lowers and uppers - possession rules question

drypowder

drypowder

Les Deplorables
Joined
Dec 17, 2016
Messages
4,565
Location
behind enemy lines
Rating - 100%
15   0   0
Is it OK to have a SBR lower, short upper, and rifle lower but no rifle upper? My understanding is that the ATF rules are such that you should not have a combination of parts that can the only configuration is an illegal SBR. So you cannot have a short upper along with only rifle lowers and uppers (no pistol lowers, no SBR lowers) because the only configuration possible for that short upper would be short upper on a rifle lower, hence illegal SBR.

So I think a combination of SBR lower, short uppers and rifle lower, but no rifle upper is fine because, while an illegal SBR could be assembled, it's not the only configuration possible for the short upper.

Am I understanding the rules correctly?

Edit: I suppose technically, I should substitute 'barrel' for 'upper' in the above description/question.
 
Last edited:
As long as you have a tax paid lower you can have whatever uppers you want. It's not a 1 for 1 type thing

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
they need to show you intend to break the law.

I'm sure many people here, including myself have ar rifles and ar pistols. and no one is breaking the law
 
Wahoo95 said:
As long as you have a tax paid lower you can have whatever uppers you want. It's not a 1 for 1 type thing

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
The clarification I'm seeking isn't with respect to the uppers, but with respect to the rifle lower. I.e., in the scenario I described, the only configuration I could assemble with the rifle lower is an illegal SBR. I think as long as I have a possible legal configuration for any uppers/barrels, then I'm fine even if there is no legal configuration for the rifle lower.
 
Last edited:
I'm no authority on this but I think your statement is correct and a zealot might cause you some harm. There is no legal way to assemble all of the parts. In your case the only possible combination of parts that includes the rifle lower is an unregistered SBR.
 
Are you figuring out why I didn't even attempt to answer this question? The other discussion going on is enough to drive you nuts...mainly because nobody can really back up their stance on the matter. :D
 
BigWaylon said:
Are you figuring out why I didn't even attempt to answer this question? The other discussion going on is enough to drive you nuts...mainly because nobody can really back up their stance on the matter. :D
Click to expand...
Yeah, I think most have the reflex reaction that if you have an SBR lower, it's all good, because that's the case in the usual scenario. All the examples I've seen revolve around a situation where there is no SBR lower and there are parts that can only be assembled into an unregistered SBR (such as a short upper). But this is a different scenario because there is a SBR lower present and the rifle lower can only be assembled into an unregistered firearm - if by firearm, we mean a functioning firearm. Otherwise, the rifle lower is, by itself, a firearm.

I'm familiar with the general concept of constructive possession, but do you know if the ATF has clarified how they interpret constructive possession in the context of NFA firearms?
 
Last edited:
Is this an academic interest or a genuine question about how to conduct yourself and your items? The odds of this turning south for you are... small.
 
drypowder said:
I'm familiar with the general concept of constructive possession, but do you know if the ATF has clarified how they interpret constructive possession in the context of NFA firearms?
Click to expand...
Not for your particular scenario.

Possession of all the parts to make an SBR means you have an SBR...but adding in other uppers/lowers always clouds the situation.
 
Just pick up a beat up 16" barrel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom