What can be built on a pre-2013 AR Lower?

[johnkn]

Suppose a MD resident has a new AR lower that was legally purchased prior to 2013, are there restrictions on what (legal length) upper can be put on it? Does the upper need to be marked HBAR or something? What about a .50 Beowulf or 458 Socom upper? Thank you..

 

[Vile Shadow]

That's been a source of much discussion here, and some will tell you you're not allowed to do it because there is nothing in writing anywhere that says you ARE allowed to do it. .

In my mind, that's completely ass backwards.

I say, if it's pre-ban, build it into whatever the hell you want that isn't NFA.

 

[ShallNotInfringe]

That's been a source of much discussion here, and some will tell you you're not allowed to do it because there is nothing in writing anywhere that says you ARE allowed to do it. . In my mind, that's completely ass backwards. I say, if it's pre-ban, build it into whatever the hell you want that isn't NFA.

Ditto. Otherwise why did we have a mad rush?!?! besides the govt spends it's time telling is what NOT to do..

Language suggestion... I wouldn't refer to it as "new", but simply "pre -FSA13".

 

[NateIU10]

MSP says you can. I'm unsure of their logic on this one, and the rest of the advisory is bunk, but that's for an entire new post. HBAR not necessary but 16" for SBR purposes still applies, obviously.

 

[johnkn]

Thanks everyone.....

 

[Pinecone]

MSP says you can. I'm unsure of their logic on this one, and the rest of the advisory is bunk, but that's for an entire new post. HBAR not necessary but 16" for SBR purposes still applies, obviously.

AWESOME.

That is reasonably new, as several of us got other opinions from MSP licensing.

 

[fidelity]

Can find the FAQ that Nate points to here ...

http://mdsp.maryland.gov/Organizati...ision/Firearms/RegulatedFirearmPurchases.aspx

And need to click on the "+ CATEGORY : REGULATED FIREARMS PURCHASES ‎(12)" near the bottom to expand the FAQ list.

Attached is a similar advisory from the Maryland State Police released in 2014.

I do think that some of the above enforcement guidance in the PDF is a reach, but on the point of stripped receivers purchased prior to October 1, 2013, at least it is consistent with what legislators were saying when FSA 2013/SB-281 was being enacted.

 

[NateIU10]

AWESOME.

That is reasonably new, as several of us got other opinions from MSP licensing.

It's a long story that I will post later, but apparently licensing division has been using this since the time it is dated (2014) but never publicly released it until July 19, 2015 EXCEPT they released it to some dealers after that initial date via private emails. The logic on lowers makes no sense, at all, because we all know they're firearms but it doesn't explain how they're REGULATED firearms. I have a PIA request in on the subject and a separate letter asking Pallozzi et all to review it and outline the inconsistencies with MD law.

 

[fidelity]

I guess that's why I didn't find the 2014 advisory in the past. I (incorrectly) assumed that I missed it. How are they reacting to you guys selling lowers with just a NICS check? Are other dealers adopting this policy?

 

[dtmeyers]

It's a long story that I will post later, but apparently licensing division has been using this since the time it is dated (2014) but never publicly released it until July 19, 2015 EXCEPT they released it to some dealers after that initial date via private emails. The logic on lowers makes no sense, at all, because we all know they're firearms but it doesn't explain how they're REGULATED firearms. I have a PIA request in on the subject and a separate letter asking Pallozzi et all to review it and outline the inconsistencies with MD law.

I was one of those who called/email a few times and got different answers. First email was yes, first call was yes. I had a friend email and got a no. Then I called again and got a no.

At least this clear things up, thanks.

 

[ShallNotInfringe]

I was one of those who called/email a few times and got different answers. First email was yes, first call was yes. I had a friend email and got a no. Then I called again and got a no.

At least this clear things up, thanks.

Until the next guy says no

 

[dtmeyers]

Until the next guy says no

Strike while the fire is hot! BUY BUY BUY

 

[outrider58]

Until the next guy says no

Strike while the fire is hot! BUY BUY BUY

^^^Yes!

 

[Art3]

Does it matter if the pre2013 lower was originally purchased as a complete hbar? Could it still legally be fitted with a 16+ inch light upper?

 

[Bafflingbs]

 

[Vile Shadow]

Does it matter if the pre2013 lower was originally purchased as a complete hbar? Could it still legally be fitted with a 16+ inch light upper?

My understanding is no. It would have to have been originally sold as regulated.

 

[anotherITguy]

Strike while the fire is hot! BUY BUY BUY

Do you really see them reversing their own advisory?

 

[jrumann59]

I ordered a lot of pre-FSA lowers and slapped non HBAR uppers on them. for a day.

 

[Squaregrouper]

I ordered a lot of pre-FSA lowers and slapped non HBAR uppers on them. for a day.

I actually did something very similar...
I put a pencil barreled upper on them and fired one round per lower on 10/28/13. They were officially assembled (and fired) as non-HBAR's prior to 11/01/13; albeit for <30 minutes each. Fortunately I had LPK's for all of them. Unfortunately, I only had one barreled upper, buffer and stock. Otherwise, the ~30 minutes each would have dropped to ~3 minutes each.
It was all in the name of covering myself under Owe'Malley's new law.

 

[anotherITguy]

I actually did something very similar...
I put a pencil barreled upper on them and fired one round per lower on 10/28/13. They were officially assembled (and fired) as non-HBAR's prior to 11/01/13; albeit for <30 minutes each. Fortunately I had LPK's for all of them. Unfortunately, I only had one barreled upper, buffer and stock. Otherwise, the ~30 minutes each would have dropped to ~3 minutes each.
It was all in the name of covering myself under Owe'Malley's new law.

Since MSP advisory Ld-frs-14-003 was made public last month, I think it's safe to say that this was unnecessary, though a good call at the time.