SBR Parts Kits

S

Southern_guy

New member
I've often seen advertisements in magazines for gun kits. They are usually almost complete, minus the receiver. There are many I'd be interested in trying to build, such as the Carl Gustavs, Stens, Sterlings, Uzis, etc. However, they all come with barrels far under 16 inches.
If one was to purchase a functional receiver and legal barrel but possessed the short barrel at the same time, would there be legal problems?
 
H

Hkmp5sd

New member
ATF has on numerous times stated that they consider possession of the parts to assemble an illegal weapon, even if not assembled, to be in violation of the law. They call it "constructive possession."

If you are going to "manufacture" a SBR, go head and turn in the FORM 1 paperwork and get the approval beforehand. As you said, there are plenty of parts being advertised. They will be there when you are ready for them.

If your goal is to assemble a legal rifle, dispose of the short barrel before you purchase the receiver.

You will also need to consider that many of these kits will contain "full auto" parts. You need to dispose of these also.
 
K

kozak6

New member
Rebuilding these guns is much more complicated than simply buying a receiver and long barrel.

They must be converted to semiautomatic, which is another thing entirely. With the open bolt smg's you've mentioned, this is particularly troublesome since you are going to need to shoehorn some kind of semiautomatic striker or hammer assembly in there. The BATFE also has some interesting ideas about removing feed lips and doing stuff to the new bolt and receiver so an original bolt can't just drop in, and all kinds of other stuff.

There's also 922r to keep in mind as well since those are foreign guns.
 
D

demigod

Moderator
ATF has on numerous times stated that they consider possession of the parts to assemble an illegal weapon, even if not assembled, to be in violation of the law. They call it "constructive possession."
Click to expand...

Care to site any example of this?

Getting back to reality....

If you bought a STEN kit or some such and had no receiver, you sure as hell have no way of firing a live round right?

There is not one single case (that I've seen) of ATF prosecuting on "constructive intent".
 
H

Hkmp5sd

New member
Care to site any example of this?
Click to expand...

How about this reality?

Feel free to do a search of the site. This topic has been discussed many times in the 8 or so years I've been on this board. You can also contact ATF. They'd be more than happy to tell you all about it.

If you bought a STEN kit or some such and had no receiver, you sure as hell have no way of firing a live round right?
Click to expand...

If you pay attention, the "constructive possession" pertains to having BOTH the receiver AND the parts to assemble an illegal firearm.

Edited because I really should be polite.
 
Last edited:
D

demigod

Moderator
So you don't have a real case?

(Contacting the ATF is a futile excersize in futility. Contact them 10 different times, and get 10 different responses.)

It's nothing personal... I ask everyone who makes this claim the same question, and they never have case law to back it up.

If it's out there, I'm willing to read it. I just haven't seen anything yet that didn't involve someone who was already involved in serious felony activity.
 
H

Hkmp5sd

New member
No, I do not have case law to support my position.

I have seen, with my own little eyeballs, letters from ATF on this RULING that states ATF will prosecute you for having these items in your possession. As I already have several machineguns, SBRs and suppressors in my possession, I pay attention to not having an extra spare part that can get me arrested.

Yes, ATF has specifically said that possessing ONE spare auto sear for my M16A1 and possessing ONE AR-15 rifle places me in possession of an illegal unregistered machinegun.

It is like 922(r). I have never heard of a single person being charged for violating this law, but I have no intention of being a test case.
 
Last edited:
G

GoingQuiet

New member
Southernguy - Full auto parts are legal to sell, there's plenty of folks out there with registered recievers that need spare parts.

If you open up a copy of the shotgun news you will see auto sears all the time. Get on any high volume NFA forum and you will see complete full auto parts all the time.

As others have said - it is the tax stamp that makes the difference.

If I own an HK94 and a full auto HK lower - constructive intent. If I have a registered receiver gun and a spare full auto lower - ok, so long as I've got ONE gun. If you have one registered reciever and 9 full auto lowers and 9 other guns that can be readily configured.....bad news.

I have talked to attorneys that work in criminal defense about constructive intent.

Some say that you can have all the parts you want, if you don't put it together you aren't guilty of anything.

Others say the exact opposite.

In any event - I tell everyone not to be a test case.
 
T

threecharley

Moderator
Unless you've got a receiver or a barell and parts kit i don't think you'd have an issue. but to have a parts kit no thats not illeagle or they couldn't sell them on the net. they'd be shut down in a minute. i've sold class2 drilling fixtures on the net but that doesn't mean that i'm building a nfa weapon or does it make them unlawfull. hope this helps!
 
D

David Hineline

New member
The largest hurdle with most of those kits is they fire from open bolt, even if you design semi auto parts, if the gun still fires from open bolt then it's still regulated as a machinegun .
 
H

Hkmp5sd

New member
even if you design semi auto parts, if the gun still fires from open bolt then it's still regulated as a machinegun .
Click to expand...

Firing from an open bolt does not cause a firearm to be regulated as a machinegun. There are a truck load of semi-auto open bolt MAC-10's floating around. A machinegun is a firearm that fires more than one round per single pull of the trigger.
 
H

HKFan9

New member
Sooo..... If I have Black Powder for muzzle loading, and some spare PVC pipe laying around.... does that mean I can be arrested for constructive intent of illegal pipe bombs?;)

Like others have said ull get many different answers, I still am trying to wrap my head around these things.
 
K

kozak6

New member
even if you design semi auto parts, if the gun still fires from open bolt then it's still regulated as a machinegun .
Click to expand...
Firing from an open bolt does not cause a firearm to be regulated as a machinegun. There are a truck load of semi-auto open bolt MAC-10's floating around. A machinegun is a firearm that fires more than one round per single pull of the trigger.
Click to expand...

Those are grandfathered in.

A newly built open-bolt semiautomatic would be considered a machine-gun due to the inherent ease of conversion to full auto.

Also, open-bolt blowback semiautomatics are much simpler and cheaper to produce than their closed bolt counterparts. Why haven't any open-bolt semiautomatics been produced since 1982?

Have a look at this,
page 11 (pdf 1.6 mb)
http://www.atf.gov/publications/download/p/atf-p-5320-8/atf-p-5320-8-chapter-2.pdf

pages 2-5 (pdf 2.2 mb)
http://www.atf.gov/publications/download/p/atf-p-5320-8/atf-p-5320-8-appendix-b.pdf

The second link also addresses some of the autosear stuff.
 
H

Hkmp5sd

New member
Those are grandfathered in.

A newly built open-bolt semiautomatic would be considered a machine-gun due to the inherent ease of conversion to full auto.
Click to expand...

You are pointing at specific rulings of guns that ATF decided to reclassify as machineguns.

A gun IS NOT a machinegun merely by the fact it fires from an open bolt.

If you can show me the LAW that says all open bolt semis are machineguns and banned from manufacture, I will believe you. As I've owned machineguns and other NFA items since the 1980's and closely followed the laws, I'd bet money you cannot produce one.


Why haven't any open-bolt semiautomatics been produced since 1982?
Click to expand...

Two reasons. First, most of the open bolt semi's were copies of machineguns and ATF doesn't like that anymore. Second, for the same reason no one has designed a submachinegun with an open bolt since the 80's. It's old technology. The Uzi gave way to the MP5 which has not given way to the P90.
 
D

David Hineline

New member
In the U.S., the ATF made a ruling in 1982 that semi-automatic open bolt weapons are readily convertible to fully automatic fire, therefore such weapons manufactured after the date of this ruling are classed and controlled as fully automatic weapons (weapons manufactured prior to the ruling are grandfathered and are still considered semi-automatic).[1]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top