Multiple rifles + pistols with braces

1
Question for people who own multiple rifles and braced pistols. If you have an AR15 rifle and a similar braced pistol, does the fact that the rifle’s stock is removable and theoretically could fit on the pistol mean that you should file to SBR the AR pistol? I’ve been reading that owning a stock that could technically fit onto a pistol you own could result in a “constructive” SBR build. Just wondering how this plays out; does anyone know?

Re: Multiple rifles + pistols with braces

2
The way I understand it, you can be charged with constructive possession if you have no other reasonable excuse. If you have all the parts for an SBR, and only for an SBR, then the fact that they’re disassembled is not going to protect you. For example: you have a Glock and a disassembled SBR without a tax stamp. If the ATF searches your place, you will definitely get constructive possession.

However, if you have an AR rifle having a stock interchangeable with the SBR, you can argue that the stock is a spare part to your rifle. Of course if all the parts kit for the SBR is stored together but away from the rifle, your defense is weaker.

In short: having a rifle with SBR-interchangeable parts is actually a defense against constructive possession charge.

Disclaimer: I’m not a lawyer, and my opinion is worth what you paid for.
Glad that federal government is boring again.

Re: Multiple rifles + pistols with braces

4
There is no safe harbor when it comes to the NFA that I know of.

In the not-so-distant past they only sold “pistol” buffer tubes specifically to avoid constructive possession charge. The tube is smooth all around and can’t take a standard AR stock. They went out of style when SB Tactical started selling their SBA3 brace that uses a standard carbine buffer tube. Of course they sold a metric ton of those. The company claimed it was ATF-approved, but the ATF later claims it didn’t.

If you want to be completely safe, use a pistol buffer and a brace compatible with it, like SB Tactical’s SOB or SBM4.
Glad that federal government is boring again.

Re: Multiple rifles + pistols with braces

5
Northern wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 10:48 am That all makes sense to me as an argument why they shouldn’t charge a person in the scenario I described, but I’m hoping to find more specific information that would clarify if there is a safe harbor. I’ve looked at ATFs FAQs to no avail. It seems like it would be a common scenario given all the AR pistols that are being sold.
The ATF should not arrest people for not breaking the law, but it's easier than fighting crime. We can all guess as to how far constructive intent extends, e.g., ownership of both a shotgun and a hacksaw. But there is an old saying of which I was recently reminded by Matt Larosiere: "Anything more than minimum compliance is self-regulation".

Re: Multiple rifles + pistols with braces

6
I’m not yet convinced it’s minimum compliance when someone owns a rifle with a removable stock that can easily be swapped into a pistol in the same house (regardless of whether the pistol has a brace already on it). I’m trying to get a real sense of how ATF has applied, as well as declined to apply, its concept of constructive possession of an SBR. I was just hoping someone had some information about that.

Re: Multiple rifles + pistols with braces

8
Constructive Posession is often applied to fully automatic weapons. If you have a legal AR-15 AND also have a full auto trigger AND do NOT have a reason to have a full auto trigger it is a problem. BUT if you own a legal NFA M-16 you are fine, but it would be wise to store it with your M-16 and not with a AR-15.

SBR, Pistol and Rifle AR-15s are the same way. If you have a legal reason to have it, that is fine. Just don't store or transport things together that can only be assembled into something you should not have.

Re: Multiple rifles + pistols with braces

9
I've often wondered about stuff like this when it comes to California laws too... for instance, if one buys a "featureless" AR-15 in Cali, it will have a fin grip and a pinned butt stock along with a 10 round mag. However, it will still have a semi-auto bolt. If one were to convert to something like the Kali Key bolt, the rifle would be rendered a "bolt action" and could now use pistol grip, adjustable stock, removable mag, etc. However, one might reasonably want to keep the semi auto bolt as well as the featureless components so that it could be converted back to "stock featureless" if sold, or if the owner just desires to shoot semi auto. Does the fact that TECHNICALLY the original bolt could be swapped in without also putting featureless parts back on constitute "constructive possession?"
-Crow
Minute Of Average

Re: Multiple rifles + pistols with braces

11
Crow wrote: Mon Sep 20, 2021 12:40 am I've often wondered about stuff like this when it comes to California laws too... for instance, if one buys a "featureless" AR-15 in Cali, it will have a fin grip and a pinned butt stock along with a 10 round mag. However, it will still have a semi-auto bolt. If one were to convert to something like the Kali Key bolt, the rifle would be rendered a "bolt action" and could now use pistol grip, adjustable stock, removable mag, etc. However, one might reasonably want to keep the semi auto bolt as well as the featureless components so that it could be converted back to "stock featureless" if sold, or if the owner just desires to shoot semi auto. Does the fact that TECHNICALLY the original bolt could be swapped in without also putting featureless parts back on constitute "constructive possession?"
-Crow
I'd ask your local gun store. They Interact with BATF on a regular basis and stay current on local laws. But my general opinion is the BATF agents I've run into are decent people. They are not looking for excuses to harass honest people.

What you describe dosen't sound like an issue to me as long as when you go back to semi-automatic, you change back all the furniture and features before the bolt.

Re: Multiple rifles + pistols with braces

13
Oldschool wrote: Mon Sep 20, 2021 11:01 pm I'd ask your local gun store. They Interact with BATF on a regular basis and stay current on local laws. But my general opinion is the BATF agents I've run into are decent people. They are not looking for excuses to harass honest people.
I would fact check anything you hear at a gun store. I've heard some crazy stuff from guys that hold FFL's.

I will say that most BATFE agents are really cool, and VERY helpful. They also have a pretty good sense of humor with new dealers who screw everything up (to a point of course). Most agents do a lot to help out their dealers.

There are however, the other agents that are famous for harassment. Now as a general rule, the guys who find themselves facing these types of agents more often than not, do sketchy things and call attention to themselves. There are several cases where the BATFE arrested and charged someone, knowing they weren't going to get a conviction, in the hope that the "offender" would cut some kind of deal. At one point in the early '90's it got so bad that a Federal judge made the AFT pay all fees for any case they lost. That put an end to the really horrific, and blatant harassments cases. But others continue...again, it's generally the nails that stick up that they try to hammer down.

Me personally, I have had very positive interactions with BATFE.
“I think there’s a right-wing conspiracy to promote the idea of a left-wing conspiracy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron