Can I make my SBR in another state?

[bikemutt]

I received my Form 1 tax stamp to build my SBR, now it's time to get to work.

I'm a WA resident planning on visiting a friend in OR this next week. Is it legal to take all the SBR components and my stamp with me and make the SBR in OR?

I have researched it and from what I can tell, as long as a SBR is federally legal, it's legal in OR.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

Tricky question. I asked similar questions when I was looking at a 9 month assignment in another state and my forms were still pending during the Bad Times and was not happy with the clarity of the answers.

Before I assume you are asking the very technical question about where you are first "making" the NFA firearm, I should ask if you are aware of the Federal rules on interstate travel with certain NFA weapons (which includes SBRs, SBSs, and DDs)? Do you know about the Form 5320 and that you need pre-approval to transport to and possess in another state?

Assuming you want to first assemble the gun while in OR, you can probably CYA with an approved Form 5320, but I'm not sure if it is theoretically legal. If you are reassembling in OR, then all you need is an approved 5320.

Is this a situation where the friend has tools and or knowledge that you want to use?

You make no mention of a Form 5320 and your travel is "next week". They are taking 3-6 weeks for approval now. Do you have a Form 5320 or did you almost commit a serious felony???

Mike

 

[bikemutt]

It's just that my friend has forgotten more about putting anything together than I will ever know. But, having a lot of time on my hands in the Graybar Hotel where I could become as proficient as he is doesn't sound too appealing.

I'll work on it when I return.

Thanks Arizona_Mike.

 

[strambo]

As Arizona Mike said; No, not in a week as that won't be enough time to get your ATF form 5320-20 Application to transport interstate...form back approved.

In August I attended a CQB carbine course in WA at FAS with my SBR, I had my stamp and approved form 5320-20 with me.

What are you needing help with? Is it an AR? If so, the upper is by far more difficult if assembling from scratch and requires the specialized tools, just bring the upper. An upper is just parts, not a firearm at all.

 

[jbj]

What are you needing help with? Is it an AR? If so, the upper is by far more difficult if assembling from scratch and requires the specialized tools, just bring the upper. An upper is just parts, not a firearm at all.

My thought as well. Assembling and headspacing the upper is the hard part. Take those parts with you and have a beer while your buddy puts it together

 

[Ryanxia]

I believe, (correct me if I'm wrong) your SBR is only an SBR when it's an SBR.
Meaning, once you put a 16" barrel on it (or have no barrel) (easy if an AR) it's just a regular rifle and does not require paperwork to go state to state. Only if you want to connect the short barrel upper does it become the SBR (much in the same way you can slap a 16" barrel on a registered SBR and sell it as a regular rifle).
So you could build the lower, and build the upper separately I would think across state lines.

Like I said, someone correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[strambo]

I almost mentioned that but then you go down the constructive intent rabbit hole, he'll be in possession of all components of an SBR out of state. Not worth it IMHO.

Not to mention he posted his constructive intent on the Internet already...

 

[Arizona_Mike]

Based on the current constructive possession standards (no other legitimate use), a complete rifle plus a pistol upper could be seen as constructive possession. Isn't the OP going from a pistol to begin with based on his other threads? Just have your friend in OR modify the pistol and but a stock on it when you get back to WA.

Mike

 

[Ryanxia]

But if his lower is a registered SBR there is no intent because he can legally put it in that configuration if he chooses, correct? (Of course he would have to notify ATF before hand with the across state lines form, but the configuration would be legal).

Anyone got an opinion on that point?
(I know we're splitting hairs but I like knowing exactly what I can and can't do by law) If it's not illegal then it's our Right to do so

 

[strambo]

It would be illegal for him to have transported said SBR out of state w/o the much touted ATF field trip permission slip. Actually OP, the transfer form is only if it is going to be overnight at another location. If you just make it a day trip, no legal issues at all that I'm aware of.

 

[bikemutt]

Thanks for all the suggestions guys, I'm not going to take any part of the SBR build with me. It seemed like a good idea at the time I posed the question, now, not so much, it's not going to happen. Besides, we got fishin' to do

 

[Ryanxia]

Thanks for all the suggestions guys, I'm not going to take any part of the SBR build with me. It seemed like a good idea at the time I posed the question, now, not so much, it's not going to happen. Besides, we got fishin' to do

Heck take the upper.

The lower is a breeze anyways. Brownells has some good videos if you're assembling from scratch.

 

[Tirod]

Don't take the stock. Just the buffer tube forward. Now it's a pistol with any length barrel, only state statutes will impact that.

It's the stock that causes the problem. You can install that when you get back.

Stock = Rifle, bare buffer = pistol. Exactly how everybody assembles and shoots their AR until the tax stamp does show up.

 

[pjeski]

Not unless the receiver was never assembled as a rifle.

 

[Tirod]

If it's assembled as a pistol first, you can then make it into a rifle. I've read dozens of posts where that is exactly the route the SBR owner took, and it's not an issue.

If you make it a rifle first, you cannot ever make it into a pistol - which closes the door on the option later if the owner chooses to sell it.

First a rifle, always a rifle, which is why I can't convert my AR15. To obey the letter of the regulations, I have to buy another lower and make it into a pistol first. It's becoming a situation where even the 16" and larger barreled guns can enjoy the privilege of first being a pistol, by assembling it with whatever length barrel, no stock, and then actually using it that way.

Then you add the stock, and you can legally switch back and forth. At least until a new ruling comes out, which would be even more convoluted than what already exists.

With the latest rulings in the last two years, going pistol first has the advantages.

 

[pjeski]

If it's assembled as a pistol first, you can then make it into a rifle. I've read dozens of posts where that is exactly the route the SBR owner took, and it's not an issue.

If you make it a rifle first, you cannot ever make it into a pistol - which closes the door on the option later if the owner chooses to sell it.

First a rifle, always a rifle, which is why I can't convert my AR15. To obey the letter of the regulations, I have to buy another lower and make it into a pistol first. It's becoming a situation where even the 16" and larger barreled guns can enjoy the privilege of first being a pistol, by assembling it with whatever length barrel, no stock, and then actually using it that way.

Then you add the stock, and you can legally switch back and forth. At least until a new ruling comes out, which would be even more convoluted than what already exists.

With the latest rulings in the last two years, going pistol first has the advantages.

This is correct, and why I build all my ARs as pistols.

 

[HRnightmare]

Don't take the stock. Just the buffer tube forward. Now it's a pistol with any length barrel, only state statutes will impact that.

NOPE. ATF told me on the phone I dare NOT make an AR pistol while I await my SBR approval with a rifle buffer tube with notches for a stock. That is constructive possession!

I am not arguing what is and is not, I am just saying what I was told directly. That is why companies make a buffer tube that has no notches and cannot attach a butt stock
too.

MY opinion is this advice is TERRIBLE and incorrect!

 

[pjeski]

Who at ATF did you ask? Never ask a cop for legal advice, and never get a verbal from an ATF agent. There is absolutely no legal reason you cannot build a pistol with a standard buffer tube. You just have to be very careful not to have it in the same place as an unattached stock. Also, I've known people to do a para cord wrap of the tube to make it harder to argue intent to attach a stock.

Of course ATF letters from the Internet only apply to the addressee. If you want a definitive answer, get one in writing from the tech branch.

 

[bikemutt]

pseski is correct, it's why products like the Thordsen buffer tube cover and cheek rest are legal. I use one of these on a pistol lower (rifle buffer tube) when a pistol upper is to be used, then remove it and use a butt stock when a rifle upper is to be used. I keep my uppers and lowers in separate safes and am careful not to ever assemble a SBR. Thordsen furnishes a letter from the ATF stating this device does not cause a pistol to become a SBR, I keep a copy it of on my person in case there is doubt.

http://www.thordsencustoms.com/shop/FRS15-RIFLE-STOCK/p/ENHANCED-BUFFER-TUBE-COVER-KIT-x3155914.htm

 

[Tirod]

If the OP is not in possession of a stock that could fit, then how does constructive intent take place?

Secondly, what prompts the BATF to even come knocking on your door? They already have a full plate, discovering by charge card records that you may be in possession of a stock and lower doesn't necessarily signal an intent to build a SBR. Finding you in possession of one smoking from the last round fired is more likely. What caused them to elevate you so highly on their to do list?

Thousands of stocks and lowers are sold annually, does the BATF come to your house and inspect your sock drawer to see if you are in constructive possession? It's why the argument is more than a bit specious - there is no way they will get a judge to authorize a search warrant to see if you are "in possession." It's a lame case from the git go.

Lots of internet lawyers protest that there is some kind of oversight and the BATF is going to swoop down on us, the reality is they have their hands full chasing down Cartel gun runners, inspecting FFLs, investigating an alphabet soup of hate organizations with terrorist ties, and closing down 80% lower makers to get their sales records. And that is while the upper echelons are dodging Congressional bullets over Fast and Furious.

If the OP doesn't take the stock, it's not intent, and since he already has the stamp, the issue is really moot.

And, to add, does your tax accountant say to believe the verbal instructions of an IRS worker when asking a question over the phone? That's been demonstrated to get as many wrong answers as right.

 

[strambo]

Secondly, what prompts the BATF to even come knocking on your door? They already have a full plate, discovering by charge card records that you may be in possession of a stock and lower doesn't necessarily signal an intent to build a SBR. Finding you in possession of one smoking from the last round fired is more likely. What caused them to elevate you so highly on their to do list?

For the rest of us, this thread is academic. For the OP, should something go wrong, it is discoverable as "evidence" so erring on the way safe side makes sense. I'd still at least get help with the upper.