quote:

Originally posted by hile:
DWill104 - That's exactly why any of my BCM complete lowers have the stocks removed (therefore making them pistols) before they are assembled into anything. I will probably Form 1 all of them eventually, however.

Doesn't work that way. Once a stock is installed, it's a rifle, no way it can every be made into a pistol. So if you ordered them as complete lowers they're rifles forever and always.

quote:

Originally posted by LDD:
The Kent court goes further than both Thompson Center and Zeidman.

Not really, but that's a matter of opinion. However, the fact is you completely ignored that the Kent decision, was based on having the parts needed to make a short barreled rifle, AND there being no other possible configuration for those parts.

Hell, you claimed:

quote:

The reasoning from the district court is: if you have the parts to illegaly, but easily assemble an unregistered SBR then you have committed the equivalent crime of possessing an complete and unregistered SBR.

And that is why this is bad law. It's nebulous as to what actually is an SBR under this holding.

Also it's overbroad because every person or entity (including FFLs) that has title one lowers and short barreled uppers could be guilty, under the same Kent standard of possession of an unregistered SBR.

[/QUOTE]That is not what the decision says or means. If you have a registered SBR and a non-NFA rifle, the fact that the uppers could be easily swapped doesn't mean you're liable for having an unregistered SBR under Kent. If you have a AR pistol and upper, and a non-NFA rifle and upper, the fact the uppers could easily be swapped doesn't mean you're liable for having an unregistered SBR under Kent. Because the Court said the key was Mr. Kent had no other possible use for the parts other than for a short barreled rifle. Someone who has a registered SBR, or a pistol lower, and a non-NFA rifle, has other uses for all the parts, and the Court was very clear in Kent that defense could offer no legitimate use for the parts.

quote:

quote:

In addition, there was no other lower receiver unit found in Kent's apartment to which the short-barreled [**22] upper receiver unit could be attached and used to create a legal weapon for purposes of the NFA. Moreover, Kent has never contended that there was a pistol grip or any other piece that he could use to make a legal weapon from this short-barreled upper receiver unit.

United States v. Kent, 175 F.3d 870, 877 (11th Cir. 1999)

I see this, but I'm not sure how this isn't dicta. Here's why. Kent starts out with a complete SP-1 lower that is not registered as an SBR. Then he, separately as far as we know, has an SBR-configured upper (upper). Let's follow the court's hypothetical: say, he does have, a "second lower receiver unit" that is not SBR-registered (note that court doesn't specify that what it is imagining is an SBR-registered lower). How does this second lower receiver change the equation? The upper could just as easily be attached to that second lower as it was to the first lower. There might be more than one configuration, but both would still be illegal.

No, a registered SBR lower, or a pistol lower (which have existed since the 70s, but have only really be popular recently), would have satisfied the Court that there was some possibility for the parts other than a short-barreled rifle.

Again, that is what you have repeatedly ignored in your claims about the Kent decision.

quote:

As to the pistol grip: Are we really going to suggest that having a pistol grip would have saved him in this instance?

Yes, because just like thousands of people have both AR pistols, and AR rifles, they have legal uses for all their uppers and lowers. The same with all the people who have both registered AR SBRs, and non-NFA AR rifles. Unlike Mr. Kent, they have legal configurations for their firearms, that Kent clearly did not have, and the Court repeatedly pointed to as a flaw in his defense.

quote:

I suppose having a pistol grip would push us more toward Thompson/spare parts/other configurations (with its lenity inclusion). . .

Absolutely, and again the Court clearly said the lack of a legal configuration for the items was a significant problem with the defense.

quote:

. . . we are back to the same questions of what difference does a second lower or spare pistol grip make? If intent isn't a factor, then the key to Kent (dicta not withstanding) is how easily the upper and lower go together.

Again, the "difference" would have been there was a legal configuration for the parts, IN ADDITION to the parts being "easily" mated. You keep saying the key is how "easily" the parts can be put together, and repeatedly ignoring the Court also said the fact there was no possible legal configuration for the items was also key to the decision.

As to your claim, "every person or entity (including FFLs) that has title one lowers and short barreled uppers could be guilty, under the same Kent standard of possession of an unregistered SBR," if you have any fed court decision, opinion from DOJ, or even a ruling from ATF that supports that claim please get us the citation, because I know of no opinion from any of the above that supports your claim.

Hell, every day ATF Inspectors are going into FFLs, that meet your description above, yet you don't see Special Agents investigating them for unregistered NFA firearms, and you don't see AUSAs prosecuting them for unregistered for firearms.

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

quote:

Originally posted by hile:
DWill104 - That's exactly why any of my BCM complete lowers have the stocks removed (therefore making them pistols) before they are assembled into anything. I will probably Form 1 all of them eventually, however.

If those "BCM complete lowers" had shoulder stocks attached, they are rifles as defined in Title 18 Section 921(a)(7) of the US Code, because they are, "designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder." Removing the stock does not turn them into handguns.

If they were transferred to you with a "shoulder stock" attached, and you put a barrel less than 16" on it, even if you have removed the shoulder stock, you have created a firearm required to be taxed and registered under the NFA. Specifically you would have made a "weapon made from rifle," as defined in Title 26, Section 5845(a)(4).

Again, simply removing a shoulder stock from an AR lower receiver does NOT mean the firearm ceases to be a rifle.

quote:

and used to create a legal weapon for purposes of the NFA

You are interpreting this phrase to mean that the court was specifying a pistol lower or registered SBR lower, correct?

quote:

Originally posted by LDD:

quote:

and used to create a legal weapon for purposes of the NFA

You are interpreting this phrase to mean that the court was specifying a pistol lower or registered SBR lower, correct?

You are parsing their quote. The full quote is, "In addition, there was no other lower receiver unit found in Kent's apartment to which the short-barreled upper receiver unit could be attached and used to create a legal weapon for purposes of the NFA. Moreover, Kent has never contended that there was a pistol grip or any other piece that he could use to make a legal weapon from this short-barreled upper receiver unit."

It requires no interpretation. The court clearly has specified Mr. Kent had no legal configuration for items in his possession. They don't specify what it would have to be, but offer the idea of a "pistol," along with the possibly of, "any other piece that he could use to make a legal weapon from this short-barreled upper receiver unit."

So, no I'm not interpreting it that way, because the Court did not limit their statement that way.

This a good reason to always have a complete pistol lower in the safe.