3 ms·

It normally applies to NFA material, but my bet is this tips in to constructive possession territory. In short its the control of the materials required to crea

It normally applies to NFA material, but my bet is this tips in to constructive possession territory. In short its the control of the materials required to create or assemble a firearm or other regulated component. Typical examples would be possessing a < 16” barrel, a collapsible stock, and an appropriate receiver. They dont need to demonstrate that you did assemble an SBR without a tax stamp, merely that you could assemble them to an SBR. Similarly here theyre not selling just an unfinished receiver. Its all of the components necessary to assemble (not manufacture) a regulated firearm. Edit: see also sibling comments are pistol braces, or “baffles” on the sig MPX. The ATF has never been know for consistency even in cases where they issue a letter.

giantg2 6y ago
"...merely that you could assemble them to an SBR" That's only half true for constructive intent. They also have to prove that there was no lawful configuration for those items. For example, you can own a short barreled upper with a pistol-compliant lower and also own a complete rifle. You have the same parts that could build an SBR, but they have a lawful configuration so you aren't in violation unless you actually put them together in that way. This theory doesn't generally apply to 80% stock because the finished product is lawful (non-prohibited people can build their own guns). Also, the frame/reciever is the "firearm" regardless of the other parts, so it doesn't matter if they are selling it alone or with additional parts. For example, if a felon is in possession of just a finished frame, they would go to prison just the same as if it were a completed gun. This could also be a scenario where constructive intent could come into play - where the finished product would not be lawful to own for the felon (that's the case for the frame without the parts too). So there's really no legal difference between selling just the frame kit or the full parts kit.

giantg2 6y ago

"...merely that you could assemble them to an SBR" That's only half true for constructive intent. They also have to prove that there was no lawful configuration for those items. For example, you can own a short barreled upper with a pistol-compliant lower and also own a complete rifle. You have the same parts that could build an SBR, but they have a lawful configuration so you aren't in violation unless you actually put them together in that way. This theory doesn't generally apply to 80% stock because the finished product is lawful (non-prohibited people can build their own guns). Also, the frame/reciever is the "firearm" regardless of the other parts, so it doesn't matter if they are selling it alone or with additional parts. For example, if a felon is in possession of just a finished frame, they would go to prison just the same as if it were a completed gun. This could also be a scenario where constructive intent could come into play - where the finished product would not be lawful to own for the felon (that's the case for the frame without the parts too). So there's really no legal difference between selling just the frame kit or the full parts kit.