NFA CYA
Rivrdog is none too happy with a disclaimer. He notes:
I MIGHT have violated the rule if I OWN a complete stock for my Glock 22 AND it is in the same place as the Glock, and ready to be attached.
Actually, ATF would bust you for constructive possession. Doesn’t matter if you actually do it or not. I simply would not own a stock for a Glock unless I registered my Glock as an SBR.
Sorta related is Robb is a bit upset over it being unlawful to own a bit of metal:
Think about it. This is just the lower, serialized and stamped in a way that makes it a ‘machine gun’. Doesn’t matter if you put a bolt action 50 BMG upper on it, it’s considered a machine gun. And because that particular piece of aluminum was put into the registry after May 18th, 1986, it is illegal for me or you to own.
But, being a registered lower, it probably doesn’t have the extra bits of metal in it and would be classified as readily convertible. Doesn’t matter if you actually do it or not.
ATF: the country’s only pre-crime unit!
April 8th, 2010 at 10:33 am
In Rivrdog’s defense, he’s correct in that his thoughts are the way things should be.
You are correct in that his thoughts are not the way things are.
April 8th, 2010 at 10:46 am
Meanwhile, I’m still not sure if I can own an AR pistol without registering my other ARs (and stripped lowers) as SBRs. I’m thinking not.
April 8th, 2010 at 11:20 am
Speaking of, I just found out that SBRs are banned here in Washington. Argh! I was all set to start selling 14.5″ 6.8 SPC barrels.
I can still do this, but I have to go get myself a pistol lower. That, or get an FFL etc.
April 8th, 2010 at 3:02 pm
And pray tell me, if you own SEVERAL Glocks and one stock, do you have to register them all as SBRs?
April 8th, 2010 at 4:57 pm
As long as you can assemble what you have in legal configurations, it’s fine.
Examples:
Three lowers, one of which is SBR’d (or a pistol), with two or more regular length uppers and one short upper – fine. Same with more than one short upper – fine, because you can assemble the non-registered lowers in a legal configuration.
When you have more short barrels than appropriate lowers, and too few legal-length barrels with too many inappropriate lowers, you run into problems.
NFA stuff is not really intuitive for the average person. You have to live it, day in and day out, in order to start getting it. You just have to remember that it’s a gun law, and it exists in its own reality, which is not the one people actually live in. Once you accept that, it’s much easier to cope with and understand.
Of course, it’s like staring into the abyss – it leaves its mark on you. Warps you a bit.
April 8th, 2010 at 5:29 pm
I was with Rivrdog when he was pointing out that the disclaimer implied that I would (or could) be guilty of a crime for merely thinking about converting a pistol into a carbine without actually possessing the means to do so.
The laws/regulations are byzantine, to say the least, and seem to be devised in order to trip up the (otherwise) honest, law abiding citizen.
April 8th, 2010 at 5:58 pm
The ATF is in the manufacturing business. They take the raw materials of citizenship and convert them into criminals by manufactured evidence, Orwellian protocols, and judicial distributorships.
April 8th, 2010 at 6:49 pm
Can anyone point me to a ruling where constructive possesion has been used for anything other than a machine gun?
I can’t find one, and I don’t beleive it has ever been tried since there are perfectly legal non-NFA ways of assembling the parts, eg Rifle and Pistol. In fact I seem to recall they lost the Thompson Center case.
Take the Ruger Charger and a stock 10/22. The barrel from the charger makes the 10/22 an SBR. I doubt even the ATF could make that one stick.
Machine gun parts, such as a full auto sear, cannot be used in any legal configuration unless already part of a firearm (or a registered sear in its own right). Hence constructive possesion makes legal sense in that case.
Having seaid that I think the NFA and particularly the 86 ban is a load of hogswash.
April 9th, 2010 at 8:15 pm
http://www.examiner.com/x-1417-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m7d2-Government-dismisses-charge-against-gun-owner – Albert Kwan was prosecuted for constructive posession of an unregistered SBR by having an unregistered pistol, a registered pistol, and 2 stocks.
(also read the bit on what they tried with his M-14, which the jury *didn’t* buy).
Found it via Arms and the Law – http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2009/07/government_drop.php
April 9th, 2010 at 9:28 pm
I wonder what would happen if you bought that Endo Tactical adapter, put it on a Glock, and then DIDN’T put a stock on it…. what if you didn’t even own an AR-style buttstock? What does that Endo piece become then? Does it make it an AOW since it kinda-sorta adds another kind of grip?
April 10th, 2010 at 1:05 am
The “thought crime” part of the Endo Tactical disclaimer was what bothered me. By those ATF rules, I might be guilty of constructive possession if I even LOOKED AT THE WEBSITE. Well, I did, so they have my IP addy, assuming the site is a BATFE sting site.
That, combined with putting a rip in their knickers on my blog and with these comments, probably means I’m on their radar.
I don’t own any pistol stocks, never have, have nothing NFA or AOW, but I HAVE committed the “thought crime” that this site envisions.