PDA

View Full Version : constructive possession..AR..


stitchnicklas
02-03-2012, 7:23 PM
thinking of building another lower but without a bullet button.
i have a 5.56,450 bushmaster,both with BB's installed and i have a chiappa .22lr upper i change out with the bushy.the non-BB lower would be mated with the .22lr upper of course.

now if i have 3 uppers and 3 lowers and all are mated is there a constructive legal problem??

aklover_91
02-03-2012, 7:27 PM
No constructive possession for AW's.

It either is an AW or it isn't.

IGOTDIRT4U
02-03-2012, 7:31 PM
No constructive possession for AW's.

It either is an AW or it isn't.

By definition you are right but the OP has a point.

OP, i have had the same concerns.

My take. An unattached lower is not a "gun" therefore until an upper is attached, it would be inconclusive what the .gov found.

Someone correct me?

stitchnicklas
02-03-2012, 7:35 PM
both my BB lowers have the gold standard button(solid and takes the red tool for install)

Connor P Price
02-03-2012, 7:38 PM
No constructive possession for AW's.

It either is an AW or it isn't.

Yup, don't mix and match your way to an AW. It is probably wise not to go driving around with only your non bb'd lower and upper which would require a bb without the others. Some things, even when legal, are asking for closer scrutiny.

ETA: Not that any additional scrutiny would actually go anywhere, just that it's a headache one probably doesn't need.

By definition you are right but the OP has a point.

OP, i have had the same concerns.

My take. An unattached lower is not a "gun" therefore until an upper is attached, it would be inconclusive what the .gov found.

Someone correct me?

I don't understand, what is inconclusive? What is the government finding?

Sent from my SGH-T959 using Tapatalk

CSACANNONEER
02-03-2012, 7:40 PM
Who cares if you have 2 lowers and one upper or twenty uppers? As long as your uppers are all rifle uppers or you have a lower which can be used to construct a pistol, the fact a lower does or does not have a magazine lock doesn't matter unless you have actually constructed an illegal weapon.

aklover_91
02-03-2012, 7:41 PM
By definition you are right but the OP has a point.

OP, i have had the same concerns.

My take. An unattached lower is not a "gun" therefore until an upper is attached, it would be inconclusive what the .gov found.

Someone correct me?

Legally, it's still a gun.

But it's not chambered for anything, let alone centerfire ammunition, without an upper.

axel4488
02-03-2012, 7:49 PM
EDIT: Misread that it is a rimfire.

Connor P Price
02-03-2012, 7:52 PM
To be safe put a featureless grip on it. That way its legal without a BB

Why is that safer? It's a .22lr, so its already legal without a bullet button. There is no such thing as "more legal." Why use a less ergonomic grip?

Sent from my SGH-T959 using Tapatalk

CSACANNONEER
02-03-2012, 8:02 PM
To be safe put a featureless grip on it. That way its legal without a BB

?????? I thought we were over this type of paranoia years ago. The law is very clear about rimfire rifles being exempt from CA AW laws. So, why would running a featureless .22lr be any "safer"?

axel4488
02-03-2012, 8:33 PM
Ahh sorry I misread that it was a Rimfire weapon. I thought it said IT WAS NOT one.

My mistake