Florida Man Arrested for Constructive Possession of an SBR


PDA






cleetus03
September 2, 2009, 12:13 AM
www.floridaguntrader.com (http://floridaguntrader.com/index.php) is a ridiculous effective tool for buying and selling guns in my state and I've used its services before. As I browsed through the website today, I found the following post by a member Jesus Amador who had listed a gun on the site.

Well folks my name is Jesus Amador, you out there might just know me as Digitalage03, i recently met up with a prospected buyer for my sp89 clone pistol, well turns out the guy was a undercover cop and the reason he wanted to meet up with me is because he saw that i was selling the pistol with a stock as one of the accessories, which by the way it was never on the gun and it is legal to own, you just cant install it without a tax stamp,

well anyways once i met up with him not only did i get slammed to the ground and had about 7 armed cops (one of which) had a loaded 12ga to the back of my head while on the ground handcuffed they also illegally searched my car and even had the balls to drive off in my car from private property to a public place so they can tear thru it before the towtruck came and got , Well anyone here that know thier laws about this know they are in serious trouble, considering that the basis of all this is a misinformed sherriff called Mike Scott.

Anyone out there that would like to help in this matter not because of me, but because if you are SICK and tired off all these power hungry cops screwing with your right feel free to contact me at (239)961-4208 if you want to read the liberal BS version on how it happend google Jesus Amador Lee County. Also just for the record i at all times stated it was a pistol, never had the stock or grip on the pistol, notified the person it was illegal to put on without a stamp and even was going to assist in LEGALLY getting a sbr stamp thru a FFL , and of course i asked about if they where a florida resident as well as if they can legally own a gun. So in short i will have thier ass, any suggestions out there?www.floridaguntrader.com/index.php?a=2&b=15431 (http://floridaguntrader.com/index.php?a=2&b=15431)
Naturally, I googled Jesus Amador Lee County after reading his post. Here’s what I found;
"On August 27, 2009, Jesus Amador, Jr., was arrested by an undercover officer when he sought to sell his Heckler and Koch SP89 pistol. But, one can legally sell an H&K SP89, so what’s the twist?"

Unfortunately for Mr. Amador, he was selling the H&K SP89 with the accessories that he collected for it, which included a vertical front grip and a shoulder stock. If Mr. Amador merely possessed the vertical grip, the pistol would have to be registered under the NFA as an AOW. However, because he also had a stock, the pistol would have to be registered as a short-barreled rifle, PRIOR to purchasing or possessing the shoulder stock and/or vertical grip.http://blog.princelaw.com/atf-firearms-blog

And here's the photo of the SP89 with all the accessories in a case that he used in the classified.;
http://floridaguntrader.com/user_images/1212444.jpg


And here's the press release of his arrest from the Lee County Sheriff Office website (www.sheriffleefl.org (http://www.sheriffleefl.org/news/gendetails.aspx?id=6150));


Friday, August 28, 2009
Man Arrested For Possessing Short Barreled Rifle; Tried To Sell On Craigslist
A Naples man is under arrest for illegally possessing a short barreled rifle, a weapon he tried to sell over the Internet.

Based on information obtained by Sheriff Scott, an investigation was launched into an ad that featured the sale of firearms on the web site "craisglist.com." The ad featured a Bonita Springs reference.

The investigation revealed that one of the firearms for sale was a short barreled rifle...illegal to possess without a federal stamp. Detectives from the Intelligence Unit set up a meeting with the seller, Jesus Amador, Jr. During that meeting, the detectives were able to inspect the weapon and determined it was indeed a short barreled rifle. Amador was unable to provide documentation necessary to possess such a weapon and was arrested.

Arrested: Jesus Amador, Jr., DOB 9-20-81, of 2921 NE 20th Avenue, Naples, FL., charged with possession of a short barreled rifle.

I never gave thought to Constructive Possession of a NFA firearm. Probably because I don't possess anything which comes close to blurring the lines. Do yall think the H&K SP89 that Amador sold was without a doubt constructive possession of a NFA firearm?

If you enjoyed reading about "Florida Man Arrested for Constructive Possession of an SBR" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Prince Yamato
September 2, 2009, 12:16 AM
Do yall think the H&K SP89 Amador sold in it's condition was without a doubt constructive possession of a NFA firearm?

Yes. He's an idiot for selling this with those accessories. Should it be a crime? No, but it is and this guy basically committed a text-book case of constructive possession.

kingpin008
September 2, 2009, 12:18 AM
I've got a suggestion for him - erase that post, and shut up until he secures a lawyer. Other than that, I say go get 'em. If everything he says is true, he might have a shot. Either way it's going to cost him, unfortunately.

panoz77
September 2, 2009, 12:34 AM
Ignorance of the law is not a defense. This type of law applies to other arenas in the gun world as well. Some people do not WANT to learn the truth and suffer for it as a result. I have seen guys post pics of pistols with forward grips and just can't believe they just incriminated themselves so badly. Just like a guy recently posted a for sale ad for an AR with the "parts to make it FA" as he stated plainly in his ad on swapgiant. Check this guy out.

http://i167.photobucket.com/albums/u142/panoz77/moron.jpg

freakshow10mm
September 2, 2009, 12:41 AM
TC v US stated constructive possession is BS via Supreme Court.

Kent in the 11th federal court said otherwise.

Interesting to follow.

Quiet
September 2, 2009, 12:42 AM
Do yall think the H&K SP89 that Amador sold was without a doubt constructive possession of a SBR as defined under FL law?

Yes.

freakshow10mm
September 2, 2009, 12:43 AM
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed, holding that a short barreled rifle "actually must be assembled" in order to be "made" within the meaning of the NFA. 924 F. 2d 1041, 1043 (1991). The Court of Appeals expressly declined to follow the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in United States v. Drasen, 845 F. 2d 731, cert. denied, 488 U.S. 909 (1988), which had held that an unassembled "complete parts kit" for a short barreled rifle was in fact a short barreled rifle for purposes of the NFA. We granted certiorari to resolve this conflict. 502 U. S. ___ (1991).

TC v US

Quiet
September 2, 2009, 12:49 AM
Federal law is not the issue.
(reason why the BATFE is not involved)

What's at issue is FL law, which outlaws the constructive possession of a SBR.
(if you have a tax stamp, then you are exempt from this law)

Which the defendant clearly violated.


Florida Statue 790.221
(1) It is unlawful for any person to own or to have in his or her care, custody, possession, or control any short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun, or machine gun which is, or may readily be made, operable; but this section shall not apply to antique firearms.
(2) A person who violates this section commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(3) Firearms in violation hereof which are lawfully owned and possessed under provisions of federal law are excepted.

DHJenkins
September 2, 2009, 01:01 AM
I could swear I saw that picture on gunbroker.

I guess the lesson here is to never meet someone in person if you're selling a gun like this.

Or at least, have someone video taping from a safe distance.


Pretty dumb though to sell all that stuff in one auction. You'd probably get more for the individual parts, anyway.

flrfh213
September 2, 2009, 01:11 AM
yep, i saw thet pic on 1 of the gun sales sites too....
cant remember where, but i guess i need to keep an eye on this.... i live in same county he does... if he is in jail, he is down the street 12ish miles....

rfurtkamp
September 2, 2009, 09:23 AM
It's sad, in this case a several thousand dollar gun and accessories is subject to enforcement for want of a $200 stamp.

Not saying I agree with the extortion of the stamps in the first place, and god knows I've bought enough of them now over the years (including ironically my own MP5K-PDW SBR), but the true shame is the guy lives somewhere where he could have easily made that package unquestionably legal with little hassle.

Shung
September 2, 2009, 09:30 AM
now they did put a "real criminal" in jail.. you should all feel safer ! thx Mike Scott, you made florida citizens so much safer..

danprkr
September 2, 2009, 09:40 AM
Well, without know everything, and let's face it we can't, I can say this. Even if it is a technical violation of the law, and stupid on his part. It's a stupid law, and I hope he gets off.

627PCFan
September 2, 2009, 09:52 AM
Define readily made.....? Does that include a clip on attachments, or bar stock that needs to be milled, tapped, and bolted on? Seems like the prosecution would have to clarify that and get the judge to buy it

NC-Mike
September 2, 2009, 10:08 AM
now they did put a "real criminal" in jail.. you should all feel safer ! thx Mike Scott, you made florida citizens so much safer..

We don't know he isn't a bad guy, neither do the police before they arrest him make the decision to prosecute or not.

What should the police do, just say ahh, forget about it, he's probably OK and just don't know the law... :)

Shung
September 2, 2009, 10:10 AM
wanna bet ? ;)

rino451
September 2, 2009, 10:50 AM
Yes. He's an idiot for selling this with those accessories. Should it be a crime? No, but it is and this guy basically committed a text-book case of PRECRIME.

Fixed it for you. And yes, I do not like those kinds of laws.

9mm+
September 2, 2009, 11:01 AM
I used to live in Florida (now live in North Carolina), and while I don't like a lot of these inane laws, ignorance of them and/or failure to comply are never a good idea.

I am a bit surprised of how the arrest was made, but since the cops knew the suspect was armed beforehand, they certainly didn't want to take any chances.

chuckusaret
September 2, 2009, 11:03 AM
This guy made a big mistake and was an easy catch for the LE guys. They jumped on him with both feet and of course made sure all the newspapers, both local and national, got a copy of the news release on the arrest and their outstanding investigative techniques in capturing the bad guys. Yep, they have gotten another very dangerous criminal off the streets.

longdayjake
September 2, 2009, 11:06 AM
I agree that the whole issue in this case that will be debated is the definition of "Readily Made." Every rifle I own is a SBR depending on how you define that one phrase. I bet I could saw off the barrel on my gun faster than you could put a stock on that pistol. A lawyer could get a policeman/professional to put the stock on and see how long it would take. If nothing else that law should be void for vagueness.

rino451
September 2, 2009, 11:17 AM
I believe that past precedent has shown that "they" are loathe to define "readily made."

Jamyatunes
September 2, 2009, 11:19 AM
The problem with this "readily made" stipulation is that anyone who owns both a regular AR-15 rifle and an AR-15 style pistol could in a matter of seconds swap the lowers and have an illegal SBR. Do they now have the right to go through every Florida resident's gun safes to ensure that this is not the case?

MisterMike
September 2, 2009, 11:27 AM
Though I'm a lawyer, I'm not going to even pretend to know how the state's courts have interepreted this provision of the law:

Florida Statue 790.221
(1) It is unlawful for any person to own or to have in his or her care, custody, possession, or control any short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun, or machine gun which is, or may readily be made, operable; but this section shall not apply to antique firearms.

But the clear language of the statute indicates to me that the question is not, as suggested by someone above, whether a prohibited weapon could be "readily made" from the parts one has one hand, but, rather, whether if one has such a weapon in hand, it could "readily be made operable." Depending on how this law is construed, this makes a huge difference.

Nonetheless, in every state that I know of, the state is held to a pretty stringent and narrow reading of any criminal statute. Here, the criminality of the conduct described by the OP is not readily apparent from the plain language of the statute . . . at least not to me. :D However, regardless of how this turns out, combining those items in a single sale offering was probably not prudent.

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
September 2, 2009, 11:47 AM
Hugh Downs is selling full-auto kits now?

As freakshow said, it's a gray area as to whether it violates federal law, so no, NOT without a doubt illegal as to federal law.

As to FL state law, I do not think that Quiet is correct at all when he says that the Defendant "clearly violated" state law. Let's look at the statute you posted again:

Florida Statue 790.221
(1) It is unlawful for any person to own or to have in his or her care, custody, possession, or control any short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun, or machine gun which is, or may readily be made, operable; but this section shall not apply to antique firearms.
(2) A person who violates this section commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(3) Firearms in violation hereof which are lawfully owned and possessed under provisions of federal law are excepted.

In fact, paragraph #3 specifically states that "if it's legal as to Federal law, it's legal as to this FL state law" - so we're clearly and unambiguously BACK to Federal law (which is unclear and ambiguous - look at what freakshow10mm said above).

In addition, EVEN if paragraph #3 were not in there, as MisterMike points out, there's still no constructive possession in paragraph #1 - true, it's "operable or readily made to be operable" - no question about that. But that's only one of two requirements. It's also must be either an SBR or SBS or machinegun, to be illegal. So we're back to the definition of "what is an SBR?" which doesn't *necessarily* include this so-called "constructive possession".

So no, it's not clear at ALL to me yet that he committed any crime, either federal or state.

mgregg85
September 2, 2009, 11:55 AM
If Mr. Amador merely possessed the vertical grip, the pistol would have to be registered under the NFA as an AOW.

I own a vertical grip, its for my SUB-2000, but its not always attached to it(sometimes it sits on top of my gun safe). I also own an XD45 that the vertical grip could be attached to. Now according to that sentence that I quoted, that would be constructive possession of an AOW?

RevolvingGarbage
September 2, 2009, 12:17 PM
I have a full stocked 18.5" pardner pump 12 gauge. If I also own a hacksaw am I in constructive possesion of a SBS?

What if i have a saiga 7.62x39 and a vertical mill that i could mill a full auto sear out with, am I in constructive posession of a machinegun?

As far as im concerned, charging a person with "constructive posession" should be about as legal as charging someone with "contemplative murder".

SSN Vet
September 2, 2009, 12:37 PM
LEGAL? that depends on how much money he has to spend on his lawyers....

STUPID? imho... yes

w_houle
September 2, 2009, 12:41 PM
... and how long would it take to turn a shoe lace into a machine gun? I guess I am in constructive possession of two machine guns.

coyotehitman
September 2, 2009, 12:45 PM
I've got a suggestion for him - erase that post, and shut the f**k up until he secures a lawyer. Other than that, I say go get 'em.

I have a better suggestion for him, man up and accept responsibility for your actions. Why is it oh so common on gun forums to suggest obtaining an attorney and dodging responsibility for your actions?

I have a full stocked 18.5" pardner pump 12 gauge. If I also own a hacksaw am I in constructive possesion of a SBS?

What if i have a saiga 7.62x39 and a vertical mill that i could mill a full auto sear out with, am I in constructive posession of a machinegun?

As far as im concerned, charging a person with "constructive posession" should be about as legal as charging someone with "contemplative murder".

And statements like this are why the libs put us in the Elmer Fudd category.

freakshow10mm
September 2, 2009, 12:49 PM
I own a vertical grip, its for my SUB-2000, but its not always attached to it(sometimes it sits on top of my gun safe). I also own an XD45 that the vertical grip could be attached to. Now according to that sentence that I quoted, that would be constructive possession of an AOW?
No, your SUB-2000 is a rifle, not a pistol. If you put a vertical foregrip on a pistol it's an AOW. You can put a VFG on a rifle or shotgun and it's fine.

cleetus03
September 2, 2009, 12:53 PM
Here's another take on the story from the NFA Gun Trust Lawyer Blog (http://www.guntrustlawyer.com/2009/08/florida-man-arrested-for-const.html);

NFA firearms and Constructive Possession. Some said it would never happen, but it seem that just recently Jesus Amador was arrested for possession / Constructive possession of an SBR.

Florida law does not allow individuals to possess the pieces to readily build an SBR, SBS, or Machine Gun unless permitted to do so under Federal law. While he may have been enticed by the police to take an action that he would not have taken, he eventually showed up to unknowingly sell the items to a police officer. Upon doing so 7 police officers at gun point slammed him to the ground and arrested him (as reported by Joshua Prince on his gun blog and by Mr Amador on Florida Gun Trader)

While some may say that this is a possession issue and not constructive possession, the fact is that constructive or actual possession are only ways to prove possession and as such there may be little significance between the two.

If you are going purchase, own, or use NFA firearms make sure you are protected by using a NFA Gun Trust that deals with these special firearms as Title II firearms and not as a traditional asset like a house, care, boat, bank account, or picture on the wall. If you do not believe there is a difference, call us and we will explain how they are different and why you need a gun trust for your firearms.

By David M. Goldman on August 31, 2009 10:18 PM

Warhawk83
September 2, 2009, 01:00 PM
Well Coyote, I guess you can call me Elmer because I had the same thoughts as W Houle.

TexasRifleman
September 2, 2009, 01:05 PM
and how long would it take to turn a shoe lace into a machine gun? I guess I am in constructive possession of two machine guns.

For a short time the ATF had a letter out from Tech Branch claiming that any 14 inch shoestring in America was an unregistered machine gun.

If someone doubts it I'll go find a copy, it's posted in several places.

As for all of this stuff, ATF has generally claimed that a case was "constructive possession" if someone had parts that had no other legitimate use.

So, if you own an AR15 rifle AND pistol, then having a short upper wouldn't be a problem since you had a legitimate use for it.

If however you only owned an AR15 pistol and you had a shoulder stock, there would be no legitimate combination of those parts so you're a criminal.

Stupid yes, but that was their position for a long time. Don't know if that has changed post TC v US.

They also continue to hold the position to this day that even if you DO convert a pistol to a rifle, you can never convert it back without going NFA.

Now, this is a state case but I suspect they are using some of the ATF definitions as guidelines.

freakshow10mm
September 2, 2009, 01:07 PM
Ruling:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v239/freakshow10mm/ATF%20Letters/ATFShoeStringLetter.jpg

Reversal:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v239/freakshow10mm/ATF%20Letters/ATFShoeStringLetterReversal.jpg

ants
September 2, 2009, 01:08 PM
He wasn't merely in casual possession of those pieces.

He advertised them for sale as a single group.

He just made it too easy for the sheriff to do his job under Florida law.
Now, by posting his story, he's making it too easy for the prosecutor to do his job.

TexasRifleman
September 2, 2009, 01:10 PM
Heh heh, thanks freakshow10mm.

That first letter always makes me laugh.

cleetus03
September 2, 2009, 01:19 PM
He wasn't merely in casual possession of those pieces. He advertised them for sale as a single group.

So if I sold this http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:q_ClmcpAbpGruM:http://www.ammoland.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/westley-richards-hammerless-boxlock-double-barrel-shotgun.jpg + this http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:sbqjPmh-bRAW6M:http://www.supersecuritylocksmith.com/images/tools/qHacksaw.jpg together would it be considered constructive possession?

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
September 2, 2009, 01:24 PM
He just made it too easy for the sheriff to do his job under Florida law

No, he didn't. It's not the Sheriff's job to arrest people for doing legal stuff. He made it *possible* for the Sheriff to attempt to overstep his authority and wrongfully interpret a law. Please re-read my post - I'll re-post it here for your convenience, with some added parts for clarification:

As freakshow said, it's a gray area as to whether it violates federal law, so no, NOT without a doubt illegal as to federal law. But TC vs. US indicates that this is probably legal.

As to FL state law, I do not think that Quiet is correct at all when he says that the Defendant "clearly violated" state law. Let's look at the statute [which Quiet] posted again:

Quote:
Florida Statue 790.221
(1) It is unlawful for any person to own or to have in his or her care, custody, possession, or control any short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun, or machine gun which is, or may readily be made, operable; but this section shall not apply to antique firearms.
(2) A person who violates this section commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(3) Firearms in violation hereof which are lawfully owned and possessed under provisions of federal law are excepted.
In fact, paragraph #3 specifically states that "if it's legal as to Federal law, it's legal as to this FL state law" - so we're clearly and unambiguously BACK to Federal law (look at what freakshow10mm said above - back to the case law of T/C vs. US, which said that "there ain't no such thing" as constructive possession, at least in my understanding).

In addition, EVEN if paragraph #3 were not in there, as MisterMike points out, there's still no constructive possession in paragraph #1 - true, it's "operable or readily made to be operable"** - no question about that. But that's only one of two requirements. It's also must be either an SBR or SBS or machinegun, to be illegal. So we're back to the definition of "what is an SBR?" which doesn't *necessarily* include this so-called "constructive possession".

**Note that it doesn't say "readily made to be assembled into an SBR", or "readily assemblable into an SBR" or anything else similar to that - 'operable' in this statute means merely the gun fires or can be made to fire - utterly nothing to do with barrel length. And it's an "AND" connector between operable and one of the three no-nos (SBR, SBS, machinegun) before illegality kicks in.

So no, it's not clear at ALL to me yet that he committed any crime, either federal or state.

So why are we jumping on gun owners for doing LEGAL stuff, or *most likely* legal stuff, just because LEO agency A or B take the minority (probably incorrect) position that it's illegal? :scrutiny:

deadin
September 2, 2009, 01:44 PM
I seem to remember that the SC ruling was very pointed and applied only to the TC gun in question. It will take another round of challenges to expand on that decision.

Owen Sparks
September 2, 2009, 01:54 PM
The reason these silly regulations are on the books is because the original NFA also included HANDGUNS. Due to public pressure they were removed before the bill became law but provisions to keep rifles from being cut down into concealable handgun substitutes were not. Also much of the NFA was aimed at the Thompson gun and one of its salient features is a removable butt stock.

freakshow10mm
September 2, 2009, 01:56 PM
No, it ruled that in order for a SBR to be a SBR it needed to be completely assembled. Since the TC kit was not completely assembled in a SBR configuration it did not fit the definition of a SBR per federal law. This applies to all firearms.

cleetus03
September 2, 2009, 02:17 PM
I'm so confused now, can anyone verify or explain this?

"Regarding this case, the arrest and investigation was done by a FL county sheriff's department based on FL state laws (not federal laws). The guy has NOT been charged yet, so it obviously hasn't gone to court."

"So far the ATF isn't involved in any way shape or form and the general consensus around the NFA community is that they aren't going to get involved (otherwise they already would have)."

"This has led many people to believe that "constructive possession" is purely made-up and the ATF isn't very interested in it unless it pertains to something that obviously has no legal outcome (MG parts when you don't even own any legal MG's)."ingunowners.com (http://ingunowners.com/forums/class_iii_nfa/51017-constructive_possession_bust_in_fl.html#post555146)

ServiceSoon
September 2, 2009, 02:18 PM
I give us much credence to this guys prosecution as I would somebody being arrested for being an unacceptable race. The law is incomprehensible. Yes, I understand the law is real and that there are real consequences for not following them, that's why I have an NFA trust.

When are we going to end firearm racism?

rocky branch
September 2, 2009, 05:01 PM
Many years ago when they were more regulated, I bought an absolute mint Broomhandle rig with matching numbered stock, leather, and tool from the vet who brought it home.

I showed it to the wrong person and the ATF showed up.
I was going into the army at the time and had to sign a statement of abandonment to avoid prosecution.

Sadly, this guy was very foolish.

627PCFan
September 2, 2009, 05:22 PM
Remind me not to go to Florida with a double barrel and travel with a hacksaw.:cuss:

Digitalage03
December 19, 2009, 09:26 AM
I saw that you guy posted threads on what happened to me and i gotta say some of you guys know your stuff, that is exactly what happend, constructive intent is bull**** there is no such thing in the statutes. and federal law is not violated. could they enforce it? eh if your al capone and cant get you for murder they might try. But other than that 3weeks after the arrest charges where dissmissed and the gun is back in our possession with stock, kgrip and all, man was that detective PISSED!! ha i love it. so much for his 30+ man 2 week investigation on the matter. Way to use our tax dollars by the way. By the way its posted back on floridaguntrader.com if any one wanted to see the picture of it.

OR should i sbr it and register a suppressor for it and take it to the lee county police range instead of selling it? What can i say i am a public servant i push and push against these stupid make shift laws so others dont have to. Funny part is i knew about 90% that he was a cop. i did not surprise me that they would arrest a person on a charge that does not exist. Not to mention i still remember his **** eating grin of the captain in charge of the investigation. He would not even talk to me when i requested to speak to him yet he was more than eager to talk when a signed order from the judge went on their desk when it came to retrieval of property.

BULLSI
December 19, 2009, 09:50 AM
Digit welcome aboard.

I am glad that it all worked out for you and that you had won your case.

Feels good I bet.

Haveing a loaded shotgun pointed at your head probably wasnt the best feeling though.

chuckusaret
December 19, 2009, 09:59 AM
Hello guys its me Jesus Amador with the so called illegal sbr
Thank you for the update. I am glad all is well for you now.

sv51macross
December 19, 2009, 10:14 AM
Hang on a minute though. Isn't there a significant difference [diameter, locking lugs] between a AR pistol buffer tube and a AR rifle buffer tube? Did the pistol in question have a pistol or rifle BT? Because if it was a pistol BT then it wouldn't qualify as 'easily or readily convertible', correct?

61chalk
December 19, 2009, 10:21 AM
I just read this entire thread for the first time...sure glad to hear the ending an you got your gun back. Isn't there some real crime out there for cops to do.....sounds like typical non-eduacated bully's with badges...an thats the sad part...as tax payers we deserve better, an I know there are good cops out there....somewhere.

rfurtkamp
December 19, 2009, 10:32 AM
Hang on a minute though. Isn't there a significant difference [diameter, locking lugs] between a AR pistol buffer tube and a AR rifle buffer tube? Did the pistol in question have a pistol or rifle BT? Because if it was a pistol BT then it wouldn't qualify as 'easily or readily convertible', correct?


Not an AR.

Difference between a SP-89 and a SP-89 with stock is removing two pins, swapping the backplate for a stock, and reinserting them. Total 30s of assembly time (and the required tax stamp and all that jazz, for the nitpickers that will appear if I don't add it).

Jim Watson
December 19, 2009, 10:37 AM
It is the old "can't fight city hall" syndrome.
Whether the law is BS or not, whether it is correctly applied or not, if they come down on you, you get to pay the lawyers. Both sides, your taxes to the prosecutor, your life savings to the defense.
Best to be cautious and stay out of those gray areas unless you have the time, money, and inclination to "...push and push against these stupid make shift laws so others dont have to."

sv51macross
December 19, 2009, 10:45 AM
@ rfurtkamp

[facepalm]

rfurtkamp
December 19, 2009, 11:12 AM
@ rfurtkamp

[facepalm]


Why? The SP-89 is *not* a AR-type weapon. The questions you asked are irrelevant.

The SP-89 (and the modern US-made clones) is, from a functional standpoint, *the* perfect case for constructive possession by design alone. The pistol endcap vs. stock is extremely clear-cut design-wise, and the MP5K/SP-89 pistol/SBR/SMG (depending on configuration) uses different rear attachment pin locations (an extra on the top half of the receiver) compared to the standard HK-94 rifle, so there's no claim that 'that piece was for something else.'

If they weren't willing to knock this one out of the park, then it says quite a bit about at least that local jurisdiction's lack of faith in the idea of constructive possession.

I should add that as a legal owner of a NFA-registered, mommy-tax paid SP-89-type conversion that the ease of doing it is one of the reasons the entire HK clone (and non-clone) market exists - you can swap registered sears back and forth so easily it's a wonderful modular weapon system for the $12k piece of sheet metal that powers it all.

sv51macross
December 19, 2009, 11:34 AM
rfurtkamp, I meant facepalm on my part, BECAUSE I asked an irrelevant question, forgetting the OP post so soon.

Victor1Echo
December 19, 2009, 11:46 AM
With firearms, you should be smart enough to know when you are in the gray area of law; then be smart enough to make that gray either balck or white.

buy guns
December 19, 2009, 11:55 AM
I have a better suggestion for him, man up and accept responsibility for your actions. Why is it oh so common on gun forums to suggest obtaining an attorney and dodging responsibility for your actions?

Wow, so I guess Heller should have just accepted responsibility for breaking the law and taken his charges like a man, right? :rolleyes:

BlkHawk73
December 19, 2009, 01:38 PM
Illegal...yes Done purposely...doubt it but it's a crime none the less. When it's firearms and federal laws are in play, you just gotta know your do's, don'ts, can's and cannot's. If and when you screw up and get caught, don't blame everyone else but you, take responsabilty for your own actions no matter how idiotic they were.
No different than if you owned an un-taxed AR and had the 5 special parts to make it full auto.

Officers'Wife
December 19, 2009, 01:48 PM
Just like a guy recently posted a for sale ad for an AR with the "parts to make it FA" as he stated plainly in his ad on swapgiant. Check this guy out.

My guess is this person is LEO looking to make a name by stopping the 'gunshow loophole.'

Zoidberg523
December 19, 2009, 03:39 PM
I have a better suggestion for him, man up and accept responsibility for your actions. Why is it oh so common on gun forums to suggest obtaining an attorney and dodging responsibility for your actions?


Because some people that get falsely arrested and imprisoned still wish to own firearms when they are released. Did you honestly not suspect that you might get flak for this post? :scrutiny:

Mello
December 19, 2009, 06:40 PM
So to be clear we are talking about a guy who got arrested for possessing the items which if assembled would look like the pictured firearm below? A semi-auto, right? This is alleged to be a violation of Florida law.
http://img269.imageshack.us/img269/428/hksp89.jpg

Shadow Man
December 19, 2009, 06:52 PM
I just read through this for the first time, and you know what? I'll bite...how is a 14in shoelace a machine gun?

rfurtkamp
December 19, 2009, 07:41 PM
So to be clear we are talking about a guy who got arrested for possessing the items which if assembled would look like the pictured firearm below? A semi-auto, right?


Assuming the burst pack on the one you linked only has semi-auto components (legal and aok and all that), yes.

Here's the before and after with my SP-89 clone built by Vector in Utah a few years back.

http://media.furtkamp.com/v89k-pistol-left.jpg

http://media.furtkamp.com/mp5kpdw-rightfolded.jpg

No monkeys were harmed in the legal Form 1 making of this weapon. All taxes paid, yay. Other than the rear sight change (which I made while waiting for the F1 to come back approved), the fundamental difference between the two is a swap of the endplate/stock and the forearm, both held on by user-removable (toolless) pushpins.

rfurtkamp
December 19, 2009, 07:42 PM
I'll bite...how is a 14in shoelace a machine gun?


To the glorious minds at ATF, a shoelace is a machinegun because it can assist you in bump firing a semi-automatic weapon.

Shadow Man
December 19, 2009, 07:50 PM
To the glorious minds at ATF, a shoelace is a machinegun because it can assist you in bump firing a semi-automatic weapon.

Dear lord...

TexasRifleman
December 19, 2009, 07:56 PM
Dear lord...

You should read the letters, it's unbelievable. They are out if you Google around for them.

First, they sent a letter saying that ALL 14 inch shoestrings were considered NFA items.

Then finally a couple of years later they realized what they had done and amended it that only if the 14 inch shoestring was attached to a gun was it considered a machine gun.

You can't make this kind of stuff up :)

Uncle Mike
December 19, 2009, 08:09 PM
FL will put anybody in jail for anything! it's all about the money!

Shadow Man
December 19, 2009, 08:31 PM
TexasRifleman...that is astounding. That is so purely idiotic...

Digitalage03
December 19, 2009, 08:51 PM
Hang on a minute though. Isn't there a significant difference [diameter, locking lugs] between a AR pistol buffer tube and a AR rifle buffer tube? Did the pistol in question have a pistol or rifle BT? Because if it was a pistol BT then it wouldn't qualify as 'easily or readily convertible', correct?
well the buttplate on this pistol comes out with 2 pins and its easy to remove, the thing is this is just that a pistol not a modded rifle or a ar15 complete lower and a seperate pistol upper, in a case like that its nothing but a sbr but my gun is a pistol the fact that i had a stock for it does not mean jack SH*^. unless i put it on anyways, there is a buffer but its attached to the buttplate or stock.

Digitalage03
December 19, 2009, 08:57 PM
Illegal...yes Done purposely...doubt it but it's a crime none the less. When it's firearms and federal laws are in play, you just gotta know your do's, don'ts, can's and cannot's. If and when you screw up and get caught, don't blame everyone else but you, take responsabilty for your own actions no matter how idiotic they were.
No different than if you owned an un-taxed AR and had the 5 special parts to make it full auto.
thats a little different, there is no legal way of making a full auto, therefore owning full auto parts on a title 2 weapon is nothing but intent to make a machinegun, or better yet by federal law if you have the parts to build one, you do own a machinegun there is no intent there they consider it a working weapon. I am sure they will even be nice enough to get it working for you before you go to court too.

Digitalage03
December 19, 2009, 10:26 PM
I just read this entire thread for the first time...sure glad to hear the ending an you got your gun back. Isn't there some real crime out there for cops to do.....sounds like typical non-eduacated bully's with badges...an thats the sad part...as tax payers we deserve better, an I know there are good cops out there....somewhere.
Tell me about it, though it was a grey area case, if after the talk we had and they can obviously tell there was no intent to break the law they should have suspended it right then and there, but then again there is a reason why lee county is one of the counties in the country as well as naples or collier with the highest rate of reported police misconduct reports.

benEzra
December 19, 2009, 10:38 PM
I have a better suggestion for him, man up and accept responsibility for your actions. Why is it oh so common on gun forums to suggest obtaining an attorney and dodging responsibility for your actions?
Because it's a life sentence with little possibility of getting your rights restored, and "your actions" might have been a simple oversight with absolutely zero criminal intent. In this case, it appears the guy thought possessing the parts in case he wanted to go the NFA route someday with a tax stamp was OK, and he was correct with regard to Federal law but wrong about Florida law.

I studied FL gun law quite a bit and read every section of it multiple times when I lived there, and I am not sure I would have been clear that possession of a stock, a foregrip, and a pistol (with no intent to construct an SBR or AOW outside of the NFA rules) would constitute a felony. I can see how one might overlook that.

wishin
December 19, 2009, 10:42 PM
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=163966

This "14 inch shoestring is a MG" topic came up on THR back in November, 2005.

61chalk
December 20, 2009, 10:00 AM
So 14" shoestring attached to the gun is illegal.....I don't use a shoestring, ...but I would interpet this that to be legal, is to use a 13" shoestring, or 12", or 13.5".......my thinking is that a shorter one "used" would still be illegal, but a shorter one attached would make them mad, they could do nothing to arrest you if it was simply attached...there you go Jesus, check it out...your nest case....Man arrested with shoestring attached to semi-auto, but case dropped 3 wks. later when ATF discovered shoestring only measured 13.4" long......

wishin
December 20, 2009, 12:30 PM
:uhoh:That's funny, and on the money!

Digitalage03
December 21, 2009, 12:24 AM
LOL, love it, that would be just my luck.

anhedonic
December 21, 2009, 04:52 PM
Hang on a minute though. Isn't there a significant difference [diameter, locking lugs] between a AR pistol buffer tube and a AR rifle buffer tube? Did the pistol in question have a pistol or rifle BT? Because if it was a pistol BT then it wouldn't qualify as 'easily or readily convertible', correct?
I have a letter from the ATF stating that ANY buffer tube type is legal for installation on an AR15 "type" pistol. It can be a commercial 6 position for all they care as long as the stock unit isn't hanging off of it. I would attach a copy of the letter but I'm too old to figure out how to do so...

sv51macross
December 21, 2009, 04:57 PM
anhedonic said:

I have a letter from the ATF stating that ANY buffer tube type is legal for installation on an AR15 "type" pistol. It can be a commercial 6 position for all they care as long as the stock unit isn't hanging off of it. I would attach a copy of the letter but I'm too old to figure out how to do so...


Wow...that screams un-enforceability...why the heck would they have a rule like that? Though I suppose having both a such-configured AR pistol and a stock in one's possession at the same time would be prosecutable?

kanook
December 22, 2009, 09:19 AM
there is a reason why lee county is one of the counties in the country as well as naples or collier with the highest rate of reported police misconduct reportsArrived on vacation
Left on probation
Returned on violation

Once you're in the system, they will do anything to keep you there.

highorder
December 22, 2009, 12:10 PM
I have a letter from the ATF stating that ANY buffer tube type is legal for installation on an AR15 "type" pistol. It can be a commercial 6 position for all they care as long as the stock unit isn't hanging off of it. I would attach a copy of the letter but I'm too old to figure out how to do so...

We need to see that letter. That goes against what I understand.

If you have a copy of the letter on your computer, use the little paperclip above the text window when you reply to a post.

Digitalage03
December 23, 2009, 12:37 AM
Arrived on vacation
Left on probation
Returned on violation

Once you're in the system, they will do anything to keep you there.
Sad but true. Pretty much all the cops in my area know my car now too. every time i drive past them or stop at the light next to them they just stare at me. But you know what i did nothing wrong and they cost me thousands of dollars and smeared my name all over the place. They can kiss my ass i could care less what they do as long as i'm left alone. And if they cross the line like a few have ill send formal complaints and have it posted on their records.

martialartsblackbelt
December 23, 2009, 12:56 AM
Arrived on vacation
Left on probation
Returned on violation

Once you're in the system, they will do anything to keep you there.


amen brother

If you enjoyed reading about "Florida Man Arrested for Constructive Possession of an SBR" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!