TexasCHLforum.com

AndyC1911 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 22, 2022 2:31 pm

Soccerdad1995 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 22, 2022 1:56 pm Does the mere possession of a short barrel upper and a rifle stock equipped lower constitute "possession" of an SBR?

ATF could, if they wanted, call that 'constructive possession' - that you have the parts available to immediately assemble an SBR.

Pretty ridiculous because you could have a legal AR short-barreled pistol (let's say even with a shoulder-brace) and a standard AR-rifle with stock and have no intention of ever swapping uppers around (in themselves totally legit) - and they could still make the 'constructive possession' argument that you're able to easily/quickly swap the short pistol upper onto the rifle lower and therefore be in possession of an SBR (even though you haven't done it).

It's one more reason I want to SBR my own braced shorty soon.

Thanks. This is what I suspected.

I'm thinking the risk would be greater with a few "extra" shoulder stock equipped lowers, and a short barrelled upper (or two) sitting alone in a safe. That is when compared to a fully assembled AR pistol sitting next to a fully assembled AR rifle.

I'm also thinking that the AR platform creates a greater risk since uppers can be swapped fairly quickly (stating the obvious).

What exactly constitutes an SBR in the eyes of the ATF? I have an AR pistol, with the upper attached to a pistol lower. I also own AR rifles. I also have some other lowers and uppers, including lowers that are completely stripped, and ones in various stages of assembly.

Does the mere possession of a short barrel upper and a rifle stock equipped lower constitute "possession" of an SBR? Does that change if the short barrelled upper is attached to a pistol lower? Or does it only become an SBR the moment I actually attach the short barrelled upper to a rifle stock equipped lower?

If the latter, can I then separate the upper and lower and magically change things back to no longer possessing an SBR?

I'm curious whether this is like the whole bump stock thing, where the ATF argued that possession of a bump stock, by itself, constitutes possession of a "machine gun" because they believe that a bump stock equipped AR is a "machine gun".

I hope this makes sense...