Multiple uppers to one SBR Registration?

[orguywithguns]

If I get one lower approved and stamped, can I have a couple sbr uppers in my safe of equal or greater barrel length? Or do I need a registered sbr lower with stamp for each SBR upper I plan to have? I was wanting to only go through the registration once, but have a few short uppers. Thanks

Read More

 

[Nwcid]

You only need one registered lower. In the information boxes I would put what upper you "mostly" plan on using. As long as there are no permanent changes there is no requirement to notify the ATF. If you do make a permanent change the ATF requests that you send them new info so their records are correct but your Form will not be changed.

 

[OREGON FALER]

As many as you want man. Once you have the stamp.

 

[telero]

Doesn't even need to be greater than or equal length uppers, could be shorter if you wanted.

 

[orguywithguns]

Thanks guys, I just wanted to make sure.

 

[MGforMe]

The above info is correct from my understanding but there is one more issue to consider. If you have multiple AR-15 lowers / rifles (not SBR) and are storing in same place as your multiple short uppers there could be concern about constructive possession to try and convert your additional lowers into illegal SBR's. This could be compounded if you were to take your SBR out shooting and left short uppers with your non registered lowers?

I'm in no way a legal expert but just something to think about?

 

[Nwcid]

How would it be viewed as "constructive possession"? You have a LEGAL use for them. If you own 1 or 10 short uppers and an SBR or Pistol lower you have a LEGAL reason for each..........

If you had 1 or more short uppers and NO "legal" lowers then yes, constructive possession could come into play. Constructive possession also has to have the one thing your "theory" lacks, that is intent.

 

[peetar]

I agree with NWcid on this one. Once you have done the BG check and have a lower registered it should be fine. Especially since the letter of the law states that the actual firearm is the lower. Uppers are parts.

 

[coctailer]

How would it be viewed as "constructive possession"? You have a LEGAL use for them. If you own 1 or 10 short uppers and an SBR or Pistol lower you have a LEGAL reason for each..........

If you had 1 or more short uppers and NO "legal" lowers then yes, constructive possession could come into play. Constructive possession also has to have the one thing your "theory" lacks, that is intent.

The "constructive intent" thing is kinda weak. People get too worried about it.

By definition, filling out a Form 1 is actually "constructive intent".
Asking how to legally build a SBR via tax stamp is "constructive intent"

If the ATF were somehow in your house and found a shorty upper and said "HEY, WE THINK YOU ARE GOING TO BUILD A SBR!!" You could simply say "Yes, yes I AM intending to build an SBR. Could you help me with the process?"

Their job is to help you do it.

 

[MGforMe]

I agree with you guys that you shouldn't have an issue if you have a legal use for the uppers but just trying to make a point that it is something to think about? Especially if you have a situation with you store your items in multiple separate locations where the registered lower may be kept in different place from time to time than the other AR's and uppers. With the NFA and ATF some of the "views" don't always follow logical thinking.

My "theory" (really not even my theory but what I have read others in the NFA community are concerned with) comes from situations such as having an 1 registered HK sear with multiple pistol hosts with stocks / forward grips / etc. The stocks and grips are legal to install on host while the sear is in the gun but become illegal to have installed as soon as the sear is removed (if the pistol is not SBR). Many people will NOT keep the stocks and forward grips in the same gun case / box / safe / etc. as the multiple host even if they are not installed because in theory it could be argued that you could make multiple SBRs and had only one registered sear. By keeping them separate I believe they feel they have a stronger argument of their intent to only use parts when sear is installed in pistol.

I totally agree with your guys thinking that you could prove your intent was to use combination of parts in a legal manner. Many long time MG'ers believe an over zealous ATF agent could argue the case the other way.

I just brought up the point as something to be aware of and maybe avoid certain situations. I am on the fence on this issue and can see both sides of the argument. I just know its an argument I don't want to have to make in court even if I am right.

 

[Nwcid]

The HK is a different case. If you have a gun that is in a configuration, for example to be an SBR, if it was not trumped by being a MG when the sear was in it, and you took the sear out then it would be an unregistered SBR. Having an unregistered NFA item is illegal. That is pretty clear.

Everyone has to do as they feel they need too for their situation. With that said many of the things said in the NFA world are hypersensitive, worst case situations. Even if you have an AR rifle and a pistol/SBR it could be argued that you could make an unregistered NFA item. When was the last time you heard Thompson Contender owners with multiple barrels and stocks getting all worked up over this?

For any of that to even happen it would have to be seen by an ATF agent. Have you EVER seen or met one? I have not. Then that same agent would have to decide that he wanted to make a "deal" out of something. Then they would have to find someone to put the trial on. That is a lot of "if's". You have a way better chance of getting into a major car wreck on the way to/from the range.

I am not advocating doing anything dumb, but just to really look at the situation.

 

[coctailer]

I agree with you guys that you shouldn't have an issue if you have a legal use for the uppers but just trying to make a point that it is something to think about? Especially if you have a situation with you store your items in multiple separate locations where the registered lower may be kept in different place from time to time than the other AR's and uppers. With the NFA and ATF some of the "views" don't always follow logical thinking.

My "theory" (really not even my theory but what I have read others in the NFA community are concerned with) comes from situations such as having an 1 registered HK sear with multiple pistol hosts with stocks / forward grips / etc. The stocks and grips are legal to install on host while the sear is in the gun but become illegal to have installed as soon as the sear is removed (if the pistol is not SBR). Many people will NOT keep the stocks and forward grips in the same gun case / box / safe / etc. as the multiple host even if they are not installed because in theory it could be argued that you could make multiple SBRs and had only one registered sear. By keeping them separate I believe they feel they have a stronger argument of their intent to only use parts when sear is installed in pistol.

I totally agree with your guys thinking that you could prove your intent was to use combination of parts in a legal manner. Many long time MG'ers believe an over zealous ATF agent could argue the case the other way.

I just brought up the point as something to be aware of and maybe avoid certain situations. I am on the fence on this issue and can see both sides of the argument. I just know its an argument I don't want to have to make in court even if I am right.

You would never have to go to court.
Going to court requires a charge to be filed. What possible charge could be filed?

I understand your point, and respect your advising people on being cautious and legal.

The thing is, the alarmists of "constructive intent" don't point out(by their reasoning) that by simply applying for a Form 1 tax stamp, you could be charged with the crime of "constructive intent", which is of course not true.

I guess if you are in possession of a car and a case of beer, you could get looked at by LE as someone that intends to drunk drive.

 

[orguywithguns]

Gentlemen, thanks for you feedback. I appreciate the time you have taken to help me with the question.

 

[MGforMe]

In the case of United States v. Thompson/Center Arms Co. (1992)

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms contended that the mere possession of a pistol having a barrel less than sixteen inches (406 mm) long, a shoulder stock, and a rifle-length (more than sixteen inches) barrel constituted constructive intent to "make" an illegal short-barreled rifle (SBR) (by combining the pistol's frame, the pistol-length barrel, and the shoulder stock) even if the shoulder stock was intended to be used only with the rifle-length barrel.

The Supreme Court disagreed and its decision clarified the meaning of the term "make" in the National Firearms Act by stating that the mere possession of components that theoretically could be assembled in an illegal configuration was not in itself a violation as long as the components could also be assembled into a legal configuration.

__________________________

There ya go. The ATF argued mere possession of components was enough to be illegal but the Supreme Court disagreed. Everybody's right! Ha ha

I do think my HK example is the same as the SBR with multiple uppers and ar-15's because you would only have legal reason for one to be constructed at a time but possibility to construct multiple SBR's at a time. As the case above shows the supreme court would probably rule in your favor but an ATF agent could try and make a case the other way.

I totally agree with above comment that if you aren't attracting unwanted attention by doing other illegal things its not something to worry about. And of course, buckle up and drive safely on the way to the shooting range!

 

[coctailer]

Gentlemen, thanks for you feedback. I appreciate the time you have taken to help me with the question.

You have been a member for several months and only have 7 posts. I hope you hang out more and enjoy the site!

 

[telero]

I agree with NWcid on this one. Once you have done the BG check and have a lower registered it should be fine. Especially since the letter of the law states that the actual firearm is the lower. Uppers are parts.

Just to add some clarification to the lower being the firearm, that is true, but to be an SBR it has to be configured as an SBR...the short barrel actually has to be attached. See the ATF SBR/SBS FAQ: Firearms - Frequently Asked Questions - National Firearms Act (NFA) - Short Barreled Rifles and Shotguns | ATF

"While a receiver alone may be classified as a "firearm" under the Gun Control Act (GCA), SBRs and SBSs are classified in totality under the National Firearms Act (NFA)."

The "constructive intent" thing is kinda weak. People get too worried about it.

Agreed, if constructive intent was real, anyone with a long gun and a hacksaw would be in jeopardy.

In the case of United States v. Thompson/Center Arms Co. (1992)

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms contended that the mere possession...constituted constructive intent...

The Supreme Court disagreed...

Exactly, and the ATF even wrote a ruling that reiterated that, using the courts language: http://www.atf.gov/files/regulations-rulings/rulings/atf-rulings/atf-ruling-2011-4.pdf

"A firearm, as defined by the National Firearms Act (NFA), 26 U.S.C. 5845(a)(3), is made when unassembled parts are placed in close proximity in such a way that they: (a) serve no useful purpose other than to make a rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length; or (b) convert a complete weapon into such an NFA firearm."


So according to the ATF and the Supreme Court, for something to be an SBR it would have to be either actually assembled as such, or there would have to be no other useful purpose than to make an SBR with the parts. Having a registered lower receiver, a standard rifle receiver (not registered as an SBR), and multiple short uppers does serve a purpose other than making an unregistered SBR...that purpose is having multiple uppers for your registered receiver.

 

[The Heretic]

So I have a question that occurred to me this morning when someone made me aware of the ARAK-21 system.

On looking at this system I noticed that you could order the upper with a short barrel. The system allows you to interchange a barrel within the upper, so you can order the upper with a long barrel and a short barrel and swap them out.

If you did not have a stamp for a SBR and you had an upper with a long barrel attached, and the short barrel detached, could this not be easily construed as "constructive intent" since the only legal usages for the short barrel would be with this upper or to sell it?

Note, that these barrels only work with these uppers.

<broken link removed>

I have no real interest in an SBR at this point in time, it just seemed like an interesting question.

 

[7clear-0]

What about different calibers?
If I already have a NFA approved SBR 5.56, can I use 22LR pistol upper with my existing SBR lower?

yes. Switching around is allowed. For a permanent change, I will write to ATF to modify the information on my file.

 

[wired]

The above info is correct from my understanding but there is one more issue to consider. If you have multiple AR-15 lowers / rifles (not SBR) and are storing in same place as your multiple short uppers there could be concern about constructive possession to try and convert your additional lowers into illegal SBR's. This could be compounded if you were to take your SBR out shooting and left short uppers with your non registered lowers?

I'm in no way a legal expert but just something to think about?

Non issue. You can have as many uppers as you want without regard to how many standard lowers you have as long as the short uppers arent on rifle lowers..

As mentioned above an SBR is a complete gun not parts in a safe. Its only when the parts are assembled an SBR does it become an SBR. No such thing as an SBR or SBS receiver .

 

[wired]

What about different calibers?
If I already have a NFA approved SBR 5.56, can I use 22LR pistol upper with my existing SBR lower?

yes. Switching around is allowed. For a permanent change, I will write to ATF to modify the information on my file.

Define permanent change to an AR. Thats really a clause for fixed barrel "normal" guns.