SBR illegal???

[ThreeFingerPete]

If my gun knowledge is correct, which it might not be, you can also buy this upper without having an SBR, just make sure its in a pistol labelled lower.

The lower doesn't have to be labeled pistol. The lower has to be a pistol, meaning that it started out as "receiver" or "handgun" on the 4473 and was never assembled into a rifle configuration.

[futant]

It can be illegal depending on what kind of lowers you have though. It's a huge stupid ass difficult to explain law. Even though the upper is unregulated, it being around a rifle lower is intent to construct. You have to soak all these laws in order many years before you have even a general sense of wtf is going on.

exactly.
I even knew that one.
and ppl were giving me shit about asking about DIY gunsmithing.
It's too hard to understand these 'intent to construct' laws if you ask me.

I understand why other sellers wouldn't sell uppers under 16" without NFA, too many stupid laws gets the avg guy in trouble. then they look bad ultimately by selling it (albeit legally).

I'm still gonna build that bullpup draco pistol. I wonder if I own another butt pad somewhere, is that intent to construct an SBR ?

sounds stupid, and maybe a stretch for the ATF , but they do that (stretching for arrests and raiding lawful businesses for no reason)
But hey man somewhere around my shit is probably a spare buttpad for a hunting bolt action....... see my point? It's total BS trying to understand when the law applies or doesn't because they don't have to prove intent.
makes zero sense when other laws you would have to prove an intent, i.e. guy actually brings it with him to go shooting somewhere and builds a SBR , like in the field.

Gun laws don't make sense , because they weren't written or enforced with any sense in the first place. The ATF just made up shit as they go, and everyone bases their 'knowledge' of gun law on whether or not anyone has been charged with XXXX in the past by a near corrupt enforcement organization. Where's the fucking sense in that?

[onemeangixxer7502]

exactly.
I even knew that one.
and ppl were giving me shit about asking about DIY gunsmithing.
It's too hard to understand these 'intent to construct' laws if you ask me.

I understand why other sellers wouldn't sell uppers under 16" without NFA, too many stupid laws gets the avg guy in trouble. then they look bad ultimately by selling it (albeit legally).

I'm still gonna build that bullpup draco pistol. I wonder if I own another butt pad somewhere, is that intent to construct an SBR ?

sounds stupid, and maybe a stretch for the ATF , but they do that (stretching for arrests and raiding lawful businesses for no reason)
But hey man somewhere around my shit is probably a spare buttpad for a hunting bolt action....... see my point? It's total BS trying to understand when the law applies or doesn't because they don't have to prove intent.
makes zero sense when other laws you would have to prove an intent, i.e. guy actually brings it with him to go shooting somewhere and builds a SBR , like in the field.

Gun laws don't make sense , because they weren't written or enforced with any sense in the first place. The ATF just made up shit as they go, and everyone bases their 'knowledge' of gun law on whether or not anyone has been charged with XXXX in the past by a near corrupt enforcement organization. Where's the fucking sense in that?

They're wordy but not that confusing, basically anything you have to complete something that is illegal to own w/o a stamp is more the less intent to construct. THey can stick it to ya good like that. Pretty stupid. All this nfa bullshit is so antiquated. How many crimes are actually commiited with sbr'd ar's or fully auto weapons......

[CJ]

They're wordy but not that confusing, basically anything you have to complete something that is illegal to own w/o a stamp is more the less intent to construct. THey can stick it to ya good like that. Pretty stupid. All this nfa bullshit is so antiquated. How many crimes are actually commiited with sbr'd ar's or fully auto weapons......

It can still be illegal even if you have a stamp. For instance, I have registered SBR lowers, and I have multiple SBR uppers. However, if I had any complete non-SBR registered lower ANYWHERE in my house, that's intent to construct.

[futant]

see that's whats stupid. There is no intent to construct, merely possession alone isn't intent to construct any more than owning weapons isn't 'intent to overthrow the us govt.'

the deal is where do they ever have to prove intent ? since when is possession of anything necessarily intent ? jail ? thats about it.
I know you may be saying im exaggerating but im not, this actually affects me and ill now have to make sure i don't have any errant butt pads. How totally fucking stupid is that? I have no intent to break the law , but that's exactly what they would try to charge me with.

This is why I know I could never be a JBT, they have no interest in serving the greater good of enforcing gun laws. Instead they walk guns accross borders, obstruct justice, and prosecute lawful citizens and law abiding businesses.
Descretion WTF is it ?

[Nash B.]

Descretion WTF is it ?

Excellent question. The opposite of excretion?

[bigmuskie]

It can still be illegal even if you have a stamp. For instance, I have registered SBR lowers, and I have multiple SBR uppers. However, if I had any complete non-SBR registered lower ANYWHERE in my house, that's intent to construct.

Just when I thought I had all this crap understood, a curve ball gets thrown. Let me get this straight. If I have an registered SBR lower with multiple short barrel uppers, I can't have an assembled rifle lower with no upper? I was under the impression that I was good to go with the registered SBR lower no matter what other rifle lowers I had assembled or not.

[ThreeFingerPete]

It can still be illegal even if you have a stamp. For instance, I have registered SBR lowers, and I have multiple SBR uppers. However, if I had any complete non-SBR registered lower ANYWHERE in my house, that's intent to construct.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. If you have 5 SBR/Pistol lowers, you'd be well served to have 5 receivers that are SBR/Pistol lowers. I think it needed to be clarified that not all of the lowers have to be registered SBR lowers.

[CJ]

Whoa, whoa, whoa. If you have 5 SBR/Pistol lowers, you'd be well served to have 5 receivers that are SBR/Pistol lowers. I think it needed to be clarified that not all of the lowers have to be registered SBR lowers.

Not only if they are rifle lowers. It's not uncommon for an FFL to register a lower as a rifle on the 4473. Also, even if they are not a registered rifle and remain as 'other' on the 4473 you still have intent to construct if the buffer can accept a rifle stock.

[ThreeFingerPete]

Not only if they are rifle lowers. It's not uncommon for an FFL to register a lower as a rifle on the 4473. Also, even if they are not a registered rifle and remain as 'other' on the 4473 you still have intent to construct if the buffer can accept a rifle stock.

*I* have never personally seen an FFL write anything other than receiver when selling one. If I did, I would cancel the sale right then.

Like I said: If you have 5 short uppers and 5 pistol lowers, you're good to go. If you have 5 short uppers, 5 pistol lowers (with rifle style buffer tubes) and you happen to have a stock that could mount to one of the installed buffer tubes, you've got "intent to construct"

[CJ]

*I* have never personally seen an FFL write anything other than receiver when selling one. If I did, I would cancel the sale right then.

Like I said: If you have 5 short uppers and 5 pistol lowers, you're good to go. If you have 5 short uppers, 5 pistol lowers (with rifle style buffer tubes) and you happen to have a stock that could mount to one of the installed buffer tubes, you've got "intent to construct"

I've had 4 of my lowers registered like that. Regardless if it's a pistol or receiver or whatever the 4473 says, if it's a complete lower with a stock you're in violation even with an SBR upper in your possession. It's a dumb confusing set of laws. You can also be in violation without a stock on it, because I believe the law only considers an AR15 a pistol if it has a) never been registered as a rifle b) cannot accept a stock. So, correct me if I'm wrong here, but I believe if it has a rifle buffer tube it's a rifle, no stock necessary. The reason for pistol buffer tubes and people wrapping them in para-cord is to prevent them from meeting the criteria of accepting a stock and therefore being consider a rifle.

[KBScobravert]

My theory is that if the ATF is in your house already, a pistol/short barreled upper and other rifle lowers laying around are the least of your problems. Now, with that said, I do not own a short upper that does not sit on a pistol lower until I get the stamps for my SBR.

I want to say I read somewhere that there has never been an "intent to construct" charge upheld in court yet.

Be safe though folks. A pistol buffer tube kit is $55 at the gun shows. I recommend building as a pistol first and before submitting the Form 1 anyways. That way you can test the combo out before committing a peice of aluminum to the ATF for life.

[ThreeFingerPete]

I've had 4 of my lowers registered like that. Regardless if it's a pistol or receiver or whatever the 4473 says, if it's a complete lower with a stock you're in violation even with an SBR upper in your possession.

A receiver becomes a rifle if it has been assembled into a rifle configuration. Once configured into a rifle, it's permanently a rifle, regardless of its later configurations. (Basically, once you put a stock on it, then it's a rifle)

It's a dumb confusing set of laws. You can also be in violation without a stock on it, because I believe the law only considers an AR15 a pistol if it has a) never been registered as a rifle b) cannot accept a stock.

The ATF has deemed that a pistol can be configured using a rifle/carbine buffer tube so long as you are not in possession of a stock that could be fitted to the gun. In other words, if all of your rifles have m4 stocks, and you use an A1/A2 style tube, you wouldn't be in violation. However, if you own a stock that could fit that A1/A2 buffer tube, then you have intent.

So, correct me if I'm wrong here, but I believe if it has a rifle buffer tube it's a rifle, no stock necessary. The reason for pistol buffer tubes and people wrapping them in para-cord is to prevent them from meeting the criteria of accepting a stock and therefore being consider a rifle.

A receiver that has never been configured into a rifle by addition of a stock, plus a short upper is a pistol. If you take that upper off and put a long upper and a stock on that receiver(now a rifle), you cannot go back to the short upper/ no stock configuration without "manufacturing an SBR" and paying the tax stamp.

[CJ]

A receiver becomes a rifle if it has been assembled into a rifle configuration. Once configured into a rifle, it's permanently a rifle, regardless of its later configurations. (Basically, once you put a stock on it, then it's a rifle)


The ATF has deemed that a pistol can be configured using a rifle/carbine buffer tube so long as you are not in possession of a stock that could be fitted to the gun. In other words, if all of your rifles have m4 stocks, and you use an A1/A2 style tube, you wouldn't be in violation. However, if you own a stock that could fit that A1/A2 buffer tube, then you have intent.



A receiver that has never been configured into a rifle by addition of a stock, plus a short upper is a pistol. If you take that upper off and put a long upper and a stock on that receiver(now a rifle), you cannot go back to the short upper/ no stock configuration without "manufacturing an SBR" and paying the tax stamp.

Yes yes, I know all of that stuff. I'm not convinced about calling a lower a pistol when it has a rifle buffer on it. I've read quite a few synopsis that don't follow that premise. Is there anything in writing from the ATF on this?

edit: Here is the ATF's wording:

"...a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder ..."

Stock is never mentioned. I don't think you would get in trouble doing this or anything mentioned previous. However, I see nothing in the written ATF "law" that says you absolutely couldn't get prosecuted for it. If I was an ATF agent or a federal prosecutor I could make a case that you had intent to construct a rifle if you had a carbine tube on your gun. I cannot do that if you had a pistol buffer on the same gun.

[ThreeFingerPete]

Yes yes, I know all of that stuff. I'm not convinced about calling a lower a pistol when it has a rifle buffer on it. I've read quite a few synopsis that don't follow that premise. Is there anything in writing from the ATF on this?

edit: Here is the ATF's wording:


Stock is never mentioned. I don't think you would get in trouble doing this or anything mentioned previous. However, I see nothing in the written ATF "law" that says you absolutely couldn't get prosecuted for it. If I was an ATF agent or a federal prosecutor I could make a case that you had intent to construct a rifle if you had a carbine tube on your gun. I cannot do that if you had a pistol buffer on the same gun.

How's this: