Maybe, sorta... but missing a critical factor to be true.
No, the "stamp" made it an SBR ( Theres no stamp ) . With any SBR that started as a pistol you can just take the stock off and voila, its a pistol again.
By retains control they mean in your possession.
The context was SBRs with free stamps. You were talking about SBRs that had never been pistols. I'm sure that your point is valid. I was simply pointing out that they were outside the scope of the conversation.
I was ttrying to talk about pistols that had been made into SBR's. Perhaps I blundered. Hardly anyone does rifles into SBR's any more
No worries.
Couple things.
Its still an SBR if you maintain control of the stock. That means you have it in your possession i.e. with you if you travel or in your home if you are there but who cares , your'e home so being an SBR is OK. If you sell it without a stock you do not have control of it any more so its not an SBR..
Yep. I think were saying the same thing here but good point about the "other" category. For all legal purposes other is the same as pistol.
We will see if the Republican Party can survive the next two election cycles. As long as Rs remain in charge of at least either the House or The Senate I dont think it will have much of a chance of success., Even if they don't Democrats are stupid but theyre not so stupid to actually push for more gun control just so they can lose power. Power is what they want. They talk tough when they know they have no chance of success .If DOJ/ATF gets smacked down by SCOTUS.. if. Congress could try to amend GCA68 definitions to include what they want to include, and to update and pointedly define AR15 and AK based and similar stripped receivers as all "Rifles" and this would entail the stopping and eventual removal of AR/AK and similar "pistols/others". This is a route I can easily see Congress trying, especially with an addition/amendment to GCA to include "assault weapons" and to insert "short barreled weapons without stocks that are larger than duty handguns" into NFA categories
That kind of goes without saying doesn't it? But thank you for defining the definition.
Hahaha. Try being the moderator on a FB page advising newbies to the NFA . No, it really doesn't go without saying. Ive seen so many clueless questions come up in the last year or so regarding the NFA and one of the things Ive seen come up frequently is the constructive intent setup ( that hardly ever occurs ) Yes, you can still own the stiock you just cant have it with you. . The ATF has always been very clear that you cannot have the parts with you but that did not mean you couldnt still own the parts. Leave them at home or wherever other than with you. Yes, you can take the stock off and transport the SBR as a pistol but if you are so stupid to think that you only had to take the stock off and throw it in your gun bag while you drive somewhere, your reading comprehension and life survival skill are so bad you get what you get. Most people who get into the NFA game do it with a little research before doing so. That used to be true anyway. Now its a free-for-all.That kind of goes without saying doesn't it? But thank you for defining the definition.
Contextually, the impression I had, from the same question that has been brought up and asked time and again is... "if I want to transport an SBR over state lines without having to ask permission can I simply disassemble it?"
The likely assumption being that it is the intent of the person to try and transport it legally, but then reassemble it at their destination over a state line as an assembled SBR. (And assuming that possession of an SBR is legal in that state.) No... you can't do that.
"Yes. You can take the short barrel and/or stock off." can be pretty misleading. "Only if your SBR has been converted to a non SBR configuration and there is no constructive possession." would seem to be a whole let less so.
If the ATF has gotten to this point with your charging docs your fudge is well and good packed and they are aiming for you to see very little sunlight for a long, long time
I know. Its really not a real problem. You have a much better chance of getting hit by lightning than of getting charged for constructive intent. Its truly hard to get a real feel for what the numbers are though as a whopping 97% of federal charges get pled down so the original charges get lost in the pile.
Yeah they propose all kinds of stuff when they know they dont stand a chance of passing anything. Kind of like when Republicans posture on the budget and spending cap then cave when the room gets hot.
Which Party was it that proposed an increase in NFA tax prices? ($500 proposed in 2018, 50% in 2021 and then increase annually with Fed Cost Of Living Adjustment)
You seem to have more faith in them failing than I have confidence in SCOTUS winning.
