Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 36

Thread: Is this Ok?

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Locust Grove Ga
    Posts
    854
    Feedback Score
    6 (100%)
    Interesting read. Thank you. I would like to hear more but I dont want to derail this thread. I am getting a sbr started later this week and wanted to get the upper and put it somewhere it won't be near the lower.
    Last edited by tinman44; 10-24-11 at 14:38.
    "Unfortunately 87.26% of the quotes and statistics on the internet are lies." - Abraham Lincoln
    Stupid should hurt
    I carry a gun cuz cops are too heavy!

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    27,216
    Feedback Score
    14 (100%)
    Yep. I had a short barreled upper for years before I got around to registering a couple of my Lowers.

    It just sat in my locker.
    "You people have too much time on your hands." - scottryan

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    55
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by vinsonr View Post
    You can purchase and own as many uppers in any length that you want. There is nothing illegal about having a shorty upper, regardless of how many complete rifles, stripped lowers, complete lowers, etc, that you have. Even if you have zero registered SBR's.

    There is a court case that proves this...

    Well, cite the case!

    BATF enforces violations of "constructive intent" and "means to assemble" whereby a person has a short barreled upper and a lower receiver (no registered lower receiver), not assembled on his (her) contiguous property. In other words, if you do not own a registered lower receiver, you may not possess a short barreled upper receiver on your contiguous property (ie., lower in the house and a short barreled upper in the detached work shop).

    Current interpretation....

    "In United States v. Thompson/Center Arms Company, 504 U.S. 505 (1992), the United States Supreme Court examined whether a short-barreled rifle was “made” under the NFA when a carbine-conversion kit consisting of a single-shot “Contender” pistol was designed so that its handle and barrel could be removed from its receiver, and was packaged with a 21-inch barrel, a rifle stock, and a wooden fore-end. The Court held that, where aggregated parts could convert a pistol into either a regulated short-barreled rifle, or an unregulated rifle with a barrel of 16 inches or more in length, the NFA was ambiguous and applied the “rule of lenity” (i.e., ambiguities in criminal statutes should be resolved in favor of the defendant) so that the pistol and carbine kit, when packaged together, were not considered a “short-barreled rifle” for purposes of the NFA."

    The aforementioned portion of the ruling allows the manufacturer to produce and sell short barreled upper receivers without the need for any BATF forms from the purchaser. The following paragraph makes possession of parts to assemble an NFA weapon without a registered lower receiver illegal.

    "However, the Court also explained that an NFA firearm is made if aggregated parts are in close proximity such that they: (a) serve no useful purpose other than to make an NFA firearm (e.g., a receiver, an attachable shoulder stock, and a short barrel); or (b) convert a complete weapon into an NFA firearm (e.g., a pistol and attachable shoulder stock, or a long-barreled rifle and attachable short barrel). Id. at 511-13."
    Last edited by Munch; 10-24-11 at 19:59.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    175
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Apparently you missed this from earlier. The gist of it is that Thompson sent kits for a pistol that included a stock and long barrel. The ATF cried constructive intent and the SCOTUS ruled in favor of Thompson, that merely having the parts does not equal constructive intent.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    55
    Feedback Score
    0
    Here is the ruling.

    The was not a case about individual possession, but, rather about manufacture and packaging of a kit not intended to be assembled into an SBR. And, the Government's assertion it was an SBR and T/C's failure to pay the manufacturing tax as required by the NFA ACT.

    Further, the merits of this case reside solely with the Thompson/Center Arms Contender pistol with a 21" barrel and rifle stock kit. This ruling is narrow in its scope.

    Justice Souter announced..."the fact that the unregulated Contender pistol can be converted not only into a short barreled rifle, which is a regulated firearm, but also into a long barreled rifle, which is not. The packaging of pistol and kit has an obvious utility for those who want both a pistol and a regular rifle, and the question is whether the mere possibility of their use to assemble a regulated firearm is enough to place their combined packaging within the scope of "making" one."

    Addressing firearms in general, Justice Souter affirmed "We also think that a firearm is "made" on facts one step removed from the paradigm of the aggregated parts that can be used for nothing except assembling a firearm." Justice Souter further states..."Here, however, we are not dealing with an aggregation of parts that can serve no useful purpose except the assembly of a firearm, or with an aggregation having no ostensible utility except to convert a gun into such a weapon."

    And finally...the last paragraph, Justice states...."we conclude that the Contender pistol and carbine kit when packaged together by Thompson/Center have not been "made" into a short barreled rifle for purposes of the NFA."

    Call a 2A attorney familiar with the NFA Act as amended. Two of the best in the country: Stephen Halbrook or Eric Rogers

    I think you will discover this case does not support your assertion.

    As Justice Souter stated/affirmed..."...an NFA firearm is made if aggregated parts are in close proximity such that they: (a) serve no useful purpose other than to make an NFA firearm" holds true for a short barreled upper receiver you possess without a registered lower receiver. What other purpose could you have for this short barreled upper receiver other than to assemble it into a SBR?
    Last edited by Munch; 10-24-11 at 21:55.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    175
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    I've read the entire thing. I think it's a mistake to assume there is a difference in Thompson/Center Arms manufacturing and packaging a group of parts and an individual buying the same group of parts. The ATF wants to tax both parties in the same exact manner for the same exact reason.

    One would be in the same situation as Thompson/Center if they purchased a lower with stock, an upper with >=16" barrel, and an upper with a <16" barrel. They would have a collection of parts that could be configured as an NFA regulated or as a non-NFA regulated firearm.

    I do admit that nothing in the ruling would support having a non-registered lower and a shorty upper. I'll amend my statement to say that at least have one non-SBR upper or barrel.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    55
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by vinsonr View Post
    One would be in the same situation as Thompson/Center if they purchased a lower with stock, an upper with >=16" barrel, and an upper with a <16" barrel. They would have a collection of parts that could be configured as an NFA regulated or as a non-NFA regulated firearm.
    NOT a vaild or correct assumption based on facts and the ruling by SCOTUS in US v, Thomson/Center Arms!

    This case/ruling is NOT about individual possession, but, the intent of a manufacturer and the failure to pay the appropriate tax (as argued by the Government). It is critical to take note of the manufacturer's intent.

    Visonr, I am glad you are starting to the the nature of this ruling. Please do not try to read more into the ruling then provided by SCOTUS. To do so, could have serious criminal consequences for a possessor of an unregistered SBR and/or the parts (in close proximity) and "means to assemble" same; a criminal manner defined by the NFA Act.

    It is VERY important to note that US vs. Thompson Contender, Inc. only applies to products of Thompson Contender and not to any other companies' products.

    Mr. Halbrook successfully argued the the T/C Contender case before SCOTUS. Drop him an email, he will most likely respond in kind answering your questions.
    Last edited by Munch; 10-25-11 at 13:19.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Barre, VT
    Posts
    7,148
    Feedback Score
    94 (100%)
    I am in much the same boat. I have no worries. I have two SBRs a stripped lower and all of the parts to put it together and a complete lower waiting for me to send in my form one. Do you own any other non NFA long guns and a hack saw?
    "Real men have always needed to know what time it is so they are at the airfield on time, pumping rounds into savages at the right time, etc. Being able to see such in the dark while light weights were comfy in bed without using a light required luminous material." -Originally Posted by ramairthree

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    217
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    This and 922r seem to really keep some people up at night.
    If the ATF is looking at the followers in your mags, to see if they say "Made in USA" you have bigger problems.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    AZ-Waging jihad against crappy AR's.
    Posts
    24,902
    Feedback Score
    104 (100%)
    Would you care to elaborate?

    Quote Originally Posted by charmcitycop View Post
    This and 922r seem to really keep some people up at night.
    If the ATF is looking at the followers in your mags, to see if they say "Made in USA" you have bigger problems.



    Owner/Instructor at Semper Paratus Arms

    Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/SemperParatusArms/

    Semper Paratus Arms AR15 Armorer Course http://www.semperparatusarms.com/cou...-registration/

    M4C Misc. Training and Course Announcements- http://www.m4carbine.net/forumdisplay.php?f=141

    Master Armorer/R&D at SIONICS Weapon Systems- http://sionicsweaponsystems.com

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 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
  •