TallPine
Member
Well, what if I have "Destructive intent" ??? 
BATFE and "Constructive Intent"
- Thread starter Kind of Blued
- Start date
- Status
Hkmp5sd
Member
I guess it depends on the day of the week, phase of the moon, Hillary's super-delegate count or last nights lotto numbers.
For some reason, ATF is not consistent in their rulings.
IMO, don't try to play games by intentionally trying to get around or bypass the law just because you are impatient to get the parts. That applies to parts or trying to build a "not-quite-a-machine-gun" to play around. If you do so, you may end up regretting it. I don't like the laws either, but I guess I am just cautious.
Kind of Blued
Member
The point of this thread is not to intentionally "get around or bypass the law". The point is to pursue my hobbies with an absolute respect for the law first and foremost.
It is discouraging that it is nearly impossible to get a straight answer on what is illegal and what is not. Especially considering a huge organization with hundreds of people with hundreds of computers and millions of dollars can't get it together as well as some 18 year old kid in high school in Iowa that wants to legally put a new part on his rifle.
I'll just ask them myself. It seems the only "insurance policy" you can get to prove that you were acting legally to the best of your knowledgeis a letter in reply from the ATF with someone's signature on it.
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
The ATF doesn't "make" law though. They can only enforce laws on the books. If they give you legal advice they could always change their minds in court.
The only way you will get a real answer is to be put on trial and see what the jury tells you.
The letter you get from the ATF will be blurry at best and err on the side of caution, that's about all you can expect from them anymore.
That opinion that all shoestrings were considered machineguns was pretty embarrassing to them I suspect.
And look how long it took for them to notice it. During the time from Sep 2004 to Jun 2007 it was Tech Branches opinion that ANY shoestring 14 inches in length was a machinegun.
You sure you want their legal opinion?
Oh and make a note of when you send a letter to them. I bet you get the tax stamp back before you get a reply to your question
I asked tech branch what I thought was a simple question about a Registered Lightning Link once and it took them 5 months to reply to me.
Bubbles
Member
These guys all tried that; didn't work, and cost them a lot of money.
Bill Akins/Tom Bowers: Akins Accelerator
Historic Arms, LLC: BM-3000
Centerfire Systems & KT Ordinance
As has been pointed out, ATF doesn't "make" laws, but they do make rulings and regulations that have the force of law, and the ATF can change these on a whim in addition to enforcing them. Hence the problem.
MDeViney, please don't take my comments the wrong way. I was thinking of a lot of other threads when I wrote that. My advice for you is to wait until you get your approval before buying parts.
Regarding other threads, it seems that some of the people who get on the wrong side of the ATF seem to be trying to make a gun act like a machine gun, but not be a machine gun, and then they get in trouble for having a machine gun. With the rules and law as vague as they are, you have to be careful not to fall on the wrong side of things.
Regarding other threads, it seems that some of the people who get on the wrong side of the ATF seem to be trying to make a gun act like a machine gun, but not be a machine gun, and then they get in trouble for having a machine gun. With the rules and law as vague as they are, you have to be careful not to fall on the wrong side of things.
cracked butt
Member
I knew it wouldn't take long for someone to validate my cynicism over the BATFE.
The problem is you asked the wrong question, used the wrong terminology, and asked about a legal term without a simple short answer.
If the question you asked was, "Can I have ___ while I have ____, here is what I want to do." The answer would be much easier because you would not need to be given answers to extra questions you asked.
No, you don't have a tax stamp yet, and possession of parts intended for creation of an NFA weapon even if you are planning to wait until legal to assemble it is possession of an NFA weapon.*
*with exceptions
Constructive intent, and constructive possession have nothing to do with building anything, guns or otherwise. Yet you asked about those terms and how they apply to gun ownership, further confusing the clear answer you wanted.
They are legal terms that apply to ownership or intent to a range of things under law and you are simply mislead by the "constructive" word in them.
You should not own parts that can allow you to assemble an illegal weapon unless they also allow you to assemble a legal weapon, and only if that is your intent.
The ATF is simply a regulatory agency, and you can't get a straight answer from them that will hold up in court on some issues.
Checking with them on a specific issue can be useful for business practices or as a short cut to current interpretation by the people that enforce the law, yet it is not a sure way to actualy understand the law.
There is enough grey area that the interpretation can change with the political climate and thier current budget.
So on many legal issues there is no clear answer, some things are legal and illegal. The akins accelerator is a good example. It was "legal", the ATF stated it was legal, and then it was illegal. No law changed, the ATF interpretation did.
Yet for it to have been determined illegal now, since no law has changed, that means it was always a machinegun and therefore always illegal possession of a machinegun, even when the agency interpreting the law said it wasn't. Legaly they do not make law, they just enforce it (in reality they do make law, since there is dozens of interpretations that can hold up in court).
So had they said it was legal, then arrested people for it without first declaring them illegal, that would still be perfectly legal, because the law never changed, so they were never legal from the start. In fact I don't know what the statute of limitations is for prosecution, but I would imagine the list of pruchasers could be charged and sent to prison for illegal possession of an unregistered machinegun if the ATF decided to do so. They don't have the authority to just declare someone immune from the law, so be saying it was legal the illegal status of it technicaly and legaly would not have changed.
So things can get quite confusing.
They don't legaly create law, so thier current interpretation of law is and always has been law (at least since the date of the law it is based on) since they do not really have legal authority to create new law. So if you do something considered legal, and then it was declared illegal later, technicaly it would have always been illegal because the law never changed, just the ATF's clearer understanding of it would have.
Owning any item, legal or illegal, even if you store it miles away at a family member's home or a parked vehicle or a in a storage unit is still constructive possession of that item, whether it is a dog, a computer, or a gun part. Constructive possession is not a criminal offense, it is a type of possession. Constructive possession of something illegal to have is illegal constructive possession.
Since having the parts to build a weapon that is illegal with no legal use for them remains illegal, owning those parts stored in different places would still be "constructive possesson" no different than having them in front of you, not because "constructive possession" means you can consruct anything, but because you technicaly still possess an NFA weapon illegaly.
So people see the terms "constructive possession" a lot in cases involving illegal firearms and get confused about what it means. It just means you possessed something that was not present, and was like in your example stored at a family member's home.
If you possess the items which you can only use to make an illegal item you could be charged. Yet if you have an AR-15 that stock can also be used on, you have a valid legal purpose, until of course you mention you have it for use with your pistol once you got your stamp. That just was admission to illegal possession based soley on intent. You can have legal spare parts for legal weapons, millions do. Unless of course the ATF decides they are to build something which is an illegal use for them, then they are illegal.
If you are planning to make a legal SBR you should get the tax stamp ASAP to be legal.
You cannot get everything ready for the project because by being ready you will have broken the law. That is your question, and that is the answer. There is ways around the law by having the items in question legaly for a legal purpose, but because your intent is to use them on a weapon which you don't have a stamp for, even if your intent is to wait until you do, it still is illegal to own that stock.
So possession of it can be both legal and illegal at the same time. Possession even with intent to wait until you have a tax stamp to use it on the pistol is illegal.
Possession for an AR-15 you have that it fits on, and at a later date deciding one of the stocks you have for your AR-15s would be nice on your pistol after you have the tax stamp is legal.
It is all intent. Since your clear intent is to purchase and own it for eventual use with the pistol, ownership of it in any way, even miles away at a family members house is illegal constructive possession of a SBR (once again constructive possession has nothing to do with construction.)
I have a Colt M4LE registered SBR that has a 14.5" barrel. I also have a regular AR15 m4gery with a 18" barrel.
So the way Im reading it, it looks that if I were to buy an additional 11" upper to swap back and forth with the 14.5" on my SBR, that it would be constructive intent????
So the way Im reading it, it looks that if I were to buy an additional 11" upper to swap back and forth with the 14.5" on my SBR, that it would be constructive intent????
No. ATFE couldn't make a plausible argument that you got the 11 inch upper in order to mount it on the unregistered lower. The problem (based on statements attributed to ATFE on NFA boards) would be if you didn't have the 18 inch upper. A trier of fact might think that if the only uppers you have for the lowers are both SBR, you might be tempted to attach them. ATFE's argument would play into that.
nalioth
Member
The 'way you're reading it" is that they'll get you if they want you.opticalc said:
How would they know you didn't get a smokin' deal on it and have 'constructive intent' to build a pistol out of it?
...or any other legal scenario....
Hkmp5sd
Member
Yes. That is essentially what ATF stated in their letter dated March 29, 2000 (shown above). If you have more short uppers than you have registered lowers and a normal AR-15, they say you are in violation. If you have a registered lower (SBR or machinegun) and no AR-15 rifles, you can own as many short uppers as you desire.
larry_minn
Member
Sorry to say the process stinks. ITs a stupid law that should be found illegal. It makes no sense.
I can "legally" buy a "pistol" lower that is 100% the same as a "rifle" lower. Same internals, trigger, mag,caliber. If its pistol I can NOT put a stock on it. If it is rifle I can't put a barrel under 16" total length (with flash hider IF its welded on to the point that even if placed in vice and monkey wrench with cheater bar can't break it loose) (without paying couple hundred bucks/background check and half yr plus wait)
Its dang sad.
I can "legally" buy a "pistol" lower that is 100% the same as a "rifle" lower. Same internals, trigger, mag,caliber. If its pistol I can NOT put a stock on it. If it is rifle I can't put a barrel under 16" total length (with flash hider IF its welded on to the point that even if placed in vice and monkey wrench with cheater bar can't break it loose) (without paying couple hundred bucks/background check and half yr plus wait)
Its dang sad.
It is not a law, it is an interpretation of a government agency given the task of enforcing the law.
A policy and a law are two different things. In the ATFs case though policy has the authority of law, but is not law.
So in that sense there is no specific "law" to overturn. Just an interpretation of what possession of an NFA item is, when an NFA item is not actualy assembled.
The NFA does not outlaw it in its wording, the ATF does through thier policy to interprete possession when there is not actualy possession.
At all times most people are in possession of an NFA item based on possible interpretations.
"Readily modified" is an interpretation. Most semi-auto actions are readily modified in under an hour to actual full auto. I mean take the little aftermarket happy switch sold for Glock pistols, it does very little internaly to make them full auto.
Once a firearm is confiscated by agents they got hours in a lab to demonstrate just once that a semi auto can fire more than once with a pull of the trigger. They can use special ammo, and make various modifications to the action, with thier goal to make as minor or few as possible so they can present that in court. Then they can just show a video clip of that.
Ultra soft primers, and a lil dust in the firing pin area and you can get almost any semi auto to eventualy fire more than one round in a short time.
Many SKS rifles will go full auto if you don't clean the cosmoline out of them before use. Not reliably, but all it takes is once during an hour of recorded video by people trying to do that.
Beagle-zebub
Member
I thought of this thread when I heard Douglas Fife on the radio saying that Iraq had indeed had all sorts of dual-use whatever that could be "readily converted" into WMDs. Good ideas just don't know any limits, do they!
packnrat
Member
when in doubt...play it on the safe side,
keep the parts in deffernt places, maybe even deffernt states.
till the feds give you the ok paper work.
.
and do not talk about these things online as "they" do read the postings.:banghead:
.
keep the parts in deffernt places, maybe even deffernt states.
till the feds give you the ok paper work.
.
and do not talk about these things online as "they" do read the postings.:banghead:
.
im not worried. I only have a 14.5" M4LE thats never been fired, and probably will never be fired, and a homebuilt 18" AR15. Speaking of the homebuilt one, if i put in a rock river national match two stage trigger, will that reduce the likelyhood of a malfunction that could be used to say that I had a machinegun? Are 2 stage triggers less or more difficult for the ATF labs to "force" to go full auto?
barnetmill
Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2006
- Messages
- 1,264
TexasRifleman wrote:
"The ATF doesn't "make" law though. They can only enforce laws on the books. If they give you legal advice they could always change their minds in court.'
Federal agencies after a law is enacted by congress issues regulations that tell (decide) how that law will be enforced. There normally is a public comment period. OSHA was recently shot down when they tried to regulate sporting ammunition sales the same way they would high explosives at a construction site.
I do not know if every BATFE regulation is submitted to public comment. I also do not know if a letter issued by them covers the US universally or if what goes on in the west coast differs from what goes on the east. The US district courts vary from one district to the next on some decisions. Most likely if you have a letter from them applying to specific question that you asked you are probably safe. Someone else might not be safe in a similar case. Me I stay away from possible illegal scenarios, but as complicated as the laws (regulations) are one always worries.
"The ATF doesn't "make" law though. They can only enforce laws on the books. If they give you legal advice they could always change their minds in court.'
Federal agencies after a law is enacted by congress issues regulations that tell (decide) how that law will be enforced. There normally is a public comment period. OSHA was recently shot down when they tried to regulate sporting ammunition sales the same way they would high explosives at a construction site.
I do not know if every BATFE regulation is submitted to public comment. I also do not know if a letter issued by them covers the US universally or if what goes on in the west coast differs from what goes on the east. The US district courts vary from one district to the next on some decisions. Most likely if you have a letter from them applying to specific question that you asked you are probably safe. Someone else might not be safe in a similar case. Me I stay away from possible illegal scenarios, but as complicated as the laws (regulations) are one always worries.
- Status
