A way to get an AR LEGALLY in MD AFTER 10/1

[chsnprodigy]

If it's after the ban, and you build it into a copy of a named rifle (AR15), or a non-named rifle that meets the "copycat" definition it's illegal.

My personal non lawyer feeling is you'd be more covered with pre purchased (registered) lowers.

jonnyl,
Not trying to get into an argument with you or anything, but some people dont want registered/serialized lowers.......catch my drift.

 

[Merlin]

Merlin, read the prior 4 pages. The 80% thing has been getting discussed page after page. I personlly dont think the new bill correctly captures/ or doesnt capture 80% lowers. And as a machinist I have already been searching for "training projects." I wish we could get a lawyers take on the 80% lower thing.......

But didn't I read in the Bill somewhere that Manufactures were exempt from the bills restrictions? Buying a hunk of metal that is only 80% on it's way to become a lower is just considered to be material and you will be the firearm manufacture. I do not think the Bill said AR's can't be manufactured here in MD. they can't be sold in Maryland. I think Maryland would love to see the tax dollars that a Colt factrey could bring as the built AR's, as long as Colt ships the AR's out of state.

A friend on mine made one of these about a year ago and they do not have any numbers on them at all. As the manufacture of them you/I would assign our own SS# scream to each one we build, (assuming you built more then one.)

Maybe some one that knows about these Maryland laws that allow this can offer some info. But I remember reading somewhere that for this type of thing it legal to build an AR and become the manufacture, but you can't sell it because you do not have the licensing to do so.

But that does not mean you can't build the prototype of your new firearms company your trying to get off the ground.

 

[Merlin]

And lets not forget about that 80% lower you bought and paid cash for at a flea market a few your ago that you never got around to completing.

 

[erwos]

But didn't I read in the Bill somewhere that Manufactures were exempt from the bills restrictions?

You need to be a LICENSED manufacturer for those exemptions to kick in, as per the text of the bill. Unless you're holding onto an FFL07, you're not a licensed manufacturer.

Also, the manufacturer exemptions are far more specific than "lolz, exempt from the law".

I think it says it all about what some people here are really after when you consider how fast this thread moved from "LEGALLY" to "lolz, can't catch me or prove it".

 

[chsnprodigy]

And lets not forget about that 80% lower you bought and paid cash for at a flea market a few your ago that you never got around to completing.

Or about the bolt together lower you've been slowly making parts for......cough cough.....



http://www.oocities.org/elmgrove1765/project6/project6.html

 

[Hawkeye]

You are absolutely wrong here. The law does explicitly ban possession.

Yes, technically the law bans possession, but there is a long list of exceptions, one of which is if the arm was legally possessed prior to October 1. I worded my response badly, but the poster that I was replying to WAS incorrect about the law banning his possession of an 80% receiver which was made into an HBAR configuration, or completed before October 1.

The amount of terrible advice people are giving on MDS is staggering, and I hope someone from MSI works to get us clarification before a bunch of people get nailed for dubious "workarounds".

Yeah, it's pretty messy. The unfortunate thing with any bill like this is that there's no way for sure to know how it's going to be handled in practice until it is IN practice. There's no way that the AG is going to write out guidelines for what he will and won't prosecute for this, and even if he did, I don't know that I'd trust them.

 

[erwos]

Yes, technically the law bans possession, but there is a long list of exceptions, one of which is if the arm was legally possessed prior to October 1. I worded my response badly, but the poster that I was replying to WAS incorrect about the law banning his possession of an 80% receiver which was made into an HBAR configuration, or completed before October 1.

No one really knows whether you can finish a receiver into an HBAR configuration. I would strongly recommend finishing it pre-October.

The unfortunate thing with any bill like this is that there's no way for sure to know how it's going to be handled in practice until it is IN practice. There's no way that the AG is going to write out guidelines for what he will and won't prosecute for this, and even if he did, I don't know that I'd trust them.

Again, you are wrong. MD delegates and senators can send formal requests for clarification to the AG, and he must answer them in an official context. These absolutely carry a lot of weight, and are not going to be reneged on. I have been bitching at MSI since forever about getting ready to do this when the bill is signed.

 

[fleaman64]

Check the Pa. database of all the firearms bought with a PICS check.

If I recall correctly, the instant check does not record the make, model and serial #. Only that it was a long gun.

They would have to look at every FFLs book of 4473s to make that determination.

 

[Hawkeye]

No one really knows whether you can finish a receiver into an HBAR configuration. I would strongly recommend finishing it pre-October.

Absolutely. Like I said, we don't know how this is going to play out until we get some understanding of how the state is going to interpret and enforce the law. I don't personally see anything in there that would make building a non-banned weapon illegal after October 1, but like I said, I'm not the AG and I'm not going to be the one deciding what to prosecute.

Again, you are wrong.

Calm down, Beavis.

MD delegates and senators can send formal requests for clarification to the AG, and he must answer them in an official context. These absolutely carry a lot of weight, and are not going to be reneged on. I have been bitching at MSI since forever about getting ready to do this when the bill is signed.

I know that legislators can send those requests, but I didn't know that the AG was bound by law to answer them. Out of curiosity, where is that laid down in the law? I only knew that he would not answer inquires from regular Joe Citizen.

 

[IGOR455]

as i read the law teh banned ar would be ie bushmaster, most colts etc. now the ones like the smith and wesson wyndom weaponry etc that are not on that list well the features test would apply, so since the sliding stock was l;ined out and the bayonet lug isnt there and the pistol grip was lined out well that leaves only teh flash suppressor, and a granade launcher and a flare launcher. so with teh one bad feature allowed i woulod think that those brands not banner like i listed would be fine if they came with 10 rd mags. any thoughts

 

[Ab_Normal]

If I recall correctly, the instant check does not record the make, model and serial #. Only that it was a long gun.

They would have to look at every FFLs book of 4473s to make that determination.

Bottom line is they still keep a database on purchases.

 

[janklow]

as i read the law teh banned ar would be ie bushmaster, most colts etc. now the ones like the smith and wesson wyndom weaponry etc that are not on that list

no, they're on the list because they're copies of the AR-15/CAR-15. the Bushmaster semi-auto is not what you think it is.

 

[Merlin]

Bottom line is they still keep a database on purchases.

I think that is just an conclusion we just jump to.

A few years ago my wife and I adopted and going through the process I had to provide a list of firearms I own from the MSP to the state social workers to place in our file. When I went to get the list from the MSP in Jessup, (Where they did this at the time, maybe still do) they gave me a computer readout of every "regulated" gun I own. But none of my non-regulated guns were on the list.

I went back in to talk to the trooper and I explained to him that I need the complete list of the guns I own, not just a list of my regulated guns. He told me that they do not keep that info because they were only required to keep records of the regulated guns. He went on to say they could not care less about rifles and shotguns.

So believe what you will, but I personally think the MSP still only keep just the regulated guns in a data base and everyone just thinks that big brother keep everything and anything just because a form was filled out and called in.

 

[ericoak]

Bottom line is they still keep a database on purchases.

I have sold like 10 guns FTF including HBARs, not one of them is in a database. This is like the 3rd time going over this. It isn't hard to understand.

States like AZ don't even require FFLs for used handguns.

You are wrong.

Also, records in the thousands of FFL bound books aren't a database. The ATF has to contact the manufacturer to find out which FFL sold the gun, then check that FFLs book.

The only federal registry is the NFA registry.

 

[Ab_Normal]

I think that is just an conclusion we just jump to.

A few years ago my wife and I adopted and going through the process I had to provide a list of firearms I own from the MSP to the state social workers to place in our file. When I went to get the list from the MSP in Jessup, (Where they did this at the time, maybe still do) they gave me a computer readout of every "regulated" gun I own. But none of my non-regulated guns were on the list.

I went back in to talk to the trooper and I explained to him that I need the complete list of the guns I own, not just a list of my regulated guns. He told me that they do not keep that info because they were only required to keep records of the regulated guns. He went on to say they could not care less about rifles and shotguns.

So believe what you will, but I personally think the MSP still only keep just the regulated guns in a data base and everyone just thinks that big brother keep everything and anything just because a form was filled out and called in.

I have sold like 10 guns FTF including HBARs, not one of them is in a database. This is like the 3rd time going over this. It isn't hard to understand.

States like AZ don't even require FFLs for used handguns.

You are wrong.

Also, records in the thousands of FFL bound books aren't a database. The ATF has to contact the manufacturer to find out which FFL sold the gun, then check that FFLs book.

The only federal registry is the NFA registry.

RCIF!

I am not wrong. My initial response was in reference to Pa. keeping a database of PICS checks through FFL's. It had nothing to do with Md. or private sales. The fact still stands that they (Pa.) are keeping or were keeping a database of PICS checks through FFL's.

 

[ericoak]

RCIF!

I am not wrong. My initial response was in reference to Pa. keeping a database of PICS checks through FFL's. It had nothing to do with Md. or private sales. The fact still stands that they (Pa.) are keeping or were keeping a database of PICS checks through FFL's.

All FFLs have a bound book that records all transfers not just PA, what is your point? So you think MD has a registry also? If you have evidence they take all that info from FFLs and store it together in a central database you have a point.

 

[Ab_Normal]

All FFLs have a bound book that records all transfers not just PA, what is your point? So you think MD has a registry also? If you have evidence they take all that info from FFLs and store it together in a central database you have a point.

Pa. does because all FFL purchases have to go through PICS. Dig around the PAFOA forums. There was info in there but I haven't been over there in a couple years.

I personally don't have hard evidence on any registries but I certainly wouldn't put it past a lot of our overlords.

 

[Merlin]

Pa. does because all FFL purchases have to go through PICS. Dig around the PAFOA forums. There was info in there but I haven't been over there in a couple years.

I personally don't have hard evidence on any registries but I certainly wouldn't put it past a lot of our overlords.

Not if the forums are full of people that make stuff up as they go. Just because someone puts something on the net and act as if they know, doesn't mean they know a thing. I just told you the MSP told me they could not give me that info because they do not keep that info.

I was adopting a child and under instruction from Maryland state social workers to go to the state police and get the record. The MSP gave me what they had. Do you think the MSP have some TOP SECRET program where they must lie to everyone and not let the cat out of the bag that they secretly keep this info?

 

[Merlin]

RCIF!

I am not wrong. My initial response was in reference to Pa. keeping a database of PICS checks through FFL's. It had nothing to do with Md. or private sales. The fact still stands that they (Pa.) are keeping or were keeping a database of PICS checks through FFL's.

And how do you know this for sure? Where is your proof? Just because the FFL makes a call and your checked out on a system you think they keep records of not only the call, but the SN and type of every gun the call was made for?

 

[Ab_Normal]

And how do you know this for sure? Where is your proof? Just because the FFL makes a call and your checked out on a system you think they keep records of not only the call, but the SN and type of every gun the call was made for?

How do you know the moon isn't made of swiss cheese? Where is your proof?

Pa. was maintaining a database of some sorts. I don't know if they still are but they were that is a fact.

Please familiarize yourself with the Pa. background check system before we try to resume this in an intelligent manner.