Armory Sponsor
Posted: 8/31/2010 1:56:45 PM EDT
|
I know about having a short barreled upper in your house with another ar lower/complete rifle, but does the same rule apply if the sbr upper is all seperate parts(upper rec,barrel, gas tube flash supp...etc)? I'm starting my first sbr and while I'm waiting for the stamp to come back I would like to start picking up the important parts, if its ok.
Thanks, Tom |
|
From the ATF NFA FAQ:
Q: 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. Now, if it's OK by state law, you could assemble the part to make a AR15 pistol and then when you get the form approved you could add the shoulder stock. In that case I recommend one of the first parts you purchase is a pistol buffer tube. You can even assemble your pistol and get it tuned up while your waiting for your approval. Again, if that's OK in your state. Just Sayin! |
And just for the record (before someone else chimes in), there is no such thing as "constructive intent." Instead, the legal standard is constructive possession –– that means that under the law, if you have possession of or access to all the parts neccessary to construct an item (like an NFA firearm), the law does not need to prove intent –– the courts have ruled that in such cases, intent is irrelevant.
|
|
Quoted:
And just for the record (before someone else chimes in), there is no such thing as "constructive intent." Instead, the legal standard is constructive possession –– that means that under the law, if you have possession of or access to all the parts neccessary to construct an item (like an NFA firearm), the law does not need to prove intent –– the courts have ruled that in such cases, intent is irrelevant.
Tony, this is just an argument of semantics but: I own a glass bottle, oil, gasoline, t-shirts and a lighter. How is that different? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
And just for the record (before someone else chimes in), there is no such thing as "constructive intent." Instead, the legal standard is constructive possession –– that means that under the law, if you have possession of or access to all the parts neccessary to construct an item (like an NFA firearm), the law does not need to prove intent –– the courts have ruled that in such cases, intent is irrelevant.
Tony, this is just an argument of semantics but: I own a glass bottle, oil, gasoline, t-shirts and a lighter. How is that different? It's not different. Which is why constructive possession is such a constitutionally dangerous approach, but the courts have endorsed it as a proper legal technique. It is how they have convicted many, many folks of intent to manufacture methamphetamine, solely because they found them in possession of 50 pounds of Sudafed. Once the courts approve such charges, it is a slippery slope ... from 50 pounds to 5 pounds to five boxes to five tablets of Sudafed.... Under constructive possession, an individual could in theory be convicted if they own any rifle and at the same time have access to a hacksaw. In general, we rely on the common sense of jurors to see through such charges ... but with the continued demonization of all firearms owners, this too may change some day soon. Anyway, I'm not saying "constructive possession" is correct, or constitutional ... just that ATF and prosecutors, working hand-in-hand, have used it in the past to send to prison folks who owned an AR15 rifle and a sub-16" upper or the parts thereof, without an approved Form 1/4 or a pistol lower. Sigh.
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
And just for the record (before someone else chimes in), there is no such thing as "constructive intent." Instead, the legal standard is constructive possession –– that means that under the law, if you have possession of or access to all the parts neccessary to construct an item (like an NFA firearm), the law does not need to prove intent –– the courts have ruled that in such cases, intent is irrelevant.
Tony, this is just an argument of semantics but: I own a glass bottle, oil, gasoline, t-shirts and a lighter. How is that different? I'm not a lawyer, but some of the language I've seen used in the Thompson Contender case (IIRC) revolves around the ambiguity of the situation. Yes, we all own the items required to make Molotov Cocktails, but these items also have other common uses that make the situation ambiguous with respect to the NFA. Start filling the bottles and wrapping rags around them, and the situation is less so. The ATF tends to take the view that many of the parts with which we have concerns over only have a single purpose, which is to make an NFA item. This becomes very problematic when US vs. Smith is thown into the mix, which is a Supreme Court case involving "readily convertible". Under this case law, Parts + 8 hours of work in a full machine shop = Machinegun. Think about that one a while and what some of us on this site could accomplish with a lathe and mill in one working day... |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
And just for the record (before someone else chimes in), there is no such thing as "constructive intent." Instead, the legal standard is constructive possession –– that means that under the law, if you have possession of or access to all the parts neccessary to construct an item (like an NFA firearm), the law does not need to prove intent –– the courts have ruled that in such cases, intent is irrelevant.
Tony, this is just an argument of semantics but: I own a glass bottle, oil, gasoline, t-shirts and a lighter. How is that different? I'm not a lawyer, but some of the language I've seen used in the Thompson Contender case (IIRC) revolves around the ambiguity of the situation. Yes, we all own the items required to make Molotov Cocktails, but these items also have other common uses that make the situation ambiguous with respect to the NFA. Start filling the bottles and wrapping rags around them, and the situation is less so. The ATF tends to take the view that many of the parts with which we have concerns over only have a single purpose, which is to make an NFA item. This becomes very problematic when US vs. Smith is thown into the mix, which is a Supreme Court case involving "readily convertible". Under this case law, Parts + 8 hours of work in a full machine shop = Machinegun. Think about that one a while and what some of us on this site could accomplish with a lathe and mill in one working day... Que the do-it-yourself barrel fluting job picture |
Issues with the case law cites?
|
Quoted:
I'm not a lawyer, but some of the language I've seen used in the Thompson Contender case (IIRC) revolves around the ambiguity of the situation. Yes, we all own the items required to make Molotov Cocktails, but these items also have other common uses that make the situation ambiguous with respect to the NFA. Start filling the bottles and wrapping rags around them, and the situation is less so. The ATF tends to take the view that many of the parts with which we have concerns over only have a single purpose, which is to make an NFA item. This becomes very problematic when US vs. Smith is thown into the mix, which is a Supreme Court case involving "readily convertible". Under this case law, Parts + 8 hours of work in a full machine shop = Machinegun. Think about that one a while and what some of us on this site could accomplish with a lathe and mill in one working day... Oh, it's way worse than that. ATF is the branch of the federal government authorized and tasked with administering federal law as passed by Congress –– and FWIW, administrative law makes up about 60-70% of the United States Code. In effect, they have the legal power to write the details that enforce the bills which Congress passes. Second, ATF is the "technical authority" on firearms and firearms law –– they are usually called in state cases as the expert witnesses, and their testimony is rarely challenged, nor do judges allow that testimony to be challenged. Finally, ATF is now a branch of the Department of Justice, which means that on a federal level, the same agency can write a new law and convict you for violating it. If that ain't a violation of the Founding Fathers' intended separation and balance of powers, I don't know what is. But again, I just advise folks here based on legal precedent. If someone has, in the past, been convicted for certain actions, IMHO it is not a good idea to repeat the action that landed them in prison. re: U.S. v. Thompson Center, ATF (and the DOJ) have taken a very narrow interpretation of the court's ruling. They have maintained, in writing, that it only applies to Thompson Center firearms. If you want to see it applied to other firearms, you must have standing to challenge the ruling ... and in most cases, that means getting arrested for constructive possession. Yet another roll of the dice I'm not willing to throw.
|
|
Quoted:
If you have a legal use for every single part in your house, you're ok. Kharn Does paperweight count? I guess I just pick up the barrel last. I was trying to get the important parts together to insure that I would'nt have to alter my build, but it beats getting locked up. Thanks guys. |
Armory Sponsor