Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Dumb Question


  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic

#1 TommyFan

TommyFan

    Long Time Member

  • Regular Group
  • 143 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nashville, Tennessee

Posted 07 July 2004 - 12:43 PM

OK,

I have doublechecked the FAQ and did not find an answer.

I have a line an M1A1 parts kit in excellent condition at a fair price. I also have a form 1 kahr being worked on by PK. I know the kahr's are not supposedly capable of being converted to FA, but I also know that according the the ATF, just having parts in your posession that can can be plugged in can be considered posession of the a machine gun.

Anybody know if I am treading on thin ice by buying this kit?

John
  • 0

#2 Bill in VA

Bill in VA

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 652 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Southwest Virginia

Posted 07 July 2004 - 01:03 PM

IMHO, I'd say the ice isn't as thin as it could be if the case was over an AR15 and an M16 parts kit. i fail to see how you could be legally in constructive possession of an MG, since, as you pointed out, your Kahr SBR cannot be readily converted to a full-auto by simply hanging the M1 lower off of your receiver. Plus, with a papered SBR, you certainly have a legitimate reason for having a spare 10" barrel.

OTOH, some over-zealous junior birdman looking to make a name for himself could defiinitely decide to charge you with constructive posession. Most likely you'd beat the rap, but not the ride or the legal bills. If you plan on keeping your parts kit, I'd suggest saying as little as possible about it. Of course, if you're like me, and fairly cost-conscious, you could keep the barrel, forearm, rear sight, and whatever else you can use, and part the rest out. Putting the torch-cut receiver pieces, stripped lower and individual internal parts on Ebay would probably net you returns equal to what you've sunk into the Form 1 tax and cost of labor in your new SBR.

My .02
  • 0

#3 PK.

PK.

    Technical Expert

  • Board Benefactor
  • 1567 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:CO, USA
  • Interests:Full time gunsmith who loves Thompsons, 35+ years experience.

Posted 07 July 2004 - 06:55 PM

The only questionable part would be the barrel, but you have an SBR so it’s ok. The rest of the kit is not compatible between models- 99% of the FA parts won’t fit the SA gun. The ones that will have nothing to do with FA function.

IMHO

  • 0

#4 Bill in VA

Bill in VA

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 652 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Southwest Virginia

Posted 07 July 2004 - 07:50 PM

Obviously I'm not PK but IMHO, I'd say that it all would boil down to "intent." (i.e., did you intend to use the spare barrel to make another, unregistered SBR? Or was it truly meant to be a spare part, perhaps bought before the price furhter increases to an even more ridiculously hgh amount, such as running across a NOS Colt finned barrel for $50, or waiting until the old one wore out and then hoping to find a not-so-worn GI barrel for $150. It would certainly be a valid point to raise in your defense.)

If, for the sake of arguement, you own both an SBR semi-auto Thompson and an unmodified Title I semi-auto Thompson as well as a spare 10" bbl, you could most likely beat any constructive possession charges with a halfway competent lawyer. I would think that an approved Form 1 for your Thompson SBR could certainly help provide evidence that you are a law-abiding individual, since, if you weren't, you wouldn't have gone to the trouble getting an approved Form 1 for the SBR.

The BATF has issued a number of letters to individuals about similar situations, most involving AR15s, M16s, and spare M16 fire control parts. (I also recall one that dealt with the issue of spare shorty uppers in conjunction with legal possession of both an AR15 and an M16 but can't seem to find it at the moment.) In none of these letters do they ever say possession of those items constitutes contructive possession. Instead, all of those letters "strongly recommend" not possessing excess potential-NFA parts. My opinion is that the majority of these letters are purposefully vague so that they can't come back and bite the BATF on its collective fanny some day during a prosecution attempt.

Again, if it was me, and I had those two guns and a spare barrel, I'd not only keep the spare barrel out of sight, but also stay quiet about it.

My .02
  • 0

#5 TommyFan

TommyFan

    Long Time Member

  • Regular Group
  • 143 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nashville, Tennessee

Posted 12 July 2004 - 07:38 AM

Hardrede, Bill, PK,

Thanks for the advice. I was going to follow it but the kit was already sold. (imagine that!) So I'm on the lookout again. Maybe all the kits suddenly appearing from Joe Stalin's secret hoard will be off the market by the time I find another m1a1, so I won't have to worry about a midnight visit from our mutual friends at the ATF. (Besides, I need to be ready to pay PK's bill when it comes!)

John



  • 0