Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 19 of 19

Thread: Little help finding clear ATF Reg

  1. #11
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    VA/OH
    Posts
    29,630
    Feedback Score
    33 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Renegade View Post
    I thought your question was for non-licensees. Yes, Licensees are treated differently and can possess things others can not.

    Nope, am talking about non FFL holders. When I orig. asked the question to the ATF agent I was a non FFL holder (as are most of the dealers on ARFCOM).



    C4

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,827
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by C4IGrant View Post
    Nope, am talking about non FFL holders. When I orig. asked the question to the ATF agent I was a non FFL holder (as are most of the dealers on ARFCOM).

    C4
    Well, Kent was prosecuted, the prosecution was upheld, and the courts clearly stated: 26 U.S.C. § 5845(c). This definition of a rifle does not specify that a weapon must be assembled completely in order to be a "rifle." , which was based on a precedent for SBS in the 70s'. I do not see what is left for interpretation.

    Please scan/post your letter if it says otherwise.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    VA/OH
    Posts
    29,630
    Feedback Score
    33 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Renegade View Post
    Well, Kent was prosecuted, the prosecution was upheld, and the courts clearly stated: 26 U.S.C. § 5845(c). This definition of a rifle does not specify that a weapon must be assembled completely in order to be a "rifle." , which was based on a precedent for SBS in the 70s'. I do not see what is left for interpretation.

    Please scan/post your letter if it says otherwise.

    I guess the point is that the guy was making a MG. This is why the ATF went after him. Everything else was just icing on the cake. There has NEVER been a case where someone was busted for owning an under 16" upper and a lower that were apart.

    From talking with the ATF already, they seem to have different opinions on the law than what was found in court.

    As soon as I get the e-mail back I will post it.


    C4
    Last edited by C4IGrant; 08-28-07 at 10:43.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,827
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by C4IGrant View Post
    I guess the point is that the guy was making a MG. This is why the ATF went after him. Everything else was just icing on the cake. There has NEVER been a case where someone was busted for owning an under 16" upper and a lower that were apart.

    From talking with the ATF already, they seem to have different opinions on the law than what was found in court.

    As soon as I get the e-mail back I will post it.


    C4
    Yes, but that would not change whether it is legal or not, only whether or not they want to prosecute for a isolated offense. And prosecutions are decided by the DA's, not the ATF.

    The Weaver case involved a guy with a 17.75" shotgun and no tax stamp. I do not beleive there were any other charges on him at the time.

    ETA - O nsecond thought, I think Weaver was charged with selling it, not possession only.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    VA/OH
    Posts
    29,630
    Feedback Score
    33 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Renegade View Post
    Yes, but that would not change whether it is legal or not, only whether or not they want to prosecute for a isolated offense. And prosecutions are decided by the DA's, not the ATF.

    The Weaver case involved a guy with a 17.75" shotgun and no tax stamp. I do not beleive there were any other charges on him at the time.
    Do the courts come to your home to arrest you in regards to federal firearms laws? No. The ATF does. If the ATF is standing in my shop or home and they see no issue with an under 16" upper apart from a lower then that is all that really matters IMHO.

    Back to the NON-FFL dealers selling SBR uppers. Do you really think that the ATF has not seen the dealers on ARFCOM selling SBR uppers? If manufacturers thought that their dealers were breaking the law by receiving under 16" uppers, they would NEVER sell them any. Case in point: http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=7&f=22&t=307831 They have no FFL or SOT. By following your logic, ONLY SOT dealers would be allowed to sell SBR uppers and manufacturers would require the dealer to have an SOT. This just is not the case.


    C4
    Last edited by C4IGrant; 08-28-07 at 11:22.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,827
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by C4IGrant View Post
    Do the courts come to your home to arrest you in regards to federal firearms laws? No. The ATF does. If the ATF is standing in my shop or home and they see no issue with an under 16" upper apart from a lower then that is all that really matters IMHO.

    Back to the NON-FFL dealers selling SBR uppers. Do you really think that the ATF has not seen the dealers on ARFCOM selling SBR uppers? If manufacturers thought that their dealers were breaking the law by receiving under 16" uppers, they would NEVER sell them any. Case in point: http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=7&f=22&t=307831 They have no FFL or SOT. By following your logic, ONLY SOT dealers would be allowed to sell SBR uppers and manufacturers would require the dealer to have an SOT. This just is not the case.


    C4
    I guarantee you I am 100% correct on this issue. Whether you choose to believe it or not is up to you. Hire a lawyer to research it, he will give you same answer. Just because you found an ATF agent who either does not know the law, or misunderstood your question does not matter.

    As for the link, I did not see anything illegal. <16 uppers by themselves are unregulated, possess/sell as many as you want. Model 1 does the same thing in Shotugn News. No FFL, no problem. I am confused how you correlate this activity into an individual who has both lower and upper but no tax stamp.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    VA/OH
    Posts
    29,630
    Feedback Score
    33 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Renegade View Post
    I guarantee you I am 100% correct on this issue. Whether you choose to believe it or not is up to you. Hire a lawyer to research it, he will give you same answer. Just because you found an ATF agent who either does not know the law, or misunderstood your question does not matter.

    As for the link, I did not see anything illegal. <16 uppers by themselves are unregulated, possess/sell as many as you want. Model 1 does the same thing in Shotugn News. No FFL, no problem. I am confused how you correlate this activity into an individual who has both lower and upper but no tax stamp.
    I would have to disagree with you on the gurantee thing. I will wait to hear back from the ATF before I will believe anything different then what I have been told directly by the ATF.

    Read the link I sent you. He is selling under 16" uppers and has no FFL/SOT. Follow me now??????????????? As I have said, if it were illegal for dealers (without an FFL or SOT) then manufacturers wouldn't sell them to anyone (including dealers).

    Just to be clear, people need to do what they feel comfortable with. A simple way around this is to have an AR wtih a 16" upper or keep the upper at a friend/relatives house until your form 1 clears (if they are concerned about this law).

    As far as case law goes, just because something is found one way, doesn't mean that it cannot be found another way. Kent most likely had a crappy lawyer that didn't know gun laws very well and or how to fight them better. I personally would love to have the time and money to fight this in court as I bet I could win. The whole "he could have created an SBR" would fly about as far as a farmer having all the components (in large qty) to create a bomb (like the one used in OK) would.

    C4
    Last edited by C4IGrant; 08-28-07 at 12:15.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,827
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by C4IGrant View Post
    I would have to disagree with you on the gurantee thing. I will wait to hear back from the ATF before I will believe anything different then what I have been told directly by the ATF.

    Read the link I sent you. He is selling under 16" uppers and has no FFL/SOT. Follow me now??????????????? As I have said, if it were illegal for dealers (without an FFL or SOT) then manufacturers wouldn't sell them to anyone (including dealers).

    Just to be clear, people need to do what they feel comfortable with. A simple way around this is to have an AR wtih a 16" upper or keep the upper at a friend/relatives house until your form 1 clears (if they are concerned about this law).

    As far as case law goes, just because something is found one way, doesn't mean that it cannot be found another way. Kent most likely had a crappy lawyer that didn't know gun laws very well and or how to fight them better. I personally would love to have the time and money to fight this in court as I bet I could win. The whole "he could have created an SBR" would fly about as far as a farmer having all the components (in large qty) to create a bomb (like the one used in OK) would.

    C4
    I misread your original post which was:

    I have fired off an E-mail to the ATF askin the question concerning uppers that are shorter than 16" and ownership without the form 1 back. I will post what they say.

    I misconstrued this to imply one also had a lower since they were sending off a Form 1.

    I see what you are saying now. I agree, if you do not have any lowers, you can have as many < 16 uppers as you want.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Midland, Ga (25 Miles North East of Fort Benning)
    Posts
    34
    Feedback Score
    0
    Thanks everybody for the replys, its a mute point now I have my approved form 1 back from ATF, and the damn gunsmith has not completed the work on my upper " I've been really busy, sorry that I have not called you". Did you ever hear back from ATF about this?

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

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
  •