Serious lower assy question.

[SW-Shooter]

I want to avoid the FPMITAP, can a pistol lower receiver have a Magpul UBR buffer tube legally installed on it without the buttstock?

As always thank you.

[Dsm2nr]

No you cannot.

[Iraqgunz]

I don't see why not, unless you subscribe to the "contructive intent" school of gun owning. As long as you don't attach a buttstock to it. Has anyone seen any legit ruling that states otherwise?


I want to avoid the FPMITAP, can a pistol lower receiver have a Magpul UBR buffer tube legally installed on it without the buttstock?

As always thank you.

[Iraqgunz]

Would you care to elaborate on your reply?


No you cannot.

[SW-Shooter]

Many pistol builds have used regular buffer tubes, in fact I've only seen a handful of production pistol lowers that use a dedicated pistol buffer tube. It doesn't have a stock attached it's only a buffer tube.

[Dsm2nr]

I have to apologize. I answered that thinking of what I would do without any research. As usual it bit me in the...

I found this on arfcom (like it or not).

http://i1236.photobucket.com/albums/ff455/DonFerrando/BB.jpg

I was wrong, sorry about that.

[viperashes]

I have to apologize. I answered that thinking of what I would do without any research. As usual it bit me in the...

I found this on arfcom (like it or not).

http://i1236.photobucket.com/albums/ff455/DonFerrando/BB.jpg

I was wrong, sorry about that.

So basically, short answer, yes, you can use a "rifle" reciever extension on a pistol build. Smart answer, no, it's not a good idea, because if you do use a "rifle" reciever extension and possess any form of buttstock that can be mated to that reciever extension, it could very well constitute constructive intent. Legal, yes, good idea, no not really.

[Iraqgunz]

So all you need to do is build up that pistol and then email a picture of it to the local BATF office along with a picture of your newly purchased buttstock.

I don't see this being a bad idea if you have discipline and are smart enough to;

1. Not sell drugs from your house.

2. Don't contact the BATFE and taunt them.

3. Keep your buttstock put away



So basically, short answer, yes, you can use a "rifle" reciever extension on a pistol build. Smart answer, no, it's not a good idea, because if you do use a "rifle" reciever extension and possess any form of buttstock that can be mated to that reciever extension, it could very well constitute constructive intent. Legal, yes, good idea, no not really.

[Generalpie]

? Is if the extension has ever been a rifle? Worth screwin' with? Up to you. Constructive intent has a lot to do with your local pao/da or ausa.

[Dsm2nr]

So all you need to do is build up that pistol and then email a picture of it to the local BATF office along with a picture of your newly purchased buttstock.

I don't see this being a bad idea if you have discipline and are smart enough to;

1. Not sell drugs from your house.

2. Don't contact the BATFE and taunt them.

3. Keep your buttstock put away

Actually throwing away or immediately giving / selling it to someone would be better (IMO). Constructive possession will be a factor if you have a buttstock in your possession around doing nothing.

[Iraqgunz]

Except I don't believe in "constructive intent" and as far as I know no one has ever been successfully prosecuted for it. I may be wrong. I am pretty sure that constructive possession" is not what is applicable.

In any case I also don't broadcast what I am doing to the whole world via the net.

If you own it or have some control or access to it, but do not actualy have possession of it, then you can still have "constructive possession" rather than actual possession.
That allows you to be charged the same as if you actualy possessed it even though you didn't when it was siezed by authorities.
So one gang member busted for example can have many members charged for a guns or drugs even if only one residence actualy contained the items and the gang members are not even present. If they all had a level of proven control over the property, then they had constructive possession even miles away.

Constructive possession has nothing to do with building anything.

"Constructive intent" is an entirely different legal term than "constructive possession".
Constructive intent also has nothing to do with building or "constructing" something.
Constructive intent applies when someone intentionaly does one action which is wrong or illegal and has an unexpected outcome that is still in line with the wrong intent.
So if you for example intended to murder someone, and shot at them but missed and hit an innocent person you were not trying to hit and they died. Your actual intent was not to harm that person, but your constructive intent since it was to cause the death of someone extends to the person you accidentaly killed. So rather than being a lesser homicide charge, it would still be the murder as if it happened to the actual intended victim. So if you planned to kill the intended victim but unexpectedly killed the innocent person, you would still be guilty of pre meditated murder on the unintended victim as if it happened on the intended victim because of "constructive intent".

As that applies to illegal possession of arms can be complicated. If your are only trying to have one thing not allowed maybe something minor by law or you acknowledge may not be legal, and you instead accidentaly have something else that could be used for other illegal purposes, you can still be shown to have constructive intent.
For that reason someone simply breaking one law could be charged with another based on intent even if they did not intend to do it because thier illegal or wrong intent on one related thing is extended.
That might be done to give you a related charge with greater time even if it is only shown your are likely guilty of another.

So if you have parts useful for several illegal purposes and obtained or possess them with the intent (or the prosecutor claims) to possibly use them for one illegal purpose and several other illegal things could also have been done, then constructive intent could be applied in some situations.



Actually throwing away or immediately giving / selling it to someone would be better (IMO). Constructive possession will be a factor if you have a buttstock in your possession around doing nothing.

[viperashes]

So all you need to do is build up that pistol and then email a picture of it to the local BATF office along with a picture of your newly purchased buttstock.

I don't see this being a bad idea if you have discipline and are smart enough to;

1. Not sell drugs from your house.

2. Don't contact the BATFE and taunt them.

3. Keep your buttstock put away
By no means am I putting on my tinfoil hat here. What I'm getting at is simply the fact that people tend to mention things that aren't need-to-know to their friends. You take your "pistol" to the range with your rifle receiver extension, some idiot asks "hey, where's your buttstock?" "Oh, it's at home." Some asshole overhears, and knows enough about weapons, and NFA weapons specifically, and reports you. How likely is this to happen, not sure, I guess it depends on how much you trust the guys that you shoot with. But being .mil/former-.mil I'm sure you're probably aware of how many mother ****ers stab their buddies in the back in the barracks over some dumb shit and somebody get's thrown in the frying pan over what he thought was something simple. So either A.) Be smart about who you shoot around, and don't tell people shit that they don't need to know, or B.) Either don't have a loose buttstock or don't use a rifle receiver extension. People simply either aren't smart enough or don't care enough to keep their mouth shut about things that seem like a small issue.

[Iraqgunz]

1. I don't have a stock for it, it's a pistol and cannot have one.

2. How does said person obtain your information?

3. I don't worry about silly Fantasy Island scenarios. I worry about the here and now.


By no means am I putting on my tinfoil hat here. What I'm getting at is simply the fact that people tend to mention things that aren't need-to-know to their friends. You take your "pistol" to the range with your rifle receiver extension, some idiot asks "hey, where's your buttstock?" "Oh, it's at home." Some asshole overhears, and knows enough about weapons, and NFA weapons specifically, and reports you. How likely is this to happen, not sure, I guess it depends on how much you trust the guys that you shoot with. But being .mil/former-.mil I'm sure you're probably aware of how many mother ****ers stab their buddies in the back in the barracks over some dumb shit and somebody get's thrown in the frying pan over what he thought was something simple. So either A.) Be smart about who you shoot around, and don't tell people shit that they don't need to know, or B.) Either don't have a loose buttstock or don't use a rifle receiver extension. People simply either aren't smart enough or don't care enough to keep their mouth shut about things that seem like a small issue.

[viperashes]

1. I don't have a stock for it, it's a pistol and cannot have one.

2. How does said person obtain your information?

3. I don't worry about silly Fantasy Island scenarios. I worry about the here and now.

1. You may be smart enough to give a standard generic answer, however there are others that are not.

2. Many ranges have memberships that have at the very least your contact information. It's honestly not that hard to find out a lot of information with a little.

3. That wasn't a very far fetched scenario. I don't know where you got "fantasy island" from. You simply honestly can't tell me that you have never known someone while you were in the military that admitted to doing something stupid or shady and getting burned for it when they told someone they thought they could trust.

[Iraqgunz]

If they aren't that smart then they shouldn't contemplate the NFA realm.

I don't shoot at public ranges.


1. You may be smart enough to give a standard generic answer, however there are others that are not.

2. Many ranges have memberships that have at the very least your contact information. It's honestly not that hard to find out a lot of information with a little.

3. That wasn't a very far fetched scenario. I don't know where you got "fantasy island" from. You simply honestly can't tell me that you have never known someone while you were in the military that admitted to doing something stupid or shady and getting burned for it when they told someone they thought they could trust.

[viperashes]

If they aren't that smart then they shouldn't contemplate the NFA realm.

I don't shoot at public ranges.

I think that the shooting community as a whole has proven that there are individuals who shouldn't contemplate firearms ownership period.

I wasn't speaking about you specifically, I made a general statement regarding those that do.

[Eurodriver]

I definitely agree with IG here, the only way I could ever see it being an issue would be if you used your pistol in a home defense situation and it was confiscated. Even then, assuming its a good shoot, I can't imagine local LE even knowing enough about firearms to consider hassling you.

[viperashes]

I definitely agree with IG here, the only way I could ever see it being an issue would be if you used your pistol in a home defense situation and it was confiscated. Even then, assuming its a good shoot, I can't imagine local LE even knowing enough about firearms to consider hassling you.

I never implied that it wasn't asinine. I merely presented a scenario where it wouldn't be a good idea. Do I really think Mr. ATF is going to come to my house and look at my guns? No, I don't. I also don't share this dilemma, anything with a short barrel that I own is SBR'd, so I don't have to screw with this. I'm merely presenting the arguement "Play stupid games, win stupid prizes". If OP or anyone else wants to put a rifle receiver extension on a "pistol", go for it, just understand the potential consequences, regardless of how asinine or unlikely they may be.

[viperashes]

Delete

[davidjinks]

I don't know if this applies here or not...

Wasn't there a Supreme Court ruling on "Constructive Intent" concerning Thompson Center?

I'm kinda in the same school of thought as IG:

If you're smart about it and use the build for what it's supposed to be for you should be good.

Just going off the ATF letter; as long as the receiver is used for a pistol and has never been used as a rifle, you're good to go.

I don't believe in the whole: I have XYZ so that means I "Could" make ABC.

[Generalpie]

One point that is being missed is the "probable cause" standard. Being aquitted is entirely different than not being charged. PC a crime has been committed and PC you did it any you are looking at 10's of thousands in legal fees.

As an old trainer told me a long time ago....you never want to be case law.