Question regarding AR pistol upper ownership.

[Jsh2A]

Thank you for reading my post.

I was doing some research and found that if someone owns an AR rifle and only and AR pistol upper (not a complete AR pistol), they can be considered to be in "constructive possession of an SBR". However, if they own both an AR rifle and an AR pistol, they can have as many pistol uppers as they want (please correct me if I'm wrong).

What I'm wondering is how much of an AR pistol do you need to own to legally posses an AR pistol upper while owning an AR rifle? For instance, if someone owned a complete AR rifle, an AR pistol complete upper, and an AR stripped lower that was designed as a "pistol"; would that be legal? My understanding is that the US vs Thompson case determined that if a legal configuration exists then illegality can't be proven. Would a disassembled AR pistol lower be enough to own an AR pistol upper WHILE owning an assembled AR rifle?

Thank you for your input! Looking forward to this discussion. OFC this is just a discussion, not to be considered legal advice!

Read More

 

[Yarome]

That's diving head first down the rabbit hole. There is no statute or direction from the alphabet that covers that hypothetical. Is it possible within the ambiguity of the rule that it "may" be considered constructive possession? Sure. Is it likely? Especially as a primary offense charge? I can't see that happening.

Under that same logic... simply possessing a barrel less than 16"'s.... while owning an AR rifle... "could be" considered the same. What the alphabet has said though is that mere possession does not fit that definition and would be evaluated on the totality of circumstances.

IE., Having an AR pistol with a bare tube in the same drawer/trunk/case as a rifle stock "may be" considered constructive possession.

No one can really answer that question. It boils down to personal choice and what risks you are willing to weigh in the balance.

 

[Jsh2A]

That's diving head first down the rabbit hole. There is no statute or direction from the alphabet that covers that hypothetical. Is it possible within the ambiguity of the rule that it "may" be considered constructive possession? Sure. Is it likely? Especially as a primary offense charge? I can't see that happening.

Under that same logic... simply possessing a barrel less than 16"'s.... while owning an AR rifle... "could be" considered the same. What the alphabet has said though is that mere possession does not fit that definition and would be evaluated on the totality of circumstances.

IE., Having an AR pistol with a bare tube in the same drawer/trunk/case as a rifle stock "may be" considered constructive possession.

No one can really answer that question. It boils down to personal choice and what risks you are willing to weigh in the balance.

Thank you for your response to both of my questions!

Lol yeah, I'm in deep! Was thinking about buying a pistol upper because I keep seeing great deals. Then I realized I only currently own an AR rifle. With a little research I found the "United States V Thompson" case referenced in another forum. Then I wondered about how much of a pistol I would need in order to buy a pistol upper. Will just wait until I have a complete pistol lower just to be on the safe side. Not that I'm expecting any ABC visitors anyways.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Just do a registered SBR then you can have "any upper" length on the same lower, unless you're going out of State, or wanting to have other people play with it, or some such, or you're moving, need to notify ATF... eh. Might be less hassle to just have an AR rifle and a pistol, but these days, the DOJ/ATF seem to have a hardon for ARs anyhow so take the risk, decide what's okay, and do what you feel is right to be "safe" and there's no guarantee; having both an AR rifle and an AR Pistol lower should be OK.

Or... do it Thompson Center method. An AR pistol and a 16"+ upper and stock, then swap between the two? IDK.

 

[Jsh2A]

Just do a registered SBR then you can have "any upper" length on the same lower, unless you're going out of State, or wanting to have other people play with it, or some such, or you're moving, need to notify ATF... eh. Might be less hassle to just have an AR rifle and a pistol, but these days, the DOJ/ATF seem to have a hardon for ARs anyhow so take the risk, decide what's okay, and do what you feel is right to be "safe" and there's no guarantee; having both an AR rifle and an AR Pistol lower should be OK.

Or... do it Thompson Center method. An AR pistol and a 16"+ upper and stock, then swap between the two? IDK.

Thank you for your reply!

I think you hit the nail on the head regarding SBR stuff. It might be fun to shoot an SBR, but definitely doesn't seem fun to own an SBR.
It seems weird that someone could change an AR pistol into an AR rifle and then back again and be fine. However, they couldn't do the same with an AR rifle... ABC logic I guess...

 

[CamoDeafie]

Once a Rifle, always a Rifle, says the ATF. Pistol to rifle to pistol, OK as long as not in NFA Configurations (SBR or AOW)

Edit. SBR starts as either Rifle (cut barrel shorter than 16") or Pistol (add a shoulder stock).

 

[Yarome]

It seems weird that someone could change an AR pistol into an AR rifle and then back again and be fine. However, they couldn't do the same with an AR rifle... ABC logic I guess...

Precisely. The whole "rifle can't be a pistol" thing is foolish in modern day. It was intended to make it illegal to saw off a high caliber rifle or shotgun barrel to make them more concealable, and the alterations were permanent. A pistol caliber was fine, but high caliber SBR's were the no-no.

With the introduction of AR's and others that can readily be converted back and forth and utilize either pistol or rifle calibers... it makes no sense.

Caveat: Again, before someone starts talking exceptions to seemingly disprove the rule... Yes. There were pistol calibers used in some rifles. I'm speaking "in general terms" as to the original intent of the law.

 

[CamoDeafie]

The Thompson /Center Arms case really should have been where SBR portions of NFA &GCA were ruled unconstitutional; logically but nope.