I currently have two complete ARs. Both are registered SBRs. I have lots of spare lower parts,but I do NOT have any additional uppers other than what is attached to the registered lowers.
This last week I was in a local gun shop and they had a smokin’ deal on a new AR lower. I’ve been wanting to build another AR (standard not SBR). So I bought it.
I have lots of spare lower parts, enough to assemble a complete lower. I don’t have the $ right now to purchase a complete upper. I’m waiting till around February or so for that.
Today as I was putting in the FCG to ensure that the lower specs were correct and a thought occured to me. Could I be in any trouble for having a complete lower with no upper, while having two complete AR SBRs? My understanding from the threads I searched was that it could ONLY be an issue if you had complete lowers (with no upper) and “extra” or multiple SBR uppers for your registered SBR (which I do not).
I’m a law abiding guy and I have no intention of breaking the law. This lower will be mated with a 16" barreled upper when I have the dough down the road. Till then it will sit, upper-less, in my safe. In the mean time, I just want to make sure that I’m in compliance with the law. If it is not, I’ll immediatley sell it or whatever to be sure that I’m in compliance.
Thanks for your input.
*If I did a bad job searching, or this isn’t the place for this post, I apologize, and I’ll remove it.
At the macro scale, don’t start nothin’ and there won’t be nothin’. Meaning, don’t do anything stupid to get your house searched and no one will ever know or care.
At the micro level, I wouldn’t worry about it because you have a record of following the law and getting approved for stamps. All your SBR gear is legal. Having a virgin rifle lower in the same house shouldn’t cause any issues.
If you had no stamps, a complete SBR upper and a complete lower, you could be in hot water.
I am not a lawyer, and this is the internet. Plan accordingly.
You have nothing to worry about so long as you have the two SBRs with uppers attached. Having a legal reason to possess sub-16 inch uppers (ie two SBRs) makes this scenario legal. I would buy a 16 inch upper for the title-1 lower if you plan to buy any more sub-16 inch uppers for your SBR.
You can purchase and own as many uppers in any length that you want. There is nothing illegal about having a shorty upper, regardless of how many complete rifles, stripped lowers, complete lowers, etc, that you have. Even if you have zero registered SBR’s.
Interesting read. Thank you. I would like to hear more but I dont want to derail this thread. I am getting a sbr started later this week and wanted to get the upper and put it somewhere it won’t be near the lower.
BATF enforces violations of “constructive intent” and “means to assemble” whereby a person has a short barreled upper and a lower receiver (no registered lower receiver), not assembled on his (her) contiguous property. In other words, if you do not own a registered lower receiver, you may not possess a short barreled upper receiver on your contiguous property (ie., lower in the house and a short barreled upper in the detached work shop).
Current interpretation…
“In United States v. Thompson/Center Arms Company, 504 U.S. 505 (1992), the United States Supreme Court examined whether a short-barreled rifle was “made” under the NFA when a carbine-conversion kit consisting of a single-shot “Contender” pistol was designed so that its handle and barrel could be removed from its receiver, and was packaged with a 21-inch barrel, a rifle stock, and a wooden fore-end. The Court held that, where aggregated parts could convert a pistol into either a regulated short-barreled rifle, or an unregulated rifle with a barrel of 16 inches or more in length, the NFA was ambiguous and applied the “rule of lenity” (i.e., ambiguities in criminal statutes should be resolved in favor of the defendant) so that the pistol and carbine kit, when packaged together, were not considered a “short-barreled rifle” for purposes of the NFA.”
The aforementioned portion of the ruling allows the manufacturer to produce and sell short barreled upper receivers without the need for any BATF forms from the purchaser. The following paragraph makes possession of parts to assemble an NFA weapon without a registered lower receiver illegal.
“However, the Court also explained that an NFA firearm is made if aggregated parts are in close proximity such that they: (a) serve no useful purpose other than to make an NFA firearm (e.g., a receiver, an attachable shoulder stock, and a short barrel); or (b) convert a complete weapon into an NFA firearm (e.g., a pistol and attachable shoulder stock, or a long-barreled rifle and attachable short barrel). Id. at 511-13.”
Apparently you missed this from earlier. The gist of it is that Thompson sent kits for a pistol that included a stock and long barrel. The ATF cried constructive intent and the SCOTUS ruled in favor of Thompson, that merely having the parts does not equal constructive intent.
Here is the ruling.
The was not a case about individual possession, but, rather about manufacture and packaging of a kit not intended to be assembled into an SBR. And, the Government’s assertion it was an SBR and T/C’s failure to pay the manufacturing tax as required by the NFA ACT.
Further, the merits of this case reside solely with the Thompson/Center Arms Contender pistol with a 21" barrel and rifle stock kit. This ruling is narrow in its scope.
Justice Souter announced…“the fact that the unregulated Contender pistol can be converted not only into a short barreled rifle, which is a regulated firearm, but also into a long barreled rifle, which is not. The packaging of pistol and kit has an obvious utility for those who want both a pistol and a regular rifle, and the question is whether the mere possibility of their use to assemble a regulated firearm is enough to place their combined packaging within the scope of “making” one.”
Addressing firearms in general, Justice Souter affirmed “We also think that a firearm is “made” on facts one step removed from the paradigm of the aggregated parts that can be used for nothing except assembling a firearm.” Justice Souter further states…“Here, however, we are not dealing with an aggregation of parts that can serve no useful purpose except the assembly of a firearm, or with an aggregation having no ostensible utility except to convert a gun into such a weapon.”
And finally…the last paragraph, Justice states…“we conclude that the Contender pistol and carbine kit when packaged together by Thompson/Center have not been “made” into a short barreled rifle for purposes of the NFA.”
Call a 2A attorney familiar with the NFA Act as amended. Two of the best in the country: Stephen Halbrook or Eric Rogers
I think you will discover this case does not support your assertion.
As Justice Souter stated/affirmed…“…an NFA firearm is made if aggregated parts are in close proximity such that they: (a) serve no useful purpose other than to make an NFA firearm” holds true for a short barreled upper receiver you possess without a registered lower receiver. What other purpose could you have for this short barreled upper receiver other than to assemble it into a SBR?
I’ve read the entire thing. I think it’s a mistake to assume there is a difference in Thompson/Center Arms manufacturing and packaging a group of parts and an individual buying the same group of parts. The ATF wants to tax both parties in the same exact manner for the same exact reason.
One would be in the same situation as Thompson/Center if they purchased a lower with stock, an upper with >=16" barrel, and an upper with a <16" barrel. They would have a collection of parts that could be configured as an NFA regulated or as a non-NFA regulated firearm.
I do admit that nothing in the ruling would support having a non-registered lower and a shorty upper. I’ll amend my statement to say that at least have one non-SBR upper or barrel.
NOT a vaild or correct assumption based on facts and the ruling by SCOTUS in US v, Thomson/Center Arms!
This case/ruling is NOT about individual possession, but, the intent of a manufacturer and the failure to pay the appropriate tax (as argued by the Government). It is critical to take note of the manufacturer’s intent.
Visonr, I am glad you are starting to the the nature of this ruling. Please do not try to read more into the ruling then provided by SCOTUS. To do so, could have serious criminal consequences for a possessor of an unregistered SBR and/or the parts (in close proximity) and “means to assemble” same; a criminal manner defined by the NFA Act.
It is VERY important to note that US vs. Thompson Contender, Inc. only applies to products of Thompson Contender and not to any other companies’ products.
I am in much the same boat. I have no worries. I have two SBRs a stripped lower and all of the parts to put it together and a complete lower waiting for me to send in my form one. Do you own any other non NFA long guns and a hack saw?
This and 922r seem to really keep some people up at night.
If the ATF is looking at the followers in your mags, to see if they say “Made in USA” you have bigger problems.
Meaning, don’t do anything stupid to get your house searched and no one will ever know or care.