PDA

View Full Version : Question about Upper Aseembly Purchases


AWrootbeer
07-15-2006, 2:38 AM
Are there any regulations concerning the purchase of uppers and/or complete upper half assemblies? IE, are those purchases require to be doine through an FFL?

Also, anybody have a recommendations for a first build?

Mudvayne540ld
07-15-2006, 2:53 AM
the only part that needs to be DROS'ed is the Stripped Lower Receiver... thats it :)
LPK/Upper/Stock/magazine dont need it

First time build.... just do what you appeals to you :) I went with all RRA

Tho, i would stay away from Vulcan..... I have heard not to great things from them.

tenpercentfirearms
07-15-2006, 10:13 AM
I like Stag. They come in an economical package and have chrome lined barrels. There are 4 basic models to choose from so it doesn't get all confusing. e-mail me if you have more questions about Stag. guns@tenpercentfirearms.com

bwiese
07-15-2006, 12:22 PM
Are there any regulations concerning the purchase of uppers and/or complete upper half assemblies? IE, are those purchases require to be doine through an FFL?

You don't have to run upper or non-receiver/non-gun purchases thru an FFL.

However, do NOT make the mistake of buying an upper with a barrel shorter than 16" (unless the short bbl has an extension _permanently welded/silver soldered on to bring it up to 16" or more in length). Possession of a short barreled AR upper with an AR lower can be considered illegal 'constructive possession' of a short-barreled rifle under BOTH Federal and CA laws - even if the shorty upper and the lower are not assembled and at different locations: the fact they are owned and are under your control is what counts.

The only time you should have one of these shorty uppers is if you have a NFA-registered SBR in CA that was also legally set up with CA (almost impossible, there's probably a few from decades ago) or an AR pistol that was registered as an AW back in 2000 or before. [For all practical purposes, you can't make an AR type pistol today w/an off-list receiver even w/fixed mag, etc.]


Also, anybody have a recommendations for a first build?


Get a chrome-lined barrel with a milspec chamber. Don't try to save $30 or $40 bucks. Get a bolt/carrier from a quality vendor, or get your assembler to use quality parts, and make sure the carrier key is properly 'staked'.

Generally avoid 'bottom feeder' parts, the savings aren't worth it (Model1, Sherluk, M&A Parts). [I do note I have had good experiences with J&T for some early rifles of mine.] I personally consider Olympic to be bottom feeder since I've regularly had to debug others' Olys over the last 8 years at the range.

grammaton76
07-15-2006, 6:30 PM
Thought you said CA didn't have constructive possession? Or is that only for AW's?

xenophobe
07-15-2006, 6:42 PM
California does not have constructive possession of AWs. SBRs and Machine Guns are a different matter. Shorter than 16" barrels would be both FEDERAL and state constructive possession of a SBR.

Mike Searson
07-15-2006, 6:56 PM
I've never heard of constructive possession on SBR/AOW stuff at the federal level.

US vs Thompson Center shot that one down.
http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/getcase/US/504/505.html

Constructive possession with regard to full auto, though, can be trouble.

"We can only say that the notion of an unassembled machinegun is probably broader than that of an unassembled rifle. But just where the line is to be drawn on short-barreled rifles is not demonstrated by textual considerations. "

bwiese
07-15-2006, 11:34 PM
I've never heard of constructive possession on SBR/AOW stuff at the federal level.

US vs Thompson Center shot that one down.
http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/getcase/US/504/505.html


Thanks for info, I very briefly read decision. Have to dig into it more....

However, this case adds some handwaving because there was only the possibility of illegal assembly into an NFA SBR; there were, in the Thompson kit, two alternate possibilities of legal firearms to be created (a legal pistol and a legal regular rifle) that create 'sheltering' conditions.

The open question still is does a single shorty upper and a single lower - without any other legit possibilities - still constitute an NFA gun? It would seem odd to me that separated MG parts and a semiauto could be a machinegun constructively, but separated NFA SBR parts would not.

So, having a shorty upper and a lower without any other 'sheltering' condition (a legit AR pistol, for example) might be a different situation. I'll have to read the above decision in detail. I'm not sure you wouldn't have a fight here and have to "prove otherwise in court" to the ATF.

However, in CA, constructive possession definitely does apply to SBR matters.

Walk carefully.

Mike Searson
07-16-2006, 7:16 AM
That would be an interesting wrinkle, Bill.

I was thinking like a typical gun nut who owns numerous uppers and lowers.

If the only lower in question was a rifle lower and the only upper in possession had a sub 16" bbl and no $200 tax was paid...that would probably be very different.

6172crew
07-16-2006, 9:10 AM
Its good to see you around Mike, Semper Fi buddy.:)

bwiese
07-16-2006, 12:05 PM
That would be an interesting wrinkle, Bill.

I was thinking like a typical gun nut who owns numerous uppers and lowers.

If the only lower in question was a rifle lower and the only upper in possession had a sub 16" bbl and no $200 tax was paid...that would probably be very different.

Yes. And we're likly gonna be dealing w/newbie situations where the guy has his 1st and only AR, manages to comply w/CA AW laws, and walks into this.

You have tons of ARs, and you may well have some SBRs being in the free state of NV. Others like us have an AR pistol or two. So there's some "cover".

Really the concept in this decision (without reading it further) is that there is a 'path to legality' since there are legal options (regular handgun, regular rifle) present in this particular Thomspon Center case.

A dude with a 10.5" upper and a single lower (nonpistol, non-NFA-reg'd) doesn't have that cover or any prospective 'path to legality'.

grammaton76
07-16-2006, 12:23 PM
A dude with a 10.5" upper and a single lower (nonpistol, non-NFA-reg'd) doesn't have that cover or any prospective 'path to legality'.

I'd say he could argue that he has a path to legality if he purchased it and one of those 5.5" muzzle brakes recently, and says that his intent is to permanently fix it himself.

That having been said, that's only a path to legality, not 'cover'.