Quote:
Originally Posted by alanint
Not altogether correct. ATF has a lovely charge called "Constructive Intent". Merely possessing both parts can be construed as a violation. This legal jargon is often used to charge people who own a legal AR15 and a short barreled upper, or full auto parts not placed inside the gun.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidJayUden
That goes back to the old "drop in auto sear" days of the AR. If you had one of those sears AND had an AR15 they deemed you to be in violation. Even if they were not together.
dju
|
I'm familiar with the whole concept of constructive possession, but there are other factors to consider. Topping the list is whether or not an item meets the statutory definition of a Short-Barelled rifle. Likewise, is there a lawful use of the parts? The Thompson Center case (but one example) demonstrated the ability to own parts capable of producing an SBR when there also exists a lawful use for the parts outside of the NFA. (I.e., possession of an Encore receiver, a variety of short barrels, long barrels, and shoulder stock does not in and of itself put the owner in violation of the NFA vis a vis an unregistered SBR.) Another issue is intent. Mens rea, I believe... Again, this is why the BATF isn't chasing down every collector who has a Benke Theimann stock on their Luger (which clearly DOES meet the statutory definition of an SBR.)
Referring to machine guns briefly... Machine guns are a whole different animal than Short-Barelled Rifles/Shotguns. Machine guns are defined the whole, by their receiver or alone, or by "a combination of parts." A machien gun receiver in and of itself is a machine gun. So is a combination of parts designed/intended to convert a gun to full-auto. A DIAS is an example, So is an M2 parts kit (trigger housing, sear, hammer, trip, connector lever, selector switch.) 26USC CH53 5845 and 18USC CH44 921 clearly state this. But an SBR/SBS is different.
An SBR (or SBS) is defined by its features. For example, remove the 8"barrel from your AR15 and it's no longer an SBR - without a barrel it no longer meets the statutory definition of an SBR (i.e., it no longer has a barrel less than 16". QED it is not an SBR. The BATF has said this repeatedly. The Thompson Center case says it too (as well as a few other things.))
Back to my original post, if the owner of this "collectible" monstrosity actually attached the stock, he very well could be prosecuted for an unregistered SBR (just like someone with a Benke Thiemann stock installed could.) If he wanted to cover his bases concretely he could file a Form 1 and register it. Or he could remove the stock lug. It not only appears to already be removable, but it certainly won't damage any collector or monetary value if he did so. He could also buy a cheap repro LP.08 stock. The he's got a lawful combination, and another "collectible" stock; thus he has a lawful combination of parts ref. Thompson Center.
I appreciate the well-intentioned posts and warnings and no doubt the OP does too, but let's keep it in perspective too, and not go 'round like Chicken Little.
EOM