Constructive Possession bust

[BobAsh 582]

http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2009/aug/29...barreled-rifle/

 

http://floridaguntrader.com/index.php?a=2&b=15431

 

This guy tried to sell an SP-89 clone pistol. He showed up for the transaction with a buttstock and told the buyer "you can't install this without a tax stamp".

 

Buyer is an undercover cop. Seller has commited a felony and is looking at an expensive legal battle to retain his freedom and right to bear.

 

Free advise in my sigline.

[HateTheSnow 29]

Amen to the statement in your signature. We bat the legalities around here every so often about what is and isn't legal, but the reality is the cops & prosecutors have more resources (both time and money) than most of us do to prove their position is right under the law.

[BobAsh 582]

Thanks. I sympathize with guys that think the 2nd should cover NFA stuff, but the fact is that under current law it doesn't.

 

This guy thinks he can make a case for himself, but he is boned. See U.S. v. Drasen, 845 F.2d 731 (7th Cir. 1988).

[sonnydazegunsmithing 42]

i dont think the short barreled charge will stick but he has a kgrip cut out in the case . cut outs for the k grip to be on or off weapon thats where hes screwed . i believe that shows intent

[sudaevpps43 31]

Thanks. I sympathize with guys that think the 2nd should cover NFA stuff, but the fact is that under current law it doesn't.

 

This guy thinks he can make a case for himself, but he is boned. See U.S. v. Drasen, 845 F.2d 731 (7th Cir. 1988).

 

Yep, 'short-barreled rifle' and 'short-barreled shotgun' are made up terms, just like 'assault weapon' and 'high-capacity magazine', which shouldn't even exist in any U.S. legislation. Hell, even the Canadians don't have this 'short-barreled' BS in their gun laws. Self-loading rifles and shotguns of any kind shouldn't even be in the NFA (nor should the NFA even exist, but that's a whole other issue), but they are in the NFA, and to ignore this when all it takes is $200 and a few months of waiting on the ATF is just plain dumb. It's sad but Bob is right on the money. Unless his defense lawyer has some magic power that makes a jury say 'not-guilty' anytime they try to say 'guilty', this guy will definitely be convicted.

Edited September 1, 2009 by Frogfoot

[Modiano 5]

when i was 18, i bought my first shotgun. also brought to the counter a pistol grip and a few boxes of buckshot, and birdshot. the clerk asked if i i'd like them to install the PG. i said "sure". he looked at my paperwork and said "sorry, since you're under 21, we can't let you leave with just a PG on the shotgun we just sold you."...(even though the OAL was more than 26")

 

not a big deal to me. no license or tax involved...just remove a flathead and install a hex nut once i got home.

 

you can probably guess my opinion: the guy tried to sell an SMG pistol. included in the deal was a buttstock which was not attached. and the seller said you can't install the buttstock without a SBR (or AOW?) tax stamp.

 

sounds like the seller was keeping it just as legit as companies that sell this folding foregrip which just happens to fit onto a glock...but they tell you you must get an AOW stamp if you install it on anything but a longarm.

 

i call bullshit on law enforcement in this case

[camon 233]

So if he is in possession of the stock but it is not physically attached to the gun he can still get raeped for an unlicensed SBR?

 

If so, that is some shady shit. I hate undercover ops like this. Datelines "To Catch a Predator" pisses me off sooo damn much.

 

 

PS: LOL @ first comment on the naples news post:

deport_them_all writes:

 

First he died for our sins now he is selling illegal weapons over the internet.

[Bvamp 604]

the guy sold the pistol with stock as a package. there is your intent. thats all they need. I think there was some discussion happening on this same topic, someplace else on here recently, wasnt there?

 

there ya go....

[TO THE FLOOR IN A 63 121]

Thanks. I sympathize with guys that think the 2nd should cover NFA stuff, but the fact is that under current law it doesn't.

 

This guy thinks he can make a case for himself, but he is boned. See U.S. v. Drasen, 845 F.2d 731 (7th Cir. 1988).

 

http://www.titleii.com/BardwellOLD/us_v_drasen.txt

[Paulyski 2,227]

I almost bought a little kit that would make my Glock a little riffle at a gun show. The guy said nothing about it needing a stamp... That would suck to get pinched for that.

 

I think I'll look into that licence.

 

Thanks Bob.

[Azrial 1,091]

.... i call bullshit on law enforcement in this case

Law Enforcement does not write laws...

 

If you really think that this is bullshit, write your Congressman. If you live in Florida, write the Governor.

[t165 30]

I really expect federal firearm laws to be much more strictly enforced with this administration. It is already happening and will continue to tighten. I would strongly encourage everyone to educate themselves on current laws.

 

And I have to ask this...camon, what exactly about MSNBC's "to catch a predator" do you find disturbing? I think what they do is great. I hate sexual predators. Every one of those perverts featured on the show displayed a predisposition to commit the crime. I can understand disagreeing with the application of law regarding "stings" but I sure hope you do not advocate the molestation of children.

[Bvamp 604]

where is "mr knowledge" with his comments?

[camon 233]

And I have to ask this...camon, what exactly about MSNBC's "to catch a predator" do you find disturbing? I think what they do is great. I hate sexual predators. Every one of those perverts featured on the show displayed a predisposition to commit the crime. I can understand disagreeing with the application of law regarding "stings" but I sure hope you do not advocate the molestation of children.

 

It's baiting plain and simple. It's like how Texas cops will place vehicles out on freeways unlocked in order to bait someone into stealing them.

I would be all in favor of this if the offender contacted an actual minor first, then they called in the police to setup the trap.

 

Innocent until proven guilty FAIL.

 

PS: I am not condoning the actions of sexual predators. I also think they are sick fucks and should they ever try to do harm to me the only sex they're getting is a 12GA slug up the ass. However I don't see how they are guilty of their act when they contacted an adult and there was never an act of buttsecks.

 

PSS: IPS DRIVER ERROR SUCKS

[t165 30]

Like many things about the law these "stings" are controversial. The standard is if a person is predisposed to commit the crime. The courts have sliced and diced the "predispoition" and "entrapment" standards for years. It is a fine line. And the legal definitions will be forever argued.

 

+1 on the 12GA slug up their ass! And what the hell is causing this IPS Driver error message? It just started for me a couple of days ago.

[Bvamp 604]

hey, he sold the stock as part of the sale. its an inclusive deal. I hate to be a dick about it, but there it is.

 

if you dont like the "intent" laws, vote yourselves in, ANY TIME and change the shit.

 

hey, I dont like the laws, but I WILL OBEY them, regardless.....

 

+1 to bob, this guy is fucked

 

 

check your intent laws statewide.....yer in for a RUDE shock....they work almost like civil cases, where there is more reason to suspect than not.....and its not the burden of proof, such as a criminal case......sucks, but there it is.....

 

 

now, where is mr knowledge when we need him?

[BobAsh 582]

I almost bought a little kit that would make my Glock a little riffle at a gun show. The guy said nothing about it needing a stamp... That would suck to get pinched for that.

 

I think I'll look into that licence.

 

Thanks Bob.

 

Pauly my brother, guys like you are EXACTLY why I posted this. There are gun-show and internet items (like buttstocks and VFG's) that are made for pistols that would be a felony to attach without a stamp. The seller may or may not alert you to this; they don't have any legal responsibility to do so.

 

And as you can see by the Drasen decision as well as this case, the parts don't even have to be assembled.

[BobAsh 582]

No entrapment here. The cops didn't place a "parts wanted" advertisement; this guy placed an ad selling an SBR kit and a knowledgeable cop/ATF agent saw it. He admits he knew it would require a stamp.

 

This raises another point: Law enforcement is watching you transact your business, so be circumspect in all your dealings. We're not talking about a warning or some kind of misdemeanor here, this guy will lose all his guns and his right to possess them.

 

 

If you guys want to argue about "predator" take it to another thread, I'm trying to warn guys about gun laws.

[camon 233]

No entrapment here. The cops didn't place a "parts wanted" advertisement; this guy placed an ad selling an SBR kit and a knowledgeable cop/ATF agent saw it. He admits he knew it would require a stamp.

 

This raises another point: Law enforcement is watching you transact your business, so be circumspect in all your dealings. We're not talking about a warning or some kind of misdemeanor here, this guy will lose all his guns and his right to possess them.

 

 

If you guys want to argue about "predator" take it to another thread, I'm trying to warn guys about gun laws.

 

 

I understand, I just have an issue with the parts not being together. IMO them not together = NOT SBR.

 

Like this if I buy this gun and this stock from SGC at the same time on the same order and pick them up at the same time, wouldn't that imply intent to SBR and SGC could be owned by ATF for them?

 

Intent lawls are dumb IMO. It's like saying that I own a car therefore I have the intent to use it to drive through a mall and run people down. PRE-CRIME FOR THE LOSS.

 

And to the guy who said I should run for office and do something about it, I will once I am legal age to run(aka 25).

[BobAsh 582]

Like this if I buy this gun and this stock from SGC at the same time on the same order and pick them up at the same time, wouldn't that imply intent to SBR and SGC could be owned by ATF for them?

No, because they have a legal reason to own them both. Just like you can own a pistol AR and a rifle AR.

 

Intent lawls are dumb IMO. It's like saying that I own a car therefore I have the intent to use it to drive through a mall and run people down. PRE-CRIME FOR THE LOSS.

 

The concept of intent is a valid legal construct. For example, a guy driving around with a complete meth lab in his car along with all the chemicals to make meth is going to make meth and can be arrested for it, even though all the equipment and precursors are legal to own.

 

On a personal note, I think SBR laws are silly and should be abolished. But this guy knowingly committed a felony by offering an SBR kit for sale- there is simply no debate about it.

[camon 233]

Hrmm... still a bit confusing but oh well.

 

Sorry if I seem like I'm trying to start an argument or something, I'm not. I am pretty new to the firearm scene and I'm just confused.

[Raoul_Duke 113]

This raises another point: Law enforcement is watching you transact your business . . .

I wonder if they've seen this.

 

It's advertised as an AOW, but set up as an SBS.

 

Edited to add:

On a personal note, I think SBR laws are silly and should be abolished.

+1

Edited September 1, 2009 by Raoul_Duke

[BobAsh 582]

Hrmm... still a bit confusing but oh well.

 

Sorry if I seem like I'm trying to start an argument or something, I'm not. I am pretty new to the firearm scene and I'm just confused.

 

No problem at all. It's a confusing subject. I'll try to break it down a bit.

 

1) ATF expands the definition of a gun to "a group of parts with which a gun can be assembled". This prevents people from legally selling disassembled machine guns (for instance) to anybody at all, like felons (for instance).

 

2) In the famous Thompson/Center case, T/C was selling a kit which contained a receiver, a short barrel, a long barrel, and a stock. The idea was that with one receiver, you could assemble both a pistol and a rifle. The ATF called it an SBR kit.

 

The Supreme Court ruled that the kit was legal to own, stating that a set of parts was not an SBR, unless the only way to assemble the parts was into an SBR.

 

T/C expressly stated in the manual not to do so, and the court sided with them against the ATF.

 

3) In the famous Drasen case (as well as this one) there was no legal configuration in which the parts could be assembled. You can't sell the thing and just say "oh, don't use this part *wink*, it's illegal. He was selling an unregistered SBR kit in a FTF transaction. Boom, go to jail.

[VincentYGB 0]

I wonder if they've seen this.

 

It's advertised as an AOW, but set up as an SBS.

 

If it originally came from the factory with a pistol grip it is considered an AOW. If it came with a buttstock, it's considered an SBS.

 

For that (over)price(d) 2-shot Mossy one can have a nicely converted S12.

 

But the sale this post is originally about is going to become extremely over-priced.

Edited September 1, 2009 by VincentYGB

[clifton 354]

Bob

 

Or any one with the exact knowledge, I am going to get a AR PWS diablo upper "7in upper" I have a safe full of AR Rifle receivers and parts kits, However also I have pistol receivers. I want to keep it as a pistol, will I be in violation. Will ATF at my next inspection hit me on this. Thanks

[sudaevpps43 31]

Bob

 

Or any one with the exact knowledge, I am going to get a AR PWS diablo upper "7in upper" I have a safe full of AR Rifle receivers and parts kits, However also I have pistol receivers. I want to keep it as a pistol, will I be in violation. Will ATF at my next inspection hit me on this. Thanks

 

I am not a lawyer but this scenerio sounds legal to me. What it comes down to is as long as you already have an AR pistol, or an AR receiver which was manufactured as a pistol (receivers being firearms as far as the ATF is concerned), you are okay since pistols are title I firearms which are not covered by the NFA, and installing a sub-16 inch barrel on a pistol is pefectly legal. Now if you had no AR pistols or AR pistol receivers, then you would be in 'constructive possession' of an SBR as soon as you took delivery of that 7 in. upper, since you only have AR rifles or AR rifle receivers available to mount it on. Also keep in mind that anytime you take that 7 in. upper anywhere, you must either have an AR pistol (or AR pistol receiver) with you or not have any AR rifles (or AR rifle receivers) with you. If for example you have that 7 in. upper in your range bag and forget to leave it at home the next time you go to the range with just your AR rifles (while having left your AR pistols and AR pistol receivers at home), you would be in constructive possession of an SBR.

Edited September 1, 2009 by Frogfoot

[BobAsh 582]

Bob...Or any one with the exact knowledge, I am going to get a AR PWS diablo upper "7in upper" I have a safe full of AR Rifle receivers and parts kits, However also I have pistol receivers. I want to keep it as a pistol, will I be in violation. Will ATF at my next inspection hit me on this. Thanks

 

As far as I understand the law you would be OK, but I would call your agent if there is any question.

[bayonet lug 1]

where is "mr knowledge" with his comments?

you cant be talkin bout me now

 

 

But as much as I hate the stupid gun laws you are correct on this matter. He broke the law by selling a stock made for that gun as part of the deal. Now if he had just thrown in say a wood akm buttstock It would be a different story.

 

But thats my $.02

[BobAsh 582]

Plus, if you look at the pics you can see that he included a VFG in the package (making it at least an AOW) and the foam in the case is even cut out for it.

[sonnydazegunsmithing 42]

Plus, if you look at the pics you can see that he included a VFG in the package (making it at least an AOW) and the foam in the case is even cut out for it.

that was my point the sbr will not stick but he is screwed on the aow part .