Other State ATF now going after Pistol Braces...

[arakboss]

I thought of another constructive possession case they could make against many firearm owners. Let's say you own a vertical grip and a pistol with an accessory rail on the muzzle end of the frame. The pupper shooters could claim you were intending to do this (see photo) and that it's grounds for some type of constructive possession charge. There are probably endless combos of parts that many firearm enthusiast have around that could cause problems if they were upset with you.

 

[The Heretic]

I thought of another constructive possession case they could make against many firearm owners. Let's say you own a vertical grip and a pistol with an accessory rail on the muzzle end of the frame. The pupper shooters could claim you were intending to do this (see photo) and that it's grounds for some type of constructive possession charge. There are probably endless combos of parts that many firearm enthusiast have around that could cause problems if they were upset with you.


View attachment 713093

If you have no other firearm that the vertical grip fits on, then yes. Or if you are found with the pistol and the grip alone - say you take both with you in your car and don' have another firearm it would be legal on with you, then yes.

Otherwise, no

 

[wollzy]

So let me try to internet lawyer this. Say I have an AR pistol, with a brace, that I built up that I would like to convert to an SBR. If I file the Form 1, wait for its approval, then purchase a butt stock for it I would likely be ok? Or am I SOL because the pistol has already been built up from a stripped lower?

 

[wollzy]

Florida Man Arrested for Constructive Possession of an SBR

I have recently blogged about the issue of constructive possession of NFA firearms in my article NFA and Constructive Possession: Myth or Reality?. On August 27, 2009, Jesus Amador, Jr., was arrest…

blog.princelaw.com

I read this a while ago and I can see how they can get constructive possession as the guy sold it telling people he would go through the process of helping them convert it to an SBR with the accessories he was selling with it. While it is total BS what happened to him, the guy showed up with just the pistol, foregrip, and stock.

 

[arakboss]

So let me try to internet lawyer this. Say I have an AR pistol, with a brace, that I built up that I would like to convert to an SBR. If I file the Form 1, wait for its approval, then purchase a butt stock for it I would likely be ok? Or am I SOL because the pistol has already been built up from a stripped lower?

I always thought that was ok?

 

[wollzy]

I always thought that was ok?

I think it is...I'm just not sure and not a lawyer. The NFA and ATF are about as clear as mud though.

 

[wired]

Constructive intent is something that only gets used in practice if they want to stack charges when they are going for maximum sentences. Its an add on for when you get busted doing something else. Its not an actual problem. Dont worry about it

And this my friends is why I am banned from The High Road.

 

[Member 34319]

Until such time as the gov decides to enforce a law/ruling/etc. allowing them to confiscate firearms, the most likely scenario for facing federal charges is a situation where you encounter a LEO (of any gov entity) that notices said "contraband" and decides to do something about it. Usually it is some supervisor or DA/ADA that decides what the actual charges are.

E.G., you have a bumpstock on a rifle and you load it up to go shooting. Coming or going you get stopped for some traffic infraction, and the LEO notices the bumpstock pursuant to seeing firearms in the vehicle or having some other probable cause to search the vehicle (one reason why LEOs ask questions about where you are going, what you have been doing, is to get said "probable cause" - you may think you are innocent and have nothing to hide, but LEOs as always looking for something to arrest you for, and telling them you were out shooting may seem harmless, but it may give them the excuse they need to search your vehicle).

Or maybe someone red flags you. Or maybe your house was broken into. Or whatever reason.

No, I don't foresee the ATF sending out squads of "ninjas" - yet. But there are other risks.

And give it time.

The PTB are pushing gun control (leading to eventual confiscation) because they want to disarm the populace and not because they care one whit about crime or safety of the public.

They only care about their power.

As Mao said:

枪杆子里面出政权; Qiānggǎn zi lǐmiàn chū zhèngquán

Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.

Glad I'm not the only one aware of the ninjas!

Constructive intent is something that only gets used in practice if they want to stack charges when they are going for maximum sentences. Its an add on for when you get busted doing something else. Its not an actual problem. Dont worry about it

And this my friends is why I am banned from The High Road.

Banned for logic huh?

 

[The Heretic]

Constructive intent is something that only gets used in practice if they want to stack charges when they are going for maximum sentences. Its an add on for when you get busted doing something else. Its not an actual problem. Dont worry about it

And this my friends is why I am banned from The High Road.

As I said, constructive intent is not the offense, it is a means of proving the offense.

Also, I would bet that there are cases where the maybe plead something down, or they can't get a conviction/plea deal any other way. I really doubt they go looking for people that meet the criteria, by itself. It is a tool for them.

 

[The Heretic]

So let me try to internet lawyer this. Say I have an AR pistol, with a brace, that I built up that I would like to convert to an SBR. If I file the Form 1, wait for its approval, then purchase a butt stock for it I would likely be ok? Or am I SOL because the pistol has already been built up from a stripped lower?

As long as you wait for the tax stamp to come before you buy the stock for it, then you are fine. What the firearm was before you construct the SBR is more or less irrelevant to whether you can make it an SBR.

You can convert a handgun to a rifle and back again.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Thompson-Center_Arms_Co

.

Just never have it in an illegal configuration.

My question has been whether you can go from a "firearm" (Shockwave/et. al.) to a shotgun (by putting a long barrel and stock on it) and back to a "firearm" again. I think the answer is negative - as in, no. I think this is because the definition of a "firearm" like the Shockwave is that it isn't an SBS because it was never a shotgun. Once it becomes a shotgun by putting a stock on it, then it can no longer meet the definition of a "firearm". IMO

 

[wired]

As long as you wait for the tax stamp to come before you buy the stock for it, then you are fine. What the firearm was before you construct the SBR is more or less irrelevant to whether you can make it an SBR.

You can convert a handgun to a rifle and back again.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Thompson-Center_Arms_Co

.

Just never have it in an illegal configuration.

My question has been whether you can go from a "firearm" (Shockwave/et. al.) to a shotgun (by putting a long barrel and stock on it) and back to a "firearm" again. I think the answer is negative - as in, no. I think this is because the definition of a "firearm" like the Shockwave is that it isn't an SBS because it was never a shotgun. Once it becomes a shotgun by putting a stock on it, then it can no longer meet the definition of a "firearm". IMO

Until an opinion is issued or a court case happens I wouldnt put money on that. The sticking point with the ATF seems to be the excise tax payment and how that relates to what a license manufacturer does when he manufacturers the gun. The original manufacturer sets in stone what the gun is when it is built. If it was built and sold as a pistol its a pistol even if you put a stock on it and make it a rifle then go back again. If its a rifle its a rifle. If its a shockwave its a firearm. Just because the end user, who is NEVER a manufacturer, decides to SBS it doesnt mean that it is anything other than something that started out life as a "firearm". That would be a hard case for the ATF to win in a court of law given the same set of circumstances the pistol to rifle go through.

 

[The Heretic]

Until an opinion is issued or a court case happens I wouldnt put money on that. The sticking point with the ATF seems to be the excise tax payment and how that relates to what a license manufacturer does when he manufacturers the gun. The original manufacturer sets in stone what the gun is when it is built. If it was built and sold as a pistol its a pistol even if you put a stock on it and make it a rifle then go back again. If its a rifle its a rifle. If its a shockwave its a firearm. Just because the end user, who is NEVER a manufacturer, decides to SBS it doesnt mean that it is anything other than something that started out life as a "firearm". That would be a hard case for the ATF to win in a court of law given the same set of circumstances the pistol to rifle go through.

I am not putting anything on my assumption.

I will wait until somebody else test the premise in court.

I am going with the assumption of what the ATF thinks, not a court. You may recall that ATF fought Thompson Center over a very similar issue and lost, but their thinking on the matter was very similar and that is what I base my assumption on. I do not care to be the test case.

 

[arakboss]

Until an opinion is issued or a court case happens I wouldnt put money on that. The sticking point with the ATF seems to be the excise tax payment and how that relates to what a license manufacturer does when he manufacturers the gun. The original manufacturer sets in stone what the gun is when it is built. If it was built and sold as a pistol its a pistol even if you put a stock on it and make it a rifle then go back again. If its a rifle its a rifle. If its a shockwave its a firearm. Just because the end user, who is NEVER a manufacturer, decides to SBS it doesnt mean that it is anything other than something that started out life as a "firearm". That would be a hard case for the ATF to win in a court of law given the same set of circumstances the pistol to rifle go through.

Using your logic that means we could never change the classification of a firearm. So if I put a stock on a pistol, it's still a pistol because it was manufactured as pistol? Or if I make a rifle out of a receiver it's still a receiver because it started it's life as a receiver?

 

[wired]

Using your logic that means we could never change the classification of a firearm. So if I put a stock on a pistol, it's still a pistol because it was manufactured as pistol? Or if I make a rifle out of a receiver it's still a receiver because it started it's life as a receiver?

Isn't that what the ATF does in practice?

 

[arakboss]

Isn't that what the ATF does in practice?

Not in my opinion. It seems to me they allow some classifications to be changed but not others. Some classifications can be change with tax stamps while others can be changed without tax stamps. If your suggestion that the classification can't be changed is the case, then there are a whole lot of illegal builds out there. Think of all the firearms that people have made from receivers and then later sold as pistols, rifles and other firearms.

 

[wired]

Its not that the gun hasnt changed its just that whatever the gun was originally they seem to be fine with it going back to. A rifle to a rifle and because of the above mentioned Thompson Case a pistol to a rifle or a pistol. The underlying classification doesnt change. It seems to be based upon what the manufacturer originally sold the gun as. A receiver is sold as a receiver and can be made as a pistol. Note I said "made" . An end user makes a gun he does not manufacture. Unless you are a 07 manufacturer you dont manufacture squat. A pistol from a stripped receiver can go back and forth only because of the Thompson Center case. That set a lot of precedence and I have a really hard time seeing how that couldnt be used in the case of a shockwave to sbs and back. .

 

[arakboss]

Its not that the gun hasnt changed its just that whatever the gun was originally they seem to be fine with it going back to. A rifle to a rifle and because of the above mentioned Thompson Case a pistol to a rifle or a pistol. The underlying classification doesnt change. It seems to be based upon what the manufacturer originally sold the gun as. A receiver is sold as a receiver and can be made as a pistol. Note I said "made" . An end user makes a gun he does not manufacture. Unless you are a 07 manufacturer you dont manufacture squat. A pistol from a stripped receiver can go back and forth only because of the Thompson Center case. That set a lot of precedence and I have a really hard time seeing how that couldnt be used in the case of a shockwave to sbs and back. .

My limited understanding of T/C case was that they sold a kit that came with an assembled pistol and a stock and 16+ inch barrel to convert the pistol to a rifle. If the original buyer of a T/C kit sold the firearm in it's rifle configuration and it was transferred as a rifle, the new buyer should be able to convert it back to a pistol since it was born as a pistol?

 

[wired]

My limited understanding of T/C case was that they sold a kit that came with an assembled pistol and a stock and 16+ inch barrel to convert the pistol to a rifle. If the original buyer of a T/C kit sold the firearm in it's rifle configuration and it was transferred as a rifle, the new buyer should be able to convert it back to a pistol since it was born as a pistol?

Its was a lot more than that and the ATF spent years fighting it but it got us to where we are today where a pistol can go either way.

 

[Boboclown]

Unless you are a 07 manufacturer you dont manufacture squat.

Manufacture is a broad term. It could mean to make goods on a large scale, or just to make something (not necessarily to sell). It doesn't mean you are a manufacturer, but you still manufactured something.

You only become a manufacturer because you manufacture things to sell.

 

[wired]

No, In BATF speak you are a manufacturer if you have an 07 FFL manufacturers license and pay excise tax on a completed firearm. Otherwise as an end user you are a maker. You are never a manufacturer unless you get a 01 or 02 and 07 license. If you are making them to sell you need an 07 license. If you are an 01 FFL who assembles firearms for sale you need a 07 license and can be penalized for not getting that license. Once you have that license you must engrave manufacturers marks and pay excise tax on completed firearms you manufacture ( assemble ) . The ATF is very clear on the subject.