Jump to content


Photo

Hypothetical SBR/NFA Scenario


  • Please log in to reply
35 replies to this topic

#1 tbirdsc

tbirdsc

    New Member

  • Regular Group
  • 11 posts

Posted 26 August 2019 - 04:24 PM

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


  • 0

#2 jim c 351

jim c 351

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 3055 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 26 August 2019 - 04:51 PM

If it got to that point what would make you believe that you would be able to keep any NFA item.

Don't forget what you were taught as a youth,-- the reason for registration is so they could one day confiscate.

Jim C 


  • 0

#3 tbirdsc

tbirdsc

    New Member

  • Regular Group
  • 11 posts

Posted 26 August 2019 - 05:06 PM

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.


  • 0

#4 Oldtrooper

Oldtrooper

    RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 259 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 August 2019 - 07:48 PM

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.


  • 0

#5 bug

bug

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 1645 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SE PA
  • Interests:Hunting, fishing, shooting, reloading, metalworking, woodworking, photography.

Posted 26 August 2019 - 07:57 PM

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.


  • 0

#6 AlexanderA

AlexanderA

    RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 177 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 August 2019 - 10:07 PM

The AWB bills that I have seen define "assault weapons" as semiautomatics with removable magazines. No mention of barrel length. Therefore registered SBR's would not be exempted although machine guns would be.


  • 0

#7 Robert Henley

Robert Henley

    Long Time RKI Member

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

Posted 27 August 2019 - 05:35 AM

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


  • 0

#8 AlexanderA

AlexanderA

    RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 177 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 27 August 2019 - 10:08 AM

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.


  • 0

#9 tbirdsc

tbirdsc

    New Member

  • Regular Group
  • 11 posts

Posted 27 August 2019 - 11:47 AM

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.


  • 0

#10 Sandman1957

Sandman1957

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 1156 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Northern Neck VA
  • Interests:Submachinegun NFA collecting
    History
    Scuba Diving
    Hunting

Posted 27 August 2019 - 03:34 PM

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.


  • 0

#11 Speeddemon02

Speeddemon02

    RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Mexico
  • Interests:Guns, Trucks, Games, and Woodworking

Posted 27 August 2019 - 09:42 PM

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.


  • 0

#12 jim c 351

jim c 351

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 3055 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 28 August 2019 - 08:48 AM

I always thought this business of needing ATF permission to cross state lines only applied  to MGs, not short barreled guns and silencers.

Thanks for bringing me up to date.

Jim C


  • 0

#13 ron_brock

ron_brock

    Respected Member

  • Moderator
  • 1982 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wolverine State

Posted 28 August 2019 - 09:34 AM

Does not apply to suppressors.

I do not believe AOWs, SBS or SBR, but I have not confirmed thats as I had no need

Ron
  • 0

#14 DougStump

DougStump

    RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 359 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Shreveport, Louisiana

Posted 28 August 2019 - 10:31 AM

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.


  • 0

#15 GUNGUY45

GUNGUY45

    RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 205 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pennsylvania, USA

Posted 28 August 2019 - 11:46 AM

In ATF's FAQ they state that a rifle is only an SBR when in SBR configuration.

Put a 16+" barrel on it, & it is a Title 1 rifle. It may be sold as such, but you are requested to notify them so they can update their records.


  • 0

#16 johnsonlmg41

johnsonlmg41

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 843 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 28 August 2019 - 08:50 PM

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, 28 August 2019 - 08:58 PM.

  • 0

#17 mattnh

mattnh

    Member

  • Regular Group
  • 92 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NH
  • Interests:All things NFA...

Posted 28 August 2019 - 10:23 PM

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


  • 0

#18 tbirdsc

tbirdsc

    New Member

  • Regular Group
  • 11 posts

Posted 29 August 2019 - 09:19 AM

If you SBR an AR-15 I'd give it a specific number and

Not sure if I am following you but does not the serial number of the lower accomplish that goal or are you talking about using a 80% lower?


  • 0

#19 The Lone Ranger

The Lone Ranger

    Respected Member

  • Board Donor
  • 1094 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:PA

Posted 29 August 2019 - 06:37 PM

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.

Attached Files


Edited by The Lone Ranger, 29 August 2019 - 06:39 PM.

  • 1

#20 johnsonlmg41

johnsonlmg41

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 843 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 29 August 2019 - 09:57 PM

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.


  • 0