Armory Sponsor
Posted: 11/8/2015 3:53:34 PM EDT
|
So I found a barrel deal I can't pass up so I'm getting a 12" barrel but my stamp isn't back for SBR. If I don't have a spare upper etc. do I have constructive possession?
|
| Even if you have a spare upper it won't be constructive possession because it can't be readily assembled, and needs several tools and extra parts (barrel nut, etc.) to do so. You could even have everything together - a lower, upper, and barrel - but without a barrel nut it can not be assembled into a working rifle and is not considered constructive possession. |
|
If you're really concerned about avoiding the appearance of constructive possession, have the barrel shipped to someone else ("Hey Mom, will you hold onto a package for me until I ask for it?") until your stamp comes in.
I did a pistol build at one point because I was anxious about this sort of thing. The pistol lower is sitting there in my safe, so I have a non-SBR purpose for any "less than 16 inch" barrel I might buy. Potential problem eliminated... |
|
Quoted:
Constructive possession is a made up internet term. No such thing. Buy your barrel. Not necessarily. It's true you're more likely to be killed by an ejected toilet seat from a passenger jet flying overhead than you are to be busted for having a collection of parts capable of being readily assembled into an illegal configuration, but it is a real thing that can and will be stacked on top of other charges if you already happen to be under investigation by the ATF. Like that guy in California last year that got charged with having a 15.7" barrel/unpinned muzzle device on top of a stack of other drug charges. It was not the main offense but they were more than happy to pile on other charges when it suited their case. |
|
Quoted:
Constructive possession is a made up internet term. No such thing. Buy your barrel. Horseshit. Stop giving advice on things you are wholly and completely ignorant. "Constructive possession" is a well recognized legal concept......and has been for many decades. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/constructive_possession and https://www.atf.gov/file/59566/download |
|
Quoted:
So I found a barrel deal I can't pass up so I'm getting a 12" barrel but my stamp isn't back for SBR. If I don't have a spare upper etc. do I have constructive possession? no.. if you had a totally complete upper sitting there, you would have constructive possession. (assuming you have another Lower that could accept the upper - even if it has a rifle length upper currently on it) the reality is that unless you're a shop owner, gunsmith, or militia member, they're not looking AT you.. (granted, they COULD FIND YOU, but generally speaking, normal people dont receive charges like this, it's the "stick in the ATFs eye" guys that catch most of these types of charges..) |
|
Quoted:
can't they check the 4473 on that lower to see if it was sold as a "rifle, other weapon, or pistol" ? Quoted:
Quoted:
Got a stripped lower laying around? It's for a pistol build. Problem solved. can't they check the 4473 on that lower to see if it was sold as a "rifle, other weapon, or pistol" ? Per Federal law/ATF regs: A frame, receiver or AR lower is an "Other Firearm". If your dealer is checking "Long Gun" or "Handgun" on the 4473 Question 18.......he's an idiot and needs to start reading the instructions to Que. 18. |
|
Quoted:
Per Federal law/ATF regs: A frame, receiver or AR lower is an "Other Firearm". If your dealer is checking "Long Gun" or "Handgun" on the 4473 Question 18.......he's an idiot and needs to start reading the instructions to Que. 18. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Got a stripped lower laying around? It's for a pistol build. Problem solved. can't they check the 4473 on that lower to see if it was sold as a "rifle, other weapon, or pistol" ? Per Federal law/ATF regs: A frame, receiver or AR lower is an "Other Firearm". If your dealer is checking "Long Gun" or "Handgun" on the 4473 Question 18.......he's an idiot and needs to start reading the instructions to Que. 18. That's the way I understand it as well...and there may be a few of those laying around 
|
|
Quoted:
So I found a barrel deal I can't pass up so I'm getting a 12" barrel but my stamp isn't back for SBR. If I don't have a spare upper etc. do I have constructive possession? The burden of proof is placed on the state. Then the state has to have a warrant for the other information they collect on you. Getting a judge to sign off on a warrant for that would be very hard. Then the fact you might have other parts to construct a legal pistol or rifle would also hinder their case. Remember its all about reasonable doubt in the court. I would not worry to much about it. I doubt the AFT will put together all their resource to come after a guy who would be very hard to convict of a constructive possession victim-less crime. Then again they have done stupid things like that in the past. You could just build the lower into a pistol until the stamp comes in. Then your problem is solved and the upper has a home |
|
Quoted:
The burden of proof is placed on the state. Then the state has to have a warrant for the other information they collect on you. Wrong.Wrong.Wrong. "Information" doesn't require a search warrant. Police can collect information on you anytime they wish. Reading online forums, seeing you at the gun range, talking to your neighbors, taking a phone call from your brother in law who hates you...........none of that requires a warrant. Getting a judge to sign off on a warrant for that would be very hard. Seriously? All that's needed to get a search warrant signed by a judge is probable cause......which means just a reasonable suspicion that a crime occurred. Any of the information I mentioned above can be used to obtain a search warrant. Then the fact you might have other parts to construct a legal pistol or rifle would also hinder their case. True.....and having such means there wouldn't even be a case. Remember its all about reasonable doubt in the court. You might beat the rap but you'll never beat the ride. While you may eventually be found not guilty, you will incur considerable expense in defending yourself. I would not worry to much about it. I doubt the AFT will put together all their resource to come after a guy who would be very hard to convict of a constructive possession victim-less crime. Then again they have done stupid things like that in the past. You could just build the lower into a pistol until the stamp comes in. Good grief. There's no reason to even do that. As long as there is a legal configuration possible, the firearm does not have to be assembled. Then your problem is solved and the upper has a home Quoted:
Quoted:
So I found a barrel deal I can't pass up so I'm getting a 12" barrel but my stamp isn't back for SBR. If I don't have a spare upper etc. do I have constructive possession? The burden of proof is placed on the state. Then the state has to have a warrant for the other information they collect on you. Wrong.Wrong.Wrong. "Information" doesn't require a search warrant. Police can collect information on you anytime they wish. Reading online forums, seeing you at the gun range, talking to your neighbors, taking a phone call from your brother in law who hates you...........none of that requires a warrant. Getting a judge to sign off on a warrant for that would be very hard. Seriously? All that's needed to get a search warrant signed by a judge is probable cause......which means just a reasonable suspicion that a crime occurred. Any of the information I mentioned above can be used to obtain a search warrant. Then the fact you might have other parts to construct a legal pistol or rifle would also hinder their case. True.....and having such means there wouldn't even be a case. Remember its all about reasonable doubt in the court. You might beat the rap but you'll never beat the ride. While you may eventually be found not guilty, you will incur considerable expense in defending yourself. I would not worry to much about it. I doubt the AFT will put together all their resource to come after a guy who would be very hard to convict of a constructive possession victim-less crime. Then again they have done stupid things like that in the past. You could just build the lower into a pistol until the stamp comes in. Good grief. There's no reason to even do that. As long as there is a legal configuration possible, the firearm does not have to be assembled. Then your problem is solved and the upper has a home |
| You're worried that possession of a short barrel might be construed as evidence that you intend to manufacture a short barrelled rifle, but you filled out a form and sent it to the ATF telling them that you intend to manufacture a short barrelled rifle. That already know what you're up to. |
|
Quoted:
The burden of proof is placed on the state. Then the state has to have a warrant for the other information they collect on you. Getting a judge to sign off on a warrant for that would be very hard. Then the fact you might have other parts to construct a legal pistol or rifle would also hinder their case. Remember its all about reasonable doubt in the court. I would not worry to much about it. I doubt the AFT will put together all their resource to come after a guy who would be very hard to convict of a constructive possession victim-less crime. Then again they have done stupid things like that in the past. You could just build the lower into a pistol until the stamp comes in. Then your problem is solved and the upper has a home Quoted:
Quoted:
So I found a barrel deal I can't pass up so I'm getting a 12" barrel but my stamp isn't back for SBR. If I don't have a spare upper etc. do I have constructive possession? The burden of proof is placed on the state. Then the state has to have a warrant for the other information they collect on you. Getting a judge to sign off on a warrant for that would be very hard. Then the fact you might have other parts to construct a legal pistol or rifle would also hinder their case. Remember its all about reasonable doubt in the court. I would not worry to much about it. I doubt the AFT will put together all their resource to come after a guy who would be very hard to convict of a constructive possession victim-less crime. Then again they have done stupid things like that in the past. You could just build the lower into a pistol until the stamp comes in. Then your problem is solved and the upper has a home History seems to indicate that judges are quite willing to sign off on all sorts of warrants; the concern that one's life may be severely disrupted, even if only for a few months, is valid. I agree that the simplest answer is to build a pistol. Easy, safe and effective. |
|
People are making this way too complicated.
1. Don't tell the world what you are doing. 2. Don't give a reason for "the man" to be in your house. I'm not saying we should be all doing illegal stuff but seriously. What you do with your own stuff is NONE of my business and shouldn't be. |
|
Quoted:
Horseshit. Stop giving advice on things you are wholly and completely ignorant. "Constructive possession" is a well recognized legal concept......and has been for many decades. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/constructive_possession and https://www.atf.gov/file/59566/download But in terms of NFA items, it is never prosecuted. The entirety of the internet can come up with a whopping 1 lifetime conviction for it. It is illegal to this day to drive a black car in Denver on Sundays. But you don't see people telling each other not to do that, do you? Own a hacksaw and any rifle/shotgun? SBR/SBS constructive possession. Own a bottle and some kind of flammable liquid? Molotov constructive possession. CO2 cartridge and a knife? Sounds like a ballistic knife to me. He is right, NFA constructive possession an internet boogyman until proven otherwise in a significant way. Also the example you gave from the ATF site does not apply here. The gun in question of possession was a complete firearm, NOT PARTS. That is related to letting felons be in "possession" of a firearm, even if they aren't actually controlling it. That is not the same as what is being discussed here |
|
Quoted:
But in terms of NFA items, it is never prosecuted. The entirety of the internet can come up with a whopping 1 lifetime conviction for it. It is illegal to this day to drive a black car in Denver on Sundays. But you don't see people telling each other not to do that, do you? You equate an antiquated law THAT HAS NOT BEEN ENFORCED IN DECADES with Federal firearms law? Seriously. 
You do realize that many Federal firearms laws are never prosecuted by the Feds because state and local charges eclipse the punishment that the accused would get under Federal law. And I call horseshit on a "lifetime conviction.." solely for constructive possession. Own a hacksaw and any rifle/shotgun? SBR/SBS constructive possession. Horseshit. You haven't a clue to what constructive possession is. Own a bottle and some kind of flammable liquid? Molotov constructive possession. Horseshit. You haven't a clue to what constructive possession is. CO2 cartridge and a knife? Sounds like a ballistic knife to me. For fucks sake. MORE Horseshit. You haven't a clue to what constructive possession is. He is right, NFA constructive possession an internet boogyman until proven otherwise in a significant way. You haven't a clue and should stop posting. Also the example you gave from the ATF site does not apply here. The gun in question of possession was a complete firearm, NOT PARTS. That is related to letting felons be in "possession" of a firearm, even if they aren't actually controlling it. That is not the same as what is being discussed here For fucks sake. 
The link is to a conviction on constructive possession......something you deny actually exists. It is immaterial if the case involves parts, firearms or drugs. Not every violation of federal law makes it to trial. For you to postulate that "NFA constructive possession an internet boogyman" is laughable. Quoted:
Quoted:
Horseshit. Stop giving advice on things you are wholly and completely ignorant. "Constructive possession" is a well recognized legal concept......and has been for many decades. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/constructive_possession and https://www.atf.gov/file/59566/download But in terms of NFA items, it is never prosecuted. The entirety of the internet can come up with a whopping 1 lifetime conviction for it. It is illegal to this day to drive a black car in Denver on Sundays. But you don't see people telling each other not to do that, do you? You equate an antiquated law THAT HAS NOT BEEN ENFORCED IN DECADES with Federal firearms law? Seriously.
You do realize that many Federal firearms laws are never prosecuted by the Feds because state and local charges eclipse the punishment that the accused would get under Federal law. And I call horseshit on a "lifetime conviction.." solely for constructive possession. Own a hacksaw and any rifle/shotgun? SBR/SBS constructive possession. Horseshit. You haven't a clue to what constructive possession is. Own a bottle and some kind of flammable liquid? Molotov constructive possession. Horseshit. You haven't a clue to what constructive possession is. CO2 cartridge and a knife? Sounds like a ballistic knife to me. For fucks sake. MORE Horseshit. You haven't a clue to what constructive possession is. He is right, NFA constructive possession an internet boogyman until proven otherwise in a significant way. You haven't a clue and should stop posting. Also the example you gave from the ATF site does not apply here. The gun in question of possession was a complete firearm, NOT PARTS. That is related to letting felons be in "possession" of a firearm, even if they aren't actually controlling it. That is not the same as what is being discussed here For fucks sake.
The link is to a conviction on constructive possession......something you deny actually exists. It is immaterial if the case involves parts, firearms or drugs. Not every violation of federal law makes it to trial. For you to postulate that "NFA constructive possession an internet boogyman" is laughable. Fucking '13ers strike again. 
|
|
ATF FAQ:
May a FFL or an individual legally possess the parts to manufacture an SBR or SBS as long as no firearms are actually assembled? A FFL (Type-7 or Type-10) who pays the Special Occupational Tax (SOT) may possess parts required to assemble NFA firearms. A non-licensee or FFL who has not paid the SOT is required to register any NFA firearm via an ATF Form 1 (5320.1) prior to acquisition of the parts required to assemble such firearm. Link If you don't have all the parts required to assemble, you are GTG. Note the ATF didn't say "spare" which is a distinction you mentioned in your post. If you hypothetically have all the parts necessary to assemble... you would want to leave whatever parts you deem necessary with a friend/family member so you don't. |
|
I believe the ATF term is "constructive intent" not possession. Granted, you'd have to blast your intentions on, say, a public internet forum, such as this one. Say you didn't self incriminate, who's gonna know you bought the thing? Maybe you wanted to build a pistol, have a spare lower either in pistol form or stripped sitting in the safe for just such an occasion.
I have three spare lowers for a rainy day. But I also have an SBR lower and a pistol built lower that can have as many uppers and barrels as I want. So...keep your mouth shut, and enjoy the Ozzy. |
|
Quoted:
People are making this way too complicated. 1. Don't tell the world what you are doing. 2. Don't give a reason for "the man" to be in your house. I'm not saying we should be all doing illegal stuff but seriously. What you do with your own stuff is NONE of my business and shouldn't be. well said |
|
Quoted:
I believe you have it backwards. Constructive possession exists. Constructive intent is the made-up internet concept. Quoted:
Quoted:
I believe the ATF term is "constructive intent" not possession. I believe you have it backwards. Constructive possession exists. Constructive intent is the made-up internet concept. This is correct. "Intent" is something that cannot be proven, but possession is concrete and provable. |
|
Quoted:
This is correct. "Intent" is something that cannot be proven, but possession is concrete and provable. Quoted:
This is correct. "Intent" is something that cannot be proven, but possession is concrete and provable.
"Intent" most certainly can be proven in a court of law.......happens all the time. "Possession" is concrete........but possession is not the same as "constructive possession". For example: You get pulled over at a traffic stop. The officer searches you "for his safety" and you have: -A Glock stuck in your waistband........that's possession. Not a problem in most states with a permit. -A Glock with a shoulder stock attached stuck in your waistband, illegal possession of an SBR unless you hold a tax stamp. -Having a Glock stuck in your waistband and a shoulder stock for that pistol located in the trunk.......that's constructive possession of a short barreled rifle if you have no NFA tax stamp. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/constructive_possession Constructive Possession
The legal possession of an object, even if it was not in a person’s direct physical control. Often used in criminal law prosecutions for possession crimes, such as possession of illegal drugs. Generally, for a court to find that a person had constructive possession of an object, the person must have had knowledge of the object, and as well as the ability to control it. For example, someone with keys to a safe deposit box may have constructive possession to the contents of that box, and the owner of a car may have constructive possession of the contents of its trunk. |
|
Quoted:
"Intent" most certainly can be proven in a court of law.......happens all the time. "Possession" is concrete........but possession is not the same as "constructive possession". For example: You get pulled over at a traffic stop. The officer searches you "for his safety" and you have: -A Glock stuck in your waistband........that's possession. Not a problem in most states with a permit. -A Glock with a shoulder stock attached stuck in your waistband, illegal possession of an SBR unless you hold a tax stamp. -Having a Glock stuck in your waistband and a shoulder stock for that pistol located in the trunk.......that's constructive possession of a short barreled rifle if you have no NFA tax stamp. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/constructive_possession Quoted:
Quoted:
This is correct. "Intent" is something that cannot be proven, but possession is concrete and provable.
"Intent" most certainly can be proven in a court of law.......happens all the time. "Possession" is concrete........but possession is not the same as "constructive possession". For example: You get pulled over at a traffic stop. The officer searches you "for his safety" and you have: -A Glock stuck in your waistband........that's possession. Not a problem in most states with a permit. -A Glock with a shoulder stock attached stuck in your waistband, illegal possession of an SBR unless you hold a tax stamp. -Having a Glock stuck in your waistband and a shoulder stock for that pistol located in the trunk.......that's constructive possession of a short barreled rifle if you have no NFA tax stamp. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/constructive_possession Constructive Possession
The legal possession of an object, even if it was not in a person’s direct physical control. Often used in criminal law prosecutions for possession crimes, such as possession of illegal drugs. Generally, for a court to find that a person had constructive possession of an object, the person must have had knowledge of the object, and as well as the ability to control it. For example, someone with keys to a safe deposit box may have constructive possession to the contents of that box, and the owner of a car may have constructive possession of the contents of its trunk. I did not mean to stir this pot yet again. From a logical perspective, it is impossible to prove what goes on inside someone else's head. Legally the concept of "intent" is inferred from other, concrete facts, under particularly specific rules of legal procedure. However, the term "constructive intent" is, as mentioned earlier, is indeed incorrect when applied in this context. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So I found a barrel deal I can't pass up so I'm getting a 12" barrel but my stamp isn't back for SBR. If I don't have a spare upper etc. do I have constructive possession? The burden of proof is placed on the state. Then the state has to have a warrant for the other information they collect on you. Wrong.Wrong.Wrong. "Information" doesn't require a search warrant. Police can collect information on you anytime they wish. Reading online forums, seeing you at the gun range, talking to your neighbors, taking a phone call from your brother in law who hates you...........none of that requires a warrant. Getting a judge to sign off on a warrant for that would be very hard. Seriously? All that's needed to get a search warrant signed by a judge is probable cause......which means just a reasonable suspicion that a crime occurred. Any of the information I mentioned above can be used to obtain a search warrant. Then the fact you might have other parts to construct a legal pistol or rifle would also hinder their case. True.....and having such means there wouldn't even be a case. Remember its all about reasonable doubt in the court. You might beat the rap but you'll never beat the ride. While you may eventually be found not guilty, you will incur considerable expense in defending yourself. I would not worry to much about it. I doubt the AFT will put together all their resource to come after a guy who would be very hard to convict of a constructive possession victim-less crime. Then again they have done stupid things like that in the past. You could just build the lower into a pistol until the stamp comes in. Good grief. There's no reason to even do that. As long as there is a legal configuration possible, the firearm does not have to be assembled. Then your problem is solved and the upper has a home You DO realize that probable cause and reasonable suspicion are two TOTALLY different things, right? |
|
Sounds like OP is asking one questing but meaning to ask another.
Constructive possession is not constructive intent. Constructive intent is the issue at hand. Courts and the ATF are unpredictable, and no one can say with certainty just how far either or both will go to ruin your life. That said, there's no doubt you plan on building an SBR, since you submitted paperwork. The only question that remains is do you intend to build and UNREGISTERED SBR, and since you submitted paperwork, that seems unlikely. The ATF, Courts, and a jury of your peers likely have little to gain by jamming you up over possession of a thing you intent to use legally. They probably could, but they probably won't. |
|
Quoted:
This is correct. "Intent" is something that cannot be proven, but possession is concrete and provable. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I believe the ATF term is "constructive intent" not possession. I believe you have it backwards. Constructive possession exists. Constructive intent is the made-up internet concept. This is correct. "Intent" is something that cannot be proven, but possession is concrete and provable. WRONG-intent for most criminal offenses MUST be proven-beyond a reasonable doubt |
|
Quoted:
You DO realize that probable cause and reasonable suspicion are two TOTALLY different things, right? Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So I found a barrel deal I can't pass up so I'm getting a 12" barrel but my stamp isn't back for SBR. If I don't have a spare upper etc. do I have constructive possession? The burden of proof is placed on the state. Then the state has to have a warrant for the other information they collect on you. Wrong.Wrong.Wrong. "Information" doesn't require a search warrant. Police can collect information on you anytime they wish. Reading online forums, seeing you at the gun range, talking to your neighbors, taking a phone call from your brother in law who hates you...........none of that requires a warrant. Getting a judge to sign off on a warrant for that would be very hard. Seriously? All that's needed to get a search warrant signed by a judge is probable cause......which means just a reasonable suspicion that a crime occurred. Any of the information I mentioned above can be used to obtain a search warrant. Then the fact you might have other parts to construct a legal pistol or rifle would also hinder their case. True.....and having such means there wouldn't even be a case. Remember its all about reasonable doubt in the court. You might beat the rap but you'll never beat the ride. While you may eventually be found not guilty, you will incur considerable expense in defending yourself. I would not worry to much about it. I doubt the AFT will put together all their resource to come after a guy who would be very hard to convict of a constructive possession victim-less crime. Then again they have done stupid things like that in the past. You could just build the lower into a pistol until the stamp comes in. Good grief. There's no reason to even do that. As long as there is a legal configuration possible, the firearm does not have to be assembled. Then your problem is solved and the upper has a home You DO realize that probable cause and reasonable suspicion are two TOTALLY different things, right? I DO. TOTALLY. |
|
Quoted:
WRONG-intent for most criminal offenses MUST be proven-beyond a reasonable doubt Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I believe the ATF term is "constructive intent" not possession. I believe you have it backwards. Constructive possession exists. Constructive intent is the made-up internet concept. This is correct. "Intent" is something that cannot be proven, but possession is concrete and provable. WRONG-intent for most criminal offenses MUST be proven-beyond a reasonable doubt Read my more recent post. LOGICALLY you can't prove what's going on inside someone's head. LEGALLY, you can demonstrate through a person's behaviors what they intended to do. My first post was from a logical perspective. Not a lawyer, but I am a logical thinker...which is pretty much the opposite of what most lawyers do, and certainly not what much of law is based on. |
| You've already proven "intent" by sending your Form 1 in, if they come to your house and you possess, they have to prove that you "intended" to build an illegal SBR, which would be awfully hard on their part if you have a Form 1 sitting on someone's desk in West Virginia. As long as it doesn't go on the gun until you get the stamp you are worrying about nothing. |
|
Quoted:
You've already proven "intent" by sending your Form 1 in, if they come to your house and you possess, they have to prove that you "intended" to build an illegal SBR, which would be awfully hard on their part if you have a Form 1 sitting on someone's desk in West Virginia. As long as it doesn't go on the gun until you get the stamp you are worrying about nothing. Really?
This is terrible legal advice. All "they" need to show is that you possess the parts to construct a short barreled rifle..........and you have no tax stamp or legal configuration. And it would be damned easy to prove intent.....because you fucking KNOW that a tax stamp is required before assembly or having the parts under your control. |
|
Quoted:
Really?
This is terrible legal advice. All "they" need to show is that you possess the parts to construct a short barreled rifle..........and you have no tax stamp or legal configuration. And it would be damned easy to prove intent.....because you fucking KNOW that a tax stamp is required before assembly or having the parts under your control. Quoted:
Quoted:
You've already proven "intent" by sending your Form 1 in, if they come to your house and you possess, they have to prove that you "intended" to build an illegal SBR, which would be awfully hard on their part if you have a Form 1 sitting on someone's desk in West Virginia. As long as it doesn't go on the gun until you get the stamp you are worrying about nothing. Really?
This is terrible legal advice. All "they" need to show is that you possess the parts to construct a short barreled rifle..........and you have no tax stamp or legal configuration. And it would be damned easy to prove intent.....because you fucking KNOW that a tax stamp is required before assembly or having the parts under your control. First off, it was my opinion, not legal advice. You should really calm down you know, it's not the end of the world. |
|
Quoted:
First off, it was my opinion, not legal advice. You should really calm down you know, it's not the end of the world. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You've already proven "intent" by sending your Form 1 in, if they come to your house and you possess, they have to prove that you "intended" to build an illegal SBR, which would be awfully hard on their part if you have a Form 1 sitting on someone's desk in West Virginia. As long as it doesn't go on the gun until you get the stamp you are worrying about nothing. Really?
This is terrible legal advice. All "they" need to show is that you possess the parts to construct a short barreled rifle..........and you have no tax stamp or legal configuration. And it would be damned easy to prove intent.....because you fucking KNOW that a tax stamp is required before assembly or having the parts under your control. First off, it was my opinion, not legal advice. You should really calm down you know, it's not the end of the world. If someone was stupid enough to follow your "opinion" they might never be able to possess a firearm again. (so yes, it would be the end of the world.) |
Armory Sponsor