Constructive Intent and the gun parts who love them

[CQBgopher]

After a recent SNAFU regarding pieces and parts in a close enough proximity for a local gun store to have a panic attack and decline a transfer based on their belief it was constructive intent.........discuss

Pistols, lower receivers, upper receivers, and parts kits bought and sold as separate entities where the upper was the serial’d item.

[Guns4Liberty]

Pistols, lower receivers, upper receivers, and parts kits bought and sold as separate entities where the upper was the serial’d item.

How many guns have a serialized upper? That doesn't sound too common.

[CQBgopher]

Pistols, lower receivers, upper receivers, and parts kits bought and sold as separate entities where the upper was the serial’d item.

How many guns have a serialized upper? That doesn't sound too common.

HKs, FALs, SwissArms, bolt guns, etc. Quite common actually. Per the store in question it would apply to the AR platform or other lower receiver serialed platforms as well.

[Massivedesign]

But none of those parts were illegal, per se? Such as when you had an AR Pistol and an AR stock next to it, it could be made into an illegal SBR via constructive intent.. I assume that these people were merely attempting to bypass the State BCG wait times and DOL fees by separating the pieces of an existing firearm, yet still having the buyer do a federal 4473 BGC?

If so, is it the dealers job to judge intent? Could be.. There hasn't been any cases yet, so I assume most dealers wouldn't want to be a part of those shenanigans, especially to be the first victim. The problem is, INTENDING to violate the law for 1639 and 594 is just as punishable as actually violating it.

[CQBgopher]

But none of those parts were illegal, per se? Such as when you had an AR Pistol and an AR stock next to it, it could be made into an illegal SBR via constructive intent.. I assume that these people were merely attempting to bypass the State BCG wait times and DOL fees by separating the pieces of an existing firearm, yet still having the buyer do a federal 4473 BGC?

If so, is it the dealers job to judge intent? Could be.. There hasn't been any cases yet, so I assume most dealers wouldn't want to be a part of those shenanigans, especially to be the first victim. The problem is, INTENDING to violate the law for 1639 and 594 is just as punishable as actually violating it.

Twas a commissioned law enforcement officer—with proper ID—attempting to purchase a complete handgun, a complete upper receiver serial’d and built by a major OEM as a handgun, and a lower receiver complete with fire control group and butt stock to fit his existing rifle, from a law abiding private party with ID.

Rare and valuable collector grade items. In the >$5,000 <$10,000 category.

The store made the interpretation that the two individuals, by virtue of the pieces fitting together—the pieces never touched directly and did not include attaching pins until the gun store put them in such an orientation for dramatic effect—were attempting to bypass NFA and conduct the sale of an illegal SBR.

Last edited by CQBgopher on Wed Oct 02, 2019 4:11 pm, edited 2 times in total.

[todd1803]

The problem is, INTENDING to violate the law for 1639 and 594 is just as punishable as actually violating it.

So what is the burdon of proof for intent?


Does this mean it's illegal to have both pistol and rifle parts in my safe at the same time?

Is the .gov going to claim I need a second safe to keep the parts from fraternizing and morphing into an illegal SBR once the door is shut?

Sent from my SM-T387V using Tapatalk

[CQBgopher]

The problem is, INTENDING to violate the law for 1639 and 594 is just as punishable as actually violating it.

So what is the burdon of proof for intent?


Does this mean it's illegal to have both pistol and rifle parts in my safe at the same time?

Is the .gov going to claim I need a second safe to keep the parts from fraternizing and morphing into an illegal SBR once the door is shut?

Sent from my SM-T387V using Tapatalk

This question was posed to the gun store who answered yes, technically.

[hartcreek]

Time to patronize a different gun store. The gun store has no control over what parts you put where once you get home.

[RocketScott]

I must have missed something

What actually happened?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CQBgopher]

I must have missed something

What actually happened?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In a nutshell, a local gun store forced the constructive intent issue and refused to transfer a pistol because parts that could make it into a SBR were in close proximity, in the possession of the seller.

The customers found a shop understanding of the real intent and gladly took on the business so I guess it worked out.