Contesting the Registration

MossPumper · Mar 24, 2021

Greetings,
I was wondering if anyone has ever had the opportunity and or success in contesting the registration of a "Lower" in our State?
From reading the laws and definitions that are given; what the MSP consider a "80 percent lower" is in all factual reality a item that meets their criteria is only 25% of that "lower" so it is in fact useless.
So if a 80 percent lower does not meet their own definitions , why do the FFL's not just hand the "Receiver" over to the purchaser without any registration?
Even if the Lower was completed in accordance to the State laws for registration , the built or assembled firearm still does not meet all the requirements? So is it just a "play on the language to confuse people?"

KevinK · Mar 24, 2021

Muleskinner · Mar 24, 2021

I understand your theory and while I agree with it that's not what the law states and of course we want to maintain our status as long abiding so we don't contest such as that. For the same reason that you don't see gun owners in New Jersey filing lawsuits because 80% receivers and frames are illegal even though they're nothing more than a piece of aluminum or a piece of plastic. People would rather just comply with the law because it's easier.

Trigger Time · Mar 24, 2021

I think the OP is wrongly referring to a stripped lower as an 80%, where as a stripped lower is considered a firearm and and 80% lower is not.

trickg · Mar 24, 2021

Trigger Tuner said:
I think the OP is wrongly referring to a stripped lower as an 80%, where as a stripped lower is considered a firearm and and 80% lower is not.

I was wondering the same thing - I was wondering if the OP was confusing the two, or was specifically referring to both the 80 and the stripped lowers separately.

Did something change where 80 lowers are now regulated?

303_enfield · Mar 24, 2021

For that part how about an AR “lower” isn’t a firearm by law. The upper would be like a Ruger Mk I(II ...) by the laws definition. But nobody wants to open that can of worms!

Pale Ryder · Mar 24, 2021

Muleskinner said:
People would rather just comply with the law because it's easier.

Why I don’t believe TPTB won’t have to go door to door confiscating anything when they start the bans. Many will surrender, even more so if they offer $$. Others of the WNC bent will hold out, but if not grandfathered you really only have an expensive paperweight. You wouldn’t be able to take it to a range, or use it for self defense, short of a world w/o law anyway.

MossPumper · Mar 24, 2021

Trigger Tuner said:
I think the OP is wrongly referring to a stripped lower as an 80%, where as a stripped lower is considered a firearm and and 80% lower is not.

Sorry ,
I was looking at a few 80 percent lowers on my desk as I typed. You are correct. I was referring to Stripped receivers.]

Trigger Time · Mar 24, 2021

To answer what I think was your question, a striped lower can be built into a pistol and therefor requires a transfer on a 77R.

lazarus · Mar 24, 2021

Trigger Tuner said:
To answer what I think was your question, a striped lower can be built into a pistol and therefor requires a transfer on a 77R.

No.

It requires it if is the receiver of an enumerated banned firearm so long as it has legal configurations. An AR-15 SBR is legal as is an AR-15 pistol. Also an HBAR AR-15. But a .223 pencil barreled AR-15 would be banned.

MSP has stated this as much.

The receiver for a regulated or banned firearm must go on a 77r.

Which is why a bare Glock frame or an AR-15 lower must do a 77r and a 7 day wait. But neither are yet a pistol or a copy of banned firearm (or in the case of an HBAR AR-15 cash and carry, 4473 long gun).

An AR-10 is cash and carry, 4473 only. As it is not the receiver or a regulated or banned firearm.

A 10/22 receiver would be the same. Cash and carry, 4473.

lazarus · Mar 24, 2021

Oh, as for why. FFL’s like staying in business and pissing off the regulatory body (MSP) that issues your state licenses to be in the business of selling firearms is playing stupid games.

Or maybe more like “**** around and find out” when MSP tells you to do something as an FFL.

Yes, there is a reasonable chance a lawsuit might win. We might also be playing with the bull and getting the horns in the end.

The upsides to winning a lawsuit are nice. The downsides to losing it, especially if the state or a judge end up feeling particularly nasty in the judgement or court arguments could really bend us over (like banning receivers of enumerated banned firearms as a possibility).

Biggfoot44 · Mar 24, 2021

Fact #1 - The current scheme is entirely * Because MSP said so * .

Fact #2 - The pool of $$ for litigation is not bottomless and has to be prioritised , and MSI already has a full plate of active cases with larger footprints .

rbird7282 · Mar 24, 2021

lazarus said:
No.

It requires it if is the receiver of an enumerated banned firearm so long as it has legal configurations. An AR-15 SBR is legal as is an AR-15 pistol. Also an HBAR AR-15. But a .223 pencil barreled AR-15 would be banned.

MSP has stated this as much.

The receiver for a regulated or banned firearm must go on a 77r.

Which is why a bare Glock frame or an AR-15 lower must do a 77r and a 7 day wait. But neither are yet a pistol or a copy of banned firearm (or in the case of an HBAR AR-15 cash and carry, 4473 long gun).

An AR-10 is cash and carry, 4473 only. As it is not the receiver or a regulated or banned firearm.

A 10/22 receiver would be the same. Cash and carry, 4473.

Yet this isn’t in written law, it’s the MSP doing it because they say so.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

rbird7282 · Mar 24, 2021

Biggfoot44 said:
Fact #1 - The current scheme is entirely * Because MSP said so * .

Fact #2 - The pool of $$ for litigation is not bottomless and has to be prioritised , and MSI already has a full plate of active cases with larger footprints .

Yep

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Boats · Mar 25, 2021

Pale Ryder said:
Why I don’t believe TPTB won’t have to go door to door confiscating anything when they start the bans. Many will surrender, even more so if they offer $$. Others of the WNC bent will hold out, but if not grandfathered you really only have an expensive paperweight. You wouldn’t be able to take it to a range, or use it for self defense, short of a world w/o law anyway.

And yet, it is the world (or country) w/o law that expressly makes ownership legal, per the 2a.

lazarus · Mar 25, 2021

rbird7282 said:
Yet this isn’t in written law, it’s the MSP doing it because they say so.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes. Maryland State Police are, in this case, a regulatory agency. Which means they have to interpret the law and enact regulations to enforce it.

They could decide that the ban on enumerated firearms means that the firearm receiver of such banned enumerated firearm should also be banned. Even if there could be a legal configuration such as an AR-15 pistol.

Considering some of the completely bunk legal opinions the state has advanced and courts have agreed with, I really don't want to put my money on where a judge and appellate courts would land.

So, IMHO, it sucks. However, it COULD be worse. So long as the courts are upholding FSA2013 in its entirety, and they have been, being forced to do a 77r and 7 day wait on certain firearm receivers isn't as bad as it COULD be.

So honestly, suing and fighting a regulatory decision could end up resulting in more harm being done to us than the current regulatory scheme. We could get a win and then just have to do a 4473 moving forward. Save some of us a little money and a modest pain in the butt. A loss could mean exactly what is happening now. Or a judge could interpret the law differently than how we and MSP interpret it and REALLY screw us hard.

So at the cost of litigation (I am assuming at least a few tens of thousands of dollars even if it only goes through trial level) we might have a small win. Or we could invest that in the status quo on a loss. Or we could have a GIANT loss.

dblas · Mar 25, 2021

rbird7282 said:
Yet this isn’t in written law, it’s the MSP doing it because they say so.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So, write an update to COMAR and submit it to the Secretary of MSP, if he fails to enact it, then you can challenge it starting in County Circuit Court and work your way up the court system. Anyone can write a change to COMAR and submit it, and then challenge it if it's not enacted.

MossPumper · Mar 26, 2021

Biggfoot44 said:
Fact #1 - The current scheme is entirely * Because MSP said so * .

Fact #2 - The pool of $$ for litigation is not bottomless and has to be prioritised , and MSI already has a full plate of active cases with larger footprints .

There is much truth to the first Statement. However , why would I need to involve the MSI Attorneys for my own interest? As others have stated" with the way laws are now, a small victory could also turn into a big FU". I was just curious if anyone had actually persued such.

Biggfoot44 · Mar 27, 2021

Opps , my bad . Are you an Attorney with spare time on your hands ? Go for it , and I'll cheer you on .

Or , are you in position to bankroll mid 5 figures $ out of your pocket over this ? If so , go for it !

Most of these cases are persued by a 2A Org by necessity . I'm somewhat biased about MSI being the leading state level litigation advocates , but certainly not the only one . By all means seek alliances with MDLFDA , SAF, NAGR, MSRPA, Etc .

( Random non- professional Citizens acting Pro Se do occasionally hit a Home Run , but the danger is in inadvertently wording things incorrectly , so as to have a net outcome worse than starting point .)

Contesting the Registration

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Amazed

Guns 'n Drums

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Amazed

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Broken Member

Ultimate Member

Past President, MSI

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics