A Short Barrel rifle question?????

[dickwholliday]

i know you can get registered bolts for uzi's and sears for AR's but since i can't have either, i wonder can i get a barrel only registered as a SBR....that way if i ever needed to sell the carbine semi uzi as a carbine that it wouldn't be so complicated...i'd just have a barrel left......thanks....DICK

 

[pmf]

First, I assume that you can't own a machine gun where you live because of some local laws, not because you're too young or have a criminal record.

Second, you seem to be asking: is the barrel the registered part of a short barreled rifle? The answer, I believe, is no. The rifle is the registered part (specfically the receiver). So no, you can't register a short barrel and go around putting it in various long barrel rifles and be legal.

A short barreled rifle is a NFA item itself. Its the same procedure and the same $200 tax stamp. Are you sure they're legal where you live?

FWIW, if you have a semi and want a SBR, I'd just sell the semi and buy a SBR from Vector. They're not that expensive.

 

[RoverDave]

That's my understanding as well. The rifle itself has to be registered. It would be cool if you could register the barrel but I don't think you can.

 

[dickwholliday]

i don't have any idea but the reigistered auto sears for AR's and lightning links can be put in any AR as i understand it but i have been wrong on occasion.......

By the way my criminal record is OK now since i have a good lawyer.....He got my "Sodomy Charge" reduced to "Following Too Close"....LOL

D I C K

 

[Z06]

On the SBR issue: I went through this in WA (where BTW SBRs are now NOT ALLOWED) when I turned an HK94 into an SBR. I wanted to sell it, but I couldn't find a buyer that wanted to go through the whole NFA deal, incl. the $200 tax. I contacted ATFE and found out that you can go back to pre-SBR status. The ATFE agent gave the example of the UZI.

Example: You buy an IMI Model B (or A) and file a Form 1 to SBR it. After jumping through all the hoops & paying the $200, when you get back the approved paper/stamp, you can now cut down your big-ass long barrel to 10.5" (or any length you want and have put on your Form 1). Time goes buy, and for no good reason you decide to sell your IMI/SBR. You can, if you find a willing buyer sell it as is, or you can get a legal length SA UZI bbl. and install it. Now you can sell your Model B (or A) as a legal Title 1 rifle. You need to write a letter to NFA Branch of ATFE to tell them that this SBR is no longer an NFA gun. You don't get back your $200 tax. You do get to keep the stamp as a memento. The UZI is just cool because it is so easy to get back to pre-NFA condition. The HK was a summb!tch.
-Z06:uzi

 

[pmf]

Yes, sears, lightening links, and sideplates are NFA items unto themselves. They were registered prior to the 1986 ban. No more can be made. This is not so with SBRs. New SBRs can still be made provided they're entered into the NFA registry and the proper tax stamp is paid for. The $200 tax is a pittance for machine guns, but a major expense in the case of SBRs since they don't cost much to make in the first place. The Vector SBR uzi is around $800.

I just hope that incident wasn't in the men's room at some truck stop ...

 

[Quarterbore]

Well, I think we all need to look at things a little diferently as I have actually heard of people that submited a Form 1 for a Short Barreled Shotgun and they assigned a unique serial number. When they got the approved Form 1 back, they stamped the short shotgun barrel with the markings for the same reasons you are describing here! So, to make a long story even longer, yes this has been done and it is an option or at least people have done this. (I'd check with the BATFE before you trust my advise just the same!)

Like others indicated above, you can also just register your UZI as a SBR and then when you want to sell you can have the BATFE remove it from the books and your UZI becomes a normal Title I weapon again.

 

[MuzzleFlash]

The ATF may allow one to register a short barrel by itself for the same reason they allowed sears, DIAS, etc. to be registered pre-86 (and still do for post samples). I don't know why a short barrel wouldn't be considered a conversion part and conversion parts can be registered.

You can own an unregistered short barrel for a Remmington shotgun as long as you don't own the shotgun itself (CDNN sells NFA factory shotgun barrels FYI).

I really hate these constructive possession laws. They should be unconstitutional. All of us males are in constructive possession of the equipment to be rapists. It's what we do with the equipment that counts.

 

[dickwholliday]

thanks guys for all the input....DICK

 

[Renegade]

Well, I think we all need to look at things a little diferently as I have actually heard of people that submited a Form 1 for a Short Barreled Shotgun and they assigned a unique serial number. When they got the approved Form 1 back, they stamped the short shotgun barrel with the markings for the same reasons you are describing here! So, to make a long story even longer, yes this has been done and it is an option or at least people have done this. (I'd check with the BATFE before you trust my advise just the same!)

I have not done it, but I know of someone who has. Barrel is stamped with make/maker and SN.

 

[Renegade]

I really hate these constructive possession laws. They should be unconstitutional.

There are no "constructive possession laws". Another Internet rumor. If you disagree, please post relevant USC, I have looked, but cannot find it.

 

[MuzzleFlash]

There are no "constructive possession laws". Another Internet rumor. If you disagree, please post relevant USC, I have looked, but cannot find it.

There most certainly is USC that defines how to get in trouble possessing certain combinations of DD, silencer and machinegun parts!

Then there are regulations promulgated by the ATF under the authority of congress. I know everyone wants to say they can't make up laws, but they do all the time and people go to jail for violating them.

The Supreme Court long ago decided that congress was authorized by the constitution to delegate certain powers to the administrative branch agencies. Congress did just that when it created the ATF and gave it rulemaking authority. Any rule promulgated by the ATF and upheld by the courts has the force of law just as if congress passed it. So it wouldn't matter much if the ATF enhanced a definition given by congress so long as the courts agreed and congress didn't pass a new law to slap the ATF down. Violate USC or violate a CFR, the results are the same. You go to jail.

However, you asked for US code, not ATF rules.

The relevant statutes are in the GCA and NFA as ammended.

Let's start with the GCA, Public Law 90-618, Chapter 44, Section 921 Definitions.

(a)4(C) says certain parts of a DD are in fact a DD.
(a)23 references the NFA description of machinegun making it identical. More on that later.
(a)24 says certain parts of a silencer are in fact a silencer

Now to what a machinegun is:

The NFA (and by reference, the GCA) defines machineguns in 26 USC Chap 53 5845(b) and I quote:

The term "machinegun" means any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.

There it is in black and white.

That doesn't mean I think it's constitutional. It just means that I think you'd go to jail for possession of silencer parts or M16 fire control parts with an AR15.

References:
GCA followed by rulemakings
NFA followed by rulmakings

 

[davidl]

you will be charged with unlawfull posession of an machinegun, for having a M-16;hammer: trigger: and selector, alone, without any other part or parts. reason being, those parts installed in an AR-15, will cause it to slam fire. so, slamming bolt= slamming doors. also a warning to any who might try that at home. AR-15's(M-16) are designed to fire with timed ignition. slam fire is a term to describe advanced primer ignition. slam fire in a weapon that fires a shouldered casing, WILL result in a round detonating out of battery. very bad for the shooters eye's and face,and anybody close by. also maybe i am stuck in the 80's, but i thought that you can shorten a carbine. but not install a stock on a pistol,unless it was a legal (pre may 86) form1 conversion to select fire. did that change? it would make shooting a M10 or M11 SAP more enjoyable

 

[MuzzleFlash]

I've seen a video showing Max Atchisson doing exactly that in the 1982 RPB vs ATF case. He also showed how you could convert any semi .22 rifle or pistol to slam fire with a piece of .024 music wire. For the coup d gras, he converted a M1 to full auto with a shoe string.

 

[Renegade]

There most certainly is USC that defines how to get in trouble possessing certain combinations of DD, silencer and machinegun parts!

That wasn't what I asked. I asked for "constructive possession", an Internet myth that does not exist.

You posted relvant law about possession of machine guns. A machine gun is a machine gun, whether or not it fully assembled. Duh.

Feel free to post where in USC "constructive possession" is defined.

 

[MuzzleFlash]

That wasn't what I asked. I asked for "constructive possession", an Internet myth that does not exist.

You posted relvant law about possession of machine guns. A machine gun is a machine gun, whether or not it fully assembled. Duh.

Feel free to post where in USC "constructive possession" is defined.

Constructive possession is a legal term that governs the possession of parts that will make a machinegun, DD or silencer. The courts and ATF have coined that term to describe the possession described in the USC. It is a legal terminology that rolls off the tongue a bit easier than "possession of parts that can be readily assembled into a [MG, Suppressor, DD]"

I tell you what. Call the local ATF office and tell them you have firecontrol parts for a M16 and own a AR15 and state you are not a SOT and do not own a registered M16. They will educate you on the law. I am done with it.

 

[Renegade]

So what you are saying, is your original claim about so-called "Constructive Possession laws":

I really hate these constructive possession laws. They should be unconstitutional.

Cannot be documented by providing a reference to one, which is my point. There is no such thing as "constructive possession" laws.

Care to comment then on why you think a law banning machine guns that are dissassembled should be unconstitutional but laws banning machine guns that are assembled is not unconstitutional? What is the difference? What next loaded vs. unloaded?

I tell you what. Call the local ATF office and tell them you have firecontrol parts for a M16 and own a AR15 and state you are not a SOT and do not own a registered M16. They will educate you on the law. I am done with it.

So now your advice is to call up a Federal Law Enforcement Agency and lie to them? Good thing you are "done", we can't take anymore bogus advice.

 

[Z06]

 

[gtodan]

Frightening!

DanJ:sniper

 

[Gun Shot]

In my opinion, which is worth as much as you paid for it, MuzzleFlash is correct. I have nothing to back this up, it is just my own common sense approach to the fucked up firearms laws we live with.