SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  Suppressed Weapons    "Constructive possession" issue? enlighten me... SBR vs. Pistol "AR"
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
"Constructive possession" issue? enlighten me... SBR vs. Pistol "AR" Login/Join 
Rock Paper
Scissors
Lizard Spock
Picture of James in Denver
posted
I have 2 or so ARs with 16+ in barrel's (true rifles) and I have another 2 or so ARs that are configured as a pistol (built as a pistol, have brace and 11.5" barrels). ALL IN 556.

HOWEVER, I have 2 more "short" uppers in 300 BLK, 10.5". Neither of these are attached to a lower. They ARE kept in the same cases as the AR pistols (one FDE and one black, as an FYI).

I do NOT have any unbuilt lowers, all lowers have an upper on them.

While it is clear to the "common eye" that the 300BLK uppers are "matched" to the pistol lowers, does the fact that I don't have them attached constitute a "constructive possession" issue from a regulatory (i.e. ATF) standpoint?

Thanks for any advice!

James in Denver


----------------------------
"Voldemort himself created his worst enemy, just as tyrants everywhere do! Have you any idea how much tyrants fear the people they oppress? All of them realize that, one day, amongst their many victims, there is sure to be one who rises against them and strikes back!"
Book 6 - Ch 23
 
Posts: 4441 | Location: Colorado | Registered: August 24, 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of CandyMan.45
posted Hide Post
Your 2 or so pistols covers you just fine. Now if you didn't have those and had them... then yes you could have a problem !
 
Posts: 1158 | Location: The Edge of Nowhere... | Registered: April 05, 2013Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Rock Paper
Scissors
Lizard Spock
Picture of James in Denver
posted Hide Post
Thank you!

To add (since this is the "Suppressed Weapons" forum section), I just bought my first CAN, a 30 cal direct thread that will be on one of the uppers to be used with the pistols.

Thanks!
James


----------------------------
"Voldemort himself created his worst enemy, just as tyrants everywhere do! Have you any idea how much tyrants fear the people they oppress? All of them realize that, one day, amongst their many victims, there is sure to be one who rises against them and strikes back!"
Book 6 - Ch 23
 
Posts: 4441 | Location: Colorado | Registered: August 24, 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Constructive intent is one of those internet bogeymen that everybody talks about or knows a guy who's seen, but never themselves.

I am NOT condoning being careless or reckless or cute with the law, but I think it's a fear that is tremendously and constantly overblown. Got a lower, a full auto parts kit, an auto sear hole jig, and a drill press on your bench? You're probably asking for it. Own a couple built uppers and a couple rifles? I simply can't fathom the set of circumstances where that becomes an issue. Not anymore than owning a VFG and a Glock equals constructive intent to make an AOW.
 
Posts: 3016 | Location: Iowa | Registered: February 24, 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Military Arms Collector
Picture of darkest2000
posted Hide Post
It has more to do with intent that is beyond a reasonable doubt, than simply what parts you have physically laying around.

Otherwise, as pointed out above, simply owning a VFG and any pistol equipped with an accessory rail (which most are nowadays) would be enough for a conviction. You can go as far as argue that even if one simultaneously own at least one AR pistol and an AR rifle, there's nothing stopping him/her from swapping the uppers for an instant SBR. Doesn't take much to push a couple of pins.

Wouldn't make much sense if the laws can be interpreted in such manner.
 
Posts: 10636 | Location: Orange County, CA, USA | Registered: March 18, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Sigforum K9 handler
Picture of jljones
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by DaBigBR:
Constructive intent is one of those internet bogeymen that everybody talks about or knows a guy who's seen, but never themselves.


This. Just don't do it while sitting on a pallet of cocaine, and you'll be fine.


_______________________________________________________________________
www.opspectraining.com

"Make it a shooting, and not a gunfight" LSP552 02/19/2011



 
Posts: 33178 | Location: Logical | Registered: September 12, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Hoping for better pharmaceuticals
Picture of AZSigs
posted Hide Post
quote:
While it is clear to the "common eye" that the 300BLK uppers are "matched" to the pistol lowers, does the fact that I don't have them attached constitute a "constructive possession" issue from a regulatory (i.e. ATF) standpoint?


While I am a little late to the party, I will assume your 300BLK upper if matched to your lower is greater than 26" in length from tip of muzzle to end of receiver tube. If so you are OK.




Getting shot is no achievement. Hitting your enemy is. FFL(01) NRA Endowment Member
 
Posts: 8501 | Location: Peoria, Arizona | Registered: April 02, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
...and now here's Al
with the Weather.
Picture of guardianangel762
posted Hide Post
The one constructive intent case I have been able to find was the guy who had an SBR upper and an AR-15 but no registered lower or pistol. There was a sling on his AR-15. The exact same sling was attached to the SBR upper. There was an optic on his AR-15 the same object was on his SBR upper. The optic on his SBR upper with properly zeroed.

Although things together made "constructive intent"

This message has been edited. Last edited by: guardianangel762,


___________________________________________________
But then of course I might be a 13 year old girl who reads alot of gun magazines, so feel free to disregard anything I post.
 
Posts: 9005 | Location: Lake Stevens, WA | Registered: March 20, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by guardianangel762:
The one constructive intent case I have been able to find was the guy who had an SBR lower and an AR-15 but no registered lower or pistol. There was a sling on his AR-15. The exact same sling was attached to the SBR upper. There was an optic on his AR-15 the same object was on his SBR upper. The optic on his SBR upper with properly zeroed.

Although things together made "constructive intent"


I’m thinking that there is a typo in your first sentence in that he had an SBR upper, not a lower. Otherwise the story would make no sense if he already had a SBR lower.
 
Posts: 1964 | Location: South FL | Registered: February 09, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
...and now here's Al
with the Weather.
Picture of guardianangel762
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Dwill104:

I’m thinking that there is a typo in your first sentence in that he had an SBR upper, not a lower. Otherwise the story would make no sense if he already had a SBR lower.


You would be correct, what happened is I am a moron. So in order to fix this I will include a link to the case.

Link


___________________________________________________
But then of course I might be a 13 year old girl who reads alot of gun magazines, so feel free to disregard anything I post.
 
Posts: 9005 | Location: Lake Stevens, WA | Registered: March 20, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Sourkraut
posted Hide Post
So if you had all the components necessary to assemble an SBR, you are guilty of owning a non registered SBR. Based upon that, if you own an AR 15 rifle, and an AR 15 pistol, based on the fact you can switch uppers and put the pistol length upper on the rifle receiver, you are guilty? Tons of folks are guilty then.


"Everybody wants to go to heaven, but nobody wants to die." Joe Louis
 
Posts: 577 | Location: Idaho | Registered: January 17, 2012Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sourkraut:
So if you had all the components necessary to assemble an SBR, you are guilty of owning a non registered SBR. Based upon that, if you own an AR 15 rifle, and an AR 15 pistol, based on the fact you can switch uppers and put the pistol length upper on the rifle receiver, you are guilty? Tons of folks are guilty then.


Not true at all. If you have possession of a short upper, you need to also have at least one pistol lower or a registered SBR lower. You can’t have a short upper and just a non-SBR rifle lower. Similarly, if you have a stock laying around, you can’t have just a pistol with a short upper that the stock can fit into. Basically, you need to have something legal that your short upper or stock can go onto without making an illegal SBR.
 
Posts: 1964 | Location: South FL | Registered: February 09, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Sourkraut
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Dwill104:
quote:
Originally posted by Sourkraut:
So if you had all the components necessary to assemble an SBR, you are guilty of owning a non registered SBR. Based upon that, if you own an AR 15 rifle, and an AR 15 pistol, based on the fact you can switch uppers and put the pistol length upper on the rifle receiver, you are guilty? Tons of folks are guilty then.


Not true at all. If you have possession of a short upper, you need to also have at least one pistol lower or a registered SBR lower. You can’t have a short upper and just a non-SBR rifle lower. Similarly, if you have a stock laying around, you can’t have just a pistol with a short upper that the stock can fit into. Basically, you need to have something legal that your short upper or stock can go onto without making an illegal SBR.


What you say makes perfect sense, but that’s not how I read the ruling posted in the link.


"Everybody wants to go to heaven, but nobody wants to die." Joe Louis
 
Posts: 577 | Location: Idaho | Registered: January 17, 2012Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sourkraut:
quote:
Originally posted by Dwill104:
quote:
Originally posted by Sourkraut:
So if you had all the components necessary to assemble an SBR, you are guilty of owning a non registered SBR. Based upon that, if you own an AR 15 rifle, and an AR 15 pistol, based on the fact you can switch uppers and put the pistol length upper on the rifle receiver, you are guilty? Tons of folks are guilty then.


Not true at all. If you have possession of a short upper, you need to also have at least one pistol lower or a registered SBR lower. You can’t have a short upper and just a non-SBR rifle lower. Similarly, if you have a stock laying around, you can’t have just a pistol with a short upper that the stock can fit into. Basically, you need to have something legal that your short upper or stock can go onto without making an illegal SBR.


What you say makes perfect sense, but that’s not how I read the ruling posted in the link.


How do you read it? Near the bottom, it explicitly says that he had no other receiver available that could be used with the short upper to make a legal weapon.
 
Posts: 1964 | Location: South FL | Registered: February 09, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
If nothing is illegally configured/assembled, and you have a legal way of putting parts together, I don't see how you could be prosecuted for "constructive intent?"

What would the argument be? Well, we didn't catch him with anything illegal and he has a legal way of assembling the parts BUT! we contented he meant to at some point in the future do it an illegal way!!!!

A great excuse to SBR a lower, you'll have a legal way to use any upper (and they are cool).




“People have to really suffer before they can risk doing what they love.” –Chuck Palahnuik

The world's a dangerous place, we can help! http://portlandfirearmtraining.com/
 
Posts: 4590 | Location: Oregon | Registered: October 02, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata  
 

SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  Suppressed Weapons    "Constructive possession" issue? enlighten me... SBR vs. Pistol "AR"

© SIGforum 2019