If any of you get a chance pick the magazine up, Its very informative and a really long article! It covers everything from picking out the lower to applying for the tax stamp,getting fingerprinted...
Printable View
If any of you get a chance pick the magazine up, Its very informative and a really long article! It covers everything from picking out the lower to applying for the tax stamp,getting fingerprinted...
Well that article is full of fail. First of all, there is no such thing as a Class 3 weapon. People use that term because of the license that a dealer must have to sell them. They are NFA weapons from the National Firearms Act of 1934.
A case has already made it to the Supreme Court and the justices came to a decision against the US Gov't, specifically the BATF. They picked through the law and do not think that it's legal to say someone has broken the law and manufactured an NFA weapon by having the parts.
That's it. Supreme Court decision, you can't get much more definite than that. Of course this does not mean that if by some chance you got hauled off to jail and your belongings ransacked by the law that you would not be prosecuted for this. But hopefully you could eventually win against the charges.
This exact piece was described in the justice's decision in the case. Here is an excerpt:Quote:
Although the legal description for an SBR doesnt include the same exact language, the statue that defines a machinegun (which,like the SBR, is a class III weapon), includes any combination of parts that can be assembled to create one." " I expect the same reasoning to apply to combinations of parts that can be used to create an SBR
The full text is available here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...umes/504bv.pdfQuote:
As Justice White points out, the choice the plurality
worries about is nowhere suggested by the language of the
statute: § 5845 simply makes no reference to the “ ‘utility’ ”
of aggregable parts. It does, however, conspicuously combine references to “combination of parts” in the definitions of regulated silencers, machineguns, and destructive devices with the absence of any
such reference in the definition of regulated rifles. This,
rather than the utility or not of a given part in a given parts
assemblage, convinces me that the provision does not encompass Thompson/Center’s pistol and conversion kit, or at least
does not do so unambiguously
This same reasoning applies to any collection of parts that could be made into an unregulated rifle (16" or greater barrel).
I think the only really iffy position to be in is to own one single short barrel upper or collection of parts that would make one, and a single non NFA registered lower complete with stock. As long as you have the parts necessary to make that lower into the unregulated rifle then you should receive leniency, at least if you get to the Supreme Court in your case =).
If you want to have some fun; email the author of the article and ask him for specific cases of anyone being prosecuted for being in possession of a 16" gun and a registered SBR.
By his logic; if you own an SBR lower you could not own any other type of AR.:rolleyes:
Ya what im thinking is that hes not a gun guy, he prolly did all this for the article or something? lol. You guys should really check out the whole article, im intrigued to find out what is real and what is FAIL!! lol:haha:
Some of that information is wrong. Some of it is right but obvious. If you put an SBR upper on a non SBR regular lower you just committed a felony. No kidding thanks for the update. If you put a VFG or shoulder stock on an AR pistol again a felony. Having the parts is not illegal. That is like the old argument that having a hacksaw and a rifle means you have the intent/means to create an SBR or SBS. I have a six pack of beer in the back seat of the car with other groceries but I'm not attempting a DUI. I'm just driving home. The argument the author makes is full of holes and BS. You will find much better info and guidance here for free.
Awfully coincidental isnt it hahaha. I always noticed not only that but what i said earlier...I wonder if the writer's are just normal writers, maybe shot a few old marlin's when they were kids, and and because of their job title and position, various gun companies give them guns to try out. Im not sayin all of them, I really hate to say that without ever have met or talked to them, but cant help but think that they dont know a good rifle from a bb gun.