AR Upper Clarification

[anotherITguy]

Yes, I know this it a hotly contested debate, and I would rather not get into with this thread. With that said, what's the chance now that Hogan has appointed Pallozzi as MSP Superintendent, we can finally get clarification on the legality of building a pre-Oct 2013 lower into a non-hbar upper configuration? I feel we need clarification, either way, on its legality.

 

[dblas]

The superintendent has to be approved be fore he can make any changes.

 

[Mr H]

My reading... and I offer no authority... is that the lower is the firearm, per Federal rules, and if purchased pre 10.13, can be a configuration legal at that time.

If there is some definitive word otherwise, I must have missed it.

Willing, as always, to be educated.

 

[NateIU10]

I don't think there's any debate that the lower was a firearm before 10/01/2013.

The issue is you may only possess an Assault Long Gun that you possessed prior to that date. If you possessed only the lower of an AR15, that is not an ALG (if it were, we could not buy/sell them now.) MSP's previous interpretation of lowers muddies that a bit though, so it could go either way. I think a strict reading of the law tends to come down on the side of not being able to build out as a non-HBAR now, unfortunately. Will they ever say? Who knows.

 

[anotherITguy]

My reading... and I offer no authority... is that the lower is the firearm, per Federal rules, and if purchased pre 10.13, can be a configuration legal at that time.

As you've stated, you're no authority. We need someone with authority to clarify. Just based on the small sampling of responses to this tread, it's obvious that there are differing opinions, and differing opinions can lead to problems.

 

[dblas]

This may not be a question we want to ask given who the AG is and the MSP will send the question to the AG for clarification.

 

[Mr H]

Good call.

 

[dblas]

Good call.

Just my opinion....

 

[fidelity]

I don't think there's any debate that the lower was a firearm before 10/01/2013.

The issue is you may only possess an Assault Long Gun that you possessed prior to that date. If you possessed only the lower of an AR15, that is not an ALG (if it were, we could not buy/sell them now.) MSP's previous interpretation of lowers muddies that a bit though, so it could go either way. I think a strict reading of the law tends to come down on the side of not being able to build out as a non-HBAR now, unfortunately. Will they ever say? Who knows.

By this standard, those who purchased stripped lowers the last week of September 2013 and picked them up October 1, 2013 or later might be in for an unpleasant surprise. There was still a buying rush at that time. In fact I remember that some MD gun stores quit taking orders around mid-September to try to catch up before the end of the month. Even more upset would likely be those that bought lowers earlier (e.g. July/August 2013) but did their transfers via an FFL that would only release after getting paperwork back from the state (which was taking months at that time).

 

[anotherITguy]

This may not be a question we want to ask given who the AG is and the MSP will send the question to the AG for clarification.

Okay, so the grey area seems to be intentional.

 

[dblas]

Okay, so the grey area seems to be intentional.

Not sure if intentional to mess thing up but definitely to be as broad as possible.

Instead of asking for a determination from MSP, a Maryland citizen could make a formal request for an addition or edit to COMAR on the subject, and then if the suggestion is not taken, MSP could be taken to court via lawsuit in a county circuit court. This would open MSP to discovery of any and all correspondence regarding the recommendation.

 

[hodgepodge]

I'm quite OK with not asking the question.

 

[shaddydan]

Those with a sig brace got "clarification" from the atf if I recall.....

 

[Pinecone]

By this standard, those who purchased stripped lowers the last week of September 2013 and picked them up October 1, 2013 or later might be in for an unpleasant surprise. There was still a buying rush at that time. In fact I remember that some MD gun stores quit taking orders around mid-September to try to catch up before the end of the month. Even more upset would likely be those that bought lowers earlier (e.g. July/August 2013) but did their transfers via an FFL that would only release after getting paperwork back from the state (which was taking months at that time).

There was a buying rush, as stripped lowers were not going to be able to be sold. Not necessarily that you could build them into pre-ban configuration.

It was not until July or August 14, that stripped lowers became legal again.

 

[outrider58]

Those with a sig brace got "clarification" from the atf if I recall.....

...point and match!

 

[Mr H]

Those with a sig brace got "clarification" from the atf if I recall.....

Different sandbox.

The SIG brace was a NFA-related ruling.

The question in the OP relates to FSA13... and that ruling would come from the Baron hisself.

 

[erwos]

By this standard, those who purchased stripped lowers the last week of September 2013 and picked them up October 1, 2013 or later might be in for an unpleasant surprise.

If it was a surprise, they weren't paying attention. I had personally been screaming for everyone to slap uppers on their lowers before the ban, even if it was just temporarily, because of the very problem Nate is describing. But, of course, everyone else was super-convinced that these kinds of worst case scenarios could NEVER come true.

 

[denimdan85]

I thought you paid cash for an upper and built it pre 10/1/13.

 

[Pinecone]

I thought you paid cash for an upper and built it pre 10/1/13.

Fine as long as you are not coming on a public forum, talking about buying an upper NOW and assembling it to ANY lower.

 

[fidelity]

If it was a surprise, they weren't paying attention. I had personally been screaming for everyone to slap uppers on their lowers before the ban, even if it was just temporarily, because of the very problem Nate is describing. But, of course, everyone else was super-convinced that these kinds of worst case scenarios could NEVER come true.

Good advice. I remember it. I also remember the pre-ban buying hysteria which may have been for naught, complicated by horrendous turnaround times on 77Rs by the state police.

I remember a friend picked up a complete lower in something like November 2013 from an FFL (that was purchased in summer 2013). I presume that it was registered as a rifle (and not other) because it had a stock. I do wonder whether there were instances of purchase orders from the summer of 2013 for a now banned rifle but was built and delivered after September 30, 2013.

In the end, I would guess that this is a grey area that the state police would also like to avoid getting into in current day commentary/clarification but can see a prosecutor using it as an add on charge (assembling a banned rifle after 9/30/2013 on something registered only as a lower/other in the past, irrespective of registration date) when there's someone that they want to get for other reasons. Probably a question of when and not if.