SBR Banned?

[m16ty]

I'm wanting to SBR a ar-15. What I'm afraid of is that I fill out the paperwork and send it off, in the mean time the feds get a new AWB passed, and when I finally get my paperwork back I can't build the SBR because it's banned, making the lower worthless.

 

Am I right about this? The reason I'm thinking this is when the form 1 is approved, it is treated as a new firearm. If this happens after a ban, there would be no way I could even grandfather it. I just don't want to turn what is now a usable lower into something I paid $200 to turn it into a paperweight.

 

I've got the form 1 filled out but want to find out about this before I send it off.

[JeffL]

That sounds highly unlikely.

[c.a.willard]

I'd say go for it.  Since it is a application to manufacture.  If a ban comes down while your in the process you can always withdraw your application. One of the more knowledgable NFA folks should be along soon but IIRC you have a reasonable time even after approval to withdraw your application. 

[Guest 6.8 AR]

There's also something in the Constitution called "ex post facto" which means, if I understand correctly, that a law can't be

made retroactively. It's also why the witch senator couldn't ban all weapons that are currently in the hands of Americans.

Edited January 11, 2013 by 6.8 AR

[m16ty]

I'll try to explain more what I'm trying to say.

 

Lets say I submit the application on 1/11/13. While I'm waiting for my application to be approved, they pass a AW ban on 3/1/13. I then get my application approved on 3/15/13.

 

If this ban is anything like the '94 ban, I will have turned a pre-ban gun into a post-ban SBR gun. Again assuming it's like the '94 ban but with more feature restrictions, I'll have a SBR lower that I can't assemble unless I can figure out (if it's even possible with the way the ban is written) how to build it into a post-ban gun.

 

The way I understand the law is that when you change a regular rife into a NFA firearm it's building a new gun with the build date no sooner than when the application is approved. If that is correct and the approval date falls after any future ban that affects the rife in question, the gun would be considered post-ban.

 

I could be all wrong on this but want to find out for sure before I submit my paperwork. Knowing that I can withdraw the application while in process seems like that is good enough though but I wonder if you get the $200 back?

[TMF]

That's a good question. Did the '94 ban even apply to NFA items? I thought it didn't.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Not that I recall.

[Keyless]

No expert here , but I thought that NFA items are not included in any ban as they were already regulated to the point they are trying to get the rest . If at worst they make everyone do a NFA on AR's , ( I don't think it will happen ) yours would already be done .

[TGO David]

None of us knows what is going to happen long time.  If you're worried about it, don't submit the application.  I personally wouldn't be so concerned about NFA items being banned entirely, but that's just me.

[TN-popo]

There's also something in the Constitution called "ex post facto" which means, if I understand correctly, that a law can't be
made retroactively. It's also why the witch senator couldn't ban all weapons that are currently in the hands of Americans.

Thread drift...
That's one thing that sucked about the Lautenberg Amendment...it was retro.
Thousands of LE and Mil lost their jobs when that went into effect.
I'm definitely not "pro-domestic violence" (especially when my wife hits me :) ), but I can tell you that there are a ton of bs DV arrests made every year...and some good people got screwed.

So, drifting back, it can happen. Edited January 11, 2013 by TN-popo

[East_TN_Patriot]

There's also something in the Constitution called "ex post facto" which means, if I understand correctly, that a law can't be

made retroactively. It's also why the witch senator couldn't ban all weapons that are currently in the hands of Americans.

Not exactly.  The SCOTUS case Calder v. Bull (3 US 386, 1798) specifically defined ex post facto laws for the purposes of this clause of the Constitution to mean:
 

 

Every law that makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action. 2d. Every law that aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed. 3d. Every law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed. 4th. Every law that alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less, or different, testimony, than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense, in order to convict the offender.
 

In other words, as far as the case law in the United States, a retroactive law is not necessarily prohibited by the ex post facto clause of the Constitution, which is why the Lautenberg amendment was possible.  It only applies to criminal laws and then charging people with violating that law for actions that were committed prior to the law's implementation.  So, they could not pass a law prohibiting SBRs, make it retroactive, and then immediately prosecute everyone with possessing them prior to the law's implementation.  They could prohibit them and require people to turn them in by a specific date and prosecute people for not doing so at that time.

Edited January 11, 2013 by East_TN_Patriot

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Didn't know that. Thanks, ET! The rest of the equation would fall back into the lap of the 2nd Amendment. I guess that's good enough

for me.

[DaveTN]

I wouldn't do an NFA right now. Obama and Biden both have said they won't let the Constitution or the legislature get in their way. So to make any assumtions would be foolish.

 

[Oh Shoot]

You bet $200 to win an SBR.

 

Just like poker, don't bet more than you can afford to lose, although I think your odds are quite high of winning or getting your bet refunded.

 

- OS

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Since they already know who has what NFA items, that means they know where they are when it's time to come get them.

That's why they want all firearms on a list. Of course, that leads me back to Hitler, again.

 

Build an AR pistol and save yourself all this grief. :D Otherwise, all I think will happen is it will take close to forever for the

paperwork to come back.

[Oh Shoot]

Build an AR pistol and save yourself all this grief. :D Otherwise, all I think will happen is it will take close to forever for the

paperwork to come back.

 

That's was my choice.

 

Laying the buffer tube of this baby alongside cheek is 95% as effective as actually having a stock on it. For free.

 

 

 

- OS

[East_TN_Patriot]

I was going to build an SBR, but due to current political winds decided not to and sold the upper I had for the project.  I used that money to buy a Ruger 10/22 Takedown, and will be building a varmint rifle with the lower I purchased for the project.

[m16ty]

Some NFA items were included in the '94 ban. Machine guns weren't because they were already banned back in '86. A SBR was included in the ban.

 

You could still build a AR15 SBR under the '94 ban but it had to comply with post-ban standards (no colapsable stock, no flash hider, no bayonet lug, no threaded barrel).

[Romad7]

I was planning on converting my Saiga 12 to an SBS but I decided that I don't want to make it difficult to get rid of if should a full registration of evil black guns come down. I want to be as "black" as possible when the govt starts turning on the search lights.

[Hershmeister]

My pTR91 SBR paperwork is heading off in the mail tomorrow. Wilson co. Sheriff took all of 5 minutes to sign my forms. Thanks you very much!

I figure there's a good chnce Nfa tax is going up. It's been $200 for 80 years!

[Guest carter]

highly doubt the government is going to turn down a $200 check to them, that tax is already spent so they need it ... 

[Guest carter]

That's was my choice.

 

Laying the buffer tube of this baby alongside cheek is 95% as effective as actually having a stock on it. For free.

 

 

 

- OS

 

correct me if im wrong but i thought you could not have a buffer tube on an AR pistol that was capable of accepting a stock

[TGO David]

correct me if im wrong but i thought you could not have a buffer tube on an AR pistol that was capable of accepting a stock

 

You are correct.  Some folks have taken regular milspec or comspec buffer tubes and welded over the 6-position holes, but the way the law reads that's an iffy proposition.  The law states that you cannot use a buffer tube capable of accepting a shoulder stock.  The definition of ability to accept a stock is not up to you so I'd be very careful.

[Oh Shoot]

correct me if im wrong but i thought you could not have a buffer tube on an AR pistol that was capable of accepting a stock

 

You are correct.  Some folks have taken regular milspec or comspec buffer tubes and welded over the 6-position holes, but the way the law reads that's an iffy proposition.  The law states that you cannot use a buffer tube capable of accepting a shoulder stock.  The definition of ability to accept a stock is not up to you so I'd be very careful.

 

Sorry, guys, but that is not the law at all. Not even close. Commonly claimed in the past in relation to "constructive possession" or "constructive intent", along with "once a rifle always a rifle", which is also wrong, unless the firearm began life as a rifle.

 

All stemmed from Thompson SCOTUS case in '92, where the court explained BATF's own frigging laws to them --  blanket ruling finally to completely clarify from BATF in July 2011.

 

For reference, read thread here on TGO:

http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/topic/54365-ar15-pistol-to-rifle-and-back-to-pistol/

 

BATF's ruling:

http://www.atf.gov/regulations-rulings/rulings/atf-rulings/atf-ruling-2011-4.pdf

 

Extensive info in the arfcom AR pistol section also, I guess on the other popular AR sites also.

 

In short, a functional carbine buffer does not make an AR pistol "illegal", nor does a pistol buffer or crippled carbine buffer necessarily make it "legal". The test is whether or not only an NFA weapon can be made with any given parts array.

 

Read up and come back with specific questions or start a new thread.

 

Quick visual:

 

 

Perfectly legal. Without the rifle upper, not so much, regardless of what type of buffer is on the lower. Want to be totally safe, don't have a stock at all if you only have an AR pistol. Not out and about, not even in your home. Regardless of what kind of buffer tube assembly is on it.

 

Only reason I made a pistol to begin with, so could have a "survival kit". The carbine extension is what makes it all expedient. Still need a .22LR rifle upper to make it complete.

 

- OS

Edited January 18, 2013 by Oh Shoot

[Guest xnavysailor]

Some NFA items were included in the '94 ban. Machine guns weren't because they were already banned back in '86. A SBR was included in the ban.

 

You could still build a AR15 SBR under the '94 ban but it had to comply with post-ban standards (no colapsable stock, no flash hider, no bayonet lug, no threaded barrel).

I'm new here. Can you point me to the reference in the batf regulations that says it had to comply with post- ban standards