10.5" Barrel possession

[Honky]

Well Mike, one of my friends called Michaela at the Firearms Records Branch down in Chelsea (617-660-4789) and she said that regardless of what the Feds say--State law is State law as far as rifles are concerned in Mass. When you build up a short-barrelled rifle on a Form 1 or buy it from a CL3 dealer, it still must conform to the State's assault rifle description. So, it has a short barrell--it still must be compliant with State law. If you doubt it--give her a call and report back to us what she tells you. Let's be careful out there!

 

[winter]

If you are worried about "constructive possession", just keep it with a virgin lower, then if asked, you can just say you are working on building a AWB compliant AR pistol.

 

[travis]

If you are worried about "constructive possession", just keep it with a virgin lower, then if asked, you can just say you are working on building a AWB compliant AR pistol.

That would be fine if the courts had not already ruled that the PART plus a complete weapon it could be installed on meets the requirements for possession of a NFA item. So having he 10 inch barrel and a new receiver is fine however if you also own a ar15 rifle then you meet the standard set for possession of a NFA weapon.. This is VERY clear in the decision from he ATF web site below.

That all said the likely hood of someone not on the radar for another issue begin snatched up for this is slim but as it is set in law why take the chance. A felony is a felony.

 

[OfficerObie59]

This constructive possession stuff is tin foil hat stuff. You either have the gun assembled or you don't.

Constructive possession really only becomes an issue federally when we're talking about guns that would be per se illegal in any event, like a post '86 MG.

 

[abomb60]

Well Mike, one of my friends called Michaela at the Firearms Records Branch down in Chelsea (617-660-4789) and she said that regardless of what the Feds say--State law is State law as far as rifles are concerned in Mass. When you build up a short-barrelled rifle on a Form 1 or buy it from a CL3 dealer, it still must conform to the State's assault rifle description. So, it has a short barrell--it still must be compliant with State law. If you doubt it--give her a call and report back to us what she tells you. Let's be careful out there!

So now law is based on what the chick who answers the phone at the FRB says? What Mike was referring to is the lack of definition in the MA law of a short-barreled rifle. MA law defines rifle, pistol, shotgun however a semi-automatic "rifle" with a barrel less than 16" is none of these things. Is it a crappy vague law? Sure it is. Is it worth only putting these things on a pre-ban lower? That's up to you. Without actual case law all of us can debate these things all day long and all of us will be right and wrong despite what Michaela says. YMMV.

 

[OfficerObie59]

Well Mike, one of my friends called Michaela at the Firearms Records Branch down in Chelsea (617-660-4789) and she said that regardless of what the Feds say--State law is State law as far as rifles are concerned in Mass. When you build up a short-barrelled rifle on a Form 1 or buy it from a CL3 dealer, it still must conform to the State's assault rifle description. So, it has a short barrell--it still must be compliant with State law. If you doubt it--give her a call and report back to us what she tells you. Let's be careful out there!

[STRIKE=undefined]An SBR is no longer a "rifle" under MA law, which requires a 16" barrel, it becomes a "firearm". [/STRIKE] SEE POST 40 But the issue is as I see it that MA incorporates 18 USC 921 as it appeared in late Sept 1994 and thus the federal definitions that go along with it, which didn't exempt SBR's from the Federal AWB. Still don't see the need for a pre- ban lower, but on the flip side you can't use an SBR to subvert the MA AWB.

That's my opinion, anyways.

 

[abomb60]

The reason i ask is because i found someone selling the barrel and i don't want to pass up a good deal. I figured if i bought it now i'd sit on it until i got the form 1 approved.

I know i've heard that if someone possess's the parts for the makings of a machine gun they can charge u with Contructive possession, is this so for an SBR build??

I also would be purchasing the barrel to be installed on my existing 16" upper, so i would have to have a gunsmith do the job for me, or unless i feel i can do it myself.

Just buy the barrel and if you really feel you don't want to keep these things together for fear of "constructive possession" leave the barrel at work or at a friends house who doesn't own any AR's. Then when you get the stamp retrieve the barrel and put it together or bring it to a gunsmith. These "problems" are really quite simple and don't deserve 4 pages of debate.

 

[winter]

Who keeps their settings at 10 replies per page...

Just buy the barrel and if you really feel you don't want to keep these things together for fear of "constructive possession" leave the barrel at work or at a friends house who doesn't own any AR's. Then when you get the stamp retrieve the barrel and put it together or bring it to a gunsmith. These "problems" are really quite simple and don't deserve 4 pages of debate.

 

[abomb60]

Who keeps their settings at 10 replies per page...

Yeah I can't read too much at once or I get confused

 

[abomb60]

An SBR is no longer a "rifle" under MA law, which requires a 16" barrel, it becomes a "firearm". But the issue is as I see it that MA incorporates 18 USC 921 as it appeared in late Sept 1994 and thus the federal definitions that go along with it, which didn't exempt SBR's from the Federal AWB. Still don't see the need for a pre- ban lower, but on the flip side you can't use an SBR to subvert the MA AWB.

That's my opinion, anyways.

While I agree with your opinion it is interesting that C140 S121 says:

“Firearm”, a pistol, revolver or other weapon of any description, loaded or unloaded, from which a shot or bullet can be discharged and of which the length of the barrel or barrels is less than 16 inches or 18 inches in the case of a shotgun as originally manufactured; provided, however, that the term firearm shall not include any weapon that is: (i) constructed in a shape that does not resemble a handgun, short-barreled rifle or short-barreled shotgun including, but not limited to, covert weapons that resemble key-chains, pens, cigarette-lighters or cigarette-packages; or (ii) not detectable as a weapon or potential weapon by x-ray machines commonly used at airports or walk- through metal detectors.

So according to that MGL a SBR is NOT a firearm and we already know it's not a rifle (barrel is less than 16") and it's not a pistol (has stock). Also the feds actually defined what a SBR was but the commonwealth didn't when they slammed the AWB through before the federal law sunset. Again crappy law.

 

[OfficerObie59]

While I agree with your opinion it is interesting that C140 S121 says:

“Firearm”, a pistol, revolver or other weapon of any description, loaded or unloaded, from which a shot or bullet can be discharged and of which the length of the barrel or barrels is less than 16 inches or 18 inches in the case of a shotgun as originally manufactured; provided, however, that the term firearm shall not include any weapon that is: (i) constructed in a shape that does not resemble a handgun, short-barreled rifle or short-barreled shotgun including, but not limited to, covert weapons that resemble key-chains, pens, cigarette-lighters or cigarette-packages; or (ii) not detectable as a weapon or potential weapon by x-ray machines commonly used at airports or walk- through metal detectors.

So according to that MGL a SBR is NOT a firearm and we already know it's not a rifle (barrel is less than 16") and it's not a pistol (has stock). Also the feds actually defined what a SBR was but the commonwealth didn't when they slammed the AWB through before the federal law sunset. Again crappy law.

Ah, I stand corrected. Thank you for that finer point.

I should have been paying attention in class than posting on NES.

 

[travis]

This constructive possession stuff is tin foil hat stuff. You either have the gun assembled or you don't.

Constructive possession really only becomes an issue federally when we're talking about guns that would be per se illegal in any event, like a post '86 MG.

Feel free to argue that in court. However as posted below the court has ruled and the ATF abides by said ruling. Parts that woudl make a NFA item and a gun that they COULD go on is a federal crime. Talk about it debate it argue it but them's the facts...

 

[dgrafton]

Feel free to argue that in court. However as posted below the court has ruled and the ATF abides by said ruling. Parts that woudl make a NFA item and a gun that they COULD go on is a federal crime. Talk about it debate it argue it but them's the facts...

So by that logic: If I have a legal SBR and a legal AR in the safe together then I am committing a federal felony since it is only two pins to swap uppers?

 

[Honky]

No. Everything is cool as long as the SBR is registered with the ATF and you have the Form 4 or Form 1 to prove it. But out of curiosity, you take the upper off the SBR and put it on the regular AR lower setup. What you have done then is to create an unregistered SBR--which of course is a crime. But, what you do in your basement behind closed and locked doors, not to be noticed by anyone other than you--who cares. Just be sure that when everything goes back into the safe, that SBR upper is on the registered SBR lower. But if you go to the range and want to play around with such foolishness as this, you better be aware of who's shooting at the next bench (be alone). Otherwise, there could be some serious consequences if the right person notices what you're doing at the wrong time. Let's be careful out there.

 

[travis]

So by that logic: If I have a legal SBR and a legal AR in the safe together then I am committing a federal felony since it is only two pins to swap uppers?

Sure that is logical unless you forgot to READ the ruling. It says clearly PARTS and a rifle. A SBR is a a stamped and legally owned NFA item thus no law violated.


However, the Court also explained that an NFA firearm is made
if aggregated parts are inclose 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.

 

[Mass-diver]

Feel free to argue that in court. However as posted below the court has ruled and the ATF abides by said ruling. Parts that woudl make a NFA item and a gun that they COULD go on is a federal crime. Talk about it debate it argue it but them's the facts...

I agree. I'd just wait until you have the stamp before you buy the barrel.

 

[drgrant]

Well Mike, one of my friends called Michaela at the Firearms Records Branch down in Chelsea (617-660-4789) and she said that regardless of what the Feds say--State law is State law as far as rifles are concerned in Mass. When you build up a short-barrelled rifle on a Form 1 or buy it from a CL3 dealer, it still must conform to the State's assault rifle description. So, it has a short barrell--it still must be compliant with State law. If you doubt it--give her a call and report back to us what she tells you. Let's be careful out there!

That's just what she says, and her opinion isn't legally binding in a court of law. The only entity who could settle the issue (the AGs office) sure as hell will not give you an answer. (The AG's office on gun owner issues has always been "Feed them shit and keep them in the dark" by design. ) This is why there are two arguments in the FAQ with an exercise left to the reader.

-Mike

 

[abomb60]

That's just what she says, and her opinion isn't legally binding in a court of law. The only entity who could settle the issue (the AGs office) sure as hell will not give you an answer. (The AG's office on gun owner issues has always been "Feed them shit and keep them in the dark" by design. ) This is why there are two arguments in the FAQ with an exercise left to the reader.

-Mike

This is just my opinion but the AG really can't completely settle the issue either. Marsha's office can tell you what they may or may not try to prosecute but that doesn't make the AG's opinion legally binding until tried in a court. Case law is the only thing that really matters here and as far as I can tell there isn't any. Remember this is the same state entity that says police officers cannot personally purchase high-capacity magazines for their issued firearms even though the use of the magazines is for official use and therefore exempted under law. So if the dept only gives you 1 or 2 mags you cannot obtain more on your own without violating the law even though the actual law exempts their possession and use for such a purpose.

 

[NFD9]

Well Mike, one of my friends called Michaela at the Firearms Records Branch down in Chelsea (617-660-4789) and she said that regardless of what the Feds say--State law is State law as far as rifles are concerned in Mass. When you build up a short-barrelled rifle on a Form 1 or buy it from a CL3 dealer, it still must conform to the State's assault rifle description. So, it has a short barrell--it still must be compliant with State law. If you doubt it--give her a call and report back to us what she tells you. Let's be careful out there!

That's just what she says, and her opinion isn't legally binding in a court of law. The only entity who could settle the issue (the AGs office) sure as hell will not give you an answer. (The AG's office on gun owner issues has always been "Feed them shit and keep them in the dark" by design. ) This is why there are two arguments in the FAQ with an exercise left to the reader.

-Mike

This is the same response I got about SBR's from Cosmo at FRB about 3 years ago, and although he knew this was just "his" interpretation of the law, he did say... "I am the one the AG will be calling to ask if they should prosecute".
So, if your into being dragged through the ringer!
... just saying what I was told.

 

[Honky]

69hdfl has it right. You have the stripped lower. Do the forms with the ATF and when they come back approved, get all the parts and do it MA compliant and you're golden. Let's be careful out there.

 

[60 buckscash]

Sure that is logical unless you forgot to READ the ruling. It says clearly PARTS and a rifle. A SBR is a a stamped and legally owned NFA item thus no law violated.


However, the Court also explained that an NFA firearm is made
if aggregated parts are inclose proximity such
that they: (a) serve no useful purpose other than to make an NFA
firearm. Id.at 511-13.

I can think of a couple ways a <16" barrel and virgin receiver would have other useful purposes than creating an NFA firearm.


Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

 

[travis]

I can think of a couple ways a <16" barrel and virgin receiver would have other useful purposes than creating an NFA firearm.


Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

Not within the case law quoted.

 

[60 buckscash]

Not within the case law quoted.

Right because a virgin lower and <16" barrel can't be turned into a pistol, thereby having another useful purpose...

I could maybe start to see your point if we were talking about a complete lower with an A2 stock on it. However, being 2 parts groups and 4 major parts away from it converting a regular firearm into an NFA item how is it able to violate the law? Even more so if having a SBR/pistol lower "allows" one to have <16" barreled uppers hanging around then what makes it suddenly a "crime" when these same parts are unassembled and inherently less able to be used period?

Now to argue your side to the point of ridiculousness. Is your neighbor keeping this piece locked away from you? When you bought it did it ship to your house? Once you paid for it weren't you now readily able to convert a regular firearm into an NFA item?

Basically if the BATFE wants to they will use the law to try and screw you either way.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2



Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

 

[travis]

Right because a virgin lower and <16" barrel can't be turned into a pistol, thereby having another useful purpose...

Or you could READ the finding and see that a under 16 inch barrel and a stripped receiver alone are NOT the issue here.

However, the Court also explained that an NFA firearm is made
if aggregated parts are inclose 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.

 

[60 buckscash]

Or you could READ the finding and see that a under 16 inch barrel and a stripped receiver alone are NOT the issue here.

The OP asked:

Hello, Is it legal to possess a 10.5 barrel and an AR receiver (not built) if i don't have a form 1 completed and approved.?

So using the finding below,


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.

Since he does not have the aggregated (total/all) parts to make a NFA item it doesn't matter. Then since he would have some parts that could be combined with a whole bunch of other parts, he doesn't have, he is ok with part A as these 2 parts could be useful to make other things than just NFA items. In this case part B is completely irrelevant.


Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2




Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

 

[travis]

The OP asked:


So using the finding below,


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.

Since he does not have the aggregated (total/all) parts to make a NFA item it doesn't matter. Then since he would have some parts that could be combined with a whole bunch of other parts, he doesn't have, he is ok with part A as these 2 parts could be useful to make other things than just NFA items. In this case part B is completely irrelevant.


Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2




Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

You sir are correct. However as stated and pointed out time and time again here. If that is ALL he had no issue. The problem is IF he has a ar15 rifle as well! As the OP also states he is waiting on a form 1 one can make a educated guess he already has a AR15 rifle.

I have been a stamp collector for over 20 years I know these laws are stupid and I myself think they should all be erased from history and the gov shoudl have ZERO involvement in what we own. However as they are the laws we have to live in them. As a fan of the NFA world I also introduce ALLOT of people to this area. Thus I ALWAYS err a few feet before the line. Remember ONE mistake a felon can make! Then you will have to start a boring hobby carving things out of soap in you're cell!