What constitutes a SBR? (AR-15 specific question)

[Soccerdad1995]

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...

[Tex1961]

A short-barreled rifle (SBR) is defined by the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) as a shoulder-fired, rifled firearm, made from a rifle, with a barrel length of less than 16 inches or overall length of less than 26 inches, or a handgun fitted with a buttstock and a barrel shorter than 16 inches in length. An SBR is regulated by the ATF as a Title II weapon. In the absence of local laws prohibiting ownership, a private citizen may own an SBR, provided it is registered with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). A $200 tax is paid prior to taking possession of or creating the firearm.

[AndyC1911]

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.

[extremist]

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.

I suppose all us males are 'constructive possession" rapists as we are equipped with a 'unit' right?

[AndyC1911]

Exactly! And constructive murderers because we have guns/knives/rope/bricks/pencils.....

This whole 'short long-gun' and suppressor thing is way overdue to be thrown out.

[anygunanywhere]

Exactly! And constructive murderers because we have guns/knives/rope/bricks/pencils.....

This whole 'short long-gun' and suppressor thing is way overdue to be thrown out.

The whole stinking government needs to be thrown out.

[Soccerdad1995]

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).

[puma guy]

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).

I better check the thread dimensions on my small engine oil filters.

[carlson1]

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.

This is how it was explained to me by a retired ATF Agent who is now the Sheriff. He told me that about 8 years ago. I personally thinks it stinks.

[AndyC1911]

I better check the thread dimensions on my small engine oil filters.

[The Annoyed Man]

It’s my understanding that you can possess SBR-length uppers so long as you have one of or both of two things:

1. An NFA-registered SBR lower,
2. A pistol lower.

I have both…a registered lower and a pistol lower. I own two SBR uppers…an 11.5” in 5.56, and a 10.5” in .300 Blk. (My son has 2 other short barreled uppers in 5.56 and .350 Legend, and another registered lower on our trust, plus a pistol lower.) I originally bought my pistol lower so that I could lawfully transport my 11.5” AR across state lines—which is difficult to do with a registered SBR…lawfully. I like to vacation in OK and other states, and my favorite AR is my 11.5” 5.56. It’s a major hassle to lawfully cross state lines with it…whereas a pistol is just a pistol, even if it has a 11.5” upper on it.

The problem of course is that the ATF is trying to put out an updated set of definitions for pistol braces that will immediately disqualify most of the braces on the market for use on pistols—forcing their owners to either register their pistol lowers and pay the stamp, or reconfigure their pistols to comply with the new rules.

Since I already have a registered lower, I don’t have to do anything. In the event this passes, I’ll just put a 16” upper on the pistol lower and go on about my business. I’m NOT going to lay down another $200 just so I can keep what I already bought in good faith that I was complying with the law, just to avoid becoming an instant felon.

[K.Mooneyham]

It’s my understanding that you can possess SBR-length uppers so long as you have one of or both of two things:

1. An NFA-registered SBR lower,
2. A pistol lower.

I have both…a registered lower and a pistol lower. I own two SBR uppers…an 11.5” in 5.56, and a 10.5” in .300 Blk. (My son has 2 other short barreled uppers in 5.56 and .350 Legend, and another registered lower on our trust, plus a pistol lower.) I originally bought my pistol lower so that I could lawfully transport my 11.5” AR across state lines—which is difficult to do with a registered SBR…lawfully. I like to vacation in OK and other states, and my favorite AR is my 11.5” 5.56. It’s a major hassle to lawfully cross state lines with it…whereas a pistol is just a pistol, even if it has a 11.5” upper on it.

The problem of course is that the ATF is trying to put out an updated set of definitions for pistol braces that will immediately disqualify most of the braces on the market for use on pistols—forcing their owners to either register their pistol lowers and pay the stamp, or reconfigure their pistols to comply with the new rules.

Since I already have a registered lower, I don’t have to do anything. In the event this passes, I’ll just put a 16” upper on the pistol lower and go on about my business. I’m NOT going to lay down another $200 just so I can keep what I already bought in good faith that I was complying with the law, just to avoid becoming an instant felon.

Speaking ONLY to what I highlighted in red, that's one of the things I really don't understand about the whole tax stamp business. If it's "registered" with the Federal government, then why in the blazes should it matter which state you take it to? The tax stamp is good across the whole country, right?

[The Annoyed Man]

It’s my understanding that you can possess SBR-length uppers so long as you have one of or both of two things:

1. An NFA-registered SBR lower,
2. A pistol lower.

I have both…a registered lower and a pistol lower. I own two SBR uppers…an 11.5” in 5.56, and a 10.5” in .300 Blk. (My son has 2 other short barreled uppers in 5.56 and .350 Legend, and another registered lower on our trust, plus a pistol lower.) I originally bought my pistol lower so that I could lawfully transport my 11.5” AR across state lines—which is difficult to do with a registered SBR…lawfully. I like to vacation in OK and other states, and my favorite AR is my 11.5” 5.56. It’s a major hassle to lawfully cross state lines with it…whereas a pistol is just a pistol, even if it has a 11.5” upper on it.

The problem of course is that the ATF is trying to put out an updated set of definitions for pistol braces that will immediately disqualify most of the braces on the market for use on pistols—forcing their owners to either register their pistol lowers and pay the stamp, or reconfigure their pistols to comply with the new rules.

Since I already have a registered lower, I don’t have to do anything. In the event this passes, I’ll just put a 16” upper on the pistol lower and go on about my business. I’m NOT going to lay down another $200 just so I can keep what I already bought in good faith that I was complying with the law, just to avoid becoming an instant felon.

Speaking ONLY to what I highlighted in red, that's one of the things I really don't understand about the whole tax stamp business. If it's "registered" with the Federal government, then why in the blazes should it matter which state you take it to? The tax stamp is good across the whole country, right?

Federally speaking, you can transport a suppressor across state lines without a requirement to notify anyone or seek permission from the fedgov’t, assuming that having that suppressor is legal in the "receiving" state. For example, private citizens cannot own/possess a suppressor in California. So I wouldn’t try to bring my pistol suppressor with me to California, even though the pistol itself might be legal in California. Rifle suppressors are the same. If you have a rifle suppressor and want to transport it across state lines, there’s no federal obstacle to doing so. It just has to be legal to possess a suppressor per state law in the state to which you’re traveling.

But SBRs are different. There’s a federal requirement to notify the chief law enforcement officer in the state/county (outside of your state) to which you are traveling, and you have to receive that officer's permission to temporarily bring the SBR into his state. It can take weeks or months to receive permission, or it can even be denied. But an AR pistol is just an AR pistol, and it can be transported across state lines without involving the fedgov’t.

For better or for worse, it wasn’t too long before people discovered that you could tart up a pistol lower with an SBT-3 brace that—let’s be honest—functions more like a buttstock than a brace, and have an SBR-like AR without the hassle and extra expense of a Form 1 and a $200 tax stamp. In so doing, they also get around the federal limitations on transporting an SBR across state lines. And THAT is why I eventually bought a pistol lower myself, maybe 5 years or more after I registered my SBR lower. (TBH though, the 4473 when I bought it doesn’t describe it as a "pistol" on the page where the type of firearm is listed, so as far as I’m concerned, I’m still free to convert it back to a rifle configuration if I want to. Legal or not, nobody would be able to tell that I hadn’t built it as a rifle from the get-go.)

Now mind you, I’m in favor of this "loophole" in the NFA. Even more so, I believe that the NFA should be repealed…but as long as it’s NOT repealed, then this loophole should still exist. But that said, the ATF's crackdown on technologies that are—strictly speaking—within the letter of NFA law, has been utterly predictable. The administrative state will not brook defiance, and it will violate the law itself in order to curtail the freedoms of people who use the letter of the law to their own advantage. And thus we have the crackdowns on bumpstocks, pistol braces, forced reset triggers (and eventually binary triggers), solvent traps, etc., etc., etc. The peasantry cannot be allowed to thumb its nose at the administrative state without being clapped into irons for it.

A lot of people initially bought pistol lowers to avoid having to jump through the NFA/ATF hoops to own an SBR. Now they are being threatened with either having to ditch some of the features they currently have on their pistols, OR registering them as SBRs. I came at it from the other direction, first registering two SBR lowers, and then buying a couple of pistol lowers several years later (mine and my son's) to get around the federal limitations on interstate travel with an SBR. For better or for worse, MY SBR issues are already paid for and taken care of. If the fedgov’t acts to so severely limit the configuration of AR pistols that they become essentially useless for that purpose, then I’ll just convert my pistol lower to a carbine lower and be done with it. I’ll still have the SBRs.