TexasCHLforum.com

extremist wrote: ↑Wed Jan 25, 2023 12:14 pm Watch this one too, some rational thoughts.

Thanks for that video. He does make sense. But perhaps from an excess of caution, now I don’t know who to believe because I’ve got more than one YouTube attorney giving conflicting interpretations. I hope he’s correct.

Mike S wrote: ↑Fri Jan 20, 2023 1:35 pm Here's a good, even handed explanation. It also includes case law examples as you asked for:

Thanks. I subscribed to his channel last week, and actually watched this video a couple of days ago.

cmgee67 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 19, 2023 8:38 pm Watch this

A SECOND fatal flaw discovered:

Grayling813 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 18, 2023 3:23 pm

eyedoc wrote: ↑Wed Jan 18, 2023 1:44 pm

Beiruty wrote: ↑Wed Jan 18, 2023 1:18 pm The rule says, the owner can remove the Brace. It does not say the user has to destroy the brace.

I remember seeing that it must be rendered incapable of being used after it is removed.

I also saw that the ATF said having an unattached brace could be construed as having the parts to build an unregistered SBR. That's the crux of the ATF randomly making rules and then changing them whenever the winds blow in a certain direction, especially in a gun control direction. Whether the POTUS is a guy named Trump blathering ignorantly about bump stocks or a guy named Biden blathering ignorantly about pistol braces.

This is the crux of my question…because as long as I own a brace, even if it’s been tossed into a parts bin, I could theoretically build an unregistered SBR from all of the various parts we have. But the thing is, why would I? We’ve already got two registered SBRs on our trust (mine and my son's), with four dedicated short barreled uppers in tree different calibers. I literally don’t need another SBR lower. And we have more completed uppers in 10.5" (x2), 11.5" (2), 16" (5 or 6? Not even sure), 18" (1), and 20" (1) lengths than I have completed lowers. We also have spare barrels in 7", 16", 18", and 24" lengths.

According to the ATF, I can keep that brace if I put it on a lower that’s mated to a 16" or longer barreled upper. But that’s just dumb. Whatever the ATF thinks, a pistol brace does not make as good of a buttstock as as an actual buttstock makes. If I had to, I could just lose the brace overboard in the nearest lake, and put a regular buttstock on that spare lower…but largely as a matter of principle, I don’t want the option to keep it taken away from me by an unconstitutional ATF fiat.

Over on Twitter, I’ve gotten myself into a discussion about pistol braces, short barreled uppers, and both registered and unregistered lowers. Here’s my scenario based on both my personal situation, as well as my understanding of the concept of constructive possession as I learned it from prior discussions on this forum:

1. I do own a registered lower. I have owned two SBR uppers for it almost since the get-go—one a 10.5" in .300 Blackout, and the other a 11.5" in 5.56 NATO.

2. Two or three years ago, I bought a completed lower with a carbine receiver extension but no buttstock. Shortly afterwards, I bought a SB Tactical brace, mounted it on the lower, and mated the 10.5" .300 Blk upper to it.

3. That gave me one registered 11.5" SBR, and one 10.5" pistol…all perfectly legal at the time, and done with full faith compliance with both NFA law and ATF's consistent and repeated rulings on pistol braces.

4. Now ATF has started up its tomfoolery about pistol braces, so I took the following actions: (A) I removed the brace and tossed it in a parts bin against the day that SCOTUS spanks ATF; and (B) I put the now-stockless lower back into my safe, and will (for now) consider the .300 Blk upper as part of my old 2-upper SBR setup.

5. It’s worth mentioning that I currently also have a complete 18" heavy barreled match grade upper in my safe that is not currently mated to a lower. That upper is already set aside for use with a matching lower that currently sports a recce rifle upper. Now according to the ATF, I could keep the brace and mate that braced lower to that 18" upper, and I’d be compliant. But why would I do that? For a precision rifle, it would make much more sense to use a rifle/carbine buttstock, and my (possible incorrect) understanding of the new ruling is that I don’t have to destroy the brace…I just can’t have it mounted to anything. But I don’t trust that understanding.

Now, here are my questions…

1. Can somebody give me some links to actual case law/court rulings having to do with constructive possession by a prohibited person, or as in my case, not a prohibited person but someone who may not be compliant with the law? I’m thinking for instance of the example of a woman who lawfully owns a firearm and is married to a felon, and her legal obligation is to either have the gun either on her person or locked in a safe at all times to avoid her husband being in constructive possession of a firearm.

2. As it relates to me specifically, and presumably to anyone else in my shoes, am I in constructive possession of an unregistered SBR, because I have an unused pistol brace in a parts bin, an unused finished lower in my safe capable of accepting that brace, and a spare short barreled upper that is not currently mated to a registered lower?

I would very much appreciate links that would answer questions about constructive possession, because I’d like to share them with the person who, in good faith, asked if I could provide such.

Thanks for reading through another of my interminable posts.