Buying sbr lower question

[tyk77781]

Guy at my gun shop said in wa we should be able to form 4 an sbr still and that there were shops still transferring…… wanted to see if anyone heard of this or knew….. my guys been in the nfa game for decades so he's not unreliable but he can't do it because the owner is too scared of loosing money but want to know if anyone knows shops still transferring nfa sbr

Read More

 

[User 1234]

Depends what kind of SBR. Bolt action, etc.

 

[SCARed]

Uh, do you even know what you're asking? The title says lower, the post just says SBR. They are 2 different things. And for WA, SBR doesn't really even enter the conversation.
If its a semi auto rifle of pretty much any type, no they can't transfer it.
If it's just a lower, the probably won't transfer it cause it could probably be made into a semi auto rifle.

 

[tyk77781]

Depends what kind of SBR. Bolt

Uh, do you even know what you're asking? The title says lower, the post just says SBR. They are 2 different things. And for WA, SBR doesn't really even enter the conversation.
If its a semi auto rifle of pretty much any type, no they can't transfer it.
If it's just a lower, the probably won't transfer it cause it could probably be made into a semi auto rifle.

Was saying as sbr or sbr'd lower…. Basically what they're lawyer was saying is there's a whole that technically nfa should be still legal to transfer

 

[User 1234]

I recommend reading up on the Form 4 topic and the threads on WA HB1240.

 

[SCARed]

Then I would go to that shop and have them do the SBR transfer. That is, the entire rifle. That's the only way a SBR comes. A lower by itself IS NOT a SBR. Doesn't matter if it's been previously registered or not.

 

[TTSX]

If you already own a lower, why not just form 1 and call it a day? No transfers occurring at all.

 

[dmmv]

Then I would go to that shop and have them do the SBR transfer. That is, the entire rifle. That's the only way a SBR comes. A lower by itself IS NOT a SBR. Doesn't matter if it's been previously registered or not.

Incorrect. SBR lowers are available for purchase

Colt Carbine 5.56mm Semi-Auto Short Barrel Lower Receiver Assembly | NFA Registered

Factory Colt short barrel rifle complete lower receiver assembly to build your AR15, M16 or M4 into a registered SBR. Compatible with all mil-spec AR15/M4/M16 upper receivers. Manufactured to truly meet and exceed all Mil Spec standards.

armsunlimited.com

 

[User 1234]

Incorrect. SBR lowers are available for purchase

Colt Carbine 5.56mm Semi-Auto Short Barrel Lower Receiver Assembly | NFA Registered

Factory Colt short barrel rifle complete lower receiver assembly to build your AR15, M16 or M4 into a registered SBR. Compatible with all mil-spec AR15/M4/M16 upper receivers. Manufactured to truly meet and exceed all Mil Spec standards.

armsunlimited.com

Actually he was correct. Using the federal legal standards, a lower is not an SBR. The rule is different for machine guns and silencers.

Marketing terms on a website don't make it an SBR. It appears that Colt registered some of those so that a collector can transfer it on a Form 4, and not deface it with engraving of their own "maker" name like a Form 1. It seems a complicated and odd approach.

Attached is a section from the ATF's NFA Handbook.

 

[dmmv]

Thanks for the response, was simply addressing the last two statements. It is possible.

Note that if the federal legal standards described were/are true, you could put a rifle upper on an SBR lower and legally cross state lines without removing it from the registry. I'm no expert so I'm not going to try it, nor know if it's the case.

 

[lucusloc]

It is my understanding that WA has effectively banned basically all modern semi-auto rifles, with very few exceptions. This would include SBRs and other NFA items.

What your dealer may be trying to state (but badly) is that not all SBRs are of the banned type in WA. There are bolt action, lever action and single shot SBRs, and to my knowledge those are still legal to transfer in WA. If you could find a semi-auto that did not meet the criteria for the ban (no evil features, no detachable magazine, etc.) then you could transfer that too if you wanted too. Of course you could also transfer it without it being a SBR, but that is kinda the point; the NFA does not matter here.

But you stated "lower," and that seems to mean an "AR" pattern rifle of some sort. Those are all explicitly banned, by name or by the catchall "clone" terminology, and there is no exemption for NFA items (which would all be clones unless they were manufactured by a specifically named maker, which would still be banned because, again, there is no exemption for NFA items). If they have a lawyer who wants to try that trick more power to them, but that seems like a losing bet to me (at least until you get to SCOTUS, where presumably the ban on the single most popular firearm in the U.S. would not stand under currently established precedent).

 

[Yarome]

....you could put a rifle upper on an SBR lower and legally cross state lines without removing it from the registry. I'm no expert so I'm not going to try it, nor know if it's the case.

To be clear. Once the lower is registered as an SBR it does not cease being an SBR... regardless of what upper you put on it... and still subject to all state and federal laws as an NFA item.

 

[dmmv]

To be aware. Once the lower is registered as an SBR it does not cease being an SBR... regardless of what upper you put on it... and still subject to all state and federal laws as an NFA item.

Thanks, that was the second point in my message

 

[User 1234]

To be clear. Once the lower is registered as an SBR it does not cease being an SBR... regardless of what upper you put on it... and still subject to all state and federal laws as an NFA item.

This is not correct. See the quote from the NFA handbook I attached above.

 

[User 1234]

Thanks, that was the second point in my message

For federal purposes anyway, no. When the feature that brings it within the SBR definition is removed, it is no longer an SBR for federal purposes. The entry in the NFA registry does not make it an SBR.

 

[Yarome]

Actually he was correct. Using the federal legal standards, a lower is not an SBR. The rule is different for machine guns and silencers.

Marketing terms on a website don't make it an SBR. It appears that Colt registered some of those so that a collector can transfer it on a Form 4, and not deface it with engraving of their own "maker" name like a Form 1. It seems a complicated and odd approach.

Attached is a section from the ATF's NFA Handbook.

View attachment 1864676

Sorry, but respectfully, that's incorrect with the type of SBR the OP described. What you highlighted is for an NFA that is permanently altered. Like the example they give for a shotty. As it states... the short barrel discarded/destroyed and a longer barrel permanently affixed. THEN it is no longer an SBR/SBS.

The alphabet has been very clear in their faq's with the new rule that according to them, the registered receiver is the SBR and subject to all NFA rules. IE., interstate travel. With exception, but that doesn't apply to the situation in the OP. Very much like you can't put a pistol upper on a receiver that was sold as a "rifle" receiver and carry it in your vehicle under regulations for "handguns". Only "pistol" or "other" receivers.

However, most states... it's the full firearm that is the SBR. IE., A state that bans SBR's you could legally configure it as a rifle. For the feebs... it's still an SBR.

In that instance though, the problem you will run into is that the feeb's will not authorize a 5320.20 (authorization for interstate transport) to a state where SBR's are banned. So while you would be in compliance within that state with a 16" upper on it... the feebs "could" still nail you for transport from your home state without authorization.

From the ATF FAQ:
Q: If I remove the short barrel from the registered SBR or SBS, is the receiver still subject to NFA transfer and possession regulations?

If the possessor retains control over the barrel or other parts required to assemble the SBR or SBS, the firearm would still be subject to NFA transfer and possession regulations. ATF recommends contacting State law enforcement officials to ensure compliance with state and local law.

Q: If I remove the short barrel from my SBR or SBS, may I move the firearm across state lines without the submission of ATF Form 5320.20, Application to Transport or to Temporarily Export Certain Firearms?

If the registrant retains control over the parts required to assemble the SBR or SBS, the firearm is still subject to all requirements of the NFA. ATF recommends contacting law enforcement officials in the destination state to ensure compliance with state and local law.


Not saying you couldn't likely get away with it. They don't really seem to enforce the 5320.20's in any way and even if you had a LE encounter in another state they are most likely to judge your firearm as a whole... and not just the SBR registered receiver.

Simply.... by the "letter of the law"... the feebs consider the SBR'ed receiver as the SBR and as unlikely as it may be that a person would ever find themselves in an encounter with an alphabet agent... they "could" still jam a guy up.

 

[SCARed]

Note that if the federal legal standards described were/are true, you could put a rifle upper on an SBR lower and legally cross state lines without removing it from the registry. I'm no expert so I'm not going to try it, nor know if it's the cacase.

That is absolutely the case.
It is only an NFA item, subject to NFA regulation, when in an NFA configuration. Period.

 

[SCARed]

Sorry, but respectfully, that's incorrect with the type of SBR the OP described. What you highlighted is for an NFA that is permanently altered. Like the example they give for a shotty. As it states... the short barrel discarded/destroyed and a longer barrel permanently affixed. THEN it is no longer an SBR/SBS.

The alphabet has been very clear in their faq's with the new rule that according to them, the registered receiver is the SBR and subject to all NFA rules. IE., interstate travel. With exception, but that doesn't apply to the situation in the OP. Very much like you can't put a pistol upper on a receiver that was sold as a "rifle" receiver and carry it in your vehicle under regulations for "handguns". Only "pistol" or "other" receivers.

However, most states... it's the full firearm that is the SBR. IE., A state that bans SBR's you could legally configure it as a rifle. For the feebs... it's still an SBR.

In that instance though, the problem you will run into is that the feeb's will not authorize a 5320.20 (authorization for interstate transport) to a state where SBR's are banned. So while you would be in compliance within that state with a 16" upper on it... the feebs "could" still nail you for transport from your home state without authorization.

From the ATF FAQ:
Q: If I remove the short barrel from the registered SBR or SBS, is the receiver still subject to NFA transfer and possession regulations?

If the possessor retains control over the barrel or other parts required to assemble the SBR or SBS, the firearm would still be subject to NFA transfer and possession regulations. ATF recommends contacting State law enforcement officials to ensure compliance with state and local law.

Q: If I remove the short barrel from my SBR or SBS, may I move the firearm across state lines without the submission of ATF Form 5320.20, Application to Transport or to Temporarily Export Certain Firearms?

If the registrant retains control over the parts required to assemble the SBR or SBS, the firearm is still subject to all requirements of the NFA. ATF recommends contacting law enforcement officials in the destination state to ensure compliance with state and local law.


Not saying you couldn't likely get away with it. They don't really seem to enforce the 5320.20's in any way and even if you had a LE encounter in another state they are most likely to judge your firearm as a whole... and not just the SBR registered receiver.

Simply.... by the "letter of the law"... the feebs consider the SBR'ed receiver as the SBR and as unlikely as it may be that a person would ever find themselves in an encounter with an alphabet agent... they "could" still jam a guy up.

You are wrong and reading those incorrectly.
If you seperate the lower, and DO NOT TAKE THE SHORT UPPER WITH YOU, you no longer have control or possess the short upper. It is no longer subject to SBR regulation. Throw a 16" upper on it and do as you please. Sell it even. Doesn't matter.

If you take the short upper with you, even if it's off the lower, you still have/possess a SBR. That's really the definition of constructive possession.

Edit: the ATF changed the FAQs a few years ago and re-worded them. I believe to make them more vague and confusing. I'll dig and see if I can find the old FAQs.

2nd edit: heres an excerpt from a NFA branch letter saying exactly what I did above...

 

[Yarome]

You are wrong and reading those incorrectly.
If you seperate the lower, and DO NOT TAKE THE SHORT UPPER WITH YOU, you no longer have control or possess the short upper. It is no longer subject to SBR regulation. Throw a 16" upper on it and do as you please. Sell it even. Doesn't matter.

If you take the short upper with you, even if it's off the lower, you still have/possess a SBR. That's really the definition of constructive possession.

That is how many "want" to interpret what "constructive possession" means, but the alphabet has been ambiguous in setting any standard as to what constitutes constructive possession and what does not. Until a case is prosecuted it's very similar to Schrödinger's cat.

Simple ownership may or may not constitute constructive possession. But it certainly "can" be, and if the alphabet has been showing us anything recently it is that they can and will use creative interpretations to their own desired affect.

I would contend though that your argument that not being in personal possession/immediate proximity does not... unconditionally... constitute a firearm as being "not possessed" or "no longer having control" of it.

By your logic... every time you step out of your home or leave a firearm locked in your vehicle you no longer have control over the firearm/s you left behind, and so, cannot be held legally responsible for any use or misuse of those firearms(??) Good Luck with that!!

IE., Where in the alphabets response of, "If the possessor retains control over the barrel or other parts required.." does it state... "in personal possession" or "immediate control" or make any mention of proximity? KWIM?

In the alphabets eyes, possession/ownership of a firearm implies control over your own property and you do have a degree of liability regardless of proximity.

I do understand the desire to get around the infringements by grasping at straws, justifying the desires, and use any interpretation necessary, but IMHO, "wishes" don't set the framework by which the alphabet may or may not choose to act and they leave ambiguities in place for a reason. To use at their discretion however they choose... regardless of our wants and desires.

Along your same lines.... I've heard people who really should be in the know state that "constructive possession" must meet the definition of "readily convertible". Measured by ease and the amount of time required. According to "those" folks... you are more than able to take your pistol upper along with you so long as they are not stored in the same container. IE., in two separate locked containers. Or... at home... so long as the receiver and upper are not in the same drawer/case/container, it doesn't meet the "readily standard" and is not constructive possession.

Their reasoning? By most laws, when transporting a firearm, it is nearly universally accepted that a firearm (or component) is not "readily accessible" if they are in separate and locked containers. It should then make common sense that "not readily accessible" extends to "not readily convertible". Right(?)

So who's right and how much risk does a person want to assume? Sounds like a personal choice to me, but I think it's pure ignorance for anyone to assume their "wanna" interpretation of what the text of the rules/laws say will somehow dictate how the alphabet may or may not choose to interpret the same language and/or use the law against you.

When it comes to the alphabet... I say... assume the worst when deciding what level of risk you choose to take on. YMMV

 

[SCARed]

That is how many "want" to interpret what "constructive possession" means, but the alphabet has been ambiguous in setting any standard as to what constitutes constructive possession and what does not. Until a case is prosecuted it's very similar to Schrödinger's cat.

Simple ownership may or may not constitute constructive possession. But it certainly "can" be, and if the alphabet has been showing us anything recently it is that they can and will use creative interpretations to their own desired affect.

I would contend though that your argument that not being in personal possession/immediate proximity does not... unconditionally... constitute a firearm as being "not possessed" or "no longer having control" of it.

By your logic... every time you step out of your home or leave a firearm locked in your vehicle you no longer have control over the firearm/s you left behind, and so, cannot be held legally responsible for any use or misuse of those firearms(??) Good Luck with that!!

IE., Where in the alphabets response of, "If the possessor retains control over the barrel or other parts required.." does it state... "in personal possession" or "immediate control" or make any mention of proximity? KWIM?

In the alphabets eyes, possession/ownership of a firearm implies control over your own property and you do have a degree of liability regardless of proximity.

I do understand the desire to get around the infringements by grasping at straws, justifying the desires, and use any interpretation necessary, but IMHO, "wishes" don't set the framework by which the alphabet may or may not choose to act and they leave ambiguities in place for a reason. To use at their discretion however they choose... regardless of our wants and desires.

Along your same lines.... I've heard people who really should be in the know state that "constructive possession" must meet the definition of "readily convertible". Measured by ease and the amount of time required. According to "those" folks... you are more than able to take your pistol upper along with you so long as they are not stored in the same container. IE., in two separate locked containers. Or... at home... so long as the receiver and upper are not in the same drawer/case/container, it doesn't meet the "readily standard" and is not constructive possession.

Their reasoning? By most laws, when transporting a firearm, it is nearly universally accepted that a firearm (or component) is not "readily accessible" if they are in separate and locked containers. It should then make common sense that "not readily accessible" extends to "not readily convertible". Right(?)

So who's right and how much risk does a person want to assume? Sounds like a personal choice to me, but I think it's pure ignorance for anyone to assume their "wanna" interpretation of what the text of the rules/laws say will somehow dictate how the alphabet may or may not choose to interpret the same language and/or use the law against you.

When it comes to the alphabet... I say... assume the worst when deciding what level of risk you choose to take on. YMMV

No, quite simply it's 15yrs of dealing with NFA stuff, reading and hearing about it from lawyers and the ATF themselves.
From your responses though, it certainly seems like this is all new to you and you're taking the most paranoid/conservative interpretation possible. But you do you. Just know that it is NOT the reality of the NFA world.

The only type of firearm that does not change configuration is a Machine gun. Once a machine gun, always a machine gun, until it is destroyed/cut per ATF regulation.