md law on uppers?

beast7 · Jun 3, 2017

sorry guys but i dont speak the lingo. still confused. so my preban lower can be built pretty much anyway bc you dont register uppers to know when they were purchased? or does the barrel length etc still have to comply?

DubTap21 · Jun 4, 2017

beast7 said:
sorry guys but i dont speak the lingo. still confused. so my preban lower can be built pretty much anyway bc you dont register uppers to know when they were purchased? or does the barrel length etc still have to comply?

Barrel length has to comply regardless of pre or post ban. An upper on a pre ban lower can be built whatever way you like.

Sent from my SM-N930T using Tapatalk

DubTap21 · Jun 4, 2017

beast7 said:
sorry guys but i dont speak the lingo. still confused. so my preban lower can be built pretty much anyway bc you dont register uppers to know when they were purchased? or does the barrel length etc still have to comply?

Sent from my SM-N930T using Tapatalk

Biggfoot44 · Jun 4, 2017

Bbl length must comply with NFA ( min 16in)
Any profile you wish .

Biggfoot44 · Jun 4, 2017

Bbl length must comply with NFA ( min 16in)
Any profile you wish .

Doobie · Jun 4, 2017

Mole?

DubTap21 · Jun 4, 2017

Doobie said:
Mole?

I like the way you think.

Sent from my SM-N930T using Tapatalk

boothdoc · Jun 4, 2017

Lol. Exactly

fabsroman · Jun 4, 2017

DubTap21 said:
Stupid is, as stupid does. Not wishing bad on anyone in our community, but if someone admits to that in an open forum, they deserve whatever they get imo.

Sent from my SM-N930T using Tapatalk

People will admit it to officers that ask them about it. Heck, it very well might be an undercover officer asking, "Nice gun, When did you build it up?" Gun owner: "Oh, I built it up last week." Undercover: "How did you have it configured before that?" Gun owner: "It was just a stripped lower before that. Bought the lower back in 2013 but just now decided to finish it." Out come the metal bracelets.

Of course, there is also a MSP memorandum that makes completing a pre FSA 2013 stripped lower a little murky. I'll attach it to this post. Note that the advisory is dated May 16, 2014 and it answers whether a receiver purchased before 10/1/2013 can be built into an assault long gun. MSP says yes.

Then, there is the issue of building these lowers into pistols first and foremost so you have the freedom of making them a pistol or rifle in the future. Once a rifle, always a rifle.

fabsroman · Jun 4, 2017

swinokur said:
But you would have been creating a regulated firearm from a non regulated firearm even before 10-1-13. MSP would not be happy if they check the serial number and find it was originally sold without a 77r or the 7 day wait, not to mention the extra databases MSP checks for a regulated firearm as opposed to a single NICS check for a non regulated firearm.

Bigfoot pointed this out in a previous post.

If I bought a HBAR before 10/1/2013 and changed the barrel on it to a medium contour or thinner prior to 10/1/2013, was there anything I had to do form wise? I don't think so. There was no requirement to notify anybody if the firearm was changed from an HBAR to that of a regulated nature. Was I required to complete a Form 77R upon the swapping of the HBAR barrel to a thinner barrel? I don't think so.

FSA2013 said that any assault long gun that somebody owned prior to 10/1/2013 was grandfathered and the owner could continue to possess it after 9/30/2013. MSP would have a hard time proving that a firearm was or was not in "assault long gun" form prior to 10/1/2013 without the owner's help in providing the evidence and sinking his own ship. With that said, there are plenty of people that blow holes in their hulls.

Pinecone · Jun 5, 2017

fabsroman said:
If I bought a HBAR before 10/1/2013 and changed the barrel on it to a medium contour or thinner prior to 10/1/2013, was there anything I had to do form wise? I don't think so. There was no requirement to notify anybody if the firearm was changed from an HBAR to that of a regulated nature. Was I required to complete a Form 77R upon the swapping of the HBAR barrel to a thinner barrel? I don't think so.

FSA2013 said that any assault long gun that somebody owned prior to 10/1/2013 was grandfathered and the owner could continue to possess it after 9/30/2013. MSP would have a hard time proving that a firearm was or was not in "assault long gun" form prior to 10/1/2013 without the owner's help in providing the evidence and sinking his own ship. With that said, there are plenty of people that blow holes in their hulls.

That is why many people on this board, assembled a soon to be banned upper on every lower they owned.

Some took time/date stamped pics, or mailed pictures via certified mail and kept the envelope sealed.

Others just did to be able to answer truthfully that they had done so.

fabsroman · Jun 5, 2017

Pinecone said:
That is why many people on this board, assembled a soon to be banned upper on every lower they owned.

Some took time/date stamped pics, or mailed pictures via certified mail and kept the envelope sealed.

Others just did to be able to answer truthfully that they had done so.

Yeah, I was part of those battered gun owner threads. Decided not to go the photo or sealed envelope route. The government needs to prove that I did not have those lowers built into a pre-ban configuration before 10/1/2013 if the law is interpreted to mean that. I mean, the receiver is considered to be the firearm, so I already have the "firearm" before the ban went into effect. Then, the MSP requires everybody to complete a Form 77r right now on an AR-15 lower because it could possibly be built into a pistol.

Guessing the enforceability of such a position would be pretty hard for the government, so MSP is taking the position that if the lower was owned prior to 10/1/2013, then it can be built into an assault long gun after 10/2/2013.

Then, there is the pistol issue. If the lower was built into a rifle first, then it can never be a pistol. However, if it was built into a pistol first, then it can be a rifle, a pistol, and back and forth again. What a headache.

vgplayer · Jun 5, 2017

I'd say try your best to comply and if anything happens pray you don't get a jury full of people whom happen to own guns. Sad to see too many "2A supporting gun owners" out there that would love to rack someone over the coals for the most minor things.

fabsroman · Jun 5, 2017

vgplayer said:
I'd say try your best to comply and if anything happens pray you don't get a jury full of people whom happen to own guns. Sad to see too many "2A supporting gun owners" out there that would love to rack someone over the coals for the most minor things.

If I was ever on trial for a firearm violation, or a hunting violation, I would prefer to have a fellow gun owner or a fellow hunter on the jury versus an anti-gunner or an anti-hunter. Most of the gun owners I know think all these laws are ridiculous, and there is something called jury nullification. Granted, a jury is not supposed to buck the law, but sometimes they do.

vgplayer · Jun 5, 2017

fabsroman said:
If I was ever on trial for a firearm violation, or a hunting violation, I would prefer to have a fellow gun owner or a fellow hunter on the jury versus an anti-gunner or an anti-hunter. Most of the gun owners I know think all these laws are ridiculous, and there is something called jury nullification. Granted, a jury is not supposed to buck the law, but sometimes they do.

I'm exaggerating but I'd argue that while most say these laws are ridiculous, at the end of the day they'll retreat to the "law is the law even if it's wrong and I don't agree with it."

And this is why I will never be allowed on a jury.

swinokur · Jun 5, 2017

fabsroman said:
If I was ever on trial for a firearm violation, or a hunting violation, I would prefer to have a fellow gun owner or a fellow hunter on the jury versus an anti-gunner or an anti-hunter. Most of the gun owners I know think all these laws are ridiculous, and there is something called jury nullification. Granted, a jury is not supposed to buck the law, but sometimes they do.

I completely agree. I would think a jury of my peers that agrees with my view of government, rights and due process would produce a a better outcome than a group of people with opposing views.

Pinecone · Jun 8, 2017

fabsroman said:
Yeah, I was part of those battered gun owner threads. Decided not to go the photo or sealed envelope route. The government needs to prove that I did not have those lowers built into a pre-ban configuration before 10/1/2013 if the law is interpreted to mean that. I mean, the receiver is considered to be the firearm, so I already have the "firearm" before the ban went into effect. Then, the MSP requires everybody to complete a Form 77r right now on an AR-15 lower because it could possibly be built into a pistol.

Guessing the enforceability of such a position would be pretty hard for the government, so MSP is taking the position that if the lower was owned prior to 10/1/2013, then it can be built into an assault long gun after 10/2/2013.

Then, there is the pistol issue. If the lower was built into a rifle first, then it can never be a pistol. However, if it was built into a pistol first, then it can be a rifle, a pistol, and back and forth again. What a headache.

Yeah, but for a while, MSP gave "official" answers, that it was not allowed to build in banned form, unless it existed in banned form prior to 10/1/13.

So the linked official statement is a very good thing.

GutPile · Jun 9, 2017

DubTap21 said:
How are "they" going to enforce or even know that? Lol.

Sent from my SM-N930T using Tapatalk

Frosh can't wait to get his first test case. His mustache is twitching waiting for one.

md law on uppers?

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Member

Active Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Attachments

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

In a State of Bliss

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics