Un-SBR-ing

NiceOldDouble

NiceOldDouble

Well-Known Member
Benefactor
Vendor
Joined
Dec 17, 2016
Messages
2,114
Location
Durham
Rating - 100%
111   0   0
Can some please explain the procedure to dispose of an SBR item by disassembly please?

I assume that I can simply remove the stock and it’s not an SBR anymore. I also assume that I could then sell the lower as a receiver because that’s all it is then. Similarly, I assume that the upper can then be sold off as a pistol upper.

Since I am assuming my ass off right now, it seemed wise to ask the experts. May be the only wise thing I do all day.
 
That's pretty much it except for optional notification to .gov.

This from ATF.gov:
It is not a requirement to remove your SBR from the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record (NFRTR); however, ATF highly recommends you notify the Government Services Branch (GSB) of the National Firearms Act Division to remove the firearm from the NFRTR registry. All NFRTR updates should be emailed to [email protected](link sends e-mail).
Click to expand...
Also a longer read here, in section 2.5, page 21:
If the particular feature that causes a firearm to be regulated by the NFA is eliminated or modified, the resulting weapon is no longer an NFA weapon
Click to expand...
and by "eliminated" they mean both removed AND disposed of or destroyed.
 
Last edited:
you might want to skip that optional letter and have somebody else submit a form 4 to take it off your hands though.
was this just an AR that you made shorty?

somebody around here might be planning to make an sbr soon, and form 4 times these days are on par with form 1 from not long ago.

I guess it doesn't matter though. either way you're out your $200, and somebody else is gonna pay $200 for theirs eventually.
 
NiceOldDouble said:
Can some please explain the procedure to dispose of an SBR item by disassembly please?
Click to expand...
Yes.

NiceOldDouble said:
I assume that I can simply remove the stock and it’s not an SBR anymore.
Click to expand...
Incorrect if it was initially built as a rifle.
Correct if it was initially built as a pistol.

NiceOldDouble said:
I also assume that I could then sell the lower as a receiver because that’s all it is then.
Click to expand...
Correct.

NiceOldDouble said:
Similarly, I assume that the upper can then be sold off as a pistol upper.
Click to expand...
Close. It’s not a pistol upper, it’s just an upper. I could use it on an SBR or pistol.

NiceOldDouble said:
Since I am assuming my ass off right now, it seemed wise to ask the experts. May be the only wise thing I do all day.
Click to expand...
If any of my answers need to be clarified, lemme know.
 
Catfish said:
and by "eliminated" they mean both removed AND disposed of or destroyed.
Click to expand...
I’d argue that’s not entirely true. If I removed a stock and had another use for it, there’s no need to destroy it or dispose of it.

If it was the only AR I owned, I’d be more like to agree. Constructive possession could/would come into play.
 
No expert here and there are folks on here who have far more knowledge than I, but as I understand it, it is only a SBR when configured as a SBR.

Separate the upper from the lower and it is no longer a SBR.

Install an upper having a barrel =>16” and you could sell it just as you would any other rifle with a 16”+ barrel.

You could do the same with the lower. Sell it complete, or strip the guts, stock, receiver extension and sell it as a stripped lower.

You are not required to notify the ATF and have it removed from the registry, but I would do so as a courtesy to future owner(s). Should they attempt to do F1 on it, if it has not been removed from the NFRTR, their form will get kicked back.

EDIT: ***Too late…your questions were already answered.***👍
 
Last edited:
You could also put an upper with at least a 16” barrel on the lower, and put the short upper on a lower with a brace or bare tube…and end up with a non-NFA rifle and pistol combo. Two is better than one. 😎
 
Presumably the lower was engraved when you made the SBR, so you may want to stick it on the shelf in case you ever want to rebuild an SBR. In that case, don’t notify ATF, just sell all the other bits.
 
Now that all that’s been answered, I guess I would just wonder what is the point? Unless you are in dire straights and really hard up for cash is it even worth it? A lower isn’t worth very much and seems much more valuable to just keep in the safe, especially if it already registered..
 
Derek8404 said:
Now that all that’s been answered, I guess I would just wonder what is the point? Unless you are in dire straights and really hard up for cash is it even worth it? A lower isn’t worth very much and seems much more valuable to just keep in the safe, especially if it already registered..
Click to expand...
The point is I wanted to know.
 
BigWaylon said:
I’d argue that’s not entirely true. If I removed a stock and had another use for it, there’s no need to destroy it or dispose of it.
Click to expand...
I pointed that out because they used that wording repeatedly in the manual. I don't know if it's Law or Policy. If I had to, I'd argue that using a part to build another firearm satisfies "Disposed of".
 
Catfish said:
I pointed that out because they used that wording repeatedly in the manual. I don't know if it's Law or Policy. If I had to, I'd argue that using a part to build another firearm satisfies "Disposed of".
Click to expand...
Just as info…the source you quoted, while on the ATF’s site, isn’t law. It’s more a guide. ATF even says so on their site:

This publication is not a law book. Rather, it is intended as a "user friendly" reference book enabling the user to quickly find answers to questions concerning the NFA. Nevertheless, it should also be useful to attorneys seeking basic information about the NFA and how the law has been interpreted by ATF. The book's Table of Contents will be helpful to the user in locating needed information.

It’s similar to the Cooper document for NC a lot of people quote. It’s probably 95% correct, but there are a few screwy things in it that can’t be back by statutes/regulations.

I’ve even quoted it a few times when it supports my position, even if I know it’s not the law. 🤣



On a somewhat related topic, the ATF used to have this Q&A on their site:

Q: Does the installation of a barrel over 16 inches in length (SBR) or 18 inches in length (SBS) remove the firearm from the purview of the NFA? If so, is this considered a permanent change?
A: Installation of a barrel greater than 16 inches in length (SBR) or 18 inches in length (SBS) will remove the firearm from the purview of the NFA provided the registrant does not maintain control over the parts necessary to reconfigure the firearm as a SBR or SBS.

The maintain control issue isn’t defined, similar to “disposed of” being left open to interpretation. However, they also said this in one of their letters:

IMG_8473.jpeg

(The “above-noted procedures” were the 5320.20 process)

So even there they just say it has to be separated physically.
 
I just find it amusing that you're just two pins away from a felony. Constructive intent is a joke and could easily be applied to anyone who has both a rifle and a pistol if the ATF decided to shoot your dog that day. What a moronic regulation.
 
Tucci454 said:
I just find it amusing that you're just two pins away from a felony. Constructive intent is a joke and could easily be applied to anyone who has both a rifle and a pistol if the ATF decided to shoot your dog that day. What a moronic regulation.
Click to expand...
I think this is factually inaccurate. Constructive intent requires evidence of intent, and having a rifle and a pistol does not provide that evidence. I understand that what they look for is parts that can only be used to create an NFA item. For example if you have a pistol upper (or even a short barrel) but only own rifles.

Agree that it’s a sympton of an agency that’s operating without sufficient oversight. On the other hand, it seems to be mostly a boogey man. I don’t know that it’s ever been prosecuted for a one-off.
 
GymB said:
I think this is factually inaccurate. Constructive intent requires evidence of intent, and having a rifle and a pistol does not provide that evidence. I understand that what they look for is parts that can only be used to create an NFA item. For example if you have a pistol upper (or even a short barrel) but only own rifles.

Agree that it’s a sympton of an agency that’s operating without sufficient oversight. On the other hand, it seems to be mostly a boogey man. I don’t know that it’s ever been prosecuted for a one-off.
Click to expand...
Constructive possession is the issue. Not constructive intent.
 
Good grief this is so complicated I am glad I can't afford an ABR to begin with, LOL.
 
I'm sure I once read that once a weapon is registered as a class III that serial number will always be a class III.

But I've been wrong before.
 
GymB said:
Sorry, correct, but same difference.
Click to expand...
No. Because possession is what you described. When you have parts with no use other than an NFA firearm.

The intent doesn’t matter. (Except apparently for Form 1 silencers, depending on the day of the week). As you mentioned, it’s hard to provide evidence of intent.
 
J R Green said:
I'm sure I once read that once a weapon is registered as a class III that serial number will always be a class III.

But I've been wrong before.
Click to expand...
I don’t know if you’re wrong or not, because I don’t know for sure what you read.

But if you did read that, whoever wrote it is wrong. 😎
 
Stogies said:
Good grief this is so complicated I am glad I can't afford an ABR to begin with, LOL.
Click to expand...
It’s really not that complicated. Most of the laws around NFA are fairly clearly spelled out. It’s just that most people don’t take the time to read them.

I’ve said this before, and I’ll repeat it here:

If you were to read a Form 1, a Form 4, a 5320.20 and a 5320.23…every line, every word…you’d know more than 2/3 of the people out there.

If you were to then read the statutes referenced on those forms, you’d know more than 95% of it.

For example…

You’d see this on the Form 1:

IMG_8480.jpeg
And know what needs to be marked.

And then when you read 27 CFR §§ 478.92 and 479.102 you’d also know the minimum depth (.003”) and font size (1/16”) required for those markings…and that the font size only applies to the serial number. 🤓

So if you had a laser that could clearly engrave your trust name and city, state in a font size of 1/64”, or 1/100”, it would be fine as long as it was at least .003” (about the thickness of notebook paper) deep. 😎
 
BigWaylon said:
I don’t know if you’re wrong or not, because I don’t know for sure what you read.

But if you did read that, whoever wrote it is wrong. 😎
Click to expand...
My question is how do we know that the SN is truly removed.
Do they flag it, do they destroy all records pertaining to the NFA item and SN......

Don't really trust them that when they say they do something they really will.
 
Mr.Gadget said:
My question is how do we know that the SN is truly removed.
Do they flag it, do they destroy all records pertaining to the NFA item and SN......

Don't really trust them that when they say they do something they really will.
Click to expand...
I’m 99.44% sure it’s never removed. The record is just updated in the registry.

So I see what you’re asking based on the way I answered it, and maybe I can clarify my answer. The firearm is definitely not always Class III. That firearm has a serial number attached to it that’s in the registry. So while the SN will always be in the registry, you’d have to decide if that means the SN is C3 while the firearm is not. I’d would say it’s not, but others may disagree.
 
i gave up trusting the ATF a long time ago. if you go by what the ATF says is legal you could always end up like matt hoover.
always obey the law but get anything the ATF tells you in writing. JMHO
 
BigWaylon said:
I don’t know if you’re wrong or not, because I don’t know for sure what you read.

But if you did read that, whoever wrote it is wrong. 😎
Click to expand...
I remember now. It was about a machine gun. You can't just remove the select fire parts and declare it a standard gun. Once registered it's always a Class III.
 
GymB said:
I think this is factually inaccurate. Constructive intent requires evidence of intent, and having a rifle and a pistol does not provide that evidence. I understand that what they look for is parts that can only be used to create an NFA item. For example if you have a pistol upper (or even a short barrel) but only own rifles.

Agree that it’s a sympton of an agency that’s operating without sufficient oversight. On the other hand, it seems to be mostly a boogey man. I don’t know that it’s ever been prosecuted for a one-off.
Click to expand...
That's why it's a joke. By my understanding, you can have a rifle and pistol fully assembled and sitting in the safe and that's OK. But if you separate the uppers from the lowers and put them in the same safe, blammo. There goes your dog. HAHA

It's just another charge they can tack on so the headline sounds scary.
 
Tucci454 said:
That's why it's a joke. By my understanding, you can have a rifle and pistol fully assembled and sitting in the safe and that's OK. But if you separate the uppers from the lowers and put them in the same safe, blammo. There goes your dog. HAHA

It's just another charge they can tack on so the headline sounds scary.
Click to expand...
Your understanding is incorrect. If you have a pistol and a rifle you can separate them without concern, you can also have a wide variety of uppers in various claibers and barrel configurations without concern. What you shouldn’t do under the law is assemble an SBR without first paying the tax for doing so.
 
My favorite part of it is you can have two absolutely identical (based on parts lists) firearms sitting next to each other…yet one can be an (NFA) SBR and the other a (non-NFA) pistol. And there’s no way to prove which is which. 🙄
 
BigWaylon said:
My favorite part of it is you can have two absolutely identical (based on parts lists) firearms sitting next to each other…yet one can be an (NFA) SBR and the other a (non-NFA) pistol. And there’s no way to prove which is which. 🙄
Click to expand...
I believe that this is exactly what they don’t want to take before a judge.
 
bladesmith3 said:
i gave up trusting the ATF a long time ago. if you go by what the ATF says is legal you could always end up like matt hoover.
always obey the law but get anything the ATF tells you in writing. JMHO
Click to expand...
the only thing i've trusted them on is using a shorter version of my trust name for engraving.
they allow for nfa engraving using sufficiently recognizable abbreviations, so i cut some less relevant words out of mine - AFTER using the "ask the expert" option and making hard copies of their responses.

so i should be not technically in violation of their rules, and i have printed permission from their experts.
 
DrScaryGuy said:
the only thing i've trusted them on is using a shorter version of my trust name for engraving.
they allow for nfa engraving using sufficiently recognizable abbreviations, so i cut some less relevant words out of mine - AFTER using the "ask the expert" option and making hard copies of their responses.

so i should be not technically in violation of their rules, and i have printed permission from their experts.
Click to expand...
Hope you don't have a dog.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom