My new MP5k--Finally

[U.S. Praetorian]

Originally Posted by Uncleboomboom

The original poster mentioned it had a sear in it. This would make it a machine gun and can legally have the short barrel and the stock. If the owner wants to transfer the sear out of this weapon (to put in another host) then it becomes an SBR.

Yes I saw that. It is confusing because I would think that this would be the endpoint in the conversion process. Meaning, to have it a select fire weapon. I don't see the logic in additionally making it something else unless it is to be sold as an sbr. Thanks.

[Uncleboomboom]

Originally Posted by U.S. Praetorian

Yes I saw that. It is confusing because I would think that this would be the endpoint in the conversion process. Meaning, to have it a select fire weapon. I don't see the logic in additionally making it something else unless it is to be sold as an sbr. Thanks.

Logic has nothing to do with it...it's the law :-)
This only happens with a transferable sear, which is in essence the machine gun. Install the sear in a weapon and the weapon falls under the definition of a machine gun as being able to have a short barrel, a stock, a vertical foregrip, etc. Remove the sear and the weapon reverts back to it's original configuration. In this case once the sear is removed, the weapon would become an illegal SBR. Hence the reason for doing a Form 1 on the host weapon.

[Shattered Mind]

Originally Posted by U.S. Praetorian

Yes I saw that. It is confusing because I would think that this would be the endpoint in the conversion process. Meaning, to have it a select fire weapon. I don't see the logic in additionally making it something else unless it is to be sold as an sbr. Thanks.

IF he had it built as a pistol initially, and than installed the sear, he could add the stock and foregrip and still be in compliance. IF he then wanted to move the sear to another host gun, he would have to take the foregrip and stock off the pistol.

Only if he wanted the gun to retain the foregrip and stock without the sear, would the SBR process become necessary.

If the gun was built as shown from a rifle rather than a bare receiver, it would be necessary to SBR the gun before the sear could legally go to another gun.

Not confusing at all.

[Uncleboomboom]

Originally Posted by Shattered Mind

IF he had it built as a pistol initially, and than installed the sear, he could add the stock and foregrip and still be in compliance. IF he then wanted to move the sear to another host gun, he would have to take the foregrip and stock off the pistol.

Not confusing at all.

To add more confusion......if he removes the sear from the 'initially built pistol' and removes the foregrip and stock, doesn't just the mere possession of the foregrip and stock along with the pistol constitute an NFA violation?

[Shattered Mind]

Technically, yes. It could be construed as "constructive possession" but unless you have other problems, the chances of ATF or a local cop shop busting down your door "because you might have put a stock on an 89" or have other spare stocks that'll fit are rather remote. You have other problems if they are outside your door.

Oh, they will pile on every single charge they can find/manufacture if you get nailed for something else in hopes that something will stick, but if you're clean and have no illegal intent, it's pretty much not a concern.

Constructive possession can be carried a bit too far. The combination of a shotgun and mere possession of a hacksaw COULD be construed as constructive possession of an illegal short barreled shotgun.

[The_Crow]

The gun was built as a pistol and remains in pistol form (ie no stock and no vertical grip) unless my registered sear is installed.