MSP now saying all lowers require 77r??

DavidA · Feb 4, 2021

Years ago I ordered a LR308 (AR10 lower) while this rifle is not enumerated as a regulated fire arm FFL’s in this climate are not taking any chances. So a 77R was filed and I waited my 7 days. But you can buy an LR308 cash and carry. Go figure. You can go argue and depending on who you talk to the MSP will say it is either non regulated or they will say it can be turned into a regulated fire arm. Most FFL’s have wisely decided to avoid the sticky wicket by just filing the 77R. Can’t blame them there licenses can be revoked. So to them it is not worth it.

TylerFirearms · Feb 4, 2021

Maryland regulates the AR-15 and the AK-47, therefore they regulate the receiver of those firearms. Any other receiver is not regulated and does not require a 77R. People need to stop asking for permission to do something they can do. That’s what causes these problems. It has nothing to do with “because you can build it into a pistol.” You can build any receiver into a pistol. That’s doesn’t make it regulated by the state. We do not put AR-10, AR-9, 10/22, or Remington 700 receivers on a 77R because those rifles are not regulated - they are cash and carry, just like the rifles. We follow the law, not the opinion of a single person. Opinions mean nothing.

Chuck

Pensfaninmd · Feb 4, 2021

TylerFirearms said:
Maryland regulates the AR-15 and the AK-47, therefore they regulate the receiver of those firearms. Any other receiver is not regulated and does not require a 77R. People need to stop asking for permission to do something they can do. That’s what causes these problems. It has nothing to do with “because you can build it into a pistol.” You can build any receiver into a pistol. That’s doesn’t make it regulated by the state. We do not put AR-10, AR-9, 10/22, or Remington 700 receivers on a 77R because those rifles are not regulated - they are cash and carry, just like the rifles. We follow the law, not the opinion of a single person. Opinions mean nothing.

Chuck

Nickberg500 · Feb 4, 2021

dblas said:
Yeah...ummmm...Not according to MSP guidance.

I'm not trying to argue or anything... But if you read throughout this thread, the MSP guidance for AR-15 lowers is based on it being capable of being built into an enumerated, banned weapon. It has absolutely nothing to do with pistols.

rbird7282 · Feb 4, 2021

DavidA said:
Years ago I ordered a LR308 (AR10 lower) while this rifle is not enumerated as a regulated fire arm FFL’s in this climate are not taking any chances. So a 77R was filed and I waited my 7 days. But you can buy an LR308 cash and carry. Go figure. You can go argue and depending on who you talk to the MSP will say it is either non regulated or they will say it can be turned into a regulated fire arm. Most FFL’s have wisely decided to avoid the sticky wicket by just filing the 77R. Can’t blame them there licenses can be revoked. So to them it is not worth it.

There is no sticky wicket, no gray area, their license wouldn’t be revoked for following the law. The only thing worse than a gun owner with BGOS is an FFL with BGOS. This stuff needs to stop.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

rbird7282 · Feb 4, 2021

TylerFirearms said:
Maryland regulates the AR-15 and the AK-47, therefore they regulate the receiver of those firearms. Any other receiver is not regulated and does not require a 77R. People need to stop asking for permission to do something they can do. That’s what causes these problems. It has nothing to do with “because you can build it into a pistol.” You can build any receiver into a pistol. That’s doesn’t make it regulated by the state. We do not put AR-10, AR-9, 10/22, or Remington 700 receivers on a 77R because those rifles are not regulated - they are cash and carry, just like the rifles. We follow the law, not the opinion of a single person. Opinions mean nothing.

Chuck

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nickberg500 · Feb 4, 2021

VICTORY!!!!

KIBarrister said:
I have formal correspondence from the State Licensing Division from about a year ago that AR-10's are not included in the 77r process.

ETA - email from 3 Jan. 2020

Thank you so much KIBarrister. Your email was my saving grace here, my FFL got S/T Bradley to admit AR-10s do not require a 77r, using your email. See attached response.

Bertfish · Feb 4, 2021

TylerFirearms said:
Maryland regulates the AR-15 and the AK-47, therefore they regulate the receiver of those firearms. Any other receiver is not regulated and does not require a 77R. People need to stop asking for permission to do something they can do. That’s what causes these problems. It has nothing to do with “because you can build it into a pistol.” You can build any receiver into a pistol. That’s doesn’t make it regulated by the state. We do not put AR-10, AR-9, 10/22, or Remington 700 receivers on a 77R because those rifles are not regulated - they are cash and carry, just like the rifles. We follow the law, not the opinion of a single person. Opinions mean nothing.

Chuck

This is why Chuck gets my business

babalou · Feb 4, 2021

da Fook?!

Nickberg500 said:
Thank you so much KIBarrister. Your email was my saving grace here, my FFL got S/T Bradley to admit AR-10s do not require a 77r, using your email. See attached response.

then why the hell did this donk say it required in the first place? Either lazyassness on his part or just being a donk, I guess.

jcutonilli · Feb 4, 2021

TylerFirearms said:
Maryland regulates the AR-15 and the AK-47, therefore they regulate the receiver of those firearms. Any other receiver is not regulated and does not require a 77R. People need to stop asking for permission to do something they can do. That’s what causes these problems. It has nothing to do with “because you can build it into a pistol.” You can build any receiver into a pistol. That’s doesn’t make it regulated by the state. We do not put AR-10, AR-9, 10/22, or Remington 700 receivers on a 77R because those rifles are not regulated - they are cash and carry, just like the rifles. We follow the law, not the opinion of a single person. Opinions mean nothing.

Chuck

I believe MD regulates all firearms. They have created a term call "regulated firearm" (Public Safety 5-101(r)) that includes a subset of firearms. These "regulated firearms" include handguns and "assault long guns". All AK-47s and most AR-15s would be considered an assault long gun. I believe the list of assault long guns includes more than just these two types of firearms.

I am confused about how the receiver of these assault long guns are considered "regulated firearms". I can see where the receiver is defined as a firearm but do not see where the definition of a "regulated firearm" includes just receivers. The guidance from MSP indicates that stripped lower receivers are either handguns nor assault long guns. How exactly are stripped lowers considered regulated firearms that require a 77R?

jcutonilli · Feb 4, 2021

babalou said:
then why the hell did this donk say it required in the first place? Either lazyassness on his part or just being a donk, I guess.

If you read the original post, his FFL said so and wanted to understand why his FFL was saying what they were saying.

Michigander08 · Feb 4, 2021

"assault long guns"

How did we let the politicians and news media defining such a stupid term! If a person (boxer or martial artist) attacks someone, do you say this person has "assault hands" or "assault feet"? If we verbally insult someone, do we have "assault mouth"?

Bountied · Feb 4, 2021

Michigander08 said:
"assault long guns"

How did we let the politicians and news media defining such a stupid term! If a person (boxer or martial artist) attacks someone, do you say this person has "assault hands" or "assault feet"? If we verbally insult someone, do we have "assault mouth"?

Assault sounds scary and the Dems hate scary words so they vote to ban things they deem scary. If you called water dihydrogen monoxide in a bill and said it was dangerous to children the Dems would vote to pass the bill. They're constituents are sheeple that's what they do to convince them.

TylerFirearms · Feb 4, 2021

jcutonilli said:
I believe MD regulates all firearms. They have created a term call "regulated firearm" (Public Safety 5-101(r)) that includes a subset of firearms. These "regulated firearms" include handguns and "assault long guns". All AK-47s and most AR-15s would be considered an assault long gun. I believe the list of assault long guns includes more than just these two types of firearms.

I am confused about how the receiver of these assault long guns are considered "regulated firearms". I can see where the receiver is defined as a firearm but do not see where the definition of a "regulated firearm" includes just receivers. The guidance from MSP indicates that stripped lower receivers are either handguns nor assault long guns. How exactly are stripped lowers considered regulated firearms that require a 77R?

Here in lies the issue. One thing fits a definition, and one thing does not. This is what we deal with on a regular basis. There are times to fight a battle, and times to accept things you cannot change that might cause you to end up in handcuffs. A technicality is not a justified reason to end up in handcuffs, in my opinion.

Technically, the AR-15 lower is not legally a receiver because there is no mechanism to attach a barrel. The upper is not the receiver because it does not house the firing pin and trigger mechanism. Should we push that or let a sleeping dog lie? That is a fight that I’m not willing to fight for fear of everything becoming banned.

Sometimes we have to let things as they are. It’s not right, but the consequences could be detrimental to our health and well being... LOL

Chuck

NateIU10 · Feb 4, 2021

TylerFirearms said:
Here in lies the issue. One thing fits a definition, and one thing does not. This is what we deal with on a regular basis. There are times to fight a battle, and times to accept things you cannot change that might cause you to end up in handcuffs. A technicality is not a justified reason to end up in handcuffs, in my opinion.

Technically, the AR-15 lower is not legally a receiver because there is no mechanism to attach a barrel. The upper is not the receiver because it does not house the firing pin and trigger mechanism. Should we push that or let a sleeping dog lie? That is a fight that I’m not willing to fight for fear of everything becoming banned.

Sometimes we have to let things as they are. It’s not right, but the consequences could be detrimental to our health and well being... LOL

Chuck

Look, I get it. Highly regulated business in an unfriendly state. But this isn’t a close question (to me at least). Any receiver cannot meet the definition of a regulated firearm and is cash and carry. Hard stop.

We aren’t taking federal law here, so the “not a receiver” issue doesn’t matter. Assuming an AR-type lower is a firearm for purposes of MD law, it is not a “regulated firearm.” Just because MSP has always done it that way or says so doesn’t make it so. They are wrong. It’s not a “technicality,” that’s how law works.

sxs · Feb 4, 2021

tkd4life said:
I lived in Arizona recently as a Maryland resident. The FBI did not approve my NICS check when I tried to buy a stripped AR15 lower in AZ as they said my home state would not allow the transfer because I could build it into a pistol. I had to sell the lower.

It was frustrating because I specifically asked the FFL in AZ if he could do the transfer before I bought the lower. He was just misinformed...

The FFL in AZ couldn't do it because the AR 15 lower is regulated. It has nothing to do with being built into a handgun. AR15s were regulated pre-2013 although you could buy them. Because the lower can be built into a banned configuration (i.e. pre 2013, non HBAR), the MD SP has deemed it "regulated" if the lower is AR15 compatible.

sxs · Feb 4, 2021

TylerFirearms said:
Maryland regulates the AR-15 and the AK-47, therefore they regulate the receiver of those firearms. Any other receiver is not regulated and does not require a 77R. People need to stop asking for permission to do something they can do. That’s what causes these problems. It has nothing to do with “because you can build it into a pistol.” You can build any receiver into a pistol. That’s doesn’t make it regulated by the state. We do not put AR-10, AR-9, 10/22, or Remington 700 receivers on a 77R because those rifles are not regulated - they are cash and carry, just like the rifles. We follow the law, not the opinion of a single person. Opinions mean nothing.

Chuck

I didn't read through the thread far enough to see this before posting. Well stated, Chuck.

One more thing to add...I have people tell me all the time that an MD SP Trooper or whatever says something regarding firearms, so it must be so. The correspondence above from Sgt Edwards is the definitive answer for all practical purposes. You always have to go back to the firearms registration and Edwards is the Sgt who takes care of the section. I agree in principle with NateIU10, but regardless of that opinion, until the law changes or a court decision renders a decision void, Licensing Division, Firearms Registration Section is the deciding entity.

jcutonilli · Feb 4, 2021

TylerFirearms said:
Here in lies the issue. One thing fits a definition, and one thing does not. This is what we deal with on a regular basis. There are times to fight a battle, and times to accept things you cannot change that might cause you to end up in handcuffs. A technicality is not a justified reason to end up in handcuffs, in my opinion.

Technically, the AR-15 lower is not legally a receiver because there is no mechanism to attach a barrel. The upper is not the receiver because it does not house the firing pin and trigger mechanism. Should we push that or let a sleeping dog lie? That is a fight that I’m not willing to fight for fear of everything becoming banned.

Sometimes we have to let things as they are. It’s not right, but the consequences could be detrimental to our health and well being... LOL

Chuck

I get that in the case of ambiguity, the safer course of action is to go with the more conservative definition available, but I do not see how that is applicable here.

Technically there is no definition of a receiver in MD or Federal law. The COMAR does not appear to define a receiver either. Only the Federal CFR presents a definition that could be interpreted to indicate that a stripped lower is not technically a firearm. Given the lack of definition in the law and the general acceptance that a stripped lower is the part considered to be the firearm receiver, it seems prudent to accept the fact that a stripped lower is the receiver.

What is unclear is how a stripped lower becomes a "regulated firearm" under MD law, which requires a regulated firearm application (77R). Based on MSP's own guidance they acknowledge that a stripped lower is neither a handgun nor an assault long gun. Yet MSP says that you have to file a 77R for certain stripped lowers. There does not seem to be any ambiguity over this issue.

sxs · Feb 4, 2021

jcutonilli said:
What is unclear is how a stripped lower becomes a "regulated firearm" under MD law, which requires a regulated firearm application (77R). Based on MSP's own guidance they acknowledge that a stripped lower is neither a handgun nor an assault long gun. Yet MSP says that you have to file a 77R for certain stripped lowers. There does not seem to be any ambiguity over this issue.

Most small business owners do not have deep enough pockets to treat the AR15 lower as other than regulated. To do so could result in charges and loss of your regulated firearms license at minimum until possibly years down the road getting a favorable decision. And with Marylands liberal courts, you may not ever get that favorable decision.

TylerFirearms · Feb 4, 2021

jcutonilli said:
I get that in the case of ambiguity, the safer course of action is to go with the more conservative definition available, but I do not see how that is applicable here.

Technically there is no definition of a receiver in MD or Federal law. The COMAR does not appear to define a receiver either. Only the Federal CFR presents a definition that could be interpreted to indicate that a stripped lower is not technically a firearm. Given the lack of definition in the law and the general acceptance that a stripped lower is the part considered to be the firearm receiver, it seems prudent to accept the fact that a stripped lower is the receiver.

What is unclear is how a stripped lower becomes a "regulated firearm" under MD law, which requires a regulated firearm application (77R). Based on MSP's own guidance they acknowledge that a stripped lower is neither a handgun nor an assault long gun. Yet MSP says that you have to file a 77R for certain stripped lowers. There does not seem to be any ambiguity over this issue.

You are correct. The law is clear as mud and as easy to eat as a soup sandwich, but the fact remains, as sxs so eloquently wrote, that us small businesses don’t have the legal backing to fight these fights. We would be out of business very quickly as it goes through the court system which would take years. As I said before, some fights we can win, and others we cannot. Some are worth fighting and others are not. Some have called me a fudd more than once for saying that, but it’s not their livelihood on the line... LOL

Chuck

MSP now saying all lowers require 77r??

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

The Master of Disaster

, , Class-7 FFL, MRFD

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Attachments

Throw bread on me

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

ridiculous and psychotic

Ultimate Member

, , Class-7 FFL, MRFD

Ultimate Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Ultimate Member

Senior Member

, , Class-7 FFL, MRFD

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics