Pistol upper legal to own?

[ike838]

Hi all, just wondering about the legal liabilities of having a pistol upper or two in the "to be built" pile.
I have a few complete rifle length gas builds completed and also have a pair of nice lightweight 16" barrels by BCM and Faxon, receivers, A2 stocks etc in the "to be built pile".
Should I just build the lowers install the pistol uppers and take pics and then call it good?
Currently my shortest barrels are 18". Never really got into the whole fireball of doom and blast from the pistol uppers that I have seen but I do concede they might have their place.
So the basic question is: Would a pistol upper in a house that contains complete and incomplete firearms be in any danger of being considered a SBR?
Thanks for your help.

[grayfox]

That's a question for your lawyer.
Aside from the ATF still reviewing all the comments on its recently proposed rule change (which could wind up in court anyway), your specific locality, city, state, etc can also have a bearing.

As a final thought, it is possible that ATF, sensing an obliterating defeat at the polls for its dimm-crat buddies, might just hold off until after Nov. Publishing what it wants to publish, could add fuel to the election fire so maybe they hold off....... don't know.

[ike838]

I would prefer not lawyer up over this. Guess I will just build them as pistols for now. Thanks for your help.
P.S. I'm in Ohio and have not heard of any problems with this and just want to make sure that I am following the law.

[Bigs28]

There's no such thing as a pistol upper. It's the lower that you have that's the firearm.

[BowChamp]

There's no such thing as a pistol upper. It's the lower that you have that's the firearm.

This was my thought as well.

[grayfox]

ike, it's ok asking, no problems here, just for most of us, giving what some could construe as legal advice is dicey...
And roger the lower is the "firearm" but if I recall this new proposed rule also talks about having "parts" (whatever that means) that one could readily assemble (whatever that means), as being regulated as well... if I recall correctly.

[Two Tone]

Tried twice to post but frankly, I don't know enough to comment!

Did pass on a Krinkov kit back in 2005 because I didn't want to risk any ATF "SBR nonsense" or hassle.

Kinda regret that as those kits are crazy expensive now.

[LRRPF52]

I think it’s more than reasonable to say that if I can’t make sense or clearly identify what or how the ATF is trying to regulate firearms, then the layman certainly can’t.

I’ve been studying this crap like an autistic savant since I could read, and actually learned to read with back issues of American Rifleman and Guns and Ammo from my grandpa well before going to school.

I have printed out the NFA hearings from 1934, followed every piece of legislation possible over my lifetime, which has been consequential enough to determine where I would and wouldn’t live after I was done with military service, and they especially have gone off the deep end now.

Their definitions have always been arbitrary, flexible, moving, and impossible to nail down.

You look at the supreme law of the land, what is said in the Bill of Rights, and then look at anything they say and just have to come to the conclusion that they are an enemy to the people, the Constitution, and human beings in general.

I can break down every piece of the AR-15, their dimensions, the metallurgy, how the parts articulate with each other, call out pressures and various technical aspects of the design from a lifetime of study, but I can’t even begin to understand what the ATF is trying to do with their strange technical changes.

I’ve seen people make videos trying to explain it, but walk away even more perplexed.

Attorneys would have an ever more difficult time understanding any of this.

[MikeyMosin]

you know exactly what they're trying to do with their strange technical language .....100% enemy of the people....Its a culture in decline

[MikeyMosin]

I ordered the books btw! Thanks again for you and those who put them together...

[Rosecrans1]

I have watched multiple back to back Matlocks, Law & Order and Perry Masons for days and stayed at a Holiday Inn once or twice so I know my s*#t. I finally figured out just about everything the ATF has been ruling on for the past 10 years. I started to write about my detailed thoughts on their recommendations when a Robin flew by me and landed in a tree only 5 feet away. And it was then that I realized that I forgot everything I was thinking of.

[SDW]

There's no such thing as a pistol upper. It's the lower that you have that's the firearm.

First the I'm-not-a-lawyer disclaimer. But I agree with you and others. No such thing as a "pistol upper". In fact, if an LEO were to find such a thing in search, it could instead be assumed to be the component to construct a short-barreled rifle. Could get you into hot water, depending on the jurisdiction. "Constructive Possession"? Possibly.

I wouldn't build a short-barreled upper. Don't own any pistol lowers.

[LRRPF52]

Every gun store I go to, including big box stores in my area, have AR-15 pistols for sale from OEM manufacturers.

That might not be true in CA, but they are normalized where I live and much of the Country.

I’m a State and County delegate again this year, so at a recent meet ’n greet, I asked our Sheriff about this issue (AR-15 pistols, braces, etc.).

“Dude, I just bought my wife one.”

That was his response. The meet ’n greet was at the local skeet shoot range, and whoever sponsored it provided free ammo for all the delegates to come shoot sporting clays. That was the first meet and greet in our County since Precinct night elections.

[SDW]

Yeah. Maybe I'm just scarred by living in CA. The DOJ here seems to like to invent reasons to violate everyone's gun rights.

We might be moving to AZ sometime this year. Things will improve in many ways, even though I'll miss some things. Like surfing.

[LRRPF52]

Yeah. Maybe I'm just scarred by living in CA. The DOJ here seems to like to invent reasons to violate everyone's gun rights.

We might be moving to AZ sometime this year. Things will improve in many ways, even though I'll miss some things. Like surfing.

CA has its own ATF equivalent for a double-dose of tyranny.

[SDW]

^^^ Exactly. Goes beyond Federal law on many issues. Most magazines are famously verboten here. Can't own a suppressor, or full-auto anything, tax stamp or not (unless you're a movie studio, a PD, or just really rich). Many types of rifles and pistols are considered WMDs. Even many kinds of knives have been banned here---things I used to pay for and walk out of a hardware store with when I was just a kid.

[Misfit71]

If you look at what the atf is doing on form 1 suppressors, rejecting form 1 apps for silencer builds, even with submitters who stated they have no parts as yet - just a plan. They also pretty well see anything as a silencer even though you cannot use a singular part nor a solvent trap without work to make a functional silencer - so they are rejecting even a form 1 no matter the criteria, having barstock is enough to have a silencer as it was intent - or some such logic

With their (un)logical asinine reasoning - it won't be long before its decided owning a regular 16" AR could be intent of an SBR (implied by cutting barrel, crown etc) which would equate to their asinine thought of a solvent kit and even the individual parts like a cone being a silencer itself which logically it cannot (semantics right) - which I agree most buying solvent plan to convert them but hence the reason for a Form 1 submittal. I for the record wanna see the atf put together a solvent kit and shoot through it as is, parts as they come in a kit - BOOM... see dipsticks - its NOT a silencer.

Ultimately its all perception and semantics

For my part I have a lower pistol to match an upper that is less than 16" - they are together and I don't keep any extra short barrels to save the trouble so any intent for an item could be up to the judgement of others including the atf who IMO would rather lock up a otherwise law abiding citizen who tries to follow every letter of the law than do actual crime work - the atf is just political paper pushers with an agenda practicing lawfare - which is a shame as the very people that typically deal in NFA type items are very LEO/MIL supportive yet they try to be the arch nemesis of the very people that would typically support and appreciate them the most - makes no sense

/now ask me how I really feel

[outbreaker]

Realize that the ATF interprets things with "Constructive Intent" and prosecutes with that interpretation.

If you have an upper with less than a 16" barrel with no pistol lower to put it on they will interpret that to mean you have the intent to place it on the rifle upper you own and bingo.....it is an SBR even if it is not attached.

[LRRPF52]

Realize that the ATF interprets things with "Constructive Intent" and prosecutes with that interpretation.

If you have an upper with less than a 16" barrel with no pistol lower to put it on they will interpret that to mean you have the intent to place it on the rifle upper you own and bingo.....it is an SBR even if it is not attached.

The last time ATF took someone to court over a pistol brace, they lost the case, and it was an attachment crime to something unrelated.

In that instance, the accused had put a plug in the back of the pistol brace, which they argued that it then became a stock.

There have also been a recent series of very large blocks of The House and Senate who have sent letters demanding explanation for ATF’s actions over multiple issues regarding pistol braces and suppressors, due to ATF criminal conduct and errant rulings or letters sent to various dealers, that conflict with existing statutes or other official opinions they have (unconstitutionally) excreted from their bureaucratic orifices.

Congress controls their budget, so they can screw around and see what happens.

I of course recognize them for the unconstitutional organization that they are. You can’t have a Federal Agency specifically tasked with violating the Bill of Rights. it doesn’t matter how many other retards in office agree with it, how many court rulings they cite, or how many statutes within Treasury or Justice Departments they reference. Imagine if there was a Federal Agency tasked with restricting exercise of religion, freedom of press, speech, etc.

They need to be bullied (only language they understand) into submission until they stay in the corner where they don’t even have a right to exist, or more ideally: abolished entirely, along with NFA.

If you live in a Federal region where they get away with harassing citizens and FFLs more, then it’s more of a concern for you.

If you don’t, and live in a firearms freedom State, you can generally do what you want.

It’s a great case for how unequally the Bill of Rights are applied in the Nation though.

The legal angles for annihilating the NFA and ATF are plentiful. Since there is no money for it for the sell-out traitors and opportunists in Congress, they barely give it lip service if enough constituents raise hell on their phone lines and emails.

[LRRPF52]

And on that note, I have never seen a more anti-NFA sentiment amassed among the population in all my life.

Even in the "gun community" when I was growing up, any mention of abolishing the NFA was akin to blasphemy, because the older generation had grown up with it fed only the propaganda of the FDR and subsequent administrations and single digit corporate/government media sources.

Now we have the ability to look over the NFA proceedings and see how utterly inept and corrupt they were, conceived in the minds of some of the dumbest human beings to walk the halls of Congress.

The fact that we even have SBR provisions in the NFA was a literal moronic unintended inclusion by Minnesota Congressman Harold Knutson, even though AG Homer Stille Cummings never even mentioned rifles in his carefully-drafted proposal.

Shotguns were originally stipulated to be limited to the arbitrary barrel length of 16”. AG Cummings didn’t want to mess with rifles because he knew that would probably kill the legislation, so he just left them out entirely with the draft.

Knutson was also worried that hunters would be affected, so he wanted to make sure hunting rifles weren’t placed in legal jeopardy of the heavy-handed attack on the 2A, but AG Cummings assured him rifles weren’t even being considered.

Knutson insisted that they modify the bill to include rifles, and for extra credit, increase the restricted barrel length to 18” for both rifles and shotguns.

That’s literally where the SBS/SBR provisions came from (I don’t call them laws because they violate our actual laws codified in the BoR).

This is from me studying the NFA hearings in detail.

If they wanted to use intent as part of a legal case, a good attorney could throw it back in their faces with the fact that it was never AG Cummings’ intent to restrict rifles at all, and the only reason any mention of rifles in the NFA exists is because one of the Congressmen was concerned about the right to keep and bear rifles.

You could also argue that these illegal provisions are very arbitrary, since the barrel length limit for rifles was amended to 16” in the 1960s, but shotguns were left to 18”.

The whole thing is one of the most retarded pieces of legislation I’ve ever seen, just from a basic legal standpoint.