Uzi Barrels, legal question

[Reloader21]

I understand the law, that in order to put a short barrel on a carbine, you need to pay the SBR $200.00 tax, and wait for approval. But can you own a carbine rifle, and legally own a short barrel that is not installed on the rifle? What if I owned a pistol version, and a rifle model, but had spare barrels for my pistol? Or what if I own the carbine model, and want to own a pistol model, but got some spare barrels for it first? Is it ok, as long as it is not installed on the gun?
Thanks in advance for the replies.

 

[TruBrew]

You can not own a rifle, and the parts to create an illegal SBR. That would be considered constructive intent. The reason for that is, there is no other purpose for the combination of items you have, but to create an illegal weapon. However, if that same barrel can be used in a pistol you own, then you are okay. That provides you a reasonable purpose for owning the barrel. I don't know if you actually own the pistol it fits in, or if the question was only hypothetical. If you don't own the pistol, and you really want to buy the barrel in anticipation now, have it shipped and kept at someone else's home.

 

[rcbif]

Read into ATF ruling 2011-4. There are many threads on it, and still much debate.

In regards to your situations, personally, I would "key" either the pistol or rifle, so only respective barrels fit. Usually done by installing a blind pin.

Another view is.....
Constructive intent is usually a tack on charge. Simply dont have the items on hand to do an illegal config, and you have nothing to worry about.

However, the internet is not exactly the best place for legal advice.

When it comes down to it, just ask yourself if you wanna chance being Bubba's "friend" in prison.

 

[Basenji703]

I rarely chime in on legal issues since I am a lawyer. The short answer to your question is, why take a chance? The ATF has ruled that MG parts and a semi AR15 means constructive possession of a machine gun. Could they make it stick with a short barrel and a carbine that it could fit? An AR15 and a short barrel upper? I honestly don't know. I don't want any of my clients to put it to a test, because at best they may win a Federal court case, but it will be painful and expensive. At worst they could lose. It will still be painful and expensive plus they can/wil go to Club Fed. The benefits are certainly not worth the risk. My opinion only, YMMV.

 

[cajun 22]

You could own the short barrel but keep it at another location until you get the SBR approval or build a pistol. Like Basen said, why risk it.

 

[Jazzman]

As others have suggested, why take the risk?

 

[Mark.n.chip]

what happens if I own a M-16, all legal with a barrel shorter than 16" and an AR-15 with a barrel longer than 16". I live in MI no SBR's is that constructive intent? Hope I'm asking this correctly.

 

[slimshady]

In the Thompson Center SCOTUS decision that allows handgun/rifle "kits", the Supremes said in regards to an SBR if you have a "group of parts" that can be assembled in both a legal and illegal configuration the government must always assume you only intend to assemble them in a legal manner. Only if you have in fact assembled the parts in an illegal manner can they convict you. "Constructive possession' only applies to an SBR if you have a "group of parts" that can only be assembled in an illegal manner. This is for SBRs only, does not necessarily apply to other NFA items.

Examples: Legal setups, assuming no NFA paperwork:

16" bbl, removable shoulder stock, 10" bbl, pistol gripped receiver that was manufactured originally as a handgun. Pistol/carbine "kit", legal as long as buttstock and short bbl are never installed together. Multiple bbls allowed.

16" bbl rifle, same model in handgun version, interchangeable bbls. Extra bbls in less than 16" length. Legal, spare bbls are for pistol only.



For those with short bbl MGs and a semi full length rifle, the same applies, the bbls legal for the MG are assumed to be for the MG, not the semi rifle.

Examples: Illegal SBR or CP of an SBR:

Less than 16" bbl, rifle receiver with a buttstock attached, no handgun receiver present. Illegal SBR even if bbl is not installed. CP applies, only way to assemble is an SBR.

16" bbl, rifle receiver with buttstock, spare short handgun bbls stored with rifle setup, handgun receiver stored separately. Grey area at best, sure looks like the short bbls were intended for use with the rifle not the handgun. Probably charged and let a Jury sort it out.

Receiver with buttstock attached and short bbl attached. Obviously an SBR regardless of any other circumstances or parts present.




Now this covers fed law, your state law may also apply and that is where your local atty will have to do the research to determine legality.

 

[tsmgguy]

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

 

[Renegade]

In the Thompson Center SCOTUS decision that allows handgun/rifle "kits", the Supremes said in regards to an SBR if you have a "group of parts" that can be assembled in both a legal and illegal configuration the government must always assume you only intend to assemble them in a legal manner. Only if you have in fact assembled the parts in an illegal manner can they convict you. "Constructive possession' only applies to an SBR if you have a "group of parts" that can only be assembled in an illegal manner. This is for SBRs only, does not necessarily apply to other NFA items.

Well stated.