National Constructive Possession Brace vs Stock

[arakboss]

I just watched this video and he seems to think that there is a possibility that just removing a brace from an AR pistol but keeping it, could be considered constructive possession. He suggested not keeping the brace and the firearm at the same location.

Based on his advice wouldn't having a stock and a short barreled pistol in the same location also expose you to risk of constructive possession?


Edit: I favor this interpretation but an anti gun prosecutor may not.

"The theory is that if you possess the parts to make an illegal weapon, and they could not be otherwise formulated to make a lawful weapon"

Source: https://amblerlawoffices.com/blog/f/an-abrasive-new-rule-from-the-atf#:~:text=Constructive possession is a theory,currently in an SBR format.

Read More

 

[peteNW503]

I found it it interesting that most people are under the assumption that if you remove the brace you are in compliance because the ATF director literally said that but the wording says otherwise. " permanently remove and dispose of , or alter, the "Stabilizing brace" such that it cannot be reattached. Does not say you can keep the brace it literally said you have dispose of or alter it so it can no longer be used. Same can be said with buffer tubes are they going to say constructive possession because you can still attach a brace? Or are you suppose to swap that out for a buffer tube that isn't compatible with any brace? Slippery slope.

 

[Alexx1401]

This is NOT something new with gun law and "rules". If you have the parts to put a suppressor together and do something to get the feds attention they may use this. Of course if you have an AR pistol and take the brace off and still keep it? Don't do something to get the feds attention. There will of course be a LOT of people who still have a brace. Will be a LOT of people who still have the brace on a gun. The only ones who we will ever hear of are ones who go out of their way to get attention of the wrong kind.

 

[arakboss]

This is NOT something new with gun law and "rules". If you have the parts to put a suppressor together and do something to get the feds attention they may use this. Of course if you have an AR pistol and take the brace off and still keep it? Don't do something to get the feds attention. There will of course be a LOT of people who still have a brace. Will be a LOT of people who still have the brace on a gun. The only ones who we will ever hear of are ones who go out of their way to get attention of the wrong kind.

Let's say you get rid of the brace. Most AR owners will still have stocks around. My question is why would only the braces be subject to constructive possession but stocks wouldn't?

 

[Alexx1401]

Let's say you get rid of the brace. Most AR owners will still have stocks around. My question is why would only the braces be subject to constructive possession but stocks wouldn't?

Neither one is going to actually get anyone in "trouble". This is the normal the sky is falling. Every time you read of the feds going after someone its someone who did something to get attention. Normally they had to try REALLY hard to get the attention. So poke the bear a lot? If they finally come after you and can't find anything else? Yes, if you have an AR pistol and a stock they may try to use that. Now I did get rid of my brace and even the lower I had since it had a buffer. Would they ever come after me? No. I just did not want to keep playing with it. Will build an AR pistol out of one of the uppers that uses no buffer. There will be untold numbers of the old ones floating around for years. Nothing will happen to the people who have one as they just don't have the time or manpower to chase them down. To get the bear to bite you have to poke it. Normally you have to poke it a LOT.

 

[RX-79G]

Clearly owning an AR pistol and an AR rifle would allow you to make an illegal SBR just by swapping the uppers. But constructive possession seems like it is when you have the stock, it fits on the installed buffer tube, and there is nowhere else to put it. That shows a kind of intent.

I think the point of the amnesty period was that you could keep the brace during your Form 1 application process for a legal SBR. After that ends, having one of those braces that won't fit anything but a round buffer tube on your non-NFA pistol is going to be constructive possession again.

If you want to prevent misunderstandings about your extra rifle stocks, make sure your non-NFA pistol has a round, no-position buffer tube that the stock won't fit on.

And don't get arrested for drug possession, tax evasion or other federal crimes.

 

[monkeybutler]

Not keeping the brace in the same place does not get around constructive possession since the brace will still be under the control of the same person. The laws tend to read "possession OR control." So putting A brace in a storage garage or similar when you still have access and control of the brace is a no go.

 

[bcp]

Dear Abby,

I have several long guns. To avoid being charged with constructive possession of a short barreled rifle, do I have to get rid of my hacksaw?

Bruce

 

[arakboss]

Dear Abby,

I have several long guns. To avoid being charges with constructive possession of a short barreled rifle, do I have to get rid of my hacksaw?

Bruce

Exactly. As far as the brace goes, a person should be able to keep that too, if they have a rifle they could use it on. I thought Will Kirk's advice about storing the brace at another location would not make much sense if you have stocks at the same location as the AR pistol.

 

[v0lcom13sn0w]

theres gonna be mass non compliance. just sayin.

 

[Kruel J]

Neither one is going to actually get anyone in "trouble". This is the normal the sky is falling. Every time you read of the feds going after someone its someone who did something to get attention. Normally they had to try REALLY hard to get the attention. So poke the bear a lot? If they finally come after you and can't find anything else? Yes, if you have an AR pistol and a stock they may try to use that. Now I did get rid of my brace and even the lower I had since it had a buffer. Would they ever come after me? No. I just did not want to keep playing with it. Will build an AR pistol out of one of the uppers that uses no buffer. There will be untold numbers of the old ones floating around for years. Nothing will happen to the people who have one as they just don't have the time or manpower to chase them down. To get the bear to bite you have to poke it. Normally you have to poke it a LOT.

Don't play stupid games, don't win stupid prizes.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

This has already been beat to death and clearly answered in earlier threads including audio from atf explaining different hypotheticals of what is, and is not constructive possession. Sounds to me like another "help me with my anxiety" thread from the OP similar to the endless m114 anxiety threads of the past.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Thompson /Center vs US case says you can have the short barrel, the pistol grip stock/lower component, 16+ barrel, and shoulder stock lower component all together and its not constructive possession.
Pistol to rifle then rifle to pistol=OK as long as you don't do the SBR configuration.

Rifle to pistol =not OK because "once a rifle, always a rifle".

Warning. long video with Mark Smith and the lawyer who won that particular case against the ATF in front of SCOTUS.

Interesting point, cannot use Chevron Deference when it's a rule/regulation with criminal penalties. Courts must use Rule of Lenity.

Edit.

Lawyer also point out that rifle definitions from both NFA and GCA do not include "parts that can be readily put together to make a rifle" like the definitions for machine guns and silencers; but that has been how the Courts and ATF interpreted to be "consistent " and hence constructive possession.

 

[Bushman]

Thompson /Center vs US case says you can have the short barrel, the pistol grip stock/lower component, 16+ barrel, and shoulder stock lower component all together and its not constructive possession.
Pistol to rifle then rifle to pistol=OK as long as you don't do the SBR configuration.

Rifle to pistol =not OK because "once a rifle, always a rifle".

Warning. long video with Mark Smith and the lawyer who won that particular case against the ATF in front of SCOTUS.

Interesting point, cannot use Chevron Deference when it's a rule/regulation with criminal penalties. Courts must use Rule of Lenity.

Edit.

Lawyer also point out that rifle definitions from both NFA and GCA do not include "parts that can be readily put together to make a rifle" like the definitions for machine guns and silencers; but that has been how the Courts and ATF interpreted to be "consistent " and hence constructive possession.

So is it constructive possession or no?

 

[CamoDeafie]

So is it constructive possession or no?

If it's in the house with nothing else to go on, maybe. Director says no to Congress, but ATF sent letters/emails saying yes in a way, due to "dispose" and "permanently detach" language.

If you have another 16" upper and a pistol only buffer tube (or a bufferless end cap or similar) that the brace cannot attach to, then technically you may be just fine. This would apply to the braces that uses CAR/M4 collapsible stock buffer tubes.

Edit. If you have a 16" upper but no other lower to put it on, you may still get arrested for constructive possession due to the lower with the brace now being treated as a rifle stocked lower

 

[RX-79G]

If it's a brace for a round buffer tube and it won't fit on your rifle's buffer tube, don't keep it.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

If it's in the house with nothing else to go on, maybe. Director says no to Congress, but ATF sent letters/emails saying yes in a way, due to "dispose" and "permanently detach" language.

If you have another 16" upper and a pistol only buffer tube (or a bufferless end cap or similar) that the brace cannot attach to, then technically you may be just fine. This would apply to the braces that uses CAR/M4 collapsible stock buffer tubes.

Edit. If you have a 16" upper but no other lower to put it on, you may still get arrested for constructive possession due to the lower with the brace now being treated as a rifle stocked lower

That all sounds speculative to me tbh. The reality is atf decides on a case by case basis and they gave examples in the brace rule training (mentioned earlier) that says what would be constructive possession and what would not. I would go off that info directly from the atf panel and not speculate personally.

 

[CamoDeafie]

That all sounds speculative to me tbh. The reality is atf decides on a case by case basis and they gave examples in the brace rule training (mentioned earlier) that says what would be constructive possession and what would not. I would go off that info directly from the atf panel and not speculate personally.

That's why I said maybe.

From the FAQ ar ATF.gov that has not been changed ; I added bold.

• Submit through the eForms system an Application to Make and Register a Firearm, ATF Form 1 (EForm
1) within 120-days from the date of publication in the Federal Register.
• Permanently remove or alter the "stabilizing brace" so that it cannot be reattached and thereby
removing it from regulation as a "firearm" under the NFA.
• Remove the short barrel and attach a 16-inch or longer rifled barrel to the firearm thus removing
it from the provisions of the NFA.
• Turn the firearm into your local ATF office.
• Destroy the firearm. For more information go to How to Properly Destroy Firearms | Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (atf.gov).

 

[Kruel J]

Form 1 and done.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Form 1 and done.

Free or paid? Does it "make any difference" how you're giving them the info?