I read and responded to a post on what I assume is a simple removal and replacement of a pinned comp. Pretty straight forward and quite common post in the forums but it got me thinking, what about those barrels that do no have the pre-pinned option. You buy it and get it pinned right? But how safe is the “in-between-pinning” stage, legally speaking?
If you live in a state that can not have a detachable muzzle device, or must have a muzzle brake, or does not allow SBR’s…
Failure to have your muzzle device pinned in place puts you in possession of contraband.
In most states with such requirements, it’s a felony.
It would be wise that if you live in such a place, that you have your brakes pinned prior to delivery.
If you’re living in a restricted state, or talking about a barrel of less than 16", there is no real assumption to be made, as there is no such thing as a legal status of “working toward compliance.” Either you’re 100% good to go, or you are 100% at-risk. You could argue constructive intent, but I don’t think it would get you anywhere, since that makes no more sense than putting a 10.5" upper in your vault because you “intend to file SBR paperwork.”
For NFA applications, either the barrel gets pinned (presumably to make a 14.5" barrel meet the 16" length requirement) before you take possession, or you leave it in the custody of someone with no access to an unregistered lower.
For “restricted features” states (i.e. must have a pinned muzzle brake in lieu of a removable flash supressor), you’re admittedly running afoul of a lesser (i.e. state) law, but you’re still asking for trouble.
Chief
For NFA applications, either the barrel gets pinned (presumably to make a 14.5" barrel meet the 16" length requirement) before you take possession, or you leave it in the custody of someone with no access to an unregistered lower.
–Hence the loop hole? Have a friend or a brother (With no guns or atleast a lower) store it and have it pinned before giving it back to you?
Sorry about this guys, I dont mean to sound like Im out to break the law or anything. This is simply a query as some of the best manufacturers, like BCM, do not offer pre-pinning or atleast that I know of. Also a matter of convenience in terms of FH choice.
You’re on the right track. Possession of an NFA length barrel is not in itself a crime, but the ATF views it as “constructive intent” if the person with said barrel also has the means with which to assemble an unregistered SBR (i.e. lower receiver).
So long as your brother has no other AR components, and you (as an AR owner) don’t have ready access to the NFA barrel, there isn’t really an issue in the eyes of the law. As soon as those two are placed in proximity to each other, you’ve created a de facto SBR.
Chief
Thanks for your answers! I really appreciate it.
I’d be curious to know how many folks on this board (and all the other firearms boards) have actually had their barrel length checked and then have had a check done to determine if the muzzle device was properly pinned. I’d have to believe that would have some impact on the “safety” risk probability.
Fascinating how wrapped around the axle we get about these laws, but come tax time we don’t give it a second thought. And our chances of getting caught doing something illegal on our taxes are about 1000 times greater, whether intentional or unintentional.
Just an observation.
Exactly! I’d bet it has never happened to anyone who wasn’t already involved in some other criminalistic endeavor!
That’s what I did. There was a dealer a few years back that had a good price on some used take off upper halves of NFA length. It was a buy now or they’d be gone situation.
I picked one up and probably had it socked away for over a year before I got around to going through the SBR process. I just simply didn’t build anything until I had my approval from the BATFE. Some people aren’t comfortable with this, and that’s fine too.
On the other hand, if you also own a >16" upper and a pistol lower, you should be covered under US v. Thompson-Center, correct? Since in that instance SCOTUS ruled that a group of parts including a short barrel that can be assembled into either a non-NFA firearm or an unregistered SBR isn’t a SBR unless actually assembled as such.
Not taking it upon myself to criticize anyone’s choices, including yours, but the whole “constructive intent” issue is something that every NFA owner should be concerned about. Like most here, I used to think that the odds of this ever becoming an issue were about nil until a friend got a visit from the Police after some shootings on his street because he was a registered firearms owner. They ended up confiscating an extensive collection, and although most of it was eventually returned, he was cited for possessing several DEWATs which, while completely inoperable, were not deactivated according to the letter of the law.
Granted, this happened in central Germany, and not in the United States, so I am making something of an apples and oranges comparison. That said, I think the larger point here is that it is all-too-easy to get caught up in someone else’s train wreck, and I would much prefer NOT to have to explain myself if I could just as easily leave my “buy it now or it will be gone” NFA upper with a friend or family member while I sat on my SBR paperwork. Each owner has to make his/her own decision about his/her acceptable level of risk.
Demigod, I’ve generally taken your side on these matters (i.e. on the often controversial engraving issue), but I think there is enough legal precedent out there to cause a prudent man to want to remove any doubt about what he is, or is not, up to. Possessing an NFA upper when you’ve no NFA hardware in the house is asking for trouble, should “The Man” ever have occasion to come looking.
Chief
I agree that erring on the side of caution isn’t a bad idea. But too often I feel like folks go overboard on their government paranoia.
Some shooters are ridiculously out of hand with their black and white mentality and need a rule, guideline, or law for everything they do. The NEED that shit! They can’t think for themselves, thus they lust after rules to follow so they can be in their comfort zone.
What?! You mean they AREN’T out to get us?!
Chief
Of course they are. But I want you guys to have your guard down so I can stay out of trouble!
Try as I might, I cannot find any fault with your logic. 
Chief
This was taken from the legal section on another board
SHORT BARRELED RIFLES
A short barreled rifle (SBR) is defined in the law as:
26 USC sec. 5845(a) (3) a rifle having a barrel or barrels less than 16 inches in length; (4) a weapon made from a rifle if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length;
The NFA law also defines “rifle”:
26 USC sec. 5845(c) "The term ‘rifle’ means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned or made or remade to use the energy of an explosive in a fixed cartridge to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each pull of the trigger, and shall include any such weapon which may be readily restored to fire a fixed cartridge.
Thus you can see why a machine gun is not also a short barreled rifle; it is not a rifle. And you can see why a barrel is not subject to regulation, or registration, in itself. It is a barrel, it cannot discharge a shot. A receiver alone is also not a short rifle; a short rifle is only a complete weapon that fits into the length parameters outlined.
ATF takes the position that this includes any combination of parts from which a short barreled rifle can be assembled. And they said this included a set of parts with dual uses. In the Supreme court case of Thompson/ Center Arms v. US, - U.S. - (1994) ATF said it was a set consisting of a receiver, a 16"+ barrel, a pistol grip stock, a shoulder stock, and a barrel less than 16 inches long. The idea of the kit was that you needed only one receiver, and you could have both a rifle and pistol in one gun. While making a pistol out of a rifle is making a short rifle, ATF has long approved of converting a pistol into a rifle, and then converting it back into a pistol, that was not an issue. T/C made one set on a Form 1, then sued for a tax refund, claiming the set was not a SBR, unless it actually was assembled with the shoulder stock, and short barrel, something they instructed the purchaser of the set not to do. The Supreme court disagreed with ATF, and agreed with Thompson/Center.
The court said that a set of parts was not a short barreled rifle, unless the only way to assemble the parts was into a short barreled rifle. As this set had a legitimate, legal, use for all the parts it was OK. However they also approved of lower court cases holding that the sale by one person, at the same place, of all the parts to assemble an AR-15, with a short barrel, was sale of a SBR, even if they weren’t assembled together at the moment of the bust, and had in fact never been assembled. See U.S. v. Drasen, 845 F.2d 731 (7th Cir. 1988). This was because the only use for the parts was a SBR. If the person in that case also had a registered M-16, then there would be a legitimate use for the SMG barrel, and there shouldn’t be a problem. And the Court agreed, of course, that a fully assembled rifle with a barrel less than 16", or an overall length of less than 26" was also subject to registration. Although it was not addressed in the case, the rule is that an otherwise short barreled rifle that is very easily restored to firing condition (readily restorable); e.g., one missing a firing pin, but for that pin one may substitute a nail or other common object, is also subject to the law.
Therefore, if one has a semi-auto HK-91, and an HK-93 converted with an auto sear, and having a barrel less than 16 inches, one may not remove the sear from the HK-93 and put it on the HK-91. That would leave the semi-auto pack from the HK-91, and the receiver/barrel combination from the HK-93; a set of parts for assembling a rifle, and said rifle would have a short barrel, and further not be registered. I think that if one disposed of all trigger packs one had, except the one the sear was in, one could legally swap it between the rifles, without having to register the HK-93 as a SBR. The leftover HK-93 receiver and barrel setup would not be capable of firing a shot, with the parts in the possession of the owner, except with the sear converted pack, and using that on it would be OK. HOWEVER, I think ATF would disagree, would probably claim the resulting half of a gun was an “unservicable” short rifle or some other non- sense, and would prosecute should such an arrangement be attempted. If someone is serious about doing this, they need to ask Technology Branch if they will go along with the reasoning outlined. If they didn’t, one would need to sue, rather than have to fight it in a criminal, rather than civil, context.