Who here is the resident NFA "expert"- atleast dangerously knowledgable. RE: staying out of trouble

[asmo]

On August 27, 2009, Jesus Amador, Jr., was arrested by an undercover officer when he sought to sell his Heckler and Koch SP89 pistol. But, one can legally sell an H&K SP89, so what?s the twist?
Unfortunately for Mr. Amador, he was selling the H&K SP89 with the accessories that he collected for it, which included a vertical front grip and a shoulder stock. If Mr. Amador merely possessed the vertical grip, the pistol would have to be registered under the NFA as an AOW. However, because he also had a stock, the pistol would have to be registered as a short-barreled rifle, PRIOR to purchasing or possessing the shoulder stock and/or vertical grip.

Mr. Amador was *arrested* not convicted. Further, he was arrested under a state law (FL 790.221) not federal. The BATFE was never involved. Further, the law was dealing with constructive *possession* not *intent*.

Florida Statue 790.221
(1) It is unlawful for any person to own or to have in his or her care, custody, possession, or control any short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun, or machine gun which is, or may readily be made, operable; but this section shall not apply to antique firearms.
(2) A person who violates this section commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(3) Firearms in violation hereof which are lawfully owned and possessed under provisions of federal law are excepted.

Lastly, SCOTUS decided in United States v. Thompson/Center Arms Co. (91-0164), 504 U.S. 505 (1992) that having a bunch of parts together that make up an SBR (or other NFA item) do NOT violate the NFA.
"The court ruled in Thompson Center Arms' favor in that the carbine conversion kit did not constitute a short-barreled rifle, primarily because the kit contained both the stock and the 16-inch barrel."

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/bardwell/thompson.txt


From BATF FFL Newsletter 1991 Vol. 1

SUPREME COURT RULES ON THOMPSON/CENTER ARMS CASE
On June 8, 1992, the Supreme Court held in United States v. Thompson/Center Arms Co., that a pistol combined with a kit for converting the pistol into a rifle was not a weapon regulated by the National Firearms Act (NFA). Thompson/Center manufactured the “Contender” pistol and a kit with a shoulder stock and a 21-inch barrel that could be used to convert the pistol into a rifle. The Federal Circuit had held that the pistol and lot were not subject to the Act because they had never been assembled as a regulated shortbarreled rifle. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court, but on much narrower grounds. The Supreme Court Held that since all of the parts in the Contender pistol kit could be used in the assembly of either an unregulated pistol or unregulated rifle, the combined packaging of the pistol and kit did not result in the “making" of an NFA weapon. Therefore, such a combination of parts was not subject to the tax and registration provisions of the National Firearms Act.


...
...
As further examples, any rifle possessed together with parts that could only be used to convert the weapon into a machine gun would be covered by the NFA. A pistol with an attachable shoulder stock would be considered an NFA weapon. Also, a semiautomatic Uzi with a 16-inch barrel, together with a short barrel, would be covered by the NFA.

[bellavite1]

Mr. Amador was *arrested* not convicted. Further, he was arrested under a state law (FL 790.221) not federal. The BATFE was never involved. Further, the law was dealing with constructive *possession* not *intent*.



Lastly, SCOTUS decided in United States v. Thompson/Center Arms Co. (91-0164), 504 U.S. 505 (1992) that having a bunch of parts together that make up an SBR (or other NFA item) do NOT violate the NFA.
"The court ruled in Thompson Center Arms' favor in that the carbine conversion kit did not constitute a short-barreled rifle, primarily because the kit contained both the stock and the 16-inch barrel."

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/bardwell/thompson.txt


From BATF FFL Newsletter 1991 Vol. 1

Soo, what was the outcome of this legal battle?
Inquisitive minds want to know...

[asmo]

Soo, what was the outcome of this legal battle?
Inquisitive minds want to know...

For the Amador case, if I remember right it was dismissed. But that was 10 years ago.

For the SCOTUS case that throws out any constructive intent (and most possession issues) I literally included the link to the SCOTUS opinion.

[Great-Kazoo]

For the Amador case, if I remember right it was dismissed. But that was 10 years ago.

For the SCOTUS case that throws out any constructive intent (and most possession issues) I literally included the link to the SCOTUS opinion.

The question, even though it was dismissed. How much money did it cost the defendant ?

[Hessian]

The question, even though it was dismissed. How much money did it cost the defendant ?

Much more than the price of his HK, good counsel is VERY expensive and by the hour.