HBAR vs. govt profile rules

Frostburg · May 14, 2020

So I purchased my AR15 as an HBAR complete rifle, cash and carry, prior to the 2013 ban. I am considering getting a complete 16” upper with a govt. profile barrel.

Is it legal to possess a 16” M4 govt. profile upper receiver provided that it is not attached to a lower receiver?

My plan is to keep it detached from the lower until I arrive at a shooting range outside of the state, in VA. I would separate the two halves prior to re-entering MD.

rseymorejr · May 14, 2020

If you owned it prior to 10/1/13 I'm wondering why you couldn't just slap it on there and call it a day??

Frostburg · May 14, 2020

I’m not sure. Can I? I thought that that wouldn’t be a legal configuration.

rseymorejr · May 14, 2020

Since you bought it cash and carry? Who knows, the idiots passing these laws make it a little confusing to say the least.
Having said that, I have never had anyone ask to see a dated receipt or mic my barrel at a range

RoadDawg · May 14, 2020

Assuming that you have proof of purchase dated prior to 10/01/13...

Lowers purchased prior to the 2013 law change are not barred from use with non HBAR uppers.

The lower, being the serialized component, IS the firearm. Therefore, attaching a non HBAR upper to it is not banned.

Frostburg · May 14, 2020

How do I obtain proof of purchase? I’m not sure I still have it. I’ll have to check via the gun store. Can the purchase date be verified via the rifle serial number?

Steel Hunter · May 14, 2020

Frostburg said:
How do I obtain proof of purchase? I’m not sure I still have it. I’ll have to check via the gun store. Can the purchase date be verified via the rifle serial number?

FFL's need to keep records for 20 years. Assuming your purchase was between 2000 and 2013, they should still have a record.

erwos · May 14, 2020

RoadDawg said:
Assuming that you have proof of purchase dated prior to 10/01/13...

Lowers purchased prior to the 2013 law change are not barred from use with non HBAR uppers.

The lower, being the serialized component, IS the firearm. Therefore, attaching a non HBAR upper to it is not banned.

From a strict legal perspective, what you're saying is not correct with his case. He purchased it as a complete HBAR rifle. If that gun stayed in HBAR config the entire time, it never became a copy of an enumerated weapon, and could not be turned into one now.

Realistically, the MSP could never prove it either way, but then again, if they charged you, YOU would be the one to have to prove it in court, since they'd be starting with "we found you with a banned gun". Food for thought.

TAstro · May 14, 2020

rseymorejr said:
Since you bought it cash and carry? Who knows, the idiots passing these laws make it a little confusing to say the least.
Having said that, I have never had anyone ask to see a dated receipt or mic my barrel at a range

Has anyone ever heard of anyone getting in any legal trouble over Barrel profile? I’ve never heard of anything like that and I’ve shot plenty of AR’s with some cops at the range. I don’t think anyone cares one bit - and this is not implying that anyone should break the law.

PowPow · May 14, 2020

The burden of proof is actually on the government to prove that you did not purchase it before Oct 1, 2013. However, it's always good to be fully in control over your situation. The best way I know how to do that is to keep the records and receipts of gun purchases.

erwos · May 14, 2020

PowPow said:
The burden of proof is actually on the government to prove that you did not purchase it before Oct 1, 2013.

If they say in court "we have no evidence it was purchased before Oct 1, 2013, and found it on him May 1, 2020", you're going to have to provide the receipts. They are not gonna waste a bunch of time looking for exculpatory evidence for you.

PowPow · May 14, 2020

erwos said:
If they say in court "we have no evidence it was purchased before Oct 1, 2013, and found it on him May 1, 2020", you're going to have to provide the receipts. They are not gonna waste a bunch of time looking for exculpatory evidence for you.

Our legal system operates under the doctrine that one is innocent until proven guilty.

erwos · May 14, 2020

PowPow said:
Our legal system operates under the doctrine that one is innocent until proven guilty.

It sure does. The problem is, you're walking into that court room with the MSP declaring "we found this guy with a banned rifle, and have no record of it being registered in our system". How would they even be able to prove you made it into a banned config before 2013?

PowPow · May 14, 2020

erwos said:
It sure does. The problem is, you're walking into that court room with the MSP declaring "we found this guy with a banned rifle, and have no record of it being registered in our system".

It is not up to the individual to prove their innocence, but it is good to be prepared for that situation if possible. If not, select good legal counsel. That's why they go to school.

erwos · May 14, 2020

PowPow said:
It is not up to the individual to prove their innocence, but it is good to be prepared for that situation if possible.

You start with a presumption of innocence. But if the prosecution presents a bunch of evidence that says you're guilty, you better have a way of showing you were complying with the law. Like I said: the MSP cannot prove you converted the HBAR rifle to a banned config in the privacy of your own home even if they wanted to, so that's up to you. Anyone who walks into court believing otherwise better have that competent legal counsel close at hand for a plea deal.

danb · May 14, 2020

erwos said:
From a strict legal perspective, what you're saying is not correct. If that gun stayed in HBAR config the entire time, it never became a copy of an enumerated weapon, and could not be turned into one now.

Realistically, the MSP could never prove it either way, but then again, if they charged you, YOU would be the one to have to prove it in court, since they'd be starting with "we found you with a banned gun". Food for thought.

Herein lies the problem. pre-2013, a standard profile barrel would have been a 77r. So if its ok to put a govt profile barrel on a pre-2013 lower, does that require a 77r? What about putting a folding stock on a pre-2013 mini-14? is that ok?

We have generated many threads since 2013, no answers.

erwos · May 14, 2020

danb said:
Herein lies the problem. pre-2013, a standard profile barrel would have been a 77r.

Correct.

So if its ok to put a govt profile barrel on a pre-2013 lower, does that require a 77r?

No. The MSP made people fill out 77rs when buying lowers back in the day. I think there was even an 8-day wait, too. It's been a while. They were treating them specifically like they would be built into enumerated copy weapons. This was erroneous, but benefits us now.

What about putting a folding stock on a pre-2013 mini-14? is that ok?

This is a totally different question. If you believe the enumerated weapon encompassed all Mini-14s with folding stocks, the answer would be, no, it's not OK, much as you cannot put a detachable mag in an SKS. If you believe the enumerated weapon is SPECIFICALLY the factory folder model, you should be able to, provided it's not the factory folding stock.

We have generated many threads since 2013, no answers.

There are definitely answers, it's just no one likes them.

PowPow · May 14, 2020

erwos said:
You start with a presumption of innocence. But if the prosecution presents a bunch of evidence that says you're guilty, you better have a way of showing you were complying with the law. Like I said: the MSP cannot prove you converted the HBAR rifle to a banned config in the privacy of your own home even if they wanted to, so that's up to you. Anyone who walks into court believing otherwise better have that competent legal counsel close at hand for a plea deal.

And that bunch of evidence would be proof that said firearm was not purchased before Oct 1, 2013? If so, then they've obviously met their burden of proof. Better to not be in that position. Keep your records.

Anyone who walks into to court and sits before a judge should have counsel, competent or otherwise.

outrider58 · May 14, 2020

Here's the way I see it. There's no way it can be proven that he didn't own a pre-ban profiled upper(to switch back and forth) prior to the ban. Think along the lines of, pistol-to rifle-back to pistol-back to rifle. See what I'm getting at?

And what of the Gov pro barrel? Does it say specifically "no government profile barrels"? How can that be when you can buy an M203 attachment(with the proper stamp)?
I'm also pretty sure you can build a gun or upper with a 14.5" SOCOM barrel and mount it on a post ban gun. You either pin and weld an adequate muzzle device to achieve 16" or SBR it.

JohnnyE · May 14, 2020

My lack of proof of purchase before 10/1/13 is not a substitute for their providing evidence that I bought it after.

As a defendant, I have the right to remain silent. The government must offer evidence that demonstrates I purchased after the deadline. I have to prove NOTHING!

The state's evidence may be an eye witness to the purchase, a sting operation, a post 10/1/13 receipt, something other than my mere possession after 10/1/13.

If my lower HAS a S/N (not needed for a home build) and the S/N indicates it was made prior to 10/1/13, the ball is clearly in the government's court. I don't have to lead with that information, however. I use that to defend. The government must put on an adequate case at the outset. OTOH, if the S/N shows the lower didn't exists prior to 10/1/13, it sucks to be me.

HBAR vs. govt profile rules

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Member

Ultimate Member

Member

Ultimate Member

Nos nostraque Deo

Member

Active Member

The Hebrew Hammer

Active Member

Where's the beef?

The Hebrew Hammer

Where's the beef?

The Hebrew Hammer

Where's the beef?

The Hebrew Hammer

dont be a dumbass

The Hebrew Hammer

Where's the beef?

Eats Bacon Raw

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics