Are lowers regulated firearms? Discussion.

[Markp]

Originally Posted by phidelta308

The receiver is the firearm. In this case, the receiver is that of an AR 15.

I am not trying to be argumentative here, but that's the point, the receiver is NOT that of an AR-15 but rather it is an AR style receiver. It could be used for any number of non-regulated weapons. If we consider the federal ruling regarding the Thompson Contender, we must assume that if an alternate legal configuration could be built that the assumption must be that the person would create that alternate legal configuration and not violate the law. The fact is that, if there is no case law to support this you cannot say that an AR style receiver is an AR-15 or any other assault weapon.

The lower receiver (federally regulated, serial numbered) is therefore the firearm, everything else is an accessory.

True, federal law states that the lower is the firearm. Maryland law considers receivers firearms as well, but they do not state that a particular receiver is an assault weapon. That is an important distinction.

In MD, an AR 15 is a regulated assault weapon, unless it's an HBAR model (which makes no sense, as one can pop 2 pins and put a non hbar barrled upper on it).

True but an AR receiver, while a firearm is not an assault weapon. You see the receiver could be an HBAR receiver, it could be an assault weapon receiver, it could be a pistol receiver, it could be a bolt action rifle receiver, or it could be a belt fed receiver.

If you buy a lower receiver with the intent of constructing something like a bolt action .50BMG, you are still legally buying an AR 15, and then accessorizing it with a .50 BMG upper.

I believe that you are not legally buying an AR-15, you are legally buying an AR style receiver (Unless it's specifically an AR-15 or CAR-15 receiver made by Colt.)

In the case of the .50 BMG bolt action, it is not an AR-15 and it should NOT be a regulated firearm, it is a bolt action rifle. It is not a copy of the AR-15, the CAR-15, or any other assault weapon on the list. An assault weapon is a type of firearm with specific features that makes it an assault weapon. The law says "'Assault weapon' means any of the following specific firearms or their copies regardless of which company produced and manufactured that firearm:"

Specific firearm refers to the complete weapon... not the components. If it were the component parts the uppers should be regulated as well. How do you define copy?

Do you think that a .50 BMG on an AR style receiver is a copy of the CAR-15 or AR-15, because it's not!

Perhaps Novus or somebody else with strong google fu can chime in? I'd love to be able to pick up AR lowers without the regulated hassle. Especially now that the prices are coming back down.

We can hope. I understand where you're coming from, but I think that your argument lacks support in the statute. I wouldn't want to be the test case and this is mostly an academic argument as we both know all to well that no MD FFL is going to transfer these without a Form 77R.

I hope you don't mind me hashing this out with you. I am looking for flaws in my argument, I really dislike these laws and they just make the hair on the back of my neck stand on end. Anything I can do to expose the flaws in these laws make me feel a little better.

Have a great night and thanks for the interesting discussion on this.

Mark

[phidelta308]

No problem. I agree, this is important, and MD gun owners are so used to dealing with opressive laws, we sometimes don't even question them.

Given the nature of MD gun laws and rules, I think your argument involves a level of subtlety that the state doesn't see. Also look at constructive intent. Owning an sbr upper and a lower without an installed upper, even if never assembled, constitutes an SBR. Same with auto sears and compatible firearms. Doesn't matter if you never assemble it. It's considered possession of a machine gun. They might argue you're buying ar lower, so obviously, you're going to build an evil black rifle.

I don't know if constructive intent has ever been applied to AR 15 lower receivers, in this respect.

I suspect there has been some instruction handed down to MD ffls from the AG office or MDSP regarding this. Maybe one of the industry partners could chime in on this.

[Jaybeez]

Mark, you always bring up interesting academic points.

Here's some more fodder. 10/22 rifles are sold legally at every gun shop in Md, they are unregulated firearms, unless a norells trigger pack is installed, then they are machineguns and subject to md's yearly registration.

The assault pistols list, contains a large number of pistols that are banned, but if a stock and longer barrel were installed they would be perfectly legal, and many unregulated.

It seems between those two, status as type of firearms is heavily dependant on the accessories, not parts that are not the federally defined as firearms, like the reciever. So if configuration of accessories is the defining factor in the banned assault pistols list, it should apply to the states other lists.

Could a case be made, that until a barrel longer than 16" and a stock are installed, that a stripped lower is not a rifle? Its also not an antique or a nfa item either.Federal law makes a distinction between the frame/receiver, a handgun, or a rifle on the new 4473's, but state law doesnt. Could the state make the argument following the accesorizing logic, that without components/accessories making a stripped lower a complete rifle, that it is by default a handgun, and thus subject to the handgun roster?

[Markp]

Originally Posted by phidelta308

No problem. I agree, this is important, and MD gun owners are so used to dealing with opressive laws, we sometimes don't even question them.

Given the nature of MD gun laws and rules, I think your argument involves a level of subtlety that the state doesn't see. Also look at constructive intent. Owning an sbr upper and a lower without an installed upper, even if never assembled, constitutes an SBR. Same with auto sears and compatible firearms. Doesn't matter if you never assemble it. It's considered possession of a machine gun. They might argue you're buying ar lower, so obviously, you're going to build an evil black rifle.

I don't know if constructive intent has ever been applied to AR 15 lower receivers, in this respect.

I suspect there has been some instruction handed down to MD ffls from the AG office or MDSP regarding this. Maybe one of the industry partners could chime in on this.

You're right it would be interesting if there was so guidance from the AG or MDSP regarding this that MD FFL's had.

In the case of the SBR upper and a rifle lower. It is constructive possession only if you cannot assemble them in a legal manner. So, in general, having possession of only an rifle lower and an SBR/pistol upper is bad juju, because the only possible configuration is illegal. This we agree on.

It's not the same with AK auto sears, I can have a dozen of them, but as long as I don't own any AK style receiver with a third hole to accept them, I am completely legal. It's about proving intent, no third hole in my AK receiver, no intent.

I have a hacksaw and a Mosin Nagant, am I in constructive possession of an SBR? Maybe, if I say that I plan to chop of the barrel and make one, that's constructive intent. Otherwise no, I can use the hacksaw for a variety of legal purposes... none of which include building an SBR.

So if you have an SBR/pistol upper, an SBR/pistol lower, a rifle lower, and a rifle upper technically you are not in constructive possession, because the INTENT to build an illegal SBR cannot be established.

I would even go a step farther, one could have possession of an AR style rifle lower, and an sbr/pistol upper, and have them in the same room not assembled and not be in constructive possession if they had a Form 1 filed and pending with the ATF. Why, because you can prove that the intent was to remain legal.

Mark

[dwsjr]

as far as the MD state is concerned yes, sorry.

[Markp]

Originally Posted by dwsjr

as far as the MD state is concerned yes, sorry.

You see, this blanket answer, while authoritative, lacks substance. So you are saying that all lower receivers are regulated firearms? Even those that are not AR style receivers?

Imagine, if you would, that I created a receiver that accepted and AR upper, but looked NOTHING like an AR lower?

Would it be regulated?

Let's throw out a hypothetical example... I build a lower that has a fixed magazine and has spade grips. No pistol grip, no detachable mag, but works 100% with any AR upper. Is that regulated? Is the firearm regulated? (The answer should be NO, it is not regulated.)

You see neither the upper or the lower is an assault weapon, it is the combination that is an assault weapon and that is what is regulated.

Mark

[coinboy]

Here is another question that has been bugging me.

If I buy an AR-15 that is (not an H-BAR) a regulated rifle. Then turn I into a non-regulated rifle (H-BAR) and sell it to someone else, is the firearm still considered a regulated rifle or is it now magically a non-regulated rifle?

In answer to your question, I believe they should be sold as non-regulated. There is no law that I have read or heard of that specifically states that the lowers should be and are regulated. I once bought a lower in MD and the dealer told me that unless it had a colapsable stock affixed then it was considered non-regulated. After reading the law many times after that, I believe the dealer was also wrong in his interpretaion. It is a grey area so I later registered the lower just to be safe but I do believe that I really did not have to do so.

[Jaybeez]

Originally Posted by Markp

You see, this blanket answer, while authoritative, lacks substance. So you are saying that all lower receivers are regulated firearms? Even those that are not AR style receivers?

Imagine, if you would, that I created a receiver that accepted and AR upper, but looked NOTHING like an AR lower?

Would it be regulated?

Let's throw out a hypothetical example... I build a lower that has a fixed magazine and has spade grips. No pistol grip, no detachable mag, but works 100% with any AR upper. Is that regulated? Is the firearm regulated? (The answer should be NO, it is not regulated.)

You see neither the upper or the lower is an assault weapon, it is the combination that is an assault weapon and that is what is regulated.

Mark

Herring Modular Sporting Rifle

http://www.aresdefensesales.com/inde...s/Page3157.htm

[Markp]

Perfect example of the "assault weapon" I hypothetically proposed...

Should that be Regulated? (I think you know where I stand on this.) If you do think it should fall under a regulated firearm, why?

Mark

[Jaybeez]

Originally Posted by Markp

Perfect example of the "assault weapon" I hypothetically proposed...

Should that be Regulated? (I think you know where I stand on this.) If you do think it should fall under a regulated firearm, why?

Mark

Serious answer. Of course not.

MDSP answer. Bullet hose, spraying fire from the hip, 100 round banana clips, cop killer black talons in .88mm rutger, dc sniper scope, drive by bayoneting lug, fore end thing that goes up, easilly converted to fully semi automatic fire, looks scary, only military and police, for the children, 88% more likely to be used against the owner, yada yada yada.

[jonnyl]

Originally Posted by Jaybeez

Serious answer. Of course not.

MDSP answer. Bullet hose, spraying fire from the hip, 100 round banana clips, cop killer black talons in .88mm rutger, dc sniper scope, drive by bayoneting lug, fore end thing that goes up, easilly converted to fully semi automatic fire, looks scary, only military and police, for the children, 88% more likely to be used against the owner, yada yada yada.

That's all just gravy... The stock is black isn't it?? So clearly it should be regulated, if not just banned...

[coinboy]

Originally Posted by Jaybeez

Serious answer. Of course not.

MDSP answer. Bullet hose, spraying fire from the hip, 100 round banana clips, cop killer black talons in .88mm rutger, dc sniper scope, drive by bayoneting lug, fore end thing that goes up, easilly converted to fully semi automatic fire, looks scary, only military and police, for the children, 88% more likely to be used against the owner, yada yada yada.

I think if they had the choice, they would just register everything.

[phidelta308]

My biggest take away from this disussion so far? I really REALLY want one of those herring modular sporting rifle lowers!

[Markp]

Originally Posted by phidelta308

My biggest take away from this disussion so far? I really REALLY want one of those herring modular sporting rifle lowers!

It is bitchin' isn't it! Question is, do I need to fill out a form 77R?

[Jaybeez]

Did we already talk about mossberg 500 bullpups? And mossberg 500 stripped receivers? And mossberg 500 shots guns from fudds-r-us?

Is this regulated?

[Markp]

Originally Posted by Jaybeez

Did we already talk about mossberg 500 bullpups? And mossberg 500 stripped receivers? And mossberg 500 shots guns from fudds-r-us?

Is this regulated?

No we haven't. Obviously that could pose a little problem now couldn't it.

Mark

[Jaybeez]

The state police deemed, without legal authority, the gsg to be a regulated firearm, because it looks like a mp5. No mp5 receiver inside the gsg though.


Just who exactly is on the board of the md state firearms dealers association?

[ezeerider]

Originally Posted by phidelta308

My biggest take away from this disussion so far? I really REALLY want one of those herring modular sporting rifle lowers!

Somebody should put together a group buy on those Herring MSR lowers. I know I'd be interested in a few...... as long as they aren't regulated.

[Markp]

Originally Posted by Jaybeez

The state police deemed, without legal authority, the gsg to be a regulated firearm, because it looks like a mp5. No mp5 receiver inside the gsg though.


Just who exactly is on the board of the md state firearms dealers association?

And that is PRECISELY the problem.

The MDSP and others seem to think that they are the arbiters of the legislation that has been passed and unfortunately since we as a group lack the political capital and financial capital to fight every arbitrary decision that these state employees decide to make, regardless of the legality!

Seriously, think about the GSG as a regulated firearm?

Were these .22 caliber "assault rifles" the problem when the law was passed in the first place?

Yet, we are powerless to do much about it because the dealers have no incentive to fight the state on this and the end registrant is relatively powerless. Nice system, eh?

Mark

[WSM]

Welcome to Marylandistan?