ATF reverses itself allowing the shouldering of Sig Braces

[David]

That's a good point, and the documents actually do explicitly state that machine guns and destructive devices are treated differently, so I can see where your experience would differ.

Also, in another interpretation letter, I read that an SBR is never actually removed from the registry. When they receive notification that the gun has been permanently re-configured to Title I status, they just note that in the file. They keep it on the registry forever, even though it's no longer an NFA weapon. In any event, as you suggested, sending such a letter is the smart thing to do if one ever decides to revert an SBR permanently, either to sell or just because you don't want it short anymore.

[xd ED]

Oh, interesting, I found this letter from the ATF from 2007. It seems to address some of these issues nicely, assuming ATF is consistent, which might not be the best assumption:

"Finally, if you place the long barrel on your registered SBR receiver (essentially converting the weapon temporarily from a SBR into a standard rifle), you may transport the long barreled weapon across State lines without completing the above-noted procedures and receiving permission for [sic] NFA Branch. You could also transport the receiver itself with no barrel attached across state lines without permission. However, in both these instances, the short barreled upper must be left at home and cannot be transported across state lines in association with either the unbarreled registered SBR receiver or the long barreled rifle utilizing the registered SBR receiver."

...the short barreled upper must be left at home and cannot be transported across state lines..."

Does the highlighted text infer there is a specific (serialized/registered) upper associated with the SBR build.
Or will any short barreled upper present create the potential liability of constructive possession/ intent (if that's the correct term)?
Thanks,
ED

[Ghost]

Oh, interesting, I found this letter from the ATF from 2007. It seems to address some of these issues nicely, assuming ATF is consistent, which might not be the best assumption:

"Finally, if you place the long barrel on your registered SBR receiver (essentially converting the weapon temporarily from a SBR into a standard rifle), you may transport the long barreled weapon across State lines without completing the above-noted procedures and receiving permission for [sic] NFA Branch. You could also transport the receiver itself with no barrel attached across state lines without permission. However, in both these instances, the short barreled upper must be left at home and cannot be transported across state lines in association with either the unbarreled registered SBR receiver or the long barreled rifle utilizing the registered SBR receiver."

...the short barreled upper must be left at home and cannot be transported across state lines..."

Does the highlighted text infer there is a specific (serialized/registered) upper associated with the SBR build.
Or will any short barreled upper present create the potential liability of constructive possession/ intent (if that's the correct term)?
Thanks,
ED

I think it all depends on the mood of the person wanting to screw you over. I believe there was a case a couple years ago about some guy getting pulled over after a road rage incident that had just been to the range. If i remember correctly the LEO worked pretty diligently to assemble something he shouldn't have. Not sure how it turned out though. Maybe somebody else knows what it was.

[Ghost]

Found what I was talking about

http://www.thenewrifleman.com/it-should-concern-us-all-nfa-violation-in-arkansas/

Let’s assume Justin was innocent of any attempted wrongdoing. Let’s assume that he had everything disassembled properly and the cops are the persons who actually created the short barreled rifle. That he didn’t order a M16 FCG to try and play with full auto. There was actually no GLOCK produced from his vehicle so the accusation of pointing a gun was never proven. What can we learn?

The cops can create a SBR out of parts in your car despite your best efforts to follow the law. If they did so and it proceeded to court, would a police officer admit to creating a SBR illegally? Hell no they wouldn’t own up to it.
Sometimes the cops will search a vehicle without a warrant, and the courts may accept the evidence produced regardless of legality of the search.
Swapping pistol configurations to and from carbine lowers, stocks, and rifle uppers with pistol components in the bag can be mishandled / misunderstood by law enforcement and later, the jury.
Having a M16 FCG in a non registered lower, despite it being unable to fire automatically, does not help you make your case to the jury that your an innocent gun owner falsely accused.
There is lots of grey area here. I am sure we cannot assume the convicted is simply not guilty of anything. The police claim they found the pistol assembled with a rifle buttstock in the vehicle, where as the convicted claims it was separated in a bag from the stock. The problem is that law enforcement could easily mishandle your gear and create illegal configurations. Your word against theirs. If his pistol was brought to the range with permanently attached sig brace, or another such product which couldn’t be easily dissembled on the scene, he would have been free and clear after producing the ATF’s compliance letter regarding such braces. Or he could have gone full monty and had it registered as a SBR.

[FJ540]

The quoted text from Ghost's post makes a statement that the current ATF position contradicts - permanently attaching the brace construes construction of a stock.

I have 2 pistol lowers and 3 pistol uppers. I have more rifle lowers than I'd like to admit to online. The chances of me having a loose pistol upper and an un-assembled rifle lower at any given time while in transit is significant, as it's much easier to cram broken down ARs into cases than complete ones.

This is more proof to me, that the SBR/SBS restrictions of the NFA are onerous and unjust. When LEOs use the law to screw honest people, the law needs to go away.

[David]

SBRs do not have specific, serialized parts (barrels or stocks) associated with them. If you had a Title II lower (permitted SBR) and an upper with a short barrel attached, but not attached to a pistol or another titled SBR, you would be in violation without the proper form to transport it. However, ATF does consider whether you have other weapons with you. I don't have a reference with me, but I know from my class and ATF documents I have read that they will not gig you for constructive possession if the offending parts will legitimately go on another gun that is in the same place. The story quoted above isn't from an actual case, and the fears expressed in it do not gel with what ATF says. When I get a chance I'll find the relevant statement and add it here.

[Ghost]

SBRs do not have specific, serialized parts (barrels or stocks) associated with them. If you had a Title II lower (permitted SBR) and an upper with a short barrel attached, but not attached to a pistol or another titled SBR, you would be in violation without the proper form to transport it. However, ATF does consider whether you have other weapons with you. I don't have a reference with me, but I know from my class and ATF documents I have read that they will not gig you for constructive possession if the offending parts will legitimately go on another gun that is in the same place. The story quoted above isn't from an actual case, and the fears expressed in it do not gel with what ATF says. When I get a chance I'll find the relevant statement and add it here.

It's real
http://www.arkansasmatters.com/news/local-news/benton-man-gets-30-months-for-unregistered-short-barreled-rifle

There aren't serialized parts but, I believe, you need to be able to return it to whatever form it's registered as (caliber and length).

As I mentioned before, you get the wrong LEO on a bad day and you have a bunch of different modules it could be a very bad day for you. If transporting pistols and rifles I'd keep them in separate cases and the main thing is don't give anybody a reason to search the vehicle. My .02 and worth what you paid for it.

[David]

That article says nothing about the police assembling a rifle out of parts he had. It says that he flashed a gun, and when they searched the car, they found an unregistered SBR. Do you have a better link that describes anything like what you posted earlier? And I mean an actual government document or a news story, not just some gun guys like us making guesses about it on the internet. I'm curious what the real deal is here, and whether there is any evidence that the guy actually had a pile of unassembled parts in the car, complete with multiple uppers and lowers that could be legally assembled.

Also, the Thompson/Center case addressed whether a bunch of gun parts are considered an NFA weapon if it is possible to assemble an NFA weapon out of them. They held that if the parts can be assembled to make non-NFA weapons, and not JUST NFA weapons, then there is no crime, and ruled in favor of Thompson/Center. Thompson/Center got into trouble because they had the parts necessary to make pistols, and also the parts necessary to make rifles (just like if you had a rifle lower with a stock and a pistol lower, and also a short barreled-upper and a long-barreled upper). You have parts that are intended to be assembled in just two ways, but by swapping some of them, you could in theory assemble them in a third, illegal, way. But just because you CAN put the rifle lower and stock and the short upper together, doesn't mean that you will, and as long as you have the lowers necessary to legally mate with the uppers, you are not guilty of possessing an NFA weapon. However, if you ONLY had a rifle lower and stock, and ONLY had the short-barreled upper, then you are guilty of possessing an NFA weapon. It's all spelled out in this article that was written by the attorney who argued the case in front of the Supreme Court on behalf of Thompson/Center:

"The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Contender pistol and carbine kit are not a short-barreled rifle under the National Firearms Act, 26 U.S.C. §5845(a)(3). This means that a consumer may possess the pistol with its 10” barrel and may use the kit parts to make a rifle with the 21” barrel, as long as the shoulder stock is not assembled onto the receiver at the same time as the 10” barrel.
Justice Souter, joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice O’Connor, wrote the opinion of the Court. The Court stated the issue to be whether a short-barreled rifle is “made” by the aggregation of finished parts that can be readily assembled.
The government noted that a bicycle is still a bicycle even when unassembled. The Court rejects this analogy, because the Contender items can be assembled three different ways, and are intended to be assembled only two ways.
Justice Souter wrote that “a set of parts that could be used to make nothing but a short-barreled rifle” would, if there is an “aggregation” of such, be a short-barreled rifle. The opinion states that “a combination of parts that could only be assembled into an NFA-regulated firearm” would be such a firearm.[1] Further, a non-NFA gun becomes an NFA firearm if “placed together with a further part or parts that would have no use in association with the gun except to convert it into a firearm.” As examples, the court mentions a carbine with a machinegun conversion kit,[2] and a pistol and attachable shoulder stock found in different drawers of the same dresser."

Complete article here: http://stephenhalbrook.com/tc.html

And I agree 100% with your suggestion of transporting everything in separate cases, and especially not giving anyone a reason to stop or search you. That's great advice!

[Ghost]

That article says nothing about the police assembling a rifle out of parts he had. It says that he flashed a gun, and when they searched the car, they found an unregistered SBR. Do you have a better link that describes anything like what you posted earlier? And I mean an actual government document or a news story, not just some gun guys like us making guesses about it on the internet. I'm curious what the real deal is here, and whether there is any evidence that the guy actually had a pile of unassembled parts in the car, complete with multiple uppers and lowers that could be legally assembled.

Also, the Thompson/Center case addressed whether a bunch of gun parts are considered an NFA weapon if it is possible to assemble an NFA weapon out of them. They held that if the parts can be assembled to make non-NFA weapons, and not JUST NFA weapons, then there is no crime, and ruled in favor of Thompson/Center. Thompson/Center got into trouble because they had the parts necessary to make pistols, and also the parts necessary to make rifles (just like if you had a rifle lower with a stock and a pistol lower, and also a short barreled-upper and a long-barreled upper). You have parts that are intended to be assembled in just two ways, but by swapping some of them, you could in theory assemble them in a third, illegal, way. But just because you CAN put the rifle lower and stock and the short upper together, doesn't mean that you will, and as long as you have the lowers necessary to legally mate with the uppers, you are not guilty of possessing an NFA weapon. However, if you ONLY had a rifle lower and stock, and ONLY had the short-barreled upper, then you are guilty of possessing an NFA weapon. It's all spelled out in this article that was written by the attorney who argued the case in front of the Supreme Court on behalf of Thompson/Center:

"The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Contender pistol and carbine kit are not a short-barreled rifle under the National Firearms Act, 26 U.S.C. §5845(a)(3). This means that a consumer may possess the pistol with its 10” barrel and may use the kit parts to make a rifle with the 21” barrel, as long as the shoulder stock is not assembled onto the receiver at the same time as the 10” barrel.
Justice Souter, joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice O’Connor, wrote the opinion of the Court. The Court stated the issue to be whether a short-barreled rifle is “made” by the aggregation of finished parts that can be readily assembled.
The government noted that a bicycle is still a bicycle even when unassembled. The Court rejects this analogy, because the Contender items can be assembled three different ways, and are intended to be assembled only two ways.
Justice Souter wrote that “a set of parts that could be used to make nothing but a short-barreled rifle” would, if there is an “aggregation” of such, be a short-barreled rifle. The opinion states that “a combination of parts that could only be assembled into an NFA-regulated firearm” would be such a firearm.[1] Further, a non-NFA gun becomes an NFA firearm if “placed together with a further part or parts that would have no use in association with the gun except to convert it into a firearm.” As examples, the court mentions a carbine with a machinegun conversion kit,[2] and a pistol and attachable shoulder stock found in different drawers of the same dresser."

Complete article here: http://stephenhalbrook.com/tc.html

And I agree 100% with your suggestion of transporting everything in separate cases, and especially not giving anyone a reason to stop or search you. That's great advice!

Yeah, I wasn't there so can't claim it's all true but the AR15.com thread had one of the guys friends in it and he believes that they assembled it. It's not out of the realm of possibility.