Basically, if you have the upper, assembled and ready to put on the lower, you are in constructive possession.
I did some case research tonight and this case discussed and distinguishes Thomsen Center from the typical AR owner who has an assembled short barrelled upper.
I did some case research tonight and this case discussed and distinguishes Thomsen Center from the typical AR owner who has an assembled short barrelled upper.
175 F.3d 870, *; 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 8413, **;
12 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 777
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jason Christopher KENT, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 97-8425.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
175 F.3d 870; 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 8413; 12 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 777
May 4, 1999, Decided
PRIOR HISTORY: [**1] Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia. (No. CR496-148). B. Avant Edenfield, Judge.
DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED.
CASE SUMMARY
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Appellant challenged orders of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, which entered convictions for five separate firearms offenses, sentenced him to 78 months incarceration, and denied his motions for acquittal and a new trial.
OVERVIEW: A jury convicted appellant of five separate firearm offenses. The trial court denied his motions for acquittal and a new trial. Appellant received a 78-month sentence. The appellate court affirmed. Appellant argued the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction for possession of an unregistered short-barreled rifle. The appellate court disagreed. A short-barreled upper receiver unit and a Colt AR-15 lower receiver unit were found in appellant's small apartment. The units could be connected quickly and easily, creating an operable short-barreled rifle. Evidence that appellant possessed both of these units was sufficient to prove that he possessed a rifle having a barrel of less than 16 inches in length for purposes of the National Firearms Act, 26 U.S.C.S. § 5861(d). It was undisputed that appellant had not registered this weapon.
OUTCOME: Appellant's convictions and sentence were affirmed. The evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict and the trial court's denial of appellant's motion for acquittal. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied appellant's motion for a new trial.