PDA

View Full Version : 1911 Shoulder Stock Question


gyvel
September 22, 2009, 02:31 AM
If you have the shoulder stock, have one (or more) 1911 pistols laying around, but don't have the 16" barrel OR the slotted mainspring housing that is required for the stock to be placed on the gun, is that a violation of the law? Is it still considered as "constructive possession?"

PTK
September 22, 2009, 02:36 AM
If you have the shoulder stock, have one (or more) 1911 pistols laying around, but don't have the 16" barrel OR the slotted mainspring housing that is required for the stock to be placed on the gun, is that a violation of the law? Is it still considered as "constructive possession?"

If you don't have the means to attach the stock to a pistol with sub-16" barrel, it's not an SBR.

It's like asking if since you have an extra Remington 870 stock and a handgun, is that an SBR? :)


I assume you want the stock purely for novelty purposes or for display?

paull
September 22, 2009, 07:11 AM
Constructive possession has nothing to do with construction.
p

gyvel
September 23, 2009, 02:03 AM
If you don't have the means to attach the stock to a pistol with sub-16" barrel, it's not an SBR.

It's like asking if since you have an extra Remington 870 stock and a handgun, is that an SBR?


I assume you want the stock purely for novelty purposes or for display?

What's got me confused here is that you have two out of the three necessary parts to make an illegal SBR, missing only the easily removable mainspring housing. In light of other absurd BATF rulings such as possession of an AR15 and any one of several M16 parts being a machine gun, I was wondering if they have deemed that as some sort of "intent" of making an SBR.

Not real keen on your metaphor of the 870 stock and the handgun as neither piece was ever intended for the other.

The stock was in a bunch of junk that I bought from an estate. Personally, other than being a bit of a novelty, I don't find shoulder stocks particularly useful. From a collector's point of view they are interesting, though.

gyvel
September 23, 2009, 02:05 AM
Constructive possession has nothing to do with construction.

Sorry, I wasn't quite clear on the meaning and concept of "constructive possession." I think I got it now. Thanks.