Florida Man Arrested for Constructive Possession of an SBR

[RevolvingGarbage]

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]

LEGAL? that depends on how much money he has to spend on his lawyers....

STUPID? imho... yes

 

[w_houle]

... 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]

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]

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]

Here's another take on the story from the NFA Gun Trust Lawyer Blog;

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]

Well Coyote, I guess you can call me Elmer because I had the same thoughts as W Houle.

 

[TexasRifleman]

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]

Ruling:



Reversal:

 

[ants]

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]

Heh heh, thanks freakshow10mm.

That first letter always makes me laugh.

 

[cleetus03]

He wasn't merely in casual possession of those pieces. He advertised them for sale as a single group.

So if I sold this + this together would it be considered constructive possession?

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

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?

 

[deadin]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[ServiceSoon]

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]

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]

Remind me not to go to Florida with a double barrel and travel with a hacksaw.

 

[Digitalage03]

Hello guys its me Jesus Amador with the so called illegal sbr

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.