Page 5 of 11 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 105

Thread: buying a SBR upper w/o the paperwork....yet...

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,299
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by SWATcop1911 View Post

    And before anyone gets offended and starts flaming, questions like this will have a different answer from everyone that gives a response. As was stated before several times you just have to do what you are comfortable with.
    The original question was whether it was possible/legal to buy and keep, unassembled, a complete title I lower and a <16" complete upper while the Form 1 is still in process. The answer is yes, it's possible and no, at least according to how ATF views it, it's not legal (unless you have a pistol or SBR lower already to match up to that short upper). I notice that the people who say "don't worry about it" never claim it's legal - they just say "you'll never get caught."

    What does personal comfort level have to do with whether it's legal? Some people are "comfortable" embezzling from churches or smoking weed in their homes, probably because they think they'll never get caught...

    Back to the original post, those 11.5" BCM uppers just came back in stock tonight - so I guess you better make your decision quick.

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Repatriated to The Republic of Texas
    Posts
    139
    Feedback Score
    4 (100%)
    It seems that the consensus is that as long as it is not in my personal possession, or the possession of anybody else with an AR lower, it should be kosher. Even if "I'd never get caught", I wouldn't feel right about it being in my possession until everything was legal.
    Last edited by Texpatriate; 05-13-09 at 00:04.
    "COME AND TAKE IT"

    NRA Endowment Life Member
    Texas State Rifle Association

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Louisville, KY
    Posts
    226
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)

    Question

    What if you already have an NFA M-16 plus a regular AR-15 laying around, could you buy the 11.5 upper with plans of making the AR-15 an SBR at a later date? You could say that the 11.5 upper was for your NFA M-16. It seems there is alot of grey in this area.

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    NoVA
    Posts
    5,963
    Feedback Score
    12 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by dbrowne1 View Post
    You are trying to break the law because you know that the transfer hasn't been approved yet.
    Do not presume to tell me what I am thinking about doing. I am fully capable of controlling myself and not constructing an illegal SBR -- maybe you're not and are projecting. I have at least five registered SBR's, and at one time also had two registered machineguns all in the house with other Title I AR's. Spare SBR uppers, used 100% legally on registered SBR's, are a fact of life for me as I have different configurations for different lowers.

    My Title I guns wear their non-NFA uppers full time, and the SBR uppers are typically kept in a separate part of the house.

    Just because you like to run your life a particular way does not mean that translates in any way to my life. Further, letters addressed to a single person apply to that person and do not convey. Especially when they are opinion letters not backed by court cases. Also, the ATF's statements in this regard are very close to guilty until proven innocent, and would be a good test case along the lines of Heller.

    Express your opinion as opinion, not as gospel and singular truth. There simply is no real singular truth when it comes to ATF opinion letters. Thanks.
    Last edited by SHIVAN; 05-11-09 at 23:22.

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    NoVA
    Posts
    5,963
    Feedback Score
    12 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by dbrowne1 View Post
    The "did you intend to give an approval code" and "was the background clean" would apply to the 4473 in the title I realm as well. You still can't walk out with the gun until it's APPROVED.
    The ATF has also opined numerous times that parts are parts and firearms are firearms. An SBR upper has been written up as a "part" numerous times, and can neither take the role of "firearm" no matter how you want to slice it.

    A 7.5" Diplomat upper can be used on an AR pistol or a licensed SBR. It can also be purchase independent of either and still will ONLY ever be a part, which is why it has no serial number and carries no tax for a sale/transfer.

    Every human carries the tools of the trade for prostitution, and yet the government does not claim the equivalent of "constructive intent" for that crime unless they find a street walker soliciting johns for a transaction.

    The absurdity of the constructive intent BS can extend to people who possess Chinese, Russian and other foreign parts for AK's, while also in possession of 922(r) compliant guns. By the idiocy of the constructive intent, they also might be in possession of non-compliant guns because they could switch out one part at any time, and have a gun that fails under 922(r) parts count regs.

    Even worse still, you have a hacksaw, don't you? If you possess a hacksaw and a Title I AR are you really going to argue that you could be found guilty of constructive intent??

    Let's get real. Parts are parts. Firearms have serial numbers. The government is best served to stay out of thought police mode. ATF opinions are typical untested, and ever changing.
    Last edited by SHIVAN; 05-11-09 at 23:56.

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    NoVA
    Posts
    5,963
    Feedback Score
    12 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnD View Post
    check out this web site for US vs. thompson Center Arms


    http://supreme.justia.com/us/504/505/case.html
    ...and therein lies the decision.

    A note on the decision, from the Justices, found in reading - http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-...4/1041/224367/ :

    " 18

    As originally enacted in 1934, the National Firearms Act did not define "rifle". Act of June 26, 1934, 48 Stat. 1236. Though Congress subsequently amended relevant portions of the Act five times and added a definition of "rifle" which it twice specifically altered, it never added language purporting to reach unassembled short-barreled rifle parts. That it did add "combination of parts" language in the case of machineguns, destructive devices, and silencers strongly suggests that it does not intend the Act to cover unassembled pistol conversion kits of the type at issue here."

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,547
    Feedback Score
    45 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by dbrowne1 View Post
    The original question was whether it was possible/legal to buy and keep, unassembled, a complete title I lower and a <16" complete upper while the Form 1 is still in process. The answer is yes, it's possible and no, at least according to how ATF views it, it's not legal (unless you have a pistol or SBR lower already to match up to that short upper). I notice that the people who say "don't worry about it" never claim it's legal - they just say "you'll never get caught."

    What does personal comfort level have to do with whether it's legal? Some people are "comfortable" embezzling from churches or smoking weed in their homes, probably because they think they'll never get caught...

    Back to the original post, those 11.5" BCM uppers just came back in stock tonight - so I guess you better make your decision quick.
    To end this, yes it is legal. Even agents that I have worked with on warrants and train with on a regular basis have stated so.

    SHIVAN said it all.

    I digress. Do what you are comfortable with...................still.
    Only hits count......you can not miss fast enough to catch up

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Nashville, TN.
    Posts
    329
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Greg Bell View Post
    And don't get me wrong, Markm is essentially right. The odds are microscopic that you will be caught or be harassed. I am just hyper-cautious.

    Or if you have my luck the moment I bought it 200 ATF agents would move into my apartment complex all looking to get promoted...
    Last edited by JSandi; 05-12-09 at 03:04.
    Old age and treachery always overcome youth and skill

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,299
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by SHIVAN View Post
    ...and therein lies the decision.

    A note on the decision, from the Justices, found in reading - http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-...4/1041/224367/ :

    " 18

    As originally enacted in 1934, the National Firearms Act did not define "rifle". Act of June 26, 1934, 48 Stat. 1236. Though Congress subsequently amended relevant portions of the Act five times and added a definition of "rifle" which it twice specifically altered, it never added language purporting to reach unassembled short-barreled rifle parts. That it did add "combination of parts" language in the case of machineguns, destructive devices, and silencers strongly suggests that it does not intend the Act to cover unassembled pistol conversion kits of the type at issue here."
    No, that's a note from the lower court decision (the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit) and that particular language you quote was overruled by the Supreme Court (see below). The tech branch letter I linked to earlier was 9 years after the Thompson/Center case and you can bet they are and were aware of the case.


    Here are some actual quotes from the Supreme Court decision:

    We thus reject the broad language of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to the extent that it would mean that a disassembled complete short-barreled rifle kit must be assembled before it has been "made" into a short-barreled rifle. The fact that the statute would serve almost no purpose if this were the rule only confirms the reading we have given it.

    Thompson/Center stresses the contrast between these references to "any combination of parts" and the silence about parts in the definition of rifle in arguing that no aggregation of parts can suffice to make the regulated rifle. This argument is subject to a number of answers, however. First, it sweeps so broadly as to conflict with the statutory definition of "make," applicable to all firearms, which implies that a firearm may be "made" even where not fully "put together." If this were all, of course, the conflict might well be resolved in Thompson/Center's favor. We do not, however, read the machine gun and silencer definitions as contrasting with the definition of rifle in such a way as to raise a conflict with the broad concept of "making."

    We can only say that the notion of an unassembled machine gun is probably broader than that of an unassembled rifle. But just where the line is to be drawn on shortbarreled rifles is not demonstrated by textual considerations.

    The Supreme Court's decision was basically "this collection of parts is susceptible to two lawful configurations and one unlawful one, and on those facts we will not find a crime."
    Last edited by dbrowne1; 05-12-09 at 08:55. Reason: spelling

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,299
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by SWATcop1911 View Post
    To end this, yes it is legal. Even agents that I have worked with on warrants and train with on a regular basis have stated so.

    SHIVAN said it all.

    I digress. Do what you are comfortable with...................still.
    Please explain how having a collection of parts into which you can readily assemble an unregistered SBR (and no legal configuration) is legal in light of the ATF letter and the language from the T/C case that I've posted.

Page 5 of 11 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •