AR Sponsor
Posted: 4/25/2014 4:16:39 AM EDT
|
I have to rifles now... I am building a third in 300 Blackout underway. My next build after this will likely be a pistol, but is there any red tape with having rifles and pistols provided all uppers are mounted to the correct lowers?
I am trying to do all of my research now on this but this seems to be a difficult issue for me as I have heard both ways that since the uppers can be changed so easily it could be trouble waiting in the wings. What says the hive? Perhaps a better question is those of you that have both... assuming some do, do you lock them in separate safes, or is this really an issue to worry about? I was not going to buy the short upper parts until the Pistol lower would be built, but just want to be sure to do this right as I do not like grey bars at all. ;) Thanks. I read the tacked posts, but really wanted a real world response from those who may have had these same questions. Thanks! |
|
Quoted:
As long as your assemblage of guns/parts can make something other than an SBR you are gtg. So would this mean that as long as the rifle uppers are on their lowers and the pistol upper is on its dedicated lower, and there are no unassembled guns/parts I should be GTG right? I was just worried about the "easily" converted part. |
|
Quoted:
So would this mean that as long as the rifle uppers are on their lowers and the pistol upper is on its dedicated lower, and there are no unassembled guns/parts I should be GTG right? I was just worried about the "easily" converted part. Quoted:
Quoted:
As long as your assemblage of guns/parts can make something other than an SBR you are gtg. So would this mean that as long as the rifle uppers are on their lowers and the pistol upper is on its dedicated lower, and there are no unassembled guns/parts I should be GTG right? I was just worried about the "easily" converted part. You're fine. If that were the case, no one with an AR rife could have an AR pistol |
|
There is no such thing as constructive intent. There is only constructive possession. And constructive possession really only exists with machine gun and destructive device parts because of the Thompson Center Supreme Court case.
"The 'readily-converted' definition could not practically apply to "rifle," since every rifle is readily convertible to a short barrel rifle by use of a hacksaw." http://www.constitution.org/2ll/bardwell/us_v_tcenter_br1.txt |
|
Intent has zero to do with the issue. Absolutely zero intent is required to be in violation.
Test is simple: "An NFA firearm is made if aggregated parts are in close proximity such that they serve no useful purpose other than to make an NFA firearm or convert a complete weapon into an NFA firearm". "Close proximity" has never been exactly defined in case law, so I'd consider anywhere on my property as "close enough". Simpler than it sounds: aside from silencer or full auto components that can be illegal in and of themselves, look at a part or component: - Is there an illegal config I could use this with? - If no, cool. - if yes, then - is there also a legal config I could use this with? - if yes, cool - if no, don't have it - OS |
|
Quoted:
I read the tacked posts, but really wanted a real world response from those who may have had these same questions. I personally think the ATF Ruling is pretty explicit - I don't recall if it's tacked or if you'd consider that one of the posts, but if you haven't read it, I do suggest reading ATF Ruling 2011-4 right from the source. Things to be careful of seem to be having stocks when you don't have any rifle configurations and having short barrels when all you have are rifle configurations, but read through the ruling and make your own determination. IANAL, YMMV, etc. Richard |
|
Yeah, I keep reading that Justice Department ruling and they are still trying to apply constructive possession to an extra stock laying around if you have only a pistol. I think that ruling is worth paying attention to because it's not worth dealing with but in actuality the decision says this:
http://www.constitution.org/2ll/bardwell/thompson.txt "The Claims Court entered summary judgment for the Government, but the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that a short-barreled rifle ``actually must be assembled'' in ordered to be ``made'' within the NFA's meaning. Held: The judgment is affirmed." Ultimately, this is all that matters in the short-barreled rifle game. It's just a matter of whether it's worth playing. In any case, it's good to know what the Judges actually say versus the garbage the Justice Department wants people to believe. |
|
Quoted:
Yeah, I keep reading that Justice Department ruling and they are still trying to apply constructive possession to an extra stock laying around if you have only a pistol. I think that ruling is worth paying attention to because it's not worth dealing with but in actuality the decision says this: http://www.constitution.org/2ll/bardwell/thompson.txt "The Claims Court entered summary judgment for the Government, but the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that a short-barreled rifle ``actually must be assembled'' in ordered to be ``made'' within the NFA's meaning. Held: The judgment is affirmed." Ultimately, this is all that matters in the short-barreled rifle game. It's just a matter of whether it's worth playing. In any case, it's good to know what the Judges actually say versus the garbage the Justice Department wants people to believe. Note that was NOT the final decision in the Thompson Case. SCOTUS says a NFA weapon does NOT have to be assembled to be in violation, nor does there have to be any INTENT to do so either. However, the SCOTUS decision did three Good Things: - changed violation from simply being able to make an illegal config to being only able to do so - removed culpability for parts having to match up one for one -- if one part is legal for use, all multiples are also - changed the "once a rifle always a rifle" principle to "first a rifle always a rifle" - OS |
|
Quoted:
I personally think the ATF Ruling is pretty explicit - .... Quoted:
Quoted:
I read the tacked posts, but really wanted a real world response from those who may have had these same questions. I personally think the ATF Ruling is pretty explicit - .... Wasn't ATF ruling, was SCOTUS. ATF "ruling" is really a summary, I'd call it more of an "admission", issued nineteen years after the fact of it being settled law. Typical of its history of trying to keep folks in the dark and intimidated for as long as possible, IMNSHO. - OS |
|
Quoted:
The op mentioned that he had rifles, and rifles only. The only way to be found in violation would be to first buy a short barrel. If you are really worried purchasing your stripped lower first would be best. Yep. Only way to be for sure legit. Soon as you put the short barrel alone in the mix, you have "made" an NFA firearm, only depending on how far "close proximity" extends -- which you don't get to define. - OS |
|
I made sure I had a registered "other" built before I bought a pistol barrel/upper. A bare receiver is considered a "other" so it can be used to build either a pistol or rifle. I really like my 12" 300AAC I just finished.
http://i406.photobucket.com/albums/pp145/CV-23/73c93b94-b073-4350-9f4a-46ab4d921a86_zps670bc17a.jpg |
|
I assembled 2 pistols without owning a rifle AR. At one point I had the barrels, 80% Lower Receiver and other parts I needed to put it together , including the Bullet Button we need here in Cali. I never purchased a Stock nor had my Pistol parts anywhere near one. I would like to think that I took reasonable measures to ensure that I am not in constructive possession of an SBR. My understanding of the rules (which doesn't guarantee correctness) is that as long as there is a Stock near any Pistol or Pistol-specific parts, there must be a matching Rifle it is mated to. For example if I had (1) complete AR Rifle and (1) complete AR Pistol, I'm not going to have an extra Stock laying around, lest I risk constructive possession. |
|
Quoted:
.... My understanding of the rules (which doesn't guarantee correctness) is that as long as there is a Stock near any Pistol or Pistol-specific parts, there must be a matching Rifle it is mated to. For example if I had (1) complete AR Rifle and (1) complete AR Pistol, I'm not going to have an extra Stock laying around, lest I risk constructive possession. Extra stocks or other parts are no problem. Each one has the same "useful purpose other than making an NFA firearm". - OS |
|
Quoted: Extra stocks or other parts are no problem. Each one has the same "useful purpose other than making an NFA firearm". - OS Quoted: Quoted: .... My understanding of the rules (which doesn't guarantee correctness) is that as long as there is a Stock near any Pistol or Pistol-specific parts, there must be a matching Rifle it is mated to. For example if I had (1) complete AR Rifle and (1) complete AR Pistol, I'm not going to have an extra Stock laying around, lest I risk constructive possession. Extra stocks or other parts are no problem. Each one has the same "useful purpose other than making an NFA firearm". - OS That makes sense, thanks. |
I'm in the process of working a trade for a wicked little AR pistol, an Adams Arms Tactical Elite upper w/ 7.5" barrel, so I've been watching a lot of videos on AR pistols. The one with Rob Pincus made me cringe, however, because he was talking about "intent" and how certain parts and shooting positions with he pistols can be seen as 'bad for us all'.
|
|
Quoted:
I'm in the process of working a trade for a wicked little AR pistol, an Adams Arms Tactical Elite upper w/ 7.5" barrel, so I've been watching a lot of videos on AR pistols. The one with Rob Pincus made me cringe, however, because he was talking about "intent" and how certain parts and shooting positions with he pistols can be seen as 'bad for us all'. Yeah, I've seen it: http://www.personaldefensenetwork.com/video/004708_ar-15-pistol-use/ Just another "instant authority" making legal shit up as he goes. Wonder if he was a bit chagrined when the second ruling regarding the SB15 came out just a day or so after he made the vid. Clear enough for ya now, Rob? Also, the "no long buffer tubes available during the AWB" was pretty bogus viewpoint, since the Thompson decision came down in '92, making it clear that a normal carbine or rifle tube was fine as long as any stock in close proximity had a legal purpose other than using it with the pistol. - OS |
| Constructive intent they have to have gotten into your house to find your upper and missing lower. If they are at that stage you've done some other serious s#it and this should be the least of your worries. If you are going to build a pistol just get the parts as you can and put them away until you are ready to build. Don't post pictures of you "testing" your pistol upper on a stocked lower and your fine. |
AR Sponsor