Sherrif,
thanks

p.s. this is a troll free inquiry.
Link Posted: 8/14/2010 3:21:29 PM EDT
You can't have the barrel before the tax stamp.




Link Posted: 8/14/2010 3:21:39 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/15/2010 3:43:15 AM EDT
Good info, thanks guys.
Link Posted: 8/18/2010 12:44:53 AM EDT
Posted by Slanted;
You can't have the barrel before the tax stamp.


Yes you can. It's called an AR15 pistol barrel. Just don't assemble it into a working upper on a lower with a buttstock untilk you get the stamp.

And there is no law under the name of "constructive intent".
Link Posted: 8/20/2010 5:34:45 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TANGOCHASER:
Posted by Slanted;
You can't have the barrel before the tax stamp.


Yes you can. It's called an AR15 pistol barrel. Just don't assemble it into a working upper on a lower with a buttstock untilk you get the stamp.

And there is no law under the name of "constructive intent".

Tell it to the judge.

Link Posted: 8/20/2010 9:14:03 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/20/2010 9:18:26 AM EDT by TANGOCHASER]
Originally Posted By TANGOCHASER:

Posted by Slanted;
You can't have the barrel before the tax stamp.

Yes you can. It's called an AR15 pistol barrel. Just don't assemble it into a working upper on a lower with a buttstock untilk you get the stamp.

And there is no law under the name of "constructive intent".


Posted by slanted;
Tell it to the judge.


I'll say it again and again. There is no violation of the firearms regulations called "constructive intent". All you fear mongers make it sound like every NFA item has some sort of hidden transmitter to tell the ATF someone bought a part. You fear mongers also act like everyone who ever touches a NFA part sends off some sort of ESP signal to the ATF. WTF?

The fear mongers keep saying, "don't chance it". Chance what? Millions of gun owners go their whole lives witthout ATF or any LEO entering their home or searching their property for an NFA part. That's because these millions of gun owners haven't done anything to draw the attention of the ATF.

Intent is the hardest thing to prove in court. If you get on arfcom bragging about assembling an illegally configured gun or post pictures on the internet of a said illegal assembly, then intent is easy to prove. There are a lot of parts that can be made into a pistol or a rifle. If anyone has ever been convicted of having enough parts to assemble an unregistered NFA, I guarantee, the gun owner did something to give the imression he did in fact plan to build it into an unregistered gun.

I have no issues with recommending against a course of action in regards to AR15 parts ownership or assembly, just explain the recommendation IAW the actual laws not the mythical "ATF can read your mind and will get you" bullshit. Make your recommendations in good faith not out of irrational fear. Remember the 10+ year argument about using an M16 BCG in an AR15? There is a current argument elsewhere about using an M16 selector, which is legal in an AR15 by the way. Same deal here.

OP, if you find a deal on an SBR upper, by it, stick in your gun safe and shut up about it. Then go about your life in your normal fashion until you aquire the tax stamp for the SBR and then get your lower. If you are really concerned, buy a pistol buffer tube and store it with your SBR upper. This will show anyone your intent to build a pistol not an untaxed SBR.

I'm not advocating breaking the law. There are vast grey areas in the ATF regs. Just saying stop with the boogie man stories about going to jail over parts that are not in and of themselves illegal.
Link Posted: 8/20/2010 2:31:24 PM EDT
First of all, TANGOCHASER, since intent is not an element of most NFA offenses, it is not "constructive intent" but constructive possession. Secondly, it is a real problem, not a myth.

Here is an appellate opinion from the Eleventh Circuit upholding a conviction of a person who had a short barreled upper with 14 inch barrel, a legal upper and a lower. The short barreled upper is not attached to the lower when found.

This opinion confirms that it is not a myth.

Now, assuming you actually read this opinion tell me how you will continue to maintain that this is a myth after reading it.
Link Posted: 8/24/2010 10:19:06 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/24/2010 10:56:37 AM EDT by TANGOCHASER]
Thanks for the link. I read it. First time I've seen an actual case of possession on having ll the parts to make an NFA weapon. But the court's opinion was based on the possession of a complete upper, a complete lower (even though they weren't assembled) and the speed at which the owner could assemble a working SBR. The OP was asking about a barrel not a complete upper (I misquoted this in my previous post). Could it still be argued he intended to make an SBR? Maybe, but it would require tools, knowledge and time. The situation in the court case linked to is not the same as the OPs situation. Complete upper vs a lone barrel.

The plaintiff argued the upper was just parts but it was fully assembled. The court opinion does seem to (possibly) support the court may have considered this argument if the upper was not assembled and the barrel was just a part in a junk box of parts. Another, albeit weaker argument is the court ruling applied to this case not all cases. Probably will be used to establish precedent in another cases, I'm sure.

A short barreled rifle is defined in the US Code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter, Sec. 921. as follows...
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
(8) The term ''short-barreled rifle'' means a rifle having one or more barrels less than sixteen inches in length and any weapon made from a rifle (whether by alteration, modification, or otherwise) if such weapon, as modified, has an overall length of less than twenty-six inches.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

The ATF agrues in these cases about the ease at which the modification can be made. Not black and white for sure where the line between easy and hard is I grant you, and the ATF will never define or tell the public what that line is. The ATFs testimony was centered on the ease and speed in which the complete gun could be assembled. It can be argued that without the proper tools, a separate barrel can not be assembled into a working SBR in a timely fashion and is actually just a part. I probably went overbored in my other post. My point is to answer and make recommendations to NFA questions with facts, court cases, etc., not scare tactics. The link provided may apply here but it is not the exact situation as the OP is asking about a barrel not a complete upper. Wonder if the Thompson Contender case would of had any bearing on the outcome had it been used or applicable.



Link Posted: 8/24/2010 10:33:54 AM EDT
Originally Posted By TANGOCHASER:
Posted by spqrzilla,
First of all, TANGOCHASER, since intent is not an element of most NFA offenses, it is not "constructive intent" but constructive possession. Secondly, it is a real problem, not a myth.

Here is an appellate opinion from the Eleventh Circuit upholding a conviction of a person who had a short barreled upper with 14 inch barrel, a legal upper and a lower. The short barreled upper is not attached to the lower when found.

This opinion confirms that it is not a myth.

Now, assuming you actually read this opinion tell me how you will continue to maintain that this is a myth after reading it.


I read it and it refers to a complete ready to go SBR upper receiver and a complete lower being in the owners possesion. The OP is asking about a barrel, not a complete upper. That is what I'm basing my comments on. It can be argued whether the barrel can be assemled on the complete lower to make a functioning gun. The court opinion you referenced made numerous mention of ATF testimony that the complete upper was able to be assembled into an SBR with just two steps. Takes a lot more that two steps to assemble a barrel onto a lower when it is not attached to and upper receiver. If the OP does not have another upper receiver and intends to swap barrels, this requires the knowledge and tools to make such a swap.

The court opinion was partly based on how fast the ATF said a complete gun could be assembled. Unless all the parts and tools are in the OP's possession to replace a barrel with another and can be done in a fast time (not stated exactly what that is by the ATF), The short barrel is just a part and it would be harder to prove intent. A case can be made for intent to build an AR15 pistol not an SBR if the OP also had a pistol buffer tube and another lower. I wonder if the Thompson Contender court opinion could have had any bearing on this case. Didn't see it mentioned.

Thanks for the link as this is the first actual case I've seen a conviction of possession based on a collection of parts. But it should be noted, the the upper was assembled and the lower was assembled, just not assembled together. The OP was asking about a barrel not a complete upper if I understand his original post.

I have no issue with someone responding NFA questions with "not recommended" and here's a link to why. I just can't stand the "DON"T DO IT, THE ATF WILL GET YOU" replies. There may lots of other places to store the SBR barrel away from the OPs residence as well. Instead of telling him "NO", explore how he could legally purchase the barrel. Don't scare the guy, school the guy.


I doubt if the TC Court case would have any bearing since ATF's position is that this court ruling applies ONLY to TC KITS. (see ATF letter below, specifically page 2, second paragraph).


Link Posted: 8/24/2010 10:59:43 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/24/2010 11:04:27 AM EDT by TANGOCHASER]
CAR-AR-M16,

You responded while I was revising my post to something more thought out. Funny how the ATF's rulings all end with revenue generating decisions.

My main point is, if someone wants to make the recommendation not to possess a SBR barrel/upper and an AR15 without first getting the stamp and they use something to back up their recommendation (like the court case linked to), fine, great. Helps me learn as well. I just can't stand the boogeyman ATF will get you, fear monger responses.
Link Posted: 8/24/2010 11:04:53 AM EDT
Originally Posted By TANGOCHASER:
CAR-AR-M16,

You responded while I was revising my post to something more thought out. Funny how the ATF's rulings all end with revenue generating decisions.


I agree. It's all about money and control. I am really surprised that they haven't decided to raise the transfer tax to some astronomical rate.
Link Posted: 8/24/2010 2:29:13 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/24/2010 2:33:27 PM EDT by spqrzilla]
Originally Posted By TANGOCHASER:
I probably went overbored in my other post. My point is to answer and make recommendations to NFA questions with facts, court cases, etc., not scare tactics. The link provided may apply here but it is not the exact situation as the OP is asking about a barrel not a complete upper. Wonder if the Thompson Contender case would of had any bearing on the outcome had it been used or applicable.



That's why I brought a case. As for the OP asking about a barrel, he did not distinguish clearly when / if he would have a lower. And from this case, there is no black letter guidelines being supplied by the court.
That's why I would recommend getting the paperwork straight first. Sadly, the ATF is the boogeyman. It is my practice to ground my advice in concrete law, verifiable fact, and not horse manure.

The TC case is distinguished by the court opinion I linked to as being about the tax implications to a manufacturer, not about a criminal possession case. I don't think it will help anyone.
Link Posted: 8/26/2010 8:18:06 PM EDT
Originally Posted By CAR-AR-M16:
Originally Posted By TANGOCHASER:
Posted by spqrzilla,
First of all, TANGOCHASER, since intent is not an element of most NFA offenses, it is not "constructive intent" but constructive possession. Secondly, it is a real problem, not a myth.

Here is an appellate opinion from the Eleventh Circuit upholding a conviction of a person who had a short barreled upper with 14 inch barrel, a legal upper and a lower. The short barreled upper is not attached to the lower when found.

This opinion confirms that it is not a myth.

Now, assuming you actually read this opinion tell me how you will continue to maintain that this is a myth after reading it.


I read it and it refers to a complete ready to go SBR upper receiver and a complete lower being in the owners possesion. The OP is asking about a barrel, not a complete upper. That is what I'm basing my comments on. It can be argued whether the barrel can be assemled on the complete lower to make a functioning gun. The court opinion you referenced made numerous mention of ATF testimony that the complete upper was able to be assembled into an SBR with just two steps. Takes a lot more that two steps to assemble a barrel onto a lower when it is not attached to and upper receiver. If the OP does not have another upper receiver and intends to swap barrels, this requires the knowledge and tools to make such a swap.

The court opinion was partly based on how fast the ATF said a complete gun could be assembled. Unless all the parts and tools are in the OP's possession to replace a barrel with another and can be done in a fast time (not stated exactly what that is by the ATF), The short barrel is just a part and it would be harder to prove intent. A case can be made for intent to build an AR15 pistol not an SBR if the OP also had a pistol buffer tube and another lower. I wonder if the Thompson Contender court opinion could have had any bearing on this case. Didn't see it mentioned.

Thanks for the link as this is the first actual case I've seen a conviction of possession based on a collection of parts. But it should be noted, the the upper was assembled and the lower was assembled, just not assembled together. The OP was asking about a barrel not a complete upper if I understand his original post.

I have no issue with someone responding NFA questions with "not recommended" and here's a link to why. I just can't stand the "DON"T DO IT, THE ATF WILL GET YOU" replies. There may lots of other places to store the SBR barrel away from the OPs residence as well. Instead of telling him "NO", explore how he could legally purchase the barrel. Don't scare the guy, school the guy.


I doubt if the TC Court case would have any bearing since ATF's position is that this court ruling applies ONLY to TC KITS. (see ATF letter below, specifically page 2, second paragraph).

http://i462.photobucket.com/albums/qq344/quiet_wolf/BATFEletterpistolrifle1.jpg
http://i462.photobucket.com/albums/qq344/quiet_wolf/BATFEletterpistolrifle2.jpg


I know I'm late to the party, but what effect does that letter have on the Mech-Tech style carbine conversion units? Once you put one on your 1911, you can never ever take it apart, or you've made a pistol from a rifle?

God, the ATF is fucked up.
Link Posted: 8/27/2010 9:59:42 AM EDT
Posted by ragedracer1977:
I know I'm late to the party, but what effect does that letter have on the Mech-Tech style carbine conversion units? Once you put one on your 1911, you can never ever take it apart, or you've made a pistol from a rifle?

God, the ATF is fucked up.


ATF is run by people who hate and disregard the 2nd Amendment and think no civilians should own guns. Just another uneforceable regulation. Unenforceable unless the owner has pictures in the internet of the pistol showing the serial number with the kit installed and as a pistol. But the ruling is enough to get the vast majority of shooters to not even bother buying the kit.

The goo thing about cases like the TC case is, ownership of the kit does necessarily mean intent. ATF lost their ass on that ruling. Judge even snickered at the ATFs argument.
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 11:12:58 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/7/2010 11:14:06 AM EDT by d5griffin]
Originally Posted By TANGOCHASER:
Posted by Slanted;
You can't have the barrel before the tax stamp.


Yes you can. It's called an AR15 pistol barrel. Just don't assemble it into a working upper on a lower with a buttstock untilk you get the stamp.

And there is no law under the name of "constructive intent".


I'd just call it a pistol barrel until you get your stamp, i wouldn't submit yourself to the hassle of a pistol lower or rifle lower.
Top Top