Intent to manufacture unregistered NFA weapon??

[cpileri]

Intent to manufacture unregistered NFA weapon??

Would a person be in violation of the NFA34 if he or she possesses, in assembled form, one of each of the following 2 items at his/her home at the same time:
http://www.gunsmokeenterprises.net/GSE PISTOL.htm
a legally non-NFA AR pistol
and
http://www.gunsmokeenterprises.net/STANDARD ISSUE.htm
a non-NFA AR rifle??

BTW: there’s nothing otherwise special about GSE. I could’ve chosen any number of other example pairs (AK, SP89-clones, etc), but these were the first two I came across where both are sold by the same proprietor. Anyway…

The reason I ask is that I can conceive a dishonest LE or prosecutor tell the judge that the above possessor could ‘so easily’ have switched that pistol upper onto the rifle lower and made an unregistered Short Barreled Rifle, violating the NFA, that the possessor is therefore guilty of ‘intent…’

I know you all get the idea.

Now, I suppose an AK would be harder, since the barrel is not very removeable, and pistols are supposed to have a ‘pistol trunion’ to prevent attaching a stock easily. So I chose the AR.

Anyone know?

C-

 

[Too Many Choices!?]

I bet 9 out of 10 peoplee that have an AR-Pistol also have an AR-15

I don't think it could be made to stick without evidence that the person actually manufactured(used the pistol upper on the buttstockded lower) an SBR,otherwise I doubt it !

 

[thebucket]

I think the only way to prosecute someone with intent to make an SBR as you described would be if the person possessed a standard AR-15 lower and had the uppers for pistols but not rifles.

 

[HKrazy]

The basic rule is, if you have only parts that can be used in a legal configuration and you never assemble them in an illegal configuration, then you are alright.

This precedent was established by the the Supreme Court in UNITED STATES v. THOMPSON/CENTER ARMS CO.

In this case the court was called upon to decide what constituted a short barreled rifle. T/C wanted to market a kit consisting of one receiver for their Contender gun, a 16"+ barrel, a less than 16" barrel, a pistol grip and a shoulder stock. This kit could be used, as intended, to assemble a rifle or a pistol, or it could also be used to assemble a SBR. As it could be so used, ATF decided it was a SBR. T/C made one unit on a Form 1, then sued for a tax refund, claiming it wasn't subject to the NFA.... The court decided that the language of the definition of a SBR was vague, and gave it the reading most favorable to the taxpayer, T/C. They decided the kit was not a SBR, nor was any set of parts where they could be used for a legitimate purpose, even if they could also be used to assemble a SBR. However a SBR fully assembled was also clearly a SBR. Thus the other grey area was a SBR in parts form, like an Uzi carbine and a Uzi SMG barrel. A lower court had held in a prior case that that set of parts was a SBR. The court agreed; that if the parts had only one use, to make a SBR, and a person possessed them all, that was a SBR also.

 

[1 old 0311]

From what I understand it depends on what the ATF WANTS TO DO. IF all your other guns are clean you probably wont have a problem. If not it would be one more thing to pile the charges on. I always error on the side of caution.

Kevin

 

[beerslurpy]

The crimes of posession dont require intent, so I doubt that intent itself is a crime. If they requried people to intentionally break these laws, they would never convict anyone. No one intentionally saws off a shotgun to 1/8th an inch less than the legal limit.

 

[Standing Wolf]

From what I understand it depends on what the ATF WANTS TO DO.

Well, yeah, but we're not a police state.

 

[Zrex]

Well, yeah, but we're not a police state.

you forgot the [/sarcasm] tag at the end of your post.

 

[kal]

Well, yeah, but we're not a police state.

Well we're half way there.

 

[Pinned&Recessed]

Well, yeah, but we're not a police state.

I know this was said tongue-in-cheek in a joking manner right?

 

[Logistics]

>>>you forgot the [/sarcasm] tag at the end of your post.<<<

He wasen't being sarcastic at all, unfortunately.

 

[ProGlock]

On certain weapons, you can easily take an everyday paperclip and attach it in such a way to make the weapon a fully-automatic machine gun.

Guess there's several million people now guilty of felonies they'd never thought of before huh?

 

[Ian]

And if they want to, they will prosecute you for having a full-auto shoelace.

 

[Ivy Mike]

ProGlock, if you are speaking of the mini-14/30 staple trick, the BATFE already stated that it was NOT a machine-gun.
Somebody wrote them and because the gun would fire one round on the pull of the trigger and one on the release of the trigger, that it did not constitute a machine gun.

The text of the letter is floating around somewhere and it explains it in clearer detail than I can.

I'll try and find the thread...

 

[publius]

This precedent was established by the the Supreme Court in UNITED STATES v. THOMPSON/CENTER ARMS CO.

In this case the court was called upon to decide what constituted a short barreled rifle.

I called upon the Court to feed me beans and then shine my shoes, but they seemed to know that shouldn't be their job. How come they don't know that about deciding what a SBR is?