AR15 lower still legal to purchase?

[newq]

So which dealer is selling lowers? I would gladly travel statewide if need be to get some.

+1 I would bang down there door for one.

 

[Calengor]

The pertinent parts:

Under section 921(a)(3)(B), frames or receivers are defined as firearms. However, frames and receivers are not rifles, shotguns, or handguns (pistols or revolvers) even if they can only be made into one of these firearms. See Title 27, Code of Federal Regulations, section 478.11 (defining these terms). This is because a frame or receiver does not have the features reuired for a rifle or shotgun (e.g., a buttsock indicating it is designed and intended to be fired from the shoulder), or a pistol or revolver (e.g., a weapon with a short stock designed to be gripped by one hand and at an angle to and extenting below the line of the bore).

 

[webb297]

So which dealer is selling lowers? I would gladly travel statewide if need be to get some.

Nobody is selling them.

What Nate is saying (I believe) is that lowers should be available per the letter of the law. So, when the question is asked "is it legal" the answer is "yes" because per the letter of the law, it is not illegal to sell an HBAR lower or a pistol lower.

However, the MSP is not allowing any lowers to be sold, thus acting outside of the law as it is written.

Nate has said that he is fighting this practice with the MSP, and I truly hope he whoops up on them, but in the interim, functionally, stripped lowers are not available to the buying public in Maryland.

 

[bigalf]

Hopefully this will gain some traction. I should have bought a lower when I could have, now I kind of regret it. For the record can I still get a lower if it is dedicated as a pistol lower in MD?

 

[Calengor]

Hopefully this will gain some traction. I should have bought a lower when I could have, now I kind of regret it. For the record can I still get a lower if it is dedicated as a pistol lower in MD?

In that case it would have to be on the roster. And it couldn't be a stripped lower as I understand it.

 

[webb297]

Hopefully this will gain some traction. I should have bought a lower when I could have, now I kind of regret it. For the record can I still get a lower if it is dedicated as a pistol lower in MD?

Goodness. Legally - Yes, in reality NO, not right now.

But you can buy a AR Pistol, any time you like.

 

[Robert1955]

You can also buy a H-Bar rifle as cash and carry today.

 

[Pinecone]

One could swap the upper on and HBAR, or swap the upper, and add a stock to a pistol.

However those also would be illegal as you would be making a banned firearm.

 

[gungate]

I was trying to sell 6 stripped lowers pre-ban on the sale boards here and no one was interested. Glad I kept them now.

 

[Brooklyn]

Hum.. does this mean that all the striped lowers that were sold prior to fsa2013 should have been cash and carry? Or am I misunderstanding..

 

[Calengor]

Hum.. does this mean that all the striped lowers that were sold prior to fsa2013 should have been cash and carry? Or am I misunderstanding..

Should have been, since they weren't technically rifles nor pistols. But no FFL in MD would have done it (one or two may have, I don't know for sure).

 

[Brooklyn]

Should have been, since they weren't technically rifles nor pistols. But no FFL in MD would have done it (one or two may have, I don't know for sure).

Oh I know they would not. Nor out of state. But. ..we could litigate.
.

Could get interesting.. sue for refund of fees time and travel.. etc.

Plus.. we should be able to do this in any out of state FFL. And what about ftf. Sales.. is it legal? And of course if it legal to by its legal to build...

Quite a can of worms Nate has opened...

We may find an attempt to close it in the next session however...

 

[DaemonAssassin]

Much debate on 80% lowers going on over here...


http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=153167

 

[nedsurf]

Oh I know they would not. Nor out of state. But. ..we could litigate.
.

Could get interesting.. sue for refund of fees time and travel.. etc.

I'd put my money where my keyboard is for that class action. Nothing like drowning your opponent in litigation on every point of the law. Gurailla (SP intentional) litigation works.

 

[AJRB]

This seems eerily similar to the 8 day release debacle. Are the dealers going to follow the law, or msp?

 

[Calengor]

Oh I know they would not. Nor out of state. But. ..we could litigate.
.

Could get interesting.. sue for refund of fees time and travel.. etc.

Plus.. we should be able to do this in any out of state FFL. And what about ftf. Sales.. is it legal? And of course if it legal to by its legal to build...

Quite a can of worms Nate has opened...

We may find an attempt to close it in the next session however...

Out of state is a no-no, since "Others" are treated like Handguns in that regard.

FTF, since it's neither a rifle/shotgun nor a handgun, I can't see why it wouldn't be legal.

 

[anderson76]

I, respectfully, disagree. I am working on getting this resolved for the dealers, but MSP knows they do not have a leg to stand on.

I share your position.

However if you get MSP to reverse themselves -- then all of those stripped AR lowers, that were not built up prior to 10/01, will not be grandfathered as ALGs.

 

[erwos]

I share your position.

However if you get MSP to reverse themselves -- then all of those stripped AR lowers, that were not built up prior to 10/01, will not be grandfathered as ALGs.

*ding ding ding* I brought that up a very long time ago in an early version of the FAQ. People thought I was crazy when I told them that they needed to have built the lower into a banned rifle before the ban because of this problem.

Maybe you guys could set the MSP straight on the fact that "Bushmaster rifle" is a specific gun that's not an AR-15 (or an ACR, or an M17S).

 

[NateIU10]

I share your position.

However if you get MSP to reverse themselves -- then all of those stripped AR lowers, that were not built up prior to 10/01, will not be grandfathered as ALGs.

Correct. MSP has been doing crazy stuff recently with the pre Oct. 1 ALGs, stating they can be SBRs regardless of copycat tests, even though you didn't possess the Copycat prior to 10/1, you possessed an ALG, and the new SBR is not an ALG, so who knows if they will say that 77Red stripped lowers were "grandfathered Assault Weapon Receivers." Though that would expose them to some pretty good legal challenges, so who knows.

*ding ding ding* I brought that up a very long time ago in an early version of the FAQ. People thought I was crazy when I told them that they needed to have built the lower into a banned rifle before the ban because of this problem.

Maybe you guys could set the MSP straight on the fact that "Bushmaster rifle" is a specific gun that's not an AR-15 (or an ACR, or an M17S).

Bushmaster is another one I am trying to work on, but that one is slow-going at best.

 

[Kingjamez]

*ding ding ding* I brought that up a very long time ago in an early version of the FAQ. People thought I was crazy when I told them that they needed to have built the lower into a banned rifle before the ban because of this problem.

Maybe you guys could set the MSP straight on the fact that "Bushmaster rifle" is a specific gun that's not an AR-15 (or an ACR, or an M17S).

Yep! This is the reason that I think some here are so violently objecting to arguments saying that you 1. Should be able to buy a stripped lower, and 2. Can still build an 80% (or 0%) into a legal firearm.

The consequences of that could be that pre-October 1 receivers are not ALG's/Copycats.

Now, MSP has also essentially said in its recent interaction with BATFE: "If it's Pre-October, it's grandfathered" no matter its status pre-Oct... let's hope it stays that way.


-Jim