Constructive possession of an SBR is real btw

Welcome to ArizonaShooting.org!

Join today!

MarkItZero

Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2018
Messages
606
Location
Tombstone, AZ
https://casetext.com/case/us-v-kent-18

Had a spare short barrel upper separate from a rifle length ar and still caught the charge and conviction.
 
The Thompson Center case basically found that if you have a legal configuration to assemble it into, it isn't a SBR. He didn't have another legal configuration to use. If you have a SBR or pistol lower, you can have uppers shorter than 16". Because you can legally use it. When you have a rifle only and SBR uppers, you run into trouble. Either keep a pistol, SBR or stripped lower sitting around and you are in the clear as per the Thompson Center case.
 
MarkItZero said:
https://casetext.com/case/us-v-kent-18

Had a spare short barrel upper separate from a rifle length ar and still caught the charge and conviction.
So where was this "machine gun" he was allegedly in possession of?

no mention other than the first sentence.
 
QuangTri said:
MarkItZero said:
https://casetext.com/case/us-v-kent-18

Had a spare short barrel upper separate from a rifle length ar and still caught the charge and conviction.
So where was this "machine gun" he was allegedly in possession of?

no mention other than the first sentence.

This is court text from the appeal. I don't think he appealed the MG charge.
 
MarkItZero said:
QuangTri said:
MarkItZero said:
https://casetext.com/case/us-v-kent-18

Had a spare short barrel upper separate from a rifle length ar and still caught the charge and conviction.
So where was this "machine gun" he was allegedly in possession of?

no mention other than the first sentence.

This is court text from the appeal. I don't think he appealed the MG charge.

His attorney didn't.
If they could have proved the MG was legal, he would have skated on the constructive possession.
 
Back
Top