Jump to content

Hypothetical SBR/NFA Scenario


tbirdsc
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hi All

Since this forum has quite a few members who are really up to speed on the NFA/BATF, I have a hypothetical SBR situation. I hope I am able to articulate myself so that my question is clear. If the day would come that the semi-auto AR15 platform would be subject to being banned or a buy back or a confiscation situation (and only God knows the mess that would come with it), would a semi-auto AR15 with a 14.5 barrel that has gone thru the year long SBR process and is approved and tax stamp paid be exempt from any of the above scenarios because it is a NFA approved SBR?

Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are correct and that is why it is a hypothetical question and maybe the "confiscation" part should be removed and my question only relating to a ban like the 94 ban or a buy back program. If it comes to confiscation situation, all bets are off. And to your point, all NFA items are registered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are correct and that is why it is a hypothetical question and maybe the "confiscation" part should be removed and my question only relating to a ban like the 94 ban or a buy back program. If it comes to confiscation situation, all bets are off. And to your point, all NFA items are registered.

First of all it should not be called a "buy back" program unless an arm was purchased directly from the government .... A $200 VISA card for a $10k weapon ... Pass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Much would depend on how this type of legislation is worded. I'm rusty on the details but 922R in the fed law could not be circumvented by building an SBR, Having a registered SBR before any law is passed might offer an exemption. I have been thinking about this very thing and will probably Form 1 my collection (meager) as possible insurance. I'm not optimistic about 2A freedom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tihnk the answer is no one knows as it would depend on what legislation were to pass (and be upheld on appeal). However, the Dems have pointed out the NFA registry as an example of how so called "assult rifles" should be managed. There is a post from several years ago on this issue.

 

I see alot of comments from pro-2nd Amendment people with what I'll call a pessimistic view. As John Paul Jones reportedly said once, "I have only begun to fight." All law abiding gun owners need to contact their legislators and voice their opinions. For a number of years, I've been sending a communication I developed and refined over time which sets forth the key factors in these types of incidents. There is a clear pattern, and it doesn't have anything to do with law abiding gun owners.

 

Robert

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert Henley wrote:

 

However, the Dems have pointed out the NFA registry as an example of how so called "assault rifles" should be managed.

 

That is the approach in Rep. Ted Deutch's H.R. 1263. However, H.R.1296 (of which Deutch is also a sponsor) is much more comprehensive, and doesn't refer to the NFA. Sen. Feinstein floated the idea of NFA registration of "assault weapons" back in 2013, but quickly abandoned it when it was pointed out how unworkable it was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty cheap insurance for $200. But as noted... insured against what? One thing to keep in mind, once SBR you may have to do a mother may I anytime you cross state lines. Not sure on that one. I am sure others will clarify.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty cheap insurance for $200. But as noted... insured against what? One thing to keep in mind, once SBR you may have to do a mother may I anytime you cross state lines. Not sure on that one. I am sure others will clarify.

This point gets me all the time when reading other forums regarding this. I have read too many people suggesting that for example you have an SBR ar15 with the barrel part engraved. All you have to do is swap the short upper with a long upper and you are good to go across State lines without permission as it is not an SBR. Now I have never confirmed this to be true or not, but if it is I would not be surprised and glad. Though I have a feeling that this advice is not legal and not that anyone would get caught as it would not be obvious and require inside knowledge or a lot of work. Just because the upper was taken off does not make it a non SBR all of a sudden.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That form is not really permission, it's more notification that your destination won't violate possession laws in that location and verification for others. Your $200 already gives you permission for interstate movement, just not to prohibited locations.

 

If you SBR an AR-15 I'd give it a specific number and if you take it apart and sell the components, you can always make another at some point in the future without having to pay another 200. Yes one minute you have an sbr, the next minute you don't if you take it apart, however if you have all the components, technically you still have an SBR, especially if those are the only parts you own. Most of it is common sense, get the approved form with stamp before you get anything else.

Edited by johnsonlmg41
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only NFA item that does not need Daddy's permission to go out of state is suppressors. My guess is when the secretary first typed it up (1934?) they missed that one word.

 

Actually, both suppressors and AOWs do NOT require a 5320.20 to cross state lines

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So many answers .... mattnh gets the cupie doll for reading the book or at least the form instructions. With an avatar like that, who can be surprised?

 

Crossing state lines with a MG, DD, SBR, or SBS is prohibited. Exemptions are licensees and those who get permission (payment of tax or tax free transfer is of no consequence). See 18 USC 922(a)(4) or 27 CFR 478.28. Regulation is more strict - not supposed to be able to override a statute with a regulation, but things happen (like bump stocks).

 

Several years ago there were a few internet based firearm law experts that went to the mat claiming registration determined classification so if you registered a BB gun as a DD it became a DD... or more specifically argued, a firearm receiver registered as a DD/SBS/SBR became a DD/SBS/SBR. This theory differed from all applicable statutes and regulations as the claimed "optional registration" does not exist - what CAN be registered MUST be registered so if a stripped receiver meets the definition of SBR, all receivers must be registered, but arguing with experts once they have dug in doesn't work. Ironically, one of the people they abused the most for his conflicting comments was a real world gun lawyer who made his living at what they were attempting to do. Interestingly enough, around that time (2009-2010) ATF published the SBS/SBR FAQ (may as well say DD also - same concepts apply) which did not go over well with the experts, but for those not emotionally invested in being subject to even more government control, it was welcome guidance from a known source. It's attached for your reading pleasure.

 

On an unrelated side note, the "he who builds it registers it" is covered in Q2. Common internet guidance is you can register something then get someone else to actually build it and transfer back paperless. That is also in error.

SBR SBS FAQ.pdf

Edited by The Lone Ranger
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, except the USC and CFR codes list authorization from different people, none of which ever actually authorize, or have any interest in authorizing the movement of said firearms. I'll make sure and file a request with Bill Barr next time I'm out of town. It says they "may authorize", so if I'm moving and they decide not to authorize what then? I suppose I just head to a sanctuary city?

It all looks good on paper because none of it has been challenged nor enforced......generally because much of it cannot be legally enforced, but it is indeed written....in two different forms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...