Henry 45 Colt Mares Leg conversion

[Texasgrillchef]

I have the Henry 45 colt mares leg, H006 model line, and am wanting to SBR it by adding a stock to it, which Henry sells and provides. however one can’t order said stock till one has the Tax Stamp in hand.

on the Form 1 lists total length. Does anyone know what the length for this would be with the rifle stock on it? Obviously one can’t guesstimate. But if your off by 1/2-1” is that ok? Or only if you say it is shorter then it actually is?

The ATF clearly states you can’t have all the parts to complete the SBR build until you have Tax stamp in hand, then you can possess the needed parts and assemble the SBR


Ideas?

 

[pdsmith505]

You could always shoot Henry's customer support and ask what the overall length would be with the stock.

Or, get the OAL of the rifle equivilent of the .45 colt mare's leg (the .45 colt big boy) and compare the lengths..

Barrel length: ML - 12.9", BB - 20", a difference of 7.1".
OAL: ML - 25", BB - 38.5"

The OAL of the SBR'd ML could be figured by subtracting the difference in barrel length (7.1") from the OAL of the BB... so 38.5"-7.1" = 31.4"

That being said, people generally just add 19" to the barrel length to come up with what they put down on their Form 1's when doing AR-15's, regardless of which particular stock they are going to use. Haven't heard of anyone getting swooped up by the bag-men over any minor difference in OAL from that.

 

[Texasgrillchef]

You could always shoot Henry's customer support and ask what the overall length would be with the stock.

Or, get the OAL of the rifle equivilent of the .45 colt mare's leg (the .45 colt big boy) and compare the lengths..

Barrel length: ML - 12.9", BB - 20", a difference of 7.1".
OAL: ML - 25", BB - 38.5"

The OAL of the SBR'd ML could be figured by subtracting the difference in barrel length (7.1") from the OAL of the BB... so 38.5"-7.1" = 31.4"

That being said, people generally just add 19" to the barrel length to come up with what they put down on their Form 1's when doing AR-15's, regardless of which particular stock they are going to use. Haven't heard of anyone getting swooped up by the bag-men over any minor difference in OAL from that.

I think they would be more upset with the firearm being shorter then what was stated, then if it was actually longer then stated as well.

I also agree, that I haven’t heard about any being cited over say an inch difference either. Not when it’s registered and stamped as a SBR and it is classified as one, versus the opposite.

 

[MistWolf]

...The ATF clearly states you can’t have all the parts to complete the SBR build until you have Tax stamp in hand, then you can possess the needed parts and assemble the SBR...

Not so. I have a complete AR rifle and a complete AR pistol. By the definition above, I have all the parts to complete an SBR. There is no violation of Constructive Intent (or whatever it's called) because I can use the parts to assemble firearms in their legal configurations

Let's say I sell the rifle upper and am now left with a complete pistol and a rifle lower. As long as I don't install the pistol upper on the rifle lower, I am still within the law. This is because I can use the parts to assemble a firearm in a legal configuration- pistol upper & pistol lower.

However, if I sell the pistol lower and am left with the pistol upper and rifle lower, I'm in violation of the law because the only configuration I can assemble from these parts is a short barreled rifle.

Let's say I have a pistol lower and pistol upper which I plan to SBR. Can I legally buy and possess a rifle sock beforehand? Yes, because I can assemble the parts into a pistol configuration. However, I cannot attach the stock to the lower with only a pistol upper in possession.

In your case, I would fill out your form using the current OAL of the Mare's Laig and simply keep the factory "stock" on hand after it's replaced with the rifle stock.

 

[MachIVshooter]

Not so. I have a complete AR rifle and a complete AR pistol. By the definition above, I have all the parts to complete an SBR. There is no violation of Constructive Intent (or whatever it's called) because I can use the parts to assemble firearms in their legal configurations

Let's say I sell the rifle upper and am now left with a complete pistol and a rifle lower. As long as I don't install the pistol upper on the rifle lower, I am still within the law. This is because I can use the parts to assemble a firearm in a legal configuration- pistol upper & pistol lower.

However, if I sell the pistol lower and am left with the pistol upper and rifle lower, I'm in violation of the law because the only configuration I can assemble from these parts is a short barreled rifle.

Let's say I have a pistol lower and pistol upper which I plan to SBR. Can I legally buy and possess a rifle sock beforehand? Yes, because I can assemble the parts into a pistol configuration. However, I cannot attach the stock to the lower with only a pistol upper in possession.

In your case, I would fill out your form using the current OAL of the Mare's Laig and simply keep the factory "stock" on hand after it's replaced with the rifle stock.

This is correct. Summarized, if a person possesses parts for both illegal or legal configurations, absent evidence to the contrary, it has to be assumed that the parts will be assembled into legal configurations.

If the parts one possesses cannot be assembled into a legal title I firearm, there is a case for constructive possession/intent.

As long as you still have the mare's leg grip, you can possess the stock before you have your approved F1. You just can't assemble it onto the receiver until you have the approved F1.

 

[pdsmith505]

This is correct. Summarized, if a person possesses parts for both illegal or legal configurations, absent evidence to the contrary, it has to be assumed that the parts will be assembled into legal configurations.

If the parts one possesses cannot be assembled into a legal title I firearm, there is a case for constructive possession/intent.

As long as you still have the mare's leg grip, you can possess the stock before you have your approved F1. You just can't assemble it onto the receiver until you have the approved F1.

Not knowing what other firearms OP has in his safe...

Lets say you own one firearm: a Henry Mare's Leg. Swapping out barrels on the mare's leg isn't as simple as, say, a Thompson Contender or AR-15... in fact, short of a well equipped shop, it's outside the realm of the average person. So having an extra, rifle-length, barrel to go along with the stock wouldn't be in the cards.

With that being said, if you own a mare's leg and buy a stock that will fit it, what legal configuration can the stock fill without an approved Form 1?

 

[Texasgrillchef]

Not knowing what other firearms OP has in his safe...

Lets say you own one firearm: a Henry Mare's Leg. Swapping out barrels on the mare's leg isn't as simple as, say, a Thompson Contender or AR-15... in fact, short of a well equipped shop, it's outside the realm of the average person. So having an extra, rifle-length, barrel to go along with the stock wouldn't be in the cards.

With that being said, if you own a mare's leg and buy a stock that will fit it, what legal configuration can the stock fill without an approved Form 1?

What you both state is correct. Owning a mares leg and obtaining the stock for it wouldn’t have any other purpose other then to make the mares leg a SBR. Unless I had another rifle that the stock could fit on, even with minor modification.

what’s interesting to note, is Henry will sell and ship me the stock, knowing that my intention is to put it on the mares leg, simply because I asked which stock would fit on the mares leg. Which they answered. They did inform me that I needed to have my tax stamp, and engrave the mares leg prior to installing the stock. They are NOT requesting a copy of the tax stamp prior to shipment.

Since I will be keeping the original mares leg stock, I don’t think it will be an issue.

 

[MachIVshooter]

Not knowing what other firearms OP has in his safe...

Lets say you own one firearm: a Henry Mare's Leg. Swapping out barrels on the mare's leg isn't as simple as, say, a Thompson Contender or AR-15... in fact, short of a well equipped shop, it's outside the realm of the average person. So having an extra, rifle-length, barrel to go along with the stock wouldn't be in the cards.

With that being said, if you own a mare's leg and buy a stock that will fit it, what legal configuration can the stock fill without an approved Form 1?

Extra gun parts are just that (save for suppressor parts and certain machine gun bits like the DIAS or LL, which are NFA items in and of themselves). If the pistol is legally configured as a pistol, having a part that could be swapped onto it making an SBR, but which isn't installed, no more constitutes constructive intent than owning a hacksaw which could shorten any title I long gun into an SBR/SBS. Having the means to do something illegal isn't a criminal act without intent, which is nigh impossible to prove when any benign alternative exists.

 

[pdsmith505]

Extra gun parts are just that (save for suppressor parts and certain machine gun bits like the DIAS or LL, which are NFA items in and of themselves). If the pistol is legally configured as a pistol, having a part that could be swapped onto it making an SBR, but which isn't installed, no more constitutes constructive intent than owning a hacksaw which could shorten any title I long gun into an SBR/SBS. Having the means to do something illegal isn't a criminal act without intent, which is nigh impossible to prove when any benign alternative exists.

Reading through the Thompson Center opinion, it seems as though the case that we all know and love hinged on whether the aggregation of parts could serve no other purpose than to create an NFA "firearm".

On one hand a Mare's Leg and a full stock in the same location serves no other purpose than to make a "firearm":

We also think that a firearm is “made” on facts one step removed from the paradigm of the aggregated parts that can be used for nothing except assembling a firearm. Two courts to our knowledge have dealt in some way with claims that when a gun other than a firearm was placed together with a further part or parts that would have had no use in association with the gun except to convert it into a firearm, a firearm was produced. See United States v. Kokin, 365 F. 2d 595, 596 (CA3) (carbine together with all parts necessary to convert it into a machinegun is a machinegun), cert. denied, 385 U. S. 987 (1966); see also United States v. Zeidman, 444 F. 2d 1051, 1053 (CA7 1971) (pistol and attachable shoulder stock found “in different drawers of the same dresser” constitute a short-barreled rifle). Here it is true, of course, that some of the parts could be used without ever assembling a firearm, but the likelihood of that is belied by the utter uselessness of placing the converting parts with the others except for just such a conversion. Where the evidence in a given case supports a finding of such uselessness, the case falls within the fair intendment of “otherwise producing a firearm.” See 26 U. S. C. § 5845(i).5

The Thompson kit, with it's combination of rifle-length barrel, stock, and a pistol to which the parts can be attached to create a legal non-NFA rifle does have another purpose, however:

Here, however, we are not dealing with an aggregation of parts that can serve no useful purpose except the assembly of a firearm, or with an aggregation having no ostensible utility except to convert a gun into such a weapon. There is, to be sure, one resemblance to the latter example in the sale of the Contender with the converter kit, for packaging the two has no apparent object except to convert the pistol into something else at some point. But the resemblance ends with the fact that the unregulated Contender pistol can be converted not only into a short-barreled rifle, which is a regulated firearm, but also into a long-barreled rifle, which is not. The packaging of pistol and kit has an obvious utility for those who want both a pistol and a regular rifle, and the question is whether the mere possibility of their use to assemble a regulated firearm is enough to place their combined packaging within the scope of “making” one.

Having a hacksaw or a lathe that you could cut down a barrel with is notably different that having, say, a non-NFA shotgun in a case with both a 24" barrel and a 14" barrel. The hacksaw has all kinds of common lawful uses, whereas an unregistered shotgun and a 14" barrel together do not. On the other hand, having a Remington 870 Tac-14 and a Remington 870 Express in the same case could be used to create an unlawful SBS by putting the 14" barrel from the Tac-14 on the Express, but they are legal in their current configuration.

The only guiding light we have is what the SCOTUS says constitutes making... and they seem to say that having all the parts to make a "firearm" together in the same spot without being able to use them in some lawful configuration that is not a "firearm" constitutes making a "firearm".

 

[MachIVshooter]

Having a hacksaw or a lathe that you could cut down a barrel with is notably different that having, say, a non-NFA shotgun in a case with both a 24" barrel and a 14" barrel. The hacksaw has all kinds of common lawful uses, whereas an unregistered shotgun and a 14" barrel together do not.

I would argue that having a short barrel for a rifle or shotgun, which cannot ever be legally assembled onto the receiver without being registered as SBR or SBS, is not quite the same as having some parts to convert a pistol into a rifle, which is legal to do without NFA registration.

In the OPs case, of course, we know he does intend to assemble the stock onto the pistol receiver with a short barrel. We also know he intends to do so legally on a form 1, and that his reason for wanting to procure the stock before the F1 is approved is demonstrably legitimate for accuracy of measurement on the application. So there is intent to eventually assemble a firearm, but to do so legally; there is no criminal intent.

The difficulty in proving intent is why we don't see much in the way of firearm constructive possession/intent cases, generally only a pile-on charge, or used to make something stick on someone they are after. The exception is those involving machine gun conversion parts, since there is no way to legally assemble a machine gun unless one is an SOT, and those cases aren't intent cases anyway, but possession of unregistered machine guns, as conversion parts are considered machineguns in and of themselves (conversion parts do generally differ from actual machine gun parts; M16 fire control groups are not illegal to possess, since they cannot be readily installed in a semi-auto receiver, while drop in auto sears and the like, which are specifically designed for converting semi-auto firearms into machineguns, are regulated as machine guns).

 

[Texasgrillchef]

FYI for anyone wishing to do the same... now that I have my approval and stock.

the length is exactly 31” to use on the eForm 1

 

[pdsmith505]

...Barrel length: ML - 12.9", BB - 20", a difference of 7.1".
OAL: ML - 25", BB - 38.5"

The OAL of the SBR'd ML could be figured by subtracting the difference in barrel length (7.1") from the OAL of the BB... so 38.5"-7.1" = 31.4"
...

FYI for anyone wishing to do the same... now that I have my approval and stock.

the length is exactly 31” to use on the eForm 1

Nailed it!