My First AR "Molly"

[DaemonAssassin]

Of course, MSP and the AG office have never changed what they say.

The point is, MSP is saying that rifles build now, need to conform to FSA2013 requires no matter when the lower was purchased.

We are SEEING this with SBRs right now.

How you can look at what they are doing with SBRs and say that building a banned configuration NOW if OK is beyond me. No matter what was said in the past.

But if you are happy with it, great. I just hope the owner doesn't get nailed for it at some point.

If you aren't paying attention, then that's your problem. The rifle was completed a long time ago. He finally hopped back on here and decided to post it. I have no idea where you are coming up with SBR stuff, considering that is not relevant to this conversation. Nor can I understand why you are spouting off about a rifle you know nothing about, since you weren't there when I built it for him, with his preban lower. I know the specs of the rifle, because I told him what parts he needed to get. That parts list he posted, was the parts list I told him to get. I assembled his rifle in my kitchen, when I was supposed to take my vacation.

With all due respect, it was built months before lowers were legalized again in MD. Also that rifle is NOT, I REPEAT NOT an SBR, due to having a 16" barrel. Blow the SBR talk in the NFA threads and stop making assumptions about things you know nothing about, other than what you see in a picture.

 

[Haides]

www.fatchicksinpartyhats.com

 

[jmike1487]

good job breaking the ice lol

 

[Pinecone]

If you aren't paying attention, then that's your problem. The rifle was completed a long time ago. He finally hopped back on here and decided to post it. I have no idea where you are coming up with SBR stuff, considering that is not relevant to this conversation. Nor can I understand why you are spouting off about a rifle you know nothing about, since you weren't there when I built it for him, with his preban lower. I know the specs of the rifle, because I told him what parts he needed to get. That parts list he posted, was the parts list I told him to get. I assembled his rifle in my kitchen, when I was supposed to take my vacation.

With all due respect, it was built months before lowers were legalized again in MD. Also that rifle is NOT, I REPEAT NOT an SBR, due to having a 16" barrel. Blow the SBR talk in the NFA threads and stop making assumptions about things you know nothing about, other than what you see in a picture.

And you obviously have reading comprehension skills issues.

I NEVER SAID THAT THE RIFLE PICTURED WAS AN SBR.

I have only said that the way that MSP is currently handling SBRs, indicates that they are treating the date of assembly as paramount, NOT the date of purchase of the lower.

It may be fine, it may not be fine. Building it months ago might help, as at that point MSP had no consistent policy. Also, the OP did not state it was built months ago.

And as always, it if up to the individual to decide what level of possible risk they are willing to assume.

 

[Haides]

Good thing OP stuck an M4-profile barreled upper on it before 10/1/13 just to be safe.

 

[teratos]

And you obviously have reading comprehension skills issues.

I NEVER SAID THAT THE RIFLE PICTURED WAS AN SBR.

I have only said that the way that MSP is currently handling SBRs, indicates that they are treating the date of assembly as paramount, NOT the date of purchase of the lower.

It may be fine, it may not be fine. Building it months ago might help, as at that point MSP had no consistent policy. Also, the OP did not state it was built months ago.

And as always, it if up to the individual to decide what level of possible risk they are willing to assume.

If you consider how they treat SBR's, they do not consider it changing a configuration, it is considered manufacturing a new firearm.

 

[teratos]

Good thing OP stuck an M4-profile barreled upper on it before 10/1/13 just to be safe.

Since I like being in compliance with the rules, I actually did that with all my lowers. A little of pre-10/1/13 magic was transferred into each of my lowers. The MSP can call Harry Potter in as a consultant if needed.

 

[DC-W]

Good work.

I'd move that back up sight as far back as it can go though. You wanna use as much real-estate as you can up top for your sight radius.

The further apart those sights, the more accurate you can be.

 

[DaemonAssassin]

And you obviously have reading comprehension skills issues.

I NEVER SAID THAT THE RIFLE PICTURED WAS AN SBR.

I have only said that the way that MSP is currently handling SBRs, indicates that they are treating the date of assembly as paramount, NOT the date of purchase of the lower.

It may be fine, it may not be fine. Building it months ago might help, as at that point MSP had no consistent policy. Also, the OP did not state it was built months ago.

And as always, it if up to the individual to decide what level of possible risk they are willing to assume.

Apparently I do at 5am.

From the beginning when you were talking about SBR's, it was highly confusing as to why you were doing that. I understand what you were trying to say after going back over it all. Really sorry about that.

MSP has nothing they can really do to him, because when they were built, they were built in a legal configuration at that time. If we were abiding by the law and making one into a legal firearm, they can't change their minds later and have any standing in court, for attempting to prosecute somebody. Now if it was spelled out in FSA2013 that it has to be this way with all of the pre 10/1/13 lowers, then I would truly understand this lunacy. Except it is not spelled out in FSA2013, nor is this stuff spelled out in COMAR or anywhere else. They are just opinions and they come and go, like a raunchy fart on a summer breeze (rip on MSP brass and the AG). Hell, MSP and the AG change their minds so much, that I'm surprised they have any memory of what happened 3 seconds ago. Also the burden of proof is on him as to when he built the rifle. If all they have is when he posted the picture, then their proof is so thin, I can see China through it.

 

[BradMacc82]

That's it, this is going to be a pony thread if your just going to continue on bickering about how schizophrenic the MSP and AG are.


For the love of god, you know we'll do it.

 

[Pinecone]

Apparently I do at 5am.

From the beginning when you were talking about SBR's, it was highly confusing as to why you were doing that. I understand what you were trying to say after going back over it all. Really sorry about that.

MSP has nothing they can really do to him, because when they were built, they were built in a legal configuration at that time. If we were abiding by the law and making one into a legal firearm, they can't change their minds later and have any standing in court, for attempting to prosecute somebody. Now if it was spelled out in FSA2013 that it has to be this way with all of the pre 10/1/13 lowers, then I would truly understand this lunacy. Except it is not spelled out in FSA2013, nor is this stuff spelled out in COMAR or anywhere else. They are just opinions and they come and go, like a raunchy fart on a summer breeze (rip on MSP brass and the AG). Hell, MSP and the AG change their minds so much, that I'm surprised they have any memory of what happened 3 seconds ago. Also the burden of proof is on him as to when he built the rifle. If all they have is when he posted the picture, then their proof is so thin, I can see China through it.

Thanks.

Yeah, the mind changing of MSP and AG are why I prefer to look at the most conservative approach. Just not worth the problems if for some reason they come after you.

Funny thing is, the safe thing to do, if you want a pencil barrel, is to build it into an SBR. Probably not what MSP/AG figured.

 

[DaemonAssassin]

That's it, this is going to be a pony thread if your just going to continue on bickering about how schizophrenic the MSP and AG are.


For the love of god, you know we'll do it.

I already did it.

 

[hottubcliffordjames]

Already did. Taking her out later today to get some rounds down range and get comfy shooting her with the sights she's got on her now. Hopefully i'll get her to an outdoor range to zero her in soon (at mech. zero now).

 

[hottubcliffordjames]

And DA and PC. Calm yourselves down. I ran through all the checks, with fam. and friends in MSP (post DA's expertise), as well as the gun store I frequent. I'm kosher like a Hollywood executive. Heaven forbid I didn't post it when it was actually built (5 months ago) and when I bought the lowers (close to a year ago before 10/1/13). I actually had more awesome stuff to do, like laugh at a bunch of marks arguing over something that doesn't even matter.

I appreciate your concern, but I am within the confines of the law. Believe me, if I wasn't, then I wouldn't go about and post this picture.

 

[Pinecone]

If you checked with MSP now, you might get a different answer.

5 months ago, less than 29" SBRs on pre-Oct 1 lowers were OK. Now they are not.

Nothing like consistency.