I guess I don't understand. If you have a SBR and you are building a 16 inch middy what is top stop you from putting your 12.5 inch upper on that lower (other than knowing the law of course). Maybe I am just reading the answers wrong.![]()
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I guess I don't understand. If you have a SBR and you are building a 16 inch middy what is top stop you from putting your 12.5 inch upper on that lower (other than knowing the law of course). Maybe I am just reading the answers wrong.![]()
"Buy once, cry once. Or not. Many of you will undoubtedly be zombies one day. I'd prefer if you were zombies with sub-par gear."
It's just technical-
Any NON NFA lower must have a legal (16") configuration for it. Otherwise you CAN NOT have a spare SBR upper laying around.
That's all there is to it. It's that simple.
Why is it that way? Well it's nice for those of us with an SBR who want to have multiple uppers for one SBR lower. We CAN as long as we follow the rules. What's wrong with following the rules?
Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball...
This was all hypothetical. I don't have the stamp yet, I don't have any stripped lowers, as it sits all my rifles are in legal config. Once I get the stamp back that lower will get the new upper (yet to be bought) and the upper that came off it will get a new lower.
I'm not trying to be dense, just making sure I understand. If, when my stamp comes back and my 12.5 SBR is complete I want to complete my other lower (Non-NFA) and build a middie I am fine. However, if I want to own another upper for my NFA lower, like a 10.5, I do not need to own anything else, I can just swap my uppers on my NFA lower so long as it goes back to it's original length, correct? One complete non-NFA rifle, one NFA rifle but more than one upper for it? Is that breaking the rules?
"Buy once, cry once. Or not. Many of you will undoubtedly be zombies one day. I'd prefer if you were zombies with sub-par gear."
You wont find it written in USC per say. But, the guide most people into NFA SBRs go by is fairly simple.
Take all of your AR parts-
Assemble them into as many legal configurations as you can.
If you have left over SBR uppers, you should not have any left over non stamped lowers...
The easy and logical argument for a prosecutor to make to a jury is that those left over SBR uppers obviously belong to those no tax stamp having uppers. After-all it's only 2 pins.
Someone will invariably bring up "constructive intent" or some such nonsense. To me its not "constructive intent" it's plain old "unlawful possession of a title II weapon"...
If you are into building ARs from the ground up, and have extra SBR uppers then the technically safe way to build new non-nfa weapon would be to build it upper first. Then source the lower...
As always YMMV![]()
Hank Johnson (D) GA YouTubeMy fear is that ahh, the whole island will ahh, become so overly populated, that it will tip over and ahh, and capsize...
It helps if you actually know the rules.
There isn't any case law out there (let alone a Code section) that establishes the "rules" that you claim govern this situation. There are, at best, advisory opinion letters from non-attorney ATF personnel who are stating what they believe to be the "best practice."
The scenario where you get into trouble is one in which you have no legal use for a complete short upper, and at least one illegal one - i.e., you have a short upper and a Title I rifle lower, but no SBR or pistol lower on which to use it. The business about having more short uppers than you have SBR/pistol lowers, along with some Title I rifle lowers, gets beaten to death regularly in "theoretical land" while nobody is ever prosecuted for it.
Last edited by dbrowne1; 07-05-10 at 16:49.
Is that your attempt to say I am wrong? I think you just rewrote what I said in attempt to make you seem "more" correct.
What I said is not wrong. Don't try and argue it.
It doesn't matter what "case law" YOU can find.
If there is a law or rule that hasn't been broken or you haven't found evidence of it, it does not mean it dies not exist. Have YOU found proof of life on other planets? Does it not exist then?
Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball...
It's been a while since SuiHz has posted "HIS" interpretation of the law!!
There is no case law to support the sky is falling view. In fact... when that idiot in Florida sold a "constructive intent" package to an undercover FL S.O. deputy, the ATF didn't even pursue the case.
This isn't "Animal Farm." The law (Code, cases, and otherwise) isn't hidden.
For example, if you read U.S. v. Kent (which is an 11th Circuit case from 1999, after the Thompson/Center case) you'll see that a complete Title I AR-15, plus a SBR upper, = unregistered SBR ... but ...
the court also points out that "[i]n addition, there was no other lower receiver unit found in Kent's apartment to which the short-barreled upper receiver unit could be attached and used to create a legal weapon for purposes of the NFA."
...which would imply that if you have a legal use for it, it's not an issue. That view is reinforced when you look at that situation in concert with Thompson/Center, in which the Supreme Court made clear that if there is a legal use/configuration for each part, despite there also being illegal configurations, then the law does not presume that you will make an unlawful firearm. If there is no legal use for the short upper, however, then you are in trouble.
Of course, then you have a few ATF tech branch letters out there that seem to imply that you shouldn't have "spare" uppers laying around even if you have a machinegun/SBR for them. That would seem to be ATF's "best practice" recommendation. That is not the same as a "rule" or a "law."
If you know better, by all means, elaborate.
Last edited by dbrowne1; 07-05-10 at 17:52.
Bookmarks