Jump to content


Photo

Hypothetical SBR/NFA Scenario


  • Please log in to reply
35 replies to this topic

#21 giantpune

giantpune

    Regular Member

  • Regular Group
  • 103 posts

Posted 30 August 2019 - 12:03 PM

Crossing state lines with a MG, DD, SBR, or SBS is prohibited.

 

Now if you really want to cook your noodle, consider this situation.  I have a registered MP5K SBR.  When putting it inside an accessory such as the HK operational briefcase, it creates an AOW.  The ATF's NFA division has informed me that this configuration requires a new form 1 and a new tax stamp to register this configuration as an AOW.  At what point does it go from AOW to SBR?  The AOW status is because its a gun that can fire while it is concealed and disguised as something else.  So what state is it when the briefcase is opened and the gun is not concealed?  You have to open it to reload.

 

So now you have an SBR mounted inside a briefcase that can be legally transported across state lines without prior permission.  But while across state lines, you cannot take the gun out of the briefcase because then its no longer an AOW.  Its back to a SBR.  Are you even allowed to open the cause while you're across state lines?


  • 0

#22 The Lone Ranger

The Lone Ranger

    Respected Member

  • Board Donor
  • 1093 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:PA

Posted 30 August 2019 - 05:56 PM

First reaction was I wouldn't touch this with a 29 1/2 foot pole as I'm not in the business of figuring this stuff out anymore but it is intriguing.  I get the making tax, no problem there.  As for the rest - my take would be that the SBR does not cease to exist just because it's inside a briefcase so a transfer or interstate transport would be a two pronged operation.  Two transfers to sell it off (assuming same person was getting them both - if you sold off the case alone it would just be a case and someone else could F1/F2 if they ever put a firearm in it and the SBR would just be an SBR) and a SBR listed on the 5320.20 because that short rifle is still there and crossing state lines even though it's stored in an OBC.  

 
Just as one example my home state allows AOWs but not SBRs.  The state definition mirrors federal and there is no exemption for them being stored in a breifcase.  By you sending in a 5320.20 with the SBR info, ATF would give you a clue of the potential trauma by disapproving your form.  
 
RE: Open vs closed case - I'd say open = no more AOW as the disguised aspect just went away and it becomes just a nicely displayed SBR but if you have a scenario where the answer really matters, FTB is the place for classification guidance.  Since they are both lawful federally, I can't think of a scenario where it would actually be significant other than at the state level which might best be queried in the specific state. Bear in mind I am just another pontificating fool on the internet, not well versed in OBCs, and this is just rambling that is intended as food for thought.  
 
 
jlmg:  I don't enjoy being a wet blanket. I just try offer some insight with statutes and regulations whenever possible so people can make informed decisions - preferably after doing their own research rather than blindly trusting an internet dweller.  I get they are not always popular comments and that includes with me - I often dislike my answers.  Some can skip over laws they don't like and never suffer while others are not so lucky.  As a former NFA employee used to say: "I can occasionally protect you from the government but I can never protect you from yourself".  People can always make their own decisions.  

  • 0

#23 giantpune

giantpune

    Regular Member

  • Regular Group
  • 103 posts

Posted 30 August 2019 - 08:48 PM

Two transfers to sell it off (assuming same person was getting them both - if you sold off the case alone it would just be a case and someone else could F1/F2 if they ever put a firearm in it and the SBR would just be an SBR) and a SBR listed on the 5320.20 because that short rifle is still there and crossing state lines even though it's stored in an OBC.  

 

Yeah, its 2 stamps to sell it off with the case, but no reason for the buyer not to get it that way.  The AOW stamp is $5 transfer and when you submit both at the same time, they generally get approved at the same time.


  • 0

#24 johnsonlmg41

johnsonlmg41

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 829 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 31 August 2019 - 07:41 AM

Sell the case separately to someone who has a sear, then you won't need to "transfer" the case it can just be sold as is.  I've been looking for a case for a while.  Selling a "package" like that would probably be more difficult than separating  them.

 

LR, no blanket issues at all.  I totally understand your position having hashed over many hypotheticals in the past on forums as well as in person a couple times when I used to get out more.  


  • 0

#25 Quaamik

Quaamik

    New Member

  • Regular Group
  • 7 posts

Posted 04 September 2019 - 07:16 PM

From what I've heard the "kicked around" proposals for legislation fall into the following catagories:

 

A) Reinstate the 94 AWB on new manufacture with no sunset.

 

B ) Make "assault weapons" (assume all semi auto rifles and possibly pistols) subject to the NFA and require registration.

 

C) Both A and B

 

D) Both A and a confiscation on all existing "Assault Weapons".

 

In the case of A, B or C an existing, papered, SBR would not be affected. It would already be in the NFA, and as already manufactured a ban on new manufacture wouldn't be applicable.

 

In the case of D, people with papered NFA items would be among the first to get letters demanding they turn them in, if not agents showing up at their doors. Thankfully its the least likely, falling well behind the other three options and the "nothing happens" option.

 

Honestly, I wouldn't worry about it.


Edited by Quaamik, 04 September 2019 - 07:16 PM.

  • 0

#26 lightguy

lightguy

    Regular Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 327 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas
  • Interests:Guns, Cars, coins, pinball, movie posters

Posted 23 September 2019 - 07:32 PM

I believe there was also talk of a substantial increase the cost of the tax stamp too. That is another reason why I am thinking of getting the process going just to have all the bases covered in that arena.

Because the cost of an AR15 SBR is relatively insignificant compared to a class 3 M16 if you seriously want one I'd lock one down now. Screw $200.

Colt just ended civilian production of AR15s.

The semi-auto versions have been sold out at wholesalers.

Prices are climbing.

Colt SBRs are still under the radar.

Repeat; LOCK ONE UP NOW !!!

 

PS who knows what goes on in the minds of AOC, Beto and the Democrats in power at the time / flavor of the day..

 

I have a third million + and a fair percentage of my retirement savings in class 3 and am trying to read the tea leaves.

Let me know if you have a vision one night. ;)


Edited by lightguy, 23 September 2019 - 07:37 PM.

  • 0

#27 Robert Henley

Robert Henley

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 931 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:NRA Life Benefactor
    Unified Sportsmen of Florida
    The American Thompson Association

Posted 04 October 2019 - 02:33 PM

I saw the other day that Biden's gun plan includes classification of semi-auto AR-15's (and other similar "assault" rifles) as needing to be included in the NFA:

 

https://joebiden.com/gunsafety/

 

"Regulate possession of existing assault weapons under the National Firearms Act. Currently, the National Firearms Act requires individuals possessing machine-guns, silencers, and short-barreled rifles to undergo a background check and register those weapons with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). Due to these requirements, such weapons are rarely used in crimes. As president, Biden will pursue legislation to regulate possession of existing assault weapons under the National Firearms Act." 

 

"Buy back the assault weapons and high-capacity magazines already in our communities. Biden will also institute a program to buy back weapons of war currently on our streets. This will give individuals who now possess assault weapons or high-capacity magazines two options: sell the weapons to the government, or register them under the National Firearms Act."

 

If Biden were elected I believe you would see these proposals.

 

Robert


  • 0

#28 AlexanderA

AlexanderA

    RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 177 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 06 October 2019 - 07:34 PM

In regard to Biden's plan, there are two ways to bring semiautomatics ("assault weapons") under the NFA: either create a new category (a stand-alone category like machine guns, destructive devices, suppressors, SBR's, etc.) or redefine machine guns as "any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically or semiautomatically, more than one shot, without manual reloading,"

 

If the second approach is used, that would necessarily involve the suspension or repeal of the Hughes Amendment, to allow all existing machine guns (as newly redefined) to be registered.


  • 0

#29 Robert Henley

Robert Henley

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 931 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:NRA Life Benefactor
    Unified Sportsmen of Florida
    The American Thompson Association

Posted 07 October 2019 - 01:10 PM

In regard to Biden's plan, there are two ways to bring semiautomatics ("assault weapons") under the NFA: either create a new category (a stand-alone category like machine guns, destructive devices, suppressors, SBR's, etc.) or redefine machine guns as "any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically or semiautomatically, more than one shot, without manual reloading,"

 

If the second approach is used, that would necessarily involve the suspension or repeal of the Hughes Amendment, to allow all existing machine guns (as newly redefined) to be registered.

 

I think he mentioned in his plan that he would seek legislation, so I believe the plan involves proposed legislation to amend the NFA (your first option).  Trump should have done the same with bump stocks, which would have been an easy to pass legislation.  Instead, he did it by executive order (contrary to previous BATF rulings) and the first thing the Democrats did was state that when they were back in charge they would do the same thing to ban semi-autos (Trump opened the door for this kind of abuse going forward).


  • 0

#30 AlexanderA

AlexanderA

    RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 177 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 09 October 2019 - 09:58 AM

Either approach (creating a new NFA category, or redefining machine guns) would require legislation. However, certain semiautomatic guns (notably, AR-15's) could be deemed to be machine guns by ATF ruling, or a change in regulations. That's because of the "readily converted" language in the GCA '68. The bump stock ban established the precedent that longstanding ATF positions could be overturned.

 

If a Democratic administration did this, existing AR's, like bump stocks, would be contraband, with no way to register them. That's because of the Hughes Amendment 1986 cutoff date. At that point, repeal of the Hughes Amendment would be an easy legislative fix that would have bipartisan support.


  • 0

#31 The Lone Ranger

The Lone Ranger

    Respected Member

  • Board Donor
  • 1093 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:PA

Posted 12 October 2019 - 04:52 AM

Isn't the term "readily restored" which implies a pre-existing condition?  "Readily converted" would already encompass most all semi-autos, no?


  • 0

#32 Robert Henley

Robert Henley

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 931 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:NRA Life Benefactor
    Unified Sportsmen of Florida
    The American Thompson Association

Posted 12 October 2019 - 07:16 AM

It didn't take any legislation to redefine bump stocks as machine guns.  One person, Trump, decided it.  Shorty thereafter, Pelosi said they would do the same to AR-15s when back in power.

 

Here's some info on the legal challenges to the bump stock ban, which I knew there was some legal challenges but hadn't keep up with them:

 

https://johnpiercees...fire-stock-ban/

 

Robert


  • 0

#33 Petroleum 1

Petroleum 1

    RKI Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 949 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Arizona / Colorado

Posted 12 October 2019 - 08:59 AM

This is food for thought on how sticky legal loopholes can get with the atf.

https://www.cnn.com/...invs/index.html
  • 0

#34 Bridgeport28A1

Bridgeport28A1

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 1280 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA

Posted 12 October 2019 - 10:53 AM

This is food for thought on how sticky legal loopholes can get with the atf.

https://www.cnn.com/...invs/index.html

I had read the article you linked. Well worth the time.

Edited by Bridgeport28A1, 12 October 2019 - 10:56 AM.

  • 0

#35 Robert Henley

Robert Henley

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 931 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:NRA Life Benefactor
    Unified Sportsmen of Florida
    The American Thompson Association

Posted 13 October 2019 - 06:50 AM

This is food for thought on how sticky legal loopholes can get with the atf.

https://www.cnn.com/...invs/index.html

 

I read through the article, and this kind of logic appears more and more common from judges in California.  To the contrary, no reasonable person could conclude that you could take an unregulated 80% lower, put it in a CNC machine and push a button to turn it into a fully functional receiver, assemble all parts needed to be a firearm, and that not be manufacturing a firearm.  That completely defies logic.  This kind of "left coast" thinking is at the root of a lot of problems.

 

On the other hand, I think Congress could easily pass a law that would remedy the situation (along with bump stocks).  If anyone wants to do some "common sense" gun legislation this case would be an example.


  • 0

#36 johnsonlmg41

johnsonlmg41

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 829 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 October 2019 - 08:55 AM

No loophole at all.  It's been common knowledge for decades that an AR lower (a copy of a Johnson LMG effectively since Johnson was actively involved with the design of the AR) is not actually a receiver by definition. 

The remedy to the situation is to prosecute and incarcerate criminals, not the tools that they use.  Liberals refuse to do this, thus the decline of society in general with of course the added benefit of criminalizing firearms that could hinder the next socialist dictator's regime.

 

There is no such thing at common sense gun legislation since guns are inanimate.  If guns were an actual threat, I'd have been shot by one of mine a long time ago, but mine just mostly sit there and look pretty.

 

On 11/23 over 500K people will go out in the woods and fields with guns in WI and not one person will be shot intentionally, yet in two zip codes in the city, several people will be shot intentionally where a much smaller number of guns are present per square mile.  Scientific fact, crime has nothing to do with guns, it's about behavior.


  • 0