Avoiding an accidental SBR

[Elkins45]

I have a PSA AR lower that accepts Glock mags. It was sold to me assembled as a pistol lower, so that’s not an issue. The issue is that I bought a 16” upper and added an A2 stock with a lead filled rifle buffer to slow down the harshness of the blowback action.

My worry is that I would like to put a short barrel on it and turn it back into a pistol, but I would like to keep using the longer and heavier rifle buffer instead of the carbine length buffer it shipped with. So I would need to keep using the rifle buffer tube, and that’s my concern. Does having a rifle tube without the stock make it an illegal SBR? If so, would welding up the screw hole make a difference? I hate to go back to the carbine buffer if I don’t have to.

 

[Varminterror]

Buffer tubes without stocks have been long used for pistols. No NFA issue.

 

[Theohazard]

No NFA issue.

That’s half-true. It depends on what other parts you have and where they're located.

An AR pistol can be assembled using a rifle or carbine buffer tube so long as you don't attach the stock. Since the federal definition of a rifle involves a stock, an AR pistol that uses a rifle or carbine buffer tube can't be considered a rifle without a stock.

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/firear...ion-firearms-gun-control-act-definition-rifle

However, keep in mind that possessing a stock that can readily attach to that buffer tube can cause you to be in constructive possession of a rifle (or short-barrel rifle) if that stock is in "close proximity" and you have "no useful purpose" for having it (per the 1992 SCOTUS case US v. Thompson - Center Arms Co, and further clarified in ATF Ruling 2011-4):

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/r...FjAAegQIDxAB&usg=AOvVaw0rM01RYpHPJWmU9r2Q0TSQ


Here's an article by a lawyer about the ATF's take on carbine and rifle buffer tubes used on AR pistols:

https://johnpierceesq.com/which-buffer-tubes-can-i-use-on-my-ar-pistol/

That article references just one of many ATF letters that give the same answer: A rifle or carbine buffer tube doesn't necessarily make that firearm into a rifle. (Side note: That article is from 2014, but the ATF letter it references is from 2004, which is before the 2011 ruling I linked to above where the ATF finally accepted the 1992 Supreme Court case as applying to all firearms and not just the Thompson-Center firearm in question, therefore changing the ATF's longstanding stance of "once a rifle, always a rifle", so some of the phrasing in that letter alludes to that outdated opinion. There are more recent ATF letters on this subject that reflect the 2011 ruling, I just didn't feel like searching for them.)

 

[Varminterror]

Lots of detail with no actual distinction. If he's pulling the stock and the long barrel, wherever they are, if they stay together, he's not CONSTRUCTIVELY possessing an NFA item if the pistol gets too close...

With the detail provided by the OP, the configurations described, my answer isn't half true - it's true. Your details all confirm it, and what you're describing is the headache of every AR pistol owner in the country... Nothing new, nothing unique, and frankly, nothing even remotely tricky.

 

[Theohazard]

With the detail provided by the OP, the configurations described, my answer isn't half true - it's true.

No. The OP didn't mention what he was doing with the stock or how he was storing the parts, so you have no way of knowing if he would be in constructive possession of an SBR or not. And neither do I.

But you specifically said there would be no NFA issues with what he wanted to do. And that's not necessarily true, as I already pointed out.

So again, your comment was half-true: You might be correct, but it depends on factors that the OP didn't mention.

 

[Elkins45]

I'm keeping the stock and also the 16" barrel, so I will have the parts needed to configure it as both a pistol or a rifle. I also have at least one unassembled AR lower on which the buttstock could possibly be installed.

 

[Theohazard]

I'm keeping the stock and also the 16" barrel, so I will have the parts needed to configure it as both a pistol or a rifle. I also have at least one unassembled AR lower on which the buttstock could possibly be installed.

Since you have the parts on hand to assemble an illegal SBR, just make sure you follow the guidelines set forth in ATF Ruling 2011-4.

Sure, it will probably never be an issue at all in real life, but it doesn’t hurt to follow the rules as closely as possible to be safe.

 

[wally]

With stripped lowers readily available for $30, I'd just build another and not worry about switching uppers and stock removal/replacement. Back in the bad old days when you were happy to find a stripped lower for $200, the hassles of switching and the potential legal difficulties could be worth it, but certainly not at the moment.

If we made 11 million undocumented machine guns would they be debating amnesty for them?

 

[bikemutt]

I've often wondered about the constructive possession aspect of SBRs in the case of AR15 lower receivers. Even though I have a lower receiver registered as an SBR, I have several others that are not. I have uppers in many calibers some of which are short of rifle length which I'd only use on other pistol lowers, or I may test them on my registered lower in an SBR configuration.

Is unlawful constructive possession applicable if the possessor has the means to construct lawfully?

 

[Theohazard]

From what I understand (as a layman), US v. Thompson-Center Arms Co. determined that as long as you have a legal "useful purpose" for having those parts, you're fine.

So first off, to get in trouble for constructive possession of an SBR for simply having the parts to make one, the parts must be in "close proximity" to each other (I once asked an ATF agent what that meant specifically and he told me to ask a lawyer). Next, you must also have other way to assemble those parts other than illegally.

So if you have a short upper, an assembled SBR lower, and an assembled non-SBR lower all in "close proximity" to each other, you could definitely make an illegal SBR using the non-SBR lower. But since you could also make a legal SBR using the SBR lower, that gives you a legal reason for having those parts, meaning it's not considered constructive possession.

That's my non-lawyer understanding of US v. Thompson-Center Arms Co and ATF Ruling 2011-4. If any of our resident lawyers having anything to add or any corrections to make, I'd appreciate it, because I want to make sure I've got this right.