Page 9 of 11 FirstFirst ... 7891011 LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 105

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

  1. #81
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,299
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by bkb0000 View Post
    because we're not talking about NFA violations- we're talking about obscure interpretations of NFA. a short barrel is not an NFA item, it's a part. contructive intent is a stretch to begin with.
    What we're talking about isn't really an obscure issue, nor is it open to interpretation given the Supreme Court decision. A short barrel in and of itself isn't an NFA item - it becomes one when you put it under the same roof with all the other parts to make an SBR and no way to otherwise use it legally.

    There are some common situations that I think would be much closer calls. For example, lets say that somebody has a couple of title I AR-15 rifles, then he registers an AR-15 SBR as well and has one upper for it of the length that he has on his forms. No problem so far. Lots of folks in this position.

    Now suppose he goes and buys a "spare" short upper of the same length for his SBR, maybe to use as a dedicated upper for a suppressor or whatever, or just because he wants another one. He can't possibly use two uppers at once on the one registered lower, and so one might reasonably interpret having more than one short upper per "qualifying lower" (pistol/SBR/machinegun) along with a title I rifle as possession of an unregistered SBR. That is exactly what Ed Owen, the (now former) head of the tech branch said in that 2000 letter I linked to before. No court has said this as far as I know, but ATF thinks it's an issue.
    Last edited by dbrowne1; 05-12-09 at 16:48.

  2. #82
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    44
    Feedback Score
    0
    "On June 8, 1992, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Contender pistol and carbine kit are not a short-barreled rifle under the National Firearms Act, 26 U.S.C. §5845(a)(3). This means that a consumer may possess the pistol with its 10" barrel and may use the kit parts to make a rifle with the 21" barrel, as long as the shoulder stock is not assembled onto the receiver at the same time as the 10" barrel."


    Maybe I am reading this wrong but the way I understand it, you can have the short barrel under the same roof as long as you do not assemble the pieces together and make a SBR.

  3. #83
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,299
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnD View Post
    "On June 8, 1992, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Contender pistol and carbine kit are not a short-barreled rifle under the National Firearms Act, 26 U.S.C. §5845(a)(3). This means that a consumer may possess the pistol with its 10" barrel and may use the kit parts to make a rifle with the 21" barrel, as long as the shoulder stock is not assembled onto the receiver at the same time as the 10" barrel."


    Maybe I am reading this wrong but the way I understand it, you can have the short barrel under the same roof as long as you do not assemble the pieces together and make a SBR.
    Yes, if there is a legal configuration in which the short barrel can be used - such as a pistol.

    If all you have are title I rifle receivers, you don't have a legal configuration for your short upper. The short upper is therefore "useless," as the Court put it, except for the purpose of unlawfully converting the gun to an unregistered NFA firearm.
    Last edited by dbrowne1; 05-12-09 at 17:39.

  4. #84
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    NoVA
    Posts
    5,963
    Feedback Score
    12 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by dbrowne1 View Post
    Now suppose he goes and buys a "spare" short upper of the same length for his SBR, maybe to use as a dedicated upper for a suppressor or whatever, or just because he wants another one. He can't possibly use two uppers at once on the one registered lower, and so one might reasonably interpret having more than one short upper per "qualifying lower" (pistol/SBR/machinegun) along with a title I rifle as possession of an unregistered SBR. That is exactly what Ed Owen, the (now former) head of the tech branch said in that 2000 letter I linked to before. No court has said this as far as I know, but ATF thinks it's an issue.
    Tech branch's arbitrary interpretation of the ruling -- really very much like the shoestring letter.

    Possession of replacement parts has been commonly accepted by ATF for a long time, even to include a replacement sear, firing pin, and trigger group for a registered M16. A second upper for a registered SBR makes it a replacement part for a conforming item in your possession. Not an illegal aggregation of parts with no other legal purpose.

    That scenario is even more of a slam dunk then the T/C case because if someone has the registered SBR then they have even the legally registered NFA item angle covered in the scenario, as well as the Title I configuration. Again, the assumption being that the Title I guns ALL have legal non-NFA uppers in your possession too.

    This really makes parts, parts -- as I've already said numerous times.
    Last edited by SHIVAN; 05-12-09 at 20:52.

  5. #85
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    410
    Feedback Score
    11 (100%)
    So what you are saying is that to be legal while waiting on a tax stamp for rifle use, you could just buy a lower and class it as a pistol and keep it on hand with the short upper while you wait?

    Also, can you change a lower from pistol to rifle at a later date after purchase, or is it stuck as what you designate forever?
    Last edited by txbonds; 05-12-09 at 21:25.

  6. #86
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,299
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by SHIVAN View Post
    Tech branch's arbitrary interpretation of the ruling -- really very much like the shoestring letter.
    As opposed to what - your arbitrary interpretation, based on what I can surmise is a tiny fraction of the legal and technical knowledge that the ATF's tech branch possesses?

    You can take whatever position you want on the internet. It's ATF agents and AUSAs who are going to decide and they rely on tech branch's advice, and it's they who have millions of dollars and man hours to throw at making your life miserable, even if you do "win" in the end.

    I also have no earthly idea where you got the impresson that ATF has given any blessing to keeping "spare" machinegun parts around when you also have semiauto counterpart guns as well. There are at least two tech branch letters floating around that address keeping spare M16 fire control parts for a registered M16 while also possessing a semiauto AR-15 - and they both strongly caution against keeping such parts around as spares, as one could end up with a collection of parts that could be assembled into a second, unregistered machinegun.

    I've read repeatedly about this notion that you can have more short uppers than you have corresponding pistol/SBR/MG lowers so long as you have a 16+" upper for all of your title I guns. I am not so sure this is a safe assumption and none of the logic from T/C or the ATF tech branch letters supports this notion.

  7. #87
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,299
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by txbonds View Post
    So what you are saying is that to be legal while waiting on a tax stamp for rifle use, you could just buy a lower and class it as a pistol and keep it on hand with the short upper while you wait?

    Also, can you change a lower from pistol to rifle at a later date after purchase, or is it stuck as what you designate forever?
    You can park your short upper on a pistol lower, yes.

    If it starts as a pistol, you can change it to a rifle configuration, and back and forth as much as you like. It's "designation" legally will always be pistol though. You cannot go backwards and turn a receiver/lower that is classified as a rifle into a pistol config, though.
    Last edited by dbrowne1; 05-12-09 at 23:13.

  8. #88
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Commonwealth of Virginia
    Posts
    3,749
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by markm View Post
    I've never understood the "internut patrolman" mentality. I think it's a mutation of the "Mr. Helper" syndrome.
    I have no idea wtf the "Mr. Helper" syndrome is but I have one word: DISCOVERABLE.
    We must not believe the Evil One when he tells us that there is nothing we can do in the face of violence, injustice and sin. - Pope Francis I

  9. #89
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,547
    Feedback Score
    45 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by dbrowne1 View Post
    Yeah, who is also most likely the one person with a law degree and a card in his wallet that says he's allowed to give legal advice.
    You're absolutely right. How could I have ever been so stupd to think that I could post information at you're level of expertise. Your law degree completely trumps my years in Law Enforcement. I'm so happy to know that lawyers never ever give bad advise. I've come to the conclusion that you like the sound of your own voice (or reading your own posts) so I will just say that we will have to agree to disagree.
    Only hits count......you can not miss fast enough to catch up

  10. #90
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,299
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by SWATcop1911 View Post
    You're absolutely right. How could I have ever been so stupd to think that I could post information at you're level of expertise. Your law degree completely trumps my years in Law Enforcement. I'm so happy to know that lawyers never ever give bad advise. I've come to the conclusion that you like the sound of your own voice (or reading your own posts) so I will just say that we will have to agree to disagree.
    That's all very nice ... now do you have any actual support for your position, other than "some buddies I've been on raids with say it's OK?" Like maybe a case, or a revenue ruling, or a tech branch letter? You know, something from a court or an agency with rule-making authority that actually constitutes legal authority or at least an opinion on agency letterhead??

    Nevermind the fact that I'm a lawyer. I'm sorry I even brought that up at this point. Look at the substance of what I've posted, what the T/C case and the tech branch letters actually say - and explain why I'm wrong.
    Last edited by dbrowne1; 05-13-09 at 08:56.

Page 9 of 11 FirstFirst ... 7891011 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
  •