2 questions

[mikea46996]

OK if things start going well and work turns around I want to get a 11.5" upper and a can. Does this require 2 tax stamps?

Can I order the upper and keep it on my pistol lower till I get my paperwork back???

Does the upper get some special number or something that has to be engraved???

Are these stupid questions???

 

[shooter521]

I want to get a 11.5" upper and a can. Does this require 2 tax stamps?

Yes; each separate NFA item requires its own stamp.

Can I order the upper and keep it on my pistol lower till I get my paperwork back???

Yes.

Does the upper get some special number or something that has to be engraved???

The upper does not, but the lower (which is the part you are registering) needs to be engraved with your name, city and state (or accepted abbreviations thereof) in a readily visible location (no hiding it inside the magwell or under the pistol grip). For example, if your name was John Quincy Adams and you lived in Indianapolis, you might use:

J Q ADAMS
INDPLS, IN

HTH!

 

[mikea46996]

Another stupid question because most "gun guys" you run into in gun shops or ranges are full of stuff.

Do you pay each year for the stamp or is it a one time deal???

The answer to this will greatly change some of my plans.

 

[shooter521]

Do you pay each year for the stamp or is it a one time deal???

It's a one-time tax.

https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/class_iii_nfa/20357-nfa_myths.html#post230656

 

[mikea46996]

It's a one-time tax.

https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/class_iii_nfa/20357-nfa_myths.html#post230656

Sweet!!!!!!

Thanks!!

 

[Sinner Man]

JUST A LITTLE CLARIFICATION FOR 100% ACCURACY (AND OVERKILL)

Yes; each separate NFA item requires its own stamp.



Yes. BUT ONLY IF YOU HAVE A 16"+ UPPER FOR EACH NON-REGISTERED LOWER. IF YOU HAVE 3 AR15 LOWERS AND ONE IS BUILT INTO A 20", ONE INTO A 16" AND ONE IS JUST SITTING FOR A LATER BUILD, YOU CANNOT HAVE THAT SHORT UPPER AROUND EVEN IF YOU DO HAVE THE PISTOL LOWER. THE RULE IS EACH LOWER HAS TO HAVE A LEGAL CONFIGURATION AVAILABLE FOR IT.



The upper does not BUT CAN BE INSTEAD OF THE LOWER BUT EACH UPPER USED ON IT WILL NEED TO BE ENGRAVED, but the lower (which is the part you are registering) needs (NOT EXACTLY, SEE ABOVE) to be engraved with your name, city and state (or accepted abbreviations thereof) in a readily visible location (no hiding it inside the magwell or under the pistol grip). For example, if your name was John Quincy Adams and you lived in Indianapolis, you might use:

J Q ADAMS
INDPLS, IN

HTH!

 

[shooter521]

IF YOU HAVE 3 AR15 LOWERS AND ONE IS BUILT INTO A 20", ONE INTO A 16" AND ONE IS JUST SITTING FOR A LATER BUILD, YOU CANNOT HAVE THAT SHORT UPPER AROUND EVEN IF YOU DO HAVE THE PISTOL LOWER. THE RULE IS EACH LOWER HAS TO HAVE A LEGAL CONFIGURATION AVAILABLE FOR IT.

Are you saying that one cannot possess complete AR rifles, an AR pistol and extra (incomplete) lowers at the same time? What about possessing Title I ARs, Title II ARs and extra lowers? Please point me to the text of this rule.

The upper does not BUT CAN BE INSTEAD OF THE LOWER BUT EACH UPPER USED ON IT WILL NEED TO BE ENGRAVED

OK, that may theoretically be possible (the language does say "frame, receiver or barrel"), but why on Earth would you do it that way with an AR type platform? Engrave the lower, pay once, and use any upper you want.

 

[mikea46996]

Sinner man so then technically I could have more the one short upper as long as I use it on the registered lower???

I am not trying to get around any laws I am just looking to save some money on my toys, I want to build a 11.5" 5.56 upper with a can and a dedicated 11.5" 22lr upper with a can. So I would need to pay for both cans and one lower if I only use them on that lower and have no other lowers that are not in use. Correct???

 

[Sinner Man]

There has to be a legal configuration for each lower. It's that simple. If you have a lower that doesn't have an upper and that short one is lying around, they can say there is no legal configuration for that 3rd lower (in this case). They can also go after you for intent.

You can have 5 lowers, 5 uppers and a SBR lower with 5 short uppers. That's cool because each of the 5 non-Title II lowers has a legal configuration.

But, like I said, even 1 short upper, one registered lower and one extra non-registered lower is a no-no. It's usually NEVER something to worry about.

Re the engraving- the manufacturer must engrave their info onto the barrel or receiver- receiver being upper or lower. Look at the case of an H&K- you'd engrave the upper wouldn't you? The answer is always YES. It's the registered firearm so it makes sense to you. You wouldn't engrave a lower because you'd have to engrave them all.

Same thing with an AR15. Noone wants to engrave all of their uppers that can be used on ONE lower when they can just engrave on the ONE lower. To sum it up, the engraving needs to appear in one of the three places on a complete title II firearm.

Barrels? Yeah, that would be silly. There's no good spot to engrave an AR15 barrel. MAYBE if you did a 14.5" but it would be silly.

I don't know where to look to get you citations for all of this right now. I can't access HKPro here. Take a look around there. Then again, they do have a thread saying you DO NOT NEED to and it's full of bickering and hard to follow.

 

[Sinner Man]

Sinner man so then technically I could have more the one short upper as long as I use it on the registered lower???

I am not trying to get around any laws I am just looking to save some money on my toys, I want to build a 11.5" 5.56 upper with a can and a dedicated 11.5" 22lr upper with a can. So I would need to pay for both cans and one lower if I only use them on that lower and have no other lowers that are not in use. Correct???

Yes, correct. As long as your other lowers have their own uppers. BUT, the next lower you buy should get it's own upper of legal length ASAP.

Yes to the second part as well. Two stamps for cans, one for a lower. Have no other lowers or enough uppers to cover each and every other lower. Some people do this when they don't mind swapping lowers. It can be a pain when you have a finicky 9mm upper and a 2-stage trigger in your NFA lower for your 5.56. I've gotten a 2-stage RRA NM trigger to work fine with a Colt 9mm upper.

You will often see a guy with X number of complete AR15s and ONE SBR lower but 3 or so short uppers. Totally legal as long as those other rifles are complete or can be complete. You CAN have them apart and stored however you want- caveat is there is a legal config for each. That does not mean take a separate pic of each lower with the single upper you have after swapping it around. NOT that you would!

 

[bigcraig]

I disagree with most folks on this subject, mostly due to no one backing up their statements with actual cases.

If you own a registered SBR lower for an AR, you can own as many short uppers you choose to. Why, because you can build a legal configuration with the parts on hand. As far as also having a few stripped recievers in your inventory, how can "constructive intent" be proved if you have previously followed the proper procedures for building an SBR, and can assemble a legally configured title I or title II item.

 

[Sinner Man]

I disagree with most folks on this subject, mostly due to no one backing up their statements with actual cases.

If you own a registered SBR lower for an AR, you can own as many short uppers you choose to. BUT THERE IS A CAVEAT. Why, because you can build a legal configuration with the parts on hand. YES, FOR YOUR SBRs MAYBE. As far as also having a few stripped recievers in your inventory, how can "constructive intent" be proved if you have previously followed the proper procedures for building an SBR, and can assemble a legally configured title I or title II item. BECAUSE THE ATF KNOWS THAT LOTS OF PEOPLE WOULD GO THROUGH THE "HOOP" ONCE JUST SO THEY CAN BUY WHATEVER THEY WANT AFTERWARDS- THAT'S WHY THAT CLAUSE IS THERE.

I'm not going to argue with you. I know it is the law and why it is the law. I understand why it would be seen as constructive intent as well. If not constructive intent, then a way to circumvent $200 tax for each lower.

Noone has to "back up" their statement for you to at least be a little wary of it and check your inventory and do some reading on the internet. I know you are a member of AR15.com. It's been covered there.

 

[curraheeguns]

I disagree with most folks on this subject, mostly due to no one backing up their statements with actual cases.

If you own a registered SBR lower for an AR, you can own as many short uppers you choose to. Why, because you can build a legal configuration with the parts on hand. As far as also having a few stripped recievers in your inventory, how can "constructive intent" be proved if you have previously followed the proper procedures for building an SBR, and can assemble a legally configured title I or title II item.

+1 the above.

It's not Federal Code Sinner Man is trying to convey, it's supposed case law. I have yet to see the actual case law presented in this "constructive Intent" theory.

When I see it then I will sell all my stripped lowers and bow to the man.

The Federal man that is....we all know the city man is really cool already and we should all bow to him!!

 

[Sinner Man]

Hey, Mike is asking questions from a beginner's point of view. I'd be remiss not to tell him what dangers lie ahead and the laws that I do know of.

You want to say it's just case law? Fine, say it is just case law at this point but also point out to him that you don't want to see him to be the "first" one to have to turn it into a trial.

Just because it has not become "case law" yet does not mean it isn't against the law. It's been expressly written, not made up. I've seen some very legitimate wording of what I paraphrased earlier but cannot look it up right now.

It may not be case law and may never be case law due to the fact that noone who has made the mistake has also made more serious mistakes- ones big enough to get the ATF knocking on their door.

Ask the kid from WI if there was case law on all of the details of his trial- if there was case law regarding lending a rifle with a "broken" selector and what happens if the rifle can be made to fire at a later date in a lab. Everyone always said up until that point "IF they can make it fire fully automatic repeatedly and that's a BIG IF, so go ahead and put in that FA bolt carrier group..."

Up until that point a lot of things had been said about intent and this and that and it always ended with "how are they going to know anyway?"

Well you see, poo happens as this kid from WI found out, the HARD way. He's still in prison isn't he?

I just recently found a BATFE letter online where a guy was looking for this same answer. Someone posted the letter to show an important bit of info. The guy asked about having parts for a pistol and for a rifle for an Uzi he owned. The uzi is irrelevant as the agent who wrote the letter addressed the person's question regarding a Thompson Center pistol/rifle kit. Somehow this went to the supreme court because the person had a pistol and a stock and 16" barrel. He DID have the parts to build an illegal SBR there but since this was sold as a kit for a distinct purpose, the court ruled it was not illegal and should not be construed as constructive intent. The agent went on to say this case ONLY applies to the TC kit and that the combination of parts for any other gun would be illegal.

We all know letters apply to the writer only but that is ONLY when the writing of the clarification letter gives someone MORE freedom. When a letter is written explaining that you CANNOT do something because it is illegal, it is obviously a good warning to everyone else about the BATFE's position on the subject.

 

[bigcraig]

I'm not going to argue with you. I know it is the law and why it is the law. I understand why it would be seen as constructive intent as well. If not constructive intent, then a way to circumvent $200 tax for each lower.

Noone has to "back up" their statement for you to at least be a little wary of it and check your inventory and do some reading on the internet. I know you are a member of AR15.com. It's been covered there.

I have been in the NFA game for a few years, I have yet to hear of ONE conviction of the constructive intent "law", you know why, because there isn't one.

Again, many disagree with me on this topic, but those folks ALWAYS fail to prove their case.

I have also seen conflicting tech branch letters on this subject, you know why, because the ATF can't figure the code out either. They also like to throw the "constructive intent" BS around a bit too, but "constructive intent" is not in the written law.

Your right, though, I don't want to argue with you either.

 

[Sinner Man]

Wait, no offense but what you are saying is such BS and I'll be happy to tell you why.

You've been in the NFA game a few years? So have I. Doesn't matter.

You haven't heard of a conviction yet? It's because there hasn't been one YET and that's what I've said. Please read what I write and don't assume I'm saying something and respond to your assumption. It makes it look like you are trying to argue.

MANY disagree with you? They fail to make you realize the mistake you COULD be making so THEY are wrong? The MANY are wrong? I'd rather be a hair cautious than a hair too lax in trying to stay within the law. It's not going to hurt me to have enough uppers and it won't hurt Mike either. My advice hurts noone one. YOURs potentially could.

You have seen conflicting tech branch letters? Please cough up TWO conflicting letters. So since you can't produce them you must be completely wrong? That's the logic you've used against me and MANY others it seems. If one letter says "John, you MAY do THIS" and another says "Jim you may not do THIS" then John CAN DO THIS and Jim cannot. Everyone else not addressed by the letter should understand fully that they may not be able to either and should not assume they can just because someone told John he could.

Constructive intent doesn't have to be in written law. Did you read anything I wrote? Or, are you so sick of trying to "prove" your side to guys like me that you just repeat the same thing every time and assume I'm repeating the same old thing?

Reread what I wrote please.

 

[mikea46996]

Wow guys I just wanna know if I can have 1 registered SBR lower and a 5.56 upper and a 22lr upper.

If I have to I can store my other lowers at my parents house.

Also how and where do I get all the paper work to register the lower???

 

[Sinner Man]

Go to the atf website for the forms.

http://www.atf.gov/forms/pdfs/f53201.pdf

There is a fingerprint card somewhere around there you may need too.

Yes, you can swap uppers around on your lower all day long. If you think it's enough to care about, you can look into this on boards where people have been in the NFA game longer than either of us and were able to pay more attention to these things as they came up over time as opposed to trying to take them all in in the last few years as we may have.

 

[bigcraig]

Wait, no offense but what you are saying is such BS and I'll be happy to tell you why.

You've been in the NFA game a few years? So have I. Doesn't matter.

You haven't heard of a conviction yet? It's because there hasn't been one YET and that's what I've said. Please read what I write and don't assume I'm saying something and respond to your assumption. It makes it look like you are trying to argue.

MANY disagree with you? They fail to make you realize the mistake you COULD be making so THEY are wrong? The MANY are wrong? I'd rather be a hair cautious than a hair too lax in trying to stay within the law. It's not going to hurt me to have enough uppers and it won't hurt Mike either. My advice hurts noone one. YOURs potentially could.

You have seen conflicting tech branch letters? Please cough up TWO conflicting letters. So since you can't produce them you must be completely wrong? That's the logic you've used against me and MANY others it seems. If one letter says "John, you MAY do THIS" and another says "Jim you may not do THIS" then John CAN DO THIS and Jim cannot. Everyone else not addressed by the letter should understand fully that they may not be able to either and should not assume they can just because someone told John he could.

Constructive intent doesn't have to be in written law. Did you read anything I wrote? Or, are you so sick of trying to "prove" your side to guys like me that you just repeat the same thing every time and assume I'm repeating the same old thing?

Reread what I wrote please.

Ok.

 

[curraheeguns]

It's been expressly written, not made up. I've seen some very legitimate wording of what I paraphrased earlier but cannot look it up right now.

1. I will believe it when I see it.

2. Why do you take every post as a complete and total challenge of your manhood? Not just this thread, but every thread. Any time someone post something you do not agree with you fly off the handle.... It's getting old and via PM I have heard from several others that agree.

HTH