Constructive Possession bust

[G O B 3,516]

It s hard to defend your position , if you ONLY have parts for an illegal construction.

A conglomeration of parts that contains pistol and rifle parts should not be sold or stored together if there is no LEGAL weapon that can be made from that conglomeration, BUT an illegal one could be. Those parts did not get together without some kind of intent. (or stupidity).

[Modiano 5]

i really don't like this case and i still think the seller should be cleared of the charges, but i'm no lawyer, legislature, or judge. there's so much gray area. but 50/50 gray area counts just as much as 5/95 gray area in the courts, even with sympathetic jurors if the judge over-rules.

 

as bobash has stated, the thompson/center case was on similar lines, with the only difference being that T/C sold the kit with both pistol and rifle barrels. they still openly disclaimed that the user could not make the firearm into a SBR without a tax stamp, just as this seller openly disclaimed. how many of these T/C kit owners went on to be mass murderers, gangbangers, terrorists, and assassins-for-hire?

 

i don't see anymore "intent" to sell a SBR than my experience that i stated when i bought my first shotgun at 18. i understand that it's technically a different scenario, because if the dealer had sold me the shotgun with a pistol grip only, the gun would legally be considered a "handgun"(with an overall length over 26 inches...illegal for a FFL dealer to sell to someone under 21, but not illegal for them to possess.)

 

so it seems that as far as court rulings on the books go, if the seller had included a 16" barrel in the kit, it could never be considered a SBR sale. i just don't like the the presumption of "guilt and intent" when the seller explicitly stated the legal requirements of attaching the buttstock to a pistol. anybody with a saw or pocket knife and sandpaper, or god-forbid, a workshop, could produce a legal buttstock that could illegally be attached to a pistol frame. just because you "could" do it, doesn't mean you will do it illegally. they've been selling the full stocks for for glocks for years, but it's a SBR unless you've got a 16" barrel to go with it. does that mean that walmart or academy cannot sell me a semi-auto rifle and a pair of shoe strings in the same transaction? a shoe string or piece of twine or wire could be considered a one-size-fits-all full-auto trigger mechanism for most semi-auto rifles.

 

way too much legislative/legal gray area for the normal citizen to stay out of the "casual felon" category.

 

 

 

 

PS: as far as the "turn your glock/1911 into a carbine kits" are concerned, they are perfectly legal since they meet the 16inch barrel an 26inch OAL requirements.

 

PPS: the "super shorty" style of AOW shotguns are based on "virgin" or PGO shotgun receivers. attaching a full buttstock or functional folding stock onto them cleary steps into SBS territory. no legal gray-area about that. that listing of an AOW shorty with a folding stock shown on the auction site became a SBS once they put the buttstock on it. a $5 AOW tax stamp turned into $250+ SBS tax stamp in a minute or under..and that change from AOW to SBS is permanent. you can put a PGO on a SBS, but you can't put a buttstock on an AOW. i know that much.

[bigj480 203]

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.

 

What license? If the kit he was selling came with a barrel 16" or longer it was is legal to own and assemble without any ATF approval or a tax stamp. Mech Tech sells a kit that fits this description.

[bigj480 203]

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

 

My understanding is that as long as it is possible to intall legaly on one of your guns, then their is not a problem. Many people own vertical front grips for their rifles and own pistols that they would fit. It's not a problem because they may be used on the rifles. If you didn't own a pistol lower, it would be illegal.

[nalioth 405]

i don't see anymore "intent" to sell a SBR than my experience that i stated when i bought my first shotgun at 18. i understand that it's technically a different scenario, because if the dealer had sold me the shotgun with a pistol grip only, the gun would legally be considered a "handgun"(with an overall length over 26 inches...illegal for a FFL dealer to sell to someone under 21, but not illegal for them to possess.)

To clarify here:

 

A "handgun" is legally defined as "intended to be operated with one hand".

 

A PGO shotgun is not legally a "handgun".

[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.

 

What license? If the kit he was selling came with a barrel 16" or longer it was is legal to own and assemble without any ATF approval or a tax stamp. Mech Tech sells a kit that fits this description.

This was about a 12" barrel.

Real neat little kit. I don't know who manufactures it.

[RangerM9 1]

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.

 

 

don't need the stamp if you also buy a 16 inch barrel from impulse gun barrels...and install the barrel before the stock....then you have a carbine....of course there are many who would then argue you can never legally convert back to the pistol configuration....so be careful what you do.

[bigj480 203]

i really don't like this case and i still think the seller should be cleared of the charges, but i'm no lawyer, legislature, or judge. there's so much gray area. but 50/50 gray area counts just as much as 5/95 gray area in the courts, even with sympathetic jurors if the judge over-rules.

 

He will go to jail, as retarded as the laws are, they are laws.

 

as bobash has stated, the thompson/center case was on similar lines, with the only difference being that T/C sold the kit with both pistol and rifle barrels. they still openly disclaimed that the user could not make the firearm into a SBR without a tax stamp, just as this seller openly disclaimed. how many of these T/C kit owners went on to be mass murderers, gangbangers, terrorists, and assassins-for-hire?

 

I need to look up that case. They sold them with rifle and pistol barrels, front grip and butt stock and advised customers not to assemble them in the wrong manner? That should be legal because there is a way to use the short barrel legally.

 

i don't see anymore "intent" to sell a SBR than my experience that i stated when i bought my first shotgun at 18. i understand that it's technically a different scenario, because if the dealer had sold me the shotgun with a pistol grip only, the gun would legally be considered a "handgun"(with an overall length over 26 inches...illegal for a FFL dealer to sell to someone under 21, but not illegal for them to possess.)

 

That is not a federal law, it must have been a local law. My understanding is that a pistol grip shotgun is still a shotgun as long as it has an 18" barrel, some are sold this way from the factory.

 

PPS: the "super shorty" style of AOW shotguns are based on "virgin" or PGO shotgun receivers. attaching a full buttstock or functional folding stock onto them cleary steps into SBS territory. no legal gray-area about that. that listing of an AOW shorty with a folding stock shown on the auction site became a SBS once they put the buttstock on it. a $5 AOW tax stamp turned into $250+ SBS tax stamp in a minute or under..and that change from AOW to SBS is permanent. you can put a PGO on a SBS, but you can't put a buttstock on an AOW. i know that much.

 

Isn't it still $200?

[csspecs 1,987]

This is a waste of tax payer money. There are real criminals doing harm, this guy is just an idiot. slap his wrist take the stock and front grip.

 

 

Oh well. That does not matter, the prosecutor is paid to put people in jail, if they can go they will go.

Edited September 2, 2009 by csspecs

[Gibbles 23]

I bought a M11 pistol a few years back, the guy I bought it from gave me the barrel ext and a VFG for it...

I threw out the VFG...

Some people do stupid shit.

[Shandlanos 1,470]

I understand and don't disagree with the fact that this guy probably violated the law, and certainly violated a completely asinine modern interpretation of the law. However, there are two points you made that I'd like to address.

 

 

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.

 

Knowingly? While neither of us know with certainty, that could easily not be the case. Selling someone all the parts needed to build a legal weapon certainly doesn't sound illegal. The ATF is making the assumption that the weapon was going to be assembled illegally. Unless the man is ineligible to legally assemble an SBR (or AOW, as the case may be), his possession of those parts simply can't be illegal. I have difficulty believing that it is illegal to have the means and intent to assemble a lawful firearm.

 

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).

 

That raises my blood pressure a bit. How the fuck has the ATF been given the authority to interpret and define the law in such a manner? That is the exclusive Constitutionally-granted power of the Judicial Branch. The Legislative Branch creates the law, the Judicial Branch interprets the law, and the Executive Branch enforces it. No part of one branch should ever have two of these powers; it is unconstitutional and destroys an important protection provided by the founding fathers of this country. The ATF exists only to enforce the law as written by the Legislature and interpreted by the courts.

 

 

 

All that being said, this guy had to at the very least have known that he was doing something shady, if not outright illegal. I don't think there's any better advice on the subject than what's in your signature line.

[t165 30]

Shandlanos...I'm actually glad to see you have a grasp of the principles defining division of power which resides in our government. There are so many on these internet firearm forums who do not. The BATFE is simply an enforcement arm of our Government as you state. While BobAsh may not be qualified to offer advice in a legal sense I do think he means well. He is simply trying to warn others about a situation which could cause them a great deal of difficulty absent this discussion. While the leglislative branch does indeed write the laws and the executive branch administrates the enforcement officers who are sworn to enforce the laws, the Judicial branch seldom gets involved until after the fact. Far too often, only after the laws are written and enforced, does the judicial branch weigh in on the constitutionality of the law. Which means a indiviudual(s) has already been subjected to an arrest, fine, loss of freedom, or other penality of law before a qualified jurist, or panel of jurists, has weighed the legailty of the law.

 

The one thing I have learned about our system of governance is the never ending "round robin" of our laws. They seem to change like the weather. Subject to the political climate. If the arrest, which is the subject of this thread, is contested and deemed unlawful regardless of previous case-law, then the "law" of the land will once again be redefined. It's all rather confusing and a real PITA for the test case individual.

Edited September 2, 2009 by t165

[Modiano 5]

To clarify here:

 

A "handgun" is legally defined as "intended to be operated with one hand".

 

A PGO shotgun is not legally a "handgun".

i don't know if texas or federal laws dealing with PGO shotguns have changed since 1998, but i was told that i cannot walk out the dealers door without a buttstock because i was under 21 at the time. this was during the AWB, but the PGO would have been the only "evil feature". 4rd mag tube, no barrrel shroud, just a plain 870HD

 

in a couple days when i have time, i'll give carter country a call and ask them if an 18yo can buy a PGO shotty

[BobAsh 582]

i don't see anymore "intent" to sell a SBR than my experience that i stated when i bought my first shotgun at 18.

 

It's simple, really. He sold a kit of parts. If you assemble the parts, it makes an SBR. It's the same as selling a complete machinegun disassembled and telling the buyer to leave out the auto-sear; you can't do it.

 

Look, I'd love to see a high-end lawyer take this case and put an end to constructive possession for good. It's possible, but highly unlikely. It will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, since the defining precedence in this area was last settled by the Supreme Court.

 

This guy is finished. That's my prediction.

 

Mine is a cautionary tale. Flaunt this law at your peril.

[BobAsh 582]

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.

 

Knowingly? While neither of us know with certainty, that could easily not be the case. Selling someone all the parts needed to build a legal weapon certainly doesn't sound illegal. The ATF is making the assumption that the weapon was going to be assembled illegally. Unless the man is ineligible to legally assemble an SBR (or AOW, as the case may be), his possession of those parts simply can't be illegal. I have difficulty believing that it is illegal to have the means and intent to assemble a lawful firearm.

What I was implying is this: the guy admitted that if you assemble that parts he sold, it requires a tax stamp. You say "this guy had to...have known that he was doing something shady, if not outright illegal", I say he knew it was a felony. We only slightly disagree here.

 

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).

 

That raises my blood pressure a bit. How the fuck has the ATF been given the authority to interpret and define the law in such a manner? That is the exclusive Constitutionally-granted power of the Judicial Branch. The Legislative Branch creates the law, the Judicial Branch interprets the law, and the Executive Branch enforces it. No part of one branch should ever have two of these powers; it is unconstitutional and destroys an important protection provided by the founding fathers of this country. The ATF exists only to enforce the law as written by the Legislature and interpreted by the courts.

 

It is common in firearms law to define a set of parts as a gun, so ATF's interpretation is not so far-fetched according to the law as written. In the case I was talking about (US vs T/C), the courts did rule against the ATF so obviously the system is not too broken.

 

Now it's OK to be mad about this, as I've mentioned I personally think SBR laws are silly. But the law does exist and it has been defined in court and this guy is on the wrong side of it.

 

I don't think there's any better advice on the subject than what's in your signature line.

 

And that, my friend, is the whole purpose of this thread. To keep my brothers out of trouble with the law.

 

If a guy wants to push the envelope, sneak a buttstock out to the range, or straight-up build illegal stuff- well, that's an individual's decision to make. I just want everyone here to have the information available to make informed decisions.

Edited September 2, 2009 by BobAsh

[BobAsh 582]

as bobash has stated, the thompson/center case was on similar lines, with the only difference being that T/C sold the kit with both pistol and rifle barrels. they still openly disclaimed that the user could not make the firearm into a SBR without a tax stamp, just as this seller openly disclaimed. how many of these T/C kit owners went on to be mass murderers, gangbangers, terrorists, and assassins-for-hire?

 

I need to look up that case. They sold them with rifle and pistol barrels, front grip and butt stock and advised customers not to assemble them in the wrong manner? That should be legal because there is a way to use the short barrel legally.

 

As I stated previously, you are exactly correct; it was ruled a legal kit.

[bigj480 203]

as bobash has stated, the thompson/center case was on similar lines, with the only difference being that T/C sold the kit with both pistol and rifle barrels. they still openly disclaimed that the user could not make the firearm into a SBR without a tax stamp, just as this seller openly disclaimed. how many of these T/C kit owners went on to be mass murderers, gangbangers, terrorists, and assassins-for-hire?

 

I need to look up that case. They sold them with rifle and pistol barrels, front grip and butt stock and advised customers not to assemble them in the wrong manner? That should be legal because there is a way to use the short barrel legally.

 

As I stated previously, you are exactly correct; it was ruled a legal kit.

 

Good to know, thanks for the info.

[Shandlanos 1,470]

Shandlanos...I'm actually glad to see you have a grasp of the principles defining division of power which resides in our government. There are so many on these internet firearm forums who do not. The BATFE is simply an enforcement arm of our Government as you state. While BobAsh may not be qualified to offer advice in a legal sense I do think he means well. He is simply trying to warn others about a situation which could cause them a great deal of difficulty absent this discussion. While the leglislative branch does indeed write the laws and the executive branch administrates the enforcement officers who are sworn to enforce the laws, the Judicial branch seldom gets involved until after the fact. Far too often, only after the laws are written and enforced, does the judicial branch weigh in on the constitutionality of the law. Which means a indiviudual(s) has already been subjected to an arrest, fine, loss of freedom, or other penality of law before a qualified jurist, or panel of jurists, has weighed the legailty of the law.

 

The one thing I have learned about our system of governance is the never ending "round robin" of our laws. They seem to change like the weather. Subject to the political climate. If the arrest, which is the subject of this thread, is contested and deemed unlawful regardless of previous case-law, then the "law" of the land will once again be redefined. It's all rather confusing and a real PITA for the test case individual.

 

You make a very important point. The courts have a great deal of power, but it is rarely exercised (in the sense of interpreting law), and, in my own opinion, often exercised in favor of those best able to afford competent attorneys and lengthy litigation. I'm certainly not trying to shit on judges. I certainly wouldn't care for that line of work, nor the lengthy education and status as an attorney it generally requires. But, time and again, we see those who can afford years of litigation and endless appeals win out against those without vast resources.

 

I think everybody is in agreement that this guy is screwed. That doesn't mean I think that it is right.

 

I see a perfectly reasonable, logical thought process that could have led this man to think his actions were legal. That is where the disagreement with BobAsh seems to lie. Logically this man could have thought that if he informed the buyer how to assemble the weapon legally, no crime was committed. I am only establishing a hypothetical, which establishes in my mind a reasonable doubt; which, under our law, is sufficient to effect an acquittal.

 

This guy is probably an idiot, but not a dangerous criminal who needs to have his life destroyed. That is morally reprehensible, and I would argue, unconstitutional for more than one reason. Setting aside for now the second amendment, which is well understood by all who are likely to read this... Arguing along that line would be nothing more than preaching to the choir.

 

That sort of punishment is unconstitutional under the Eight Amendment.

 

"[e]xcessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

 

Read more: http://law.jrank.org/pages/946/Cruel-Unusu...l#ixzz0Q75hD5VF

 

The word "unusual" is generally disregarded in modern discourse as we concentrate on the word "cruel". What it meant in the discourse of the day was "grossly disproportionate". That usage has been stretched and stretched by modern interpretation (those very courts I am trying so hard not to bash) until it has lost all real meaning. The only invocation of this facet of the law I can recall from recent history is the striking down of the death penalty as an allowable punishment for rape.

 

Up to a decade in prison and a $500,000 fine (if memory serves) is in the mind of any sane person a grossly disproportionate punishment for the crime of being a fucking idiot.

 

I don't want my tax dollars wasted prosecuting and imprisoning this man, and I sure as hell don't want to see this man's rights permanently revoked. He's an idiot. Oh well, slap his wrist, confiscate the weapon if you must, and go after the real criminals who are supplying weaponry to other violent criminals.

[BronCobraJet 80]

I seem to recall back in the mid 80's at some of the larger gun shows, that someone could go to one booth and buy an AR15, go a few booths down and buy a three round/full auto trigger group, and go a few more booths down and get the bolt and bolt carrier. At that time, no big deal was made of it other than you could legally own all the pieces, but just couldn't put them together. Does any one recall this and/or care to comment?

[jrance@iacwds.com 716]

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).

 

That raises my blood pressure a bit. How the fuck has the ATF been given the authority to interpret and define the law in such a manner? That is the exclusive Constitutionally-granted power of the Judicial Branch. The Legislative Branch creates the law, the Judicial Branch interprets the law, and the Executive Branch enforces it. No part of one branch should ever have two of these powers; it is unconstitutional and destroys an important protection provided by the founding fathers of this country. The ATF exists only to enforce the law as written by the Legislature and interpreted by the courts.

 

 

The BATFE and every other regulatory agency represent an end run around the Constitution by our government. According to the separation of powers concept the same folks who make the laws don't enforce the laws or ajudicate them. However in every regulatory agency from the EPA to Child Care Licensing we find the exact same people making the regulation (regulations have the force of law), enforcing the regulations, and then ajudicating their own enforcement. Your appeal is to the state office of administrative hearings (in Texas) which is a court like setting except that the rules that apply are not the same as our civil/criminal courts. You have no right/ability to sue because the bar for "offcial oppression" is way too high. We wind up taking it in the shorts and there is no redress available. This situation certainly breaks the separation of powers intent of both state and federal constitutions. Why do you think the current administration has appointed so many "czars"? To avoid the constitution getting in the way of what they want. Rant off.

 

1911

[BobAsh 582]

I think everybody is in agreement that this guy is screwed. That doesn't mean I think that it is right.

 

I see a perfectly reasonable, logical thought process that could have led this man to think his actions were legal. That is where the disagreement with BobAsh seems to lie. Logically this man could have thought that if he informed the buyer how to assemble the weapon legally, no crime was committed. I am only establishing a hypothetical, which establishes in my mind a reasonable doubt; which, under our law, is sufficient to effect an acquittal.

 

This guy is probably an idiot, but not a dangerous criminal who needs to have his life destroyed.

 

Well who knows...maybe he will get off. I hope he does! I just don't think that he will.

[BobAsh 582]

I seem to recall back in the mid 80's at some of the larger gun shows, that someone could go to one booth and buy an AR15, go a few booths down and buy a three round/full auto trigger group, and go a few more booths down and get the bolt and bolt carrier. At that time, no big deal was made of it other than you could legally own all the pieces, but just couldn't put them together. Does any one recall this and/or care to comment?

 

You can still find all that stuff at the gun show, that's why I posted this thread.

[bigj480 203]

Why do you think the current administration has appointed so many "czars"? To avoid the constitution getting in the way of what they want. Rant off.

 

It does not seem that they need to be appointed "czars" to trample on the constitutions. Many of our elected officials from both sides of the isle do it with little resistance and without hesitation. A republic if you can keep it.

[crackback 135]

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

 

Be sure that you use a buffer tube that cannot accept any buttstock. Do not use a carbine tube as is. RRA makes one for their pistols that would work well for compliance.

[madmax4x4 68]

Any possibility the receiver was a rifle at one point?

[krusader 1]

I have been listening to this conversation, and I felt I needed to make a point, and see if I am alone in my thinking or not.

My belief is that there should be no restrictions or regulations on firearms in this nation, the second amendment is clear on this. " shall not be infringed" We should be equally as armed as our government or any police and law enforcement agency in the land.

Some people point to the system and say just vote or right your congressman or senator, it seems to me they are naive at best thinking that you can work within the current system and cause change, what they are forgetting, is that there are activist judges and perverted men who will interpret the law and even interpret the vote based on a misguided view of the constitution and even a deliberate twisting of the constitution to align the outcome with there communist and anti freedom views.

I ask you to remember that before our founding fathers who were better men than myself bled and died for freedom, they had tried to work within the system first..

If you are a student of history or care to study what led to them throwing off the chains of bondage and oppression you will see that they did in fact state their case to the powers that be, and that they did so as citizens of England, they argued under the current rights that they had by the LAW but they were not listened too, and the law was altered without their consent whenever it pleased the king or any of the authorities of the day so they could silence them and their cry's for true freedom.

Did our founders find that working within the political system of the day brought them freedom? The answer is a resounding NO.

We allow our freedoms to be taken away, and say " its not so bad" "I will obey that law"

When is it time for bloodshed? Please ask yourself what is your personal limit? At what time should the people of Germany have stood up and said no more to Hitler, We will not allow this murderer to do this anymore? Sadly they didn't ever say that! I am glad that the American Colonist valued freedom more than comfort, and that they fought back and won their freedom from King George.

When you buy a tax stamp you basically give up your protection under the forth amendment, you are marked and will be singled out quickly when the confiscation laws pass.

[BobAsh 582]

When you buy a tax stamp you basically give up your protection under the forth amendment, you are marked and will be singled out quickly when the confiscation laws pass.

 

*sigh*

 

You know, I take the time to create public-service threads to inform and protect our community, and then bullshit like this is posted.

 

If you want to believe in this fantasy, go for it but advising people to commit felonies is just plain stupid. Stay the fuck off my thread.

[sparky63 46]

dam bob ,don't sugar coat it, tell um what you really mean.lol

[joelrod47 373]

 

 

 

..........."advising people to commit felonies is just plain stupid. Stay the fuck off my thread."

 

Heh, heh, heh.................

Edited September 6, 2009 by Jeaux E

[krusader 1]

When you buy a tax stamp you basically give up your protection under the forth amendment, you are marked and will be singled out quickly when the confiscation laws pass.

 

*sigh*

 

You know, I take the time to create public-service threads to inform and protect our community, and then bullshit like this is posted.

 

If you want to believe in this fantasy, go for it but advising people to commit felonies is just plain stupid. Stay the fuck off my thread.

 

Not impressed son

If you don't like my take on things go away