ArizonaShooting.ORG

So - hypothetically - if someone owns a complete lower with a pistol brace, that was purchased as a:

"COMPLETE MOE EPT PISTOL LOWER WITH SB TACTICAL PDW PISTOL BRACE"

... but the lower has no upper / barrel attached... would that person be in violation of the current rule for having such an item in their possession?

What if the brace is removed from the buffer tube?

Does "your friend" have a barrel that is less than 16"?

I certainly would make sure your "friend" doesn't also have a spare short barreled upper laying around..."constructive intent" is a fun phrase the ATF likes to use.

XJThrottle wrote: ↑February 16th, 2023, 3:46 pm Does "your friend" have a barrel that is less than 16"?

Or.. ( I assume this is an AR lower) he would b OK if he had a registered SBR or a registered MG.
Take off the brace and have your wife/significant other/friend lock it in a safe that you do not have the combination. Your good.

Constructive possession is a winding road. Many folks who had braced pistol AR's, had rifles with a vertical fore grip. So, a braced AR with less than a 16" barrel (and 26" overall) and an AR rifle, with a vertical fore grip in the same place/safe, was constructive possession.

delta6 wrote: ↑February 16th, 2023, 5:58 pm

XJThrottle wrote: ↑February 16th, 2023, 3:46 pm Does "your friend" have a barrel that is less than 16"?

Constructive possession is a winding road. Many folks who had braced pistol AR's, had rifles with a vertical fore grip. So, a braced AR with less than a 16" barrel (and 26" overall) and an AR rifle, with a vertical fore grip in the same place/safe, was constructive possession.

Has ATF ever charged anyone under that premise?

I've always understood that if the number of pistol lowers and uppers in your possession were equal you were OK. Having extra rifle barrels or lowers not an issue. Now if you are putting them together as an unregistered SBR and posting that on the internet all bets were off.

Winmagbill wrote: ↑February 16th, 2023, 7:16 pm

delta6 wrote: ↑February 16th, 2023, 5:58 pm

XJThrottle wrote: ↑February 16th, 2023, 3:46 pm Does "your friend" have a barrel that is less than 16"?

Constructive possession is a winding road. Many folks who had braced pistol AR's, had rifles with a vertical fore grip. So, a braced AR with less than a 16" barrel (and 26" overall) and an AR rifle, with a vertical fore grip in the same place/safe, was constructive possession.

Has ATF ever charged anyone under that premise?

I've always understood that if the number of pistol lowers and uppers in your possession were equal you were OK. Having extra rifle barrels or lowers not an issue. Now if you are putting them together as an unregistered SBR and posting that on the internet all bets were off.

Charged? Hard to say. Could have been charged and after spending a lot of money case was dropped by the BAT folks, but other than that, I have never read about anyone being charged, other than one. As I recall, it was someone selling some "Constructive" parts to a federal agent.

As I inferred above, 50-80% of "gunnies" are in some type of "Constructive" senario. Many years ago (I am a SOT) I registered a SBR, even though I had MG's. There was always the chance of having one part, next to another part that the BAT folks could construe as "Constructive".

XJThrottle wrote: ↑February 16th, 2023, 3:46 pm Does "your friend" have a barrel that is less than 16"?

Not sure - they may have one inbound. If they do - they'll probably put a spare upper with a 16" barrel on that lower - and I'll encourage them to store the short barrelled upper somewhere else.

BigNate wrote: ↑February 17th, 2023, 12:44 pm

XJThrottle wrote: ↑February 16th, 2023, 3:46 pm Does "your friend" have a barrel that is less than 16"?

Not sure - they may have one inbound. If they do - they'll probably put a spare upper with a 16" barrel on that lower - and I'll encourage them to store the short barrelled upper somewhere else.

I had a friend like that and I think that is what he did.

QuietM4 wrote: ↑February 16th, 2023, 4:27 pm I certainly would make sure your "friend" doesn't also have a spare short barreled upper laying around..."constructive intent" is a fun phrase the ATF likes to use.

thats a fairy tail. dont spread bullshit. cite a single case that has ever charged constructive intent or possession. just one. doesnt even have to be a winner.

kawgomoo wrote: ↑March 8th, 2023, 10:27 pm

QuietM4 wrote: ↑February 16th, 2023, 4:27 pm I certainly would make sure your "friend" doesn't also have a spare short barreled upper laying around..."constructive intent" is a fun phrase the ATF likes to use.

thats a fairy tail. dont spread bullshit. cite a single case that has ever charged constructive intent or possession. just one. doesnt even have to be a winner.

That's not going to age well.

One was just posted here recently.

Like the gun free school zone bullshit, it is usually an add on charge when the charge someone with other stuff. You probably can't find it as a stand alone charge I dont think. Anyways it was just posted recently here on this forum.

kawgomoo wrote: ↑March 8th, 2023, 10:27 pm

QuietM4 wrote: ↑February 16th, 2023, 4:27 pm I certainly would make sure your "friend" doesn't also have a spare short barreled upper laying around..."constructive intent" is a fun phrase the ATF likes to use.

thats a fairy tail. dont spread bullshit. cite a single case that has ever charged constructive intent or possession. just one. doesnt even have to be a winner.

Just one?

US v. Amador, out of Florida in 2009 (constructive posession).