AR lower transfer question

[Sirex]

I apologize in advance, as I am a newb to ARs. I may be doing a trade with a guy for his built AR. He bought the lower, had to wait a few months to go back after the background check to pick up his lower, then he built it into a HBAR rifle. So, since he had to do the extended background check, like a regulated firearm, but it is now a cash and carry HBAR, do we have to go to a FFL to do a transfer to get it out of his name? Thanks

 

[BradMacc82]

Nope, built as hbar - sell as hbar.

 

[foodpoison]

Was it a pre ban lower?

 

[Sirex]

he said he did the lower transfer and it was done like a pistol transfer, and it took him months to call back to come and get it because of the backlog. I am assuming it was around 2013

 

[AJRB]

he said he did the lower transfer and it was done like a pistol transfer, and it took him months to call back to come and get it because of the backlog. I am assuming it was around 2013

I wouldn't be selling that lower if I were him. After its sold as an Hbar that's it, it has to stay Hbar(or pistol). He could keep it and build into whatever he wants, regardless of how it was initially built, if it was in fact a pre ban lower.

 

[rgramjet]

I'd go buy a lower for ~$100 brand new, designated for a pistol build. No HQL necessary.

You can buy two as long as you don't plan on buying another registered weapon for 60 days.

 

[j8064]

This is another of those never-ending "interpretation" issues we all face. And (IMHO) exemplifies lunacy in MD law. For example:
- If I purchased a non regulated HBAR config AR-15 prior to SB281, it remains a non-regulated rifle -> C&C.
- If I had installed a non-HBAR upper on the aforementioned rifle prior to SB281, that would be OK (then), but (since that config is now banned for transfer) is it still OK if I put the original upper back on?
- If I purchased stripped AR-15 lowers prior to SB281 (which required PPW & background checks) and built them into non-HBAR configs - then they would now be banned for transfer - unless (of course) I had originally built them with an HBAR upper (or replaced the upper with an HBAR) config which is not banned and C&C.
- But wait - I did PPW on those "regulated" lowers! How could it be a completed rifle in an HBAR config now makes them C&C? Hell, there's a PPW trail with the S/N's on my lowers that have my name attached to them - regardless of what config the upper is if and when they leave my possession.
- Then there's the questions of lowers built into pistols/SBR's that come into play: Etc, Etc...

Even trying to understand what I just articulated makes my brain hurt.

Sure, it's lunacy. And I don't want to be the test case.

Sirex, it was me... I'd get my own lower, buy all the guy's parts, let him keep his lower and build a new HBAR config myself.

Ain't Marylandistan a fun place to live?

 

[Sirex]

Geez, I need to get out of MD. He wants one of my rifles, I am possibly interested in his AR. He wanted to trade, but wanted me to come down to Glen Burnie to do the transfer. I am not against a FFL doing a transfer, as I am all nicey nice with the FBI, just the extra cost of a check, and the hours we can meet is a bit difficult. Would rather do it on a Sunday when I have time to drive down there. So, consensus, since it's built as a HBAR, it can be sold as such? Just no changing to anything else?

 

[outrider58]

he said he did the lower transfer and it was done like a pistol transfer, and it took him months to call back to come and get it because of the backlog. I am assuming it was around 2013

''Around 2013"? Must be more specific.

I wouldn't be selling that lower if I were him. After its sold as an Hbar that's it, it has to stay Hbar(or pistol). He could keep it and build into whatever he wants, regardless of how it was initially built, if it was in fact a pre ban lower.

Only if it was first configured as a pistol. Otherwise, a pistol is a no go.

I'd go buy a lower for ~$100 brand new, designated for a pistol build. No HQL necessary.

I would never buy a lower designated ''pistol''. Multi yes, pistol, no.

 

[AJRB]

''Around 2013"? Must be more specific.



Only if it was first configured as a pistol. Otherwise, a pistol is a no go.

Sure it's not the other way around? If it started as an Hbar it can become a legal pistol. But not vice versa.

If you drop a pistol upper on a new lower, you manufactured a pistol that can't become an Hbar, is what I had been thinking. Too confusing for sure.

 

['04 Cummins]

Sure it's not the other way around? If it started as an Hbar it can become a legal pistol. But not vice versa.

If you drop a pistol upper on a new lower, you manufactured a pistol that can't become an Hbar, is what I had been thinking. Too confusing for sure.

You have it backwards. If it starts as a rifle, it can never be made into a pistol, however, if it starts as a pistol it can be made into a rifle.

 

[Biggfoot44]

For the OP's origonal question , there is no concencus. Multiple plaausabilities can be puit forth.

Meanwhile if starts as a rifle ( regardless of Md HBAR status ) , going to shorter than 16in bbl requires NFA . A virgin stripped reciever may become any ottherwise legal configuraation. ( In Md an HBAR or Pistol , or form 1 SBR. Sidestepping question of pre 10/01/13 naked virgins.)

 

[Pinecone]

I wouldn't be selling that lower if I were him. After its sold as an Hbar that's it, it has to stay Hbar(or pistol). He could keep it and build into whatever he wants, regardless of how it was initially built, if it was in fact a pre ban lower.

It can't be a pistol if it started as a rifle. If it started as a pistol, then made into a rifle, it can be made back into a pistol.

It could be an SBR.

My lowers have all been built as a pistol first, then a rifle, then SBR once the paperwork cleared.

 

[pwoolford]

It can't be a pistol if it started as a rifle. If it started as a pistol, then made into a rifle, it can be made back into a pistol.

It could be an SBR.

My lowers have all been built as a pistol first, then a rifle, then SBR once the paperwork cleared.

This is how I understand it too but I nominate this as the stupidest ATF rule on earth. Followed closely in second place is the need to engrave an SBR lower when the model/serial# is already on the form 1!!

 

[outrider58]

This is how I understand it too but I nominate this as the stupidest ATF rule on earth. Followed closely in second place is the need to engrave an SBR lower when the model/serial# is already on the form 1!!

Once again... never apply logic.

 

[lkenefic]

After reading through these posts, I finally grasp the original intent of SB281... make the law so convoluted and vague that otherwise rational humans will simply throw their hands up in disgust and walk away...

 

[outrider58]

After reading through these posts, I finally grasp the original intent of SB281... make the law so convoluted and vague that otherwise rational humans will simply throw their hands up in disgust and walk away...

Winner!

 

[clandestine]

The problem as I see it is the MSP Paperwork. When you purchase a Handgun or Receiver that's regulated, you initial on the form, that you undestand that the firearm is regulated and must be transferred as regulated.

I don't think a buyer will get in trouble, but the buyer may have their firearm confiscated by the MSP, well because they can.

 

[Pinecone]

This is how I understand it too but I nominate this as the stupidest ATF rule on earth. Followed closely in second place is the need to engrave an SBR lower when the model/serial# is already on the form 1!!

It used to be, once it became a rifle, it had to stay a rifle.

But there was one commercially available firearm that caused this to be changed. But ATF did not want to allow "sawed off" rifles, so kept the "if first a rifle, must stay a rifle" provision.

As things evolve, logic does not always remain, assuming there was any in the first lace.

 

[Pinecone]

The problem as I see it is the MSP Paperwork. When you purchase a Handgun or Receiver that's regulated, you initial on the form, that you undestand that the firearm is regulated and must be transferred as regulated.

I don't think a buyer will get in trouble, but the buyer may have their firearm confiscated by the MSP, well because they can.

I just looked at the 77R (current version) and don't see this. I see the statement that you have to notify if the regulated firearm is lost or stolen.

And strangely, you have to notify any "subsequent recipient of the firearm" of this requirement. Strange, since any subsequent recipient needs to fill out their own 77R.