Little help finding clear ATF Reg

[keatsabn]

Can anybody give me the code about SBR I know 27 CFR and I have looked thru the hand Book. I bought a lower receiver which a Form 1 HAS been sent off on which and is NOT at my house (at my work in a safe I can not open) I have a 11.5 upper that is at the Gunsmiths removing FSP and floating barrel/hand guards. When I drop it off he wanted to see my ATF Form. I said to him I don't have it back yet. He said that I was violating the law. I said no because the upper has never been mounted to the lower, nor has the lower ever been in the same place as the upper. I really don't have a good feeling about this I have the feeling that when I go get the upper a LEO will be waiting for the fat guy (me). I want to be able to show both the gunsmith and any LEO that I have not violated the NFA Act in anyway. A little help please, I have checked on my Form 1 and it not in the system as of yet (this morning). I call and spoke to a NFA examiner Mr. James Scott (great guy) but he was unable to find a ruling on this.
Can anybody help here?
Luke

[Robb Jensen]

I think it's mostly a hypothetical situation where an agent could say that you have 'constructive intent' meaning you had the means and intent to build an illegal SBR. Just wait for your Form 1 to come back before you pick it up. (approvals are 16-30days now).

[C4IGrant]

The gunsmith can call the local Police, but they don't have any say in it.

I have fired off an E-mail to the ATF askin the question concerning uppers that are shorter than 16" and ownership without the form 1 back. I will post what they say.


C4

[SuicideHz]

Well I hope that's the last of anything you take to that Gunsmith.

[Renegade]

The gunsmith can call the local Police, but they don't have any say in it.

I have fired off an E-mail to the ATF askin the question concerning uppers that are shorter than 16" and ownership without the form 1 back. I will post what they say.


C4

There is a lot of Case Law on this. If the only way the upper/lower can be assembled is into an SBR, it is a violation.

US vs. Kent

US vs. Thompson/Center

[C4IGrant]

There is a lot of Case Law on this. If the only way the upper/lower can be assembled is into an SBR, it is a violation.

US vs. Kent

US vs. Thompson/Center

I really don't think so. We have not seen a case where someone was convicted of simply having a lower and a short barreled upper (apart). Those two cases listed were dealing with an 07 manufacturing items and the other guy was making machine guns.

Do you know how many FFL's and non FFL's have under 16" AR uppers in their shop????

As I have said, I have spoken to an ATF agent about this already and they had no issue with under 16" uppers and lowers being in the same building.

I will hopefully hear back from the ATF soon with my question regarding this.



C4

[SuicideHz]

Yes, maybe if it is the only way but having a 16" at home pretty much means that it's NOT the only way...

[Renegade]

I really don't think so. We have not seen a case where someone was convicted of simply having a lower and a short barreled upper (apart). Those two cases listed were dealing with an 07 manufacturing items and the other guy was making machine guns.

Do you know how many FFL's and non FFL's have under 16" AR uppers in their shop????

As I have said, I have spoken to an ATF agent about this already and they had no issue with under 16" uppers and lowers being in the same building.

I will hopefully hear back from the ATF soon with my question regarding this.



C4

Are you sure you read the correct links? In Kent, he had a lower and <16 upper. It had nothing to do with 07 MFG. He "was convicted of simply having a lower and a short barreled upper (apart)". The court clearly stated not having them assembled was irrelevant.

26 U.S.C. § 5845(c). This definition of a rifle does not specify that a weapon must be assembled completely in order to be a "rifle." Cf. United States v. Woods , 560 F.2d 660, 665 (5 th Cir. 1977) (interpreting 26 U.S.C. § 5845(d), the NFA definition of "shotgun"). Instead, for a weapon to be a "rifle," that weapon simply must be capable of being "readily restored to fire." § 5845(c)


This is a settled issue. The T/C provides the counter example, that if it can be legally assembled or illegally assembled, you are given the benefit of the doubt. That is why it never hurts to buy your stripped lowers as pistols.

[C4IGrant]

Are you sure you read the correct links? In Kent, he had a lower and <16 upper. It had nothing to do with 07 MFG. He "was convicted of simply having a lower and a short barreled upper (apart)". The court clearly stated not having them assembled was irrelevant.

26 U.S.C. § 5845(c). This definition of a rifle does not specify that a weapon must be assembled completely in order to be a "rifle." Cf. United States v. Woods , 560 F.2d 660, 665 (5 th Cir. 1977) (interpreting 26 U.S.C. § 5845(d), the NFA definition of "shotgun"). Instead, for a weapon to be a "rifle," that weapon simply must be capable of being "readily restored to fire." § 5845(c)


This is a settled issue. The T/C provides the counter example, that if it can be legally assembled or illegally assembled, you are given the benefit of the doubt. That is why it never hurts to buy your stripped lowers as pistols.

Yes I did read them and read them actually years ago as well. The Kent one IMHO had more to do with him building a MG and is why the ATF got him.

What I want to see is where the ATF got someone simply for having an upper that was under 16" and a lower. This has never happened to my knowledge.

As I have also stated several times now, my local ATF agent saw no issue with having under 16" uppers and lowers in the shop. If this was a problem, just about every single ARFCOM dealer would be screwed.


C4

[Renegade]

As I have also stated several times now, my local ATF agent saw no issue with having under 16" uppers and lowers in the shop. If this was a problem, just about every single ARFCOM dealer would be screwed.

C4

I thought your question was for non-licensees. Yes, Licensees are treated differently and can possess things others can not.