NFA regulations

[the1kidd03]

I'm not an NFA guy, but have thought about joining the ranks all the time. Therefore, I'm not really "up to par" with all the regulations. I see all the time where people advise against owning a complete SBR upper and a complete lower. I feel that this is good, safe advice. Yet, I still have a question for the NFA guru's here.

I wonder are there any ACTUAL instances of charges being pressed on someone for simply owning the parts necessary to make it an SBR?

I'm curious to this simply because I have a PILE of spare AR parts from various means of acquisition so how could this be "breaking the law" simply by owning available parts if I happened to also own a short barrel? Seems to me you would have to prove intent somehow to get such a case to stick. Anyone have actual cases to reference rather than the typical "I wouldn't do it to be safe" response that I see everywhere?

I mean, I could understand the argument for someone if all they had was ONE complete lower, and ONE complet SBR upper. That would be sort of hard to argue, but what about those of us who build our own and accumulate parts over time?

 

[downzero]

This is just a thought, but I'd think that with the penalties involved, that it might be a good idea to get your advice from some place other than INGO.

 

[the1kidd03]

This is just a thought, but I'd think that with the penalties involved, that it might be a good idea to get your advice from some place other than INGO.

I'm not really looking for "advise" per say. I'm more interested in actual cases and if anyone had any to reference. All the "advice" I see simply say "I wouldn't do it, just to be safe" which is why I'm curious if anyone here has any facts to back those person(s) statements up. I have never seen anything more than internet chatter. Never seen an actual case reference regarding these "internet guru's" common advice.

I don't have any NFA items, experience, or really any true intent of getting into them at the moment. I just don't see how simply owning correlated items could make you guilty of something and so I would like to read an actual case of such circumstances.

 

[Westside]

Are you too lazy to do a Google search yourself?
let me help.
Let me google that for you






Constructive Possession: NFA Trusts vs Individual Ownership - NFA Gun Trust Lawyer Blog
UNITED STATES v. TURNBOUGH, No.

if you don't like the rules break them call the BATFE and tell them what you have done then give us an AAR on the results.

 

[OneBadV8]

 

[Westside]

Brake the rules? is that like stopping them?

Oh, I'm sure you meant break them, yeah that's it.

some days I really don't like you.

 

[the1kidd03]

Are you too lazy to do a Google search yourself?

YES. Actually working so don't have the time to spend searching through relentless links. Thought some INGO'ers might have some on hand already which they've already read through.

if you don't like the rules brake them call the BATFE and tell them what you have done then give us an AAR on the results.

Where did I say I had any intent to break anything? Did somebody light your string today?

I merely inquired about something I often see thrown around on the net and never seen any evidence to back it up. Although your link somewhat answered the question by stating; "While there are not any constructive possession cases involving NFA firearms this does not mean that the BATFE could not bring a charge of constructive possession against a spouse or other person who could exercise dominion and control over an NFA firearm"

This would lead me to believe that they typically have bigger fish to fry than some random citizen with a pile of parts. Unless of course said random citizen had a wife in the house who decided to build an illegal weapon and go on a rampage, LOL.

It went on to point out that there is no "intent element" within the law(s), but when people can win lawsuits for spilling coffee on themselves in this country I find it difficult to believe that they would actually be penalized for merely owning a pile of parts without actually expressing intent to break the law. Of course, I'm no lawyer but I certainly see huge gaps within the law(s) as they are written (according to this link). No big surprise there though.

The NFA should be obliterated IMO to begin with.

 

[Westside]

YES. Actually working so don't have the time to spend searching through relentless links. Thought some INGO'ers might have some on hand already which they've already read through.






Where did I say I had any intent to break anything? Did somebody light your string today?

I merely inquired about something I often see thrown around on the net and never seen any evidence to back it up. Although your link somewhat answered the question by stating; "While there are not any constructive possession cases involving NFA firearms this does not mean that the BATFE could not bring a charge of constructive possession against a spouse or other person who could exercise dominion and control over an NFA firearm"

This would lead me to believe that they typically have bigger fish to fry than some random citizen with a pile of parts. Unless of course said random citizen had a wife in the house who decided to build an illegal weapon and go on a rampage, LOL.

It went on to point out that there is no "intent element" within the law(s), but when people can win lawsuits for spilling coffee on themselves in this country I find it difficult to believe that they would actually be penalized for merely owning a pile of parts without actually expressing intent to break the law. Of course, I'm no lawyer but I certainly see huge gaps within the law(s) as they are written (according to this link). No big surprise there though.

The NFA should be obliterated IMO to begin with.

Actually YES. I have been arguing with my companies ISO Inspector for the past week. He couldn't even attempt to do what my companies does but yet he is an expert and is going to tell me what I do wrong.

and I don't think you will actually see anyone disagree with you on this site about that last statement.

 

[the1kidd03]

Actually YES. I have been arguing with my companies ISO Inspector for the past week. He couldn't even attempt to do what my companies does but yet he is an expert and is going to tell me what I do wrong.

and I don't think you will actually see anyone disagree with you on this site about that last statement.

What is it he is arguing with you about? When you say ISO inspector I'm assuming you're referring to the inspector actually FROM ISO and not an internal "auditor?"

I tend to look at this scenario as a case where...the BATF probably doesn't "care" if you have a pile of parts unless you do something stupid, then they'll just tack that onto the charges. But IDK, I only talk to lawyers, cops, etc and have never served in those roles.

 

[Westside]

What is it he is arguing with you about? When you say ISO inspector I'm assuming you're referring to the inspector actually FROM ISO and not an internal "auditor?"

I tend to look at this scenario as a case where...the BATF probably doesn't "care" if you have a pile of parts unless you do something stupid, then they'll just tack that onto the charges. But IDK, I only talk to lawyers, cops, etc and have never served in those roles.

Yes, our accreditation is renewed every two years and this is a renewal audit. there is a list of things. everything from who is qualified to train employees, to which processes require measurement of uncertainty, how to control processes, to how often we review documents and have proof there of....the list goes on and on. I work/run a testing laboratory for the department of defense and our processes are accredited to ISO17025. it's like ISO9000 for manufacturing just tailored to test labs.

back on topic. I have only ever seen constructive possession used as an add on with other charges. But, I am not going to stick my hands in a hornets nest just because I may not get stung.

 

[the1kidd03]

Yes, our accreditation is renewed every two years and this is a renewal audit. there is a list of things. everything from who is qualified to train employees, to which processes require measurement of uncertainty, how to control processes, to how often we review documents and have proof there of....the list goes on and on. I work/run a testing laboratory for the department of defense and our processes are accredited to ISO17025. it's like ISO9000 for manufacturing just tailored to test labs.

back on topic. I have only ever seen constructive possession used as an add on with other charges. But, I am not going to stick my hands in a hornets nest just because I may not get stung.

Yeah, I work in engineering for a large company and many years in manufacturing industry so I'm very familiar with those games, LOL.

I understand the theory, but I just was curious if there was a specific law defining these issues. Like I said, I have a pile of parts laying around. More than enough to build complete rifles because I buy good deals on things others don't want. Should I come across a short barrel for a good price, even though I have no real intentions of building anything out of it at the moment, I don't want to be construed as breaking the law simply by making the purchase if it sits in safe for months or years.

 

[the1kidd03]

Call me a "conspiracy theorist" but, I simply haven't figured out how I feel about putting myself on more government registrations than I have to and so I'm still "up in the air" about whether or not I want to build an SBR. BUT, if I come across a nice barrel for like $50 I don't really want to pass it up either, LOL.

 

[bigcraig]

Your assumptions are correct. That is why we mostly tell folks to be cautious when dealing within the NFA, to be on the safe side.

While having the components to assemble an SBR on hand, doesn't make them a functional gun, let us not forget, the ATF has ruled a shoe-string can be a machingun.

So, you have to ask yourself, do you want "play" the game. If you do, then get a lower registered and then build your SBR. It really is that simple.

I will say it again.

Wait until you have your approved form1 in hand, before you buy your short upper/barrel. Or leave the short upper/barrel with some one that owns no AR's. This is the smart play.

 

[bigcraig]

Call me a "conspiracy theorist" but, I simply haven't figured out how I feel about putting myself on more government registrations than I have to and so I'm still "up in the air" about whether or not I want to build an SBR. BUT, if I come across a nice barrel for like $50 I don't really want to pass it up either, LOL.

Your already on a list. Your a gun owner, you post on firearm related websites, you likely have a LTCH................in other words.

YOUR ALREADY ON A LIST.

So another won't matter.

 

[the1kidd03]

Your already on a list. Your a gun owner, you post on firearm related websites, you likely have a LTCH................in other words.

YOUR ALREADY ON A LIST.

So another won't matter.

True, but if one day they decide to strip the weapons I think it would be much more likely that they target NFA's much faster than anything else.

 

[bigcraig]

True, but if one day they decide to strip the weapons I think it would be much more likely that they target NFA's much faster than anything else.

Well, then, you will know they will be coming for you first.

Prepare accordingly.

 

[the1kidd03]

Well, then, you will know they will be coming for you first.

Prepare accordingly.

Well, I'm not on the "NFA list" yet. But, I'm ALWAYS prepared.

 

[indyjohn]

Well, then, you will know they will be coming for you first.

Prepare accordingly.

That statement has an awesome degree clarity.

 

[JTinIN]

True, but if one day they decide to strip the weapons I think it would be much more likely that they target NFA's much faster than anything else.

Maybe not, one of the evil options discussed during the run up to earlier AWBs was making "black rifles" also Tittle II (aka NFA).

I am thinking if you have filled out one or more yellow forms (the 4373 is not even yellow anymore) and/or have a handgun carry permit, you have left enough of a paper trail. Besides if one was really worried about it, your IP is recorded each time you post at gun site on the receiving end and there is still your ISP records.

In my case just wish could get on the also has an auto loading cannon lists ;-)

 

[the1kidd03]

Maybe not, one of the evil options discussed during the run up to earlier AWBs was making "black rifles" also Tittle II (aka NFA).

I am thinking if you have filled out one or more yellow forms (the 4373 is not even yellow anymore) and/or have a handgun carry permit, you have left enough of a paper trail. Besides if one was really worried about it, your IP is recorded each time you post at gun site on the receiving end and there is still your ISP records.

In my case just wish could get on the also has an auto loading cannon lists ;-)

Indeed. It's not something I'm too concerned with really. If it gets to such a point I have a feeling that I won't be the only one in the country who doesn't like it or willing to put up with it.