AR pistol vs SBR question

[jdigga221]

In order for an ar to be classified as a pistol vs sbr, it can obviously not have a stock on it. This much I know, but what if you have say a 6 position buffer tube on the lower but never attach a stock. Is it still considered a sbr or would it be classified as a pistol.

Thanks,

Joe

 

[Mr. Brownstone]

In order for an ar to be classified as a pistol vs sbr, it can obviously not have a stock on it. This much I know, but what if you have say a 6 position buffer tube on the lower but never attach a stock. Is it still considered a sbr or would it be classified as a pistol.

Thanks,

Joe

Will find the cite, but basically, if you even have the stock for another AR it would be considered "constructive possession" of an SBR.

 

[Mr. Brownstone]

Here, check this thread out. It's one of those charcoal grey areas. Short answer is, yes you can do it. But, if you are in possession of a stock that would fit on it, you in trouble.

http://www.northeastshooters.com/vb...-AR15-pistol?p=3628841&viewfull=1#post3628841

 

[JCV]

Will find the cite, but basically, if you even have the stock for another AR it would be considered "constructive possession" of an SBR.

This is what I don't understand "constructive possession"
It's always talked about when dealing with SBR's and pistols.

Now I have a question about this and I've been meaning to ask it.
Let's say an unlicensed person possessed a complete upper, and stock. Is this constructive possession?
I'm gonna go ahead and guess no because they would need a lower?
But at that point it wouldn't be constructive possession it would probably be a different firearms charge...?

 

[whatluck]

I think that if you have no lower, then there's no firearm, so these stupid laws and regs wouldn't apply.

 

[Mr. Brownstone]

This is what I don't understand "constructive possession"
It's always talked about when dealing with SBR's and pistols.

Now I have a question about this and I've been meaning to ask it.
Let's say an unlicensed person possessed a complete upper, and stock. Is this constructive possession?
I'm gonna go ahead and guess no because they would need a lower?
But at that point it wouldn't be constructive possession it would probably be a different firearms charge...?

You need to have all of the parts available to "construct" whatever the regulated item is. So in your example, the person would not have the lower, so not enough to make a complete rifle.

A person can go out and purchase a M-16 fire control kit as long as they do not own an AR-15. Even if they have a registered M-16, they can have a spare kit, as long as they do not have a seperate AR. Having the AR and an extra fire control kit would be considered "constructive possession."

Clear as mud?

 

[atilla]

no lower, no firearm i'd say. the items described are not regulated at all by state or federal law.

WRT constructive possession... they kind of need to be inventorying your shit for that. you're already in the shit if this is happening.

 

[JCV]

You need to have all of the parts available to "construct" whatever the regulated item is. So in your example, the person would not have the lower, so not enough to make a complete rifle.

A person can go out and purchase a M-16 fire control kit as long as they do not own an AR-15. Even if they have a registered M-16, they can have a spare kit, as long as they do not have a seperate AR. Having the AR and an extra fire control kit would be considered "constructive possession."

Clear as mud?

lol yup, thanks

 

[Kevin_NH]

Constructive Possession is FUD, isn't really about "construction" as such.

Is it constructive possession, or constructive intent?

There's a lot of hype around this in regards to NFA, even though the biggest fearmongers have very few actual cases to point to. In the most well known SBR instance, the defendant was, IMHO, an idiot, and even then the charges were dropped 3 weeks later.

The two most likely ways to have a real problem is if there's clear evidence you had at some point assembled a firearm in a impermissible configuration (see the above case in Florida), or if you possess a collection of parts such that the only possible configuration is an unlawful configuration (as in the case of full-auto parts).

Debate over this should have ended with the 1992 Supreme Court decision in United States v. Thompson/Center Arms Co. and ATF ruling 2011-4.

 

[dcmdon]

Kevin. your underlining of the words "the only possible configuration" is a key to your correct understanding of this matter. It is the key to this matter overall.

I am the owner of a pre-ban, registered SBR.

As such, I can have just about any kind of upper on it that I could ever want.

I also own non registered, plain jane post ban rifles.

Could I take a threaded barreled 10" upper and put in a regular lower that I also own? Yes. Would this be illegal? yes.

But the fadct that I have a registered lower to go with that "evil" upper makes it ok. I guess what I'm saying is that you don't need to take all possible combinations into account.

I actually asked this question to Detective Shawn Musial of the CT DESPP. If I had to worry about storing a pre-ban SBR in the same safe as a post ban gun. His response was that if I posessed a preban SBR upper and did not posses a preban sbr lower, but did possess a post ban lower, there might be problems, but that the presence of the pre-ban lower meant this was not a problem.

I hope this makes sense.