Frames or receivers are NOT copies of the enumerated assault weapons

[Ab_Normal]

I don't believe that frames or receivers are 'weapons' by their lack of being able to expel a projectile....

But for arguments sake let's say they are. They still are not regulated firearms under the 'assault weapons' section since they are only similar in appearance BUT not in internal components and function - they have no components and therefore have no function.

ETA - The AK's are the only ones that are pretty well covered in any form.

It really isn't difficult to understand.

I have copied the laws and portions of the Gansler ruling that support this:

§ 5-101
(h) Firearm.-
(1) "Firearm" means:
(i) a weapon that expels, is designed to expel, or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; or
(ii) the frame or receiver of such a weapon.
(2) "Firearm" includes a starter gun.


(p) Regulated firearm.- "Regulated firearm" means:
(1) a handgun; or
(2) a firearm that is any of the following specific assault weapons or their copies, regardless of which company produced and manufactured that assault weapon:

Lets plug and play the definition of firearm into the definition of regulated firearm.

(p) Regulated firearm.- "Regulated firearm" means:
(1) a handgun; or
(2) a weapon that expels, is designed to expel, or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive that is any of the following specific assault weapons or their copies, regardless of which company produced and manufactured that assault weapon:

Gansler:

In our opinion, to come within the definition of “regulated
firearm,” a copy of a designated assault weapon must be similar in
its internal components and function to the designated weapon.
Cosmetic similarity to an enumerated assault weapon alone would
not bring a weapon within the regulated firearms law.


The statute defines “firearm” to mean, among other things, “the
frame or receiver” of a weapon that “expels ... a projectile by the
action of an explosive.” PS §5-101(h)(1)(ii). This suggests that the
Legislature deemed the frame or receiver as a distinctive component
of a firearm. Presumably, a “copy” of a firearm would incorporate
a reproduction or imitation of the frame or receiver of that firearm.
Thus, an analysis of whether the frame or receiver of a given firearm
are similar to the frame or receiver of an enumerated firearm would
appear to be one criterion that could be considered in determining
whether a firearm is a “copy” of an assault weapon.


These textual clues indicate that it is not merely the appearance
of a weapon, but its internal components and function, that
determine whether the weapon is a copy of a listed weapon.

 

[smokey]

it's maryland...that's your interpretation, but your interpretation doesn't matter. Our overlords have declared a receiver to be regulated soooo....we're boned.

 

[04RWon]

it's maryland...that's your interpretation, but your interpretation doesn't matter. Our overlords have declared a receiver to be regulated soooo....we're boned.

I havent seen a reciever named specifically.






Ab...what are you doing? Do you really wanna spend another 4 months trying to learn people some knowledge?

 

[Ab_Normal]

it's maryland...that's your interpretation, but your interpretation doesn't matter. Our overlords have declared a receiver to be regulated soooo....we're boned.

You obviously didn't read what was posted. Our overlords (Gansler) declared a receiver to NOT be regulated.

 

[Ab_Normal]

I havent seen a reciever named specifically.






Ab...what are you doing? Do you really wanna spend another 4 months trying to learn people some knowledge?

The AK's are tied up pretty tight but that is the only one.

Just trying to separate the 'wheat from the chaff' for those whose reading comprehension skills aren't up to snuff.

 

[smokey]

You obviously didn't read what was posted. Our overlords (Gansler) declared a receiver to NOT be regulated.

whaaaaa, how long ago was that? My t-15bdx was regulated back a couple years ago. Didn't know they were ruled cash n carry.

 

[04RWon]

whaaaaa, how long ago was that? My t-15bdx was regulated back a couple years ago. Didn't know they were ruled cash n carry.

I bought a rra lar 8 back in 2010. It was handled as regated. Later found out it wasnt regulated. Seen a bunch treated that way. Dealer did it as a "cya" i believe.

 

[Ab_Normal]

whaaaaa, how long ago was that? My t-15bdx was regulated back a couple years ago. Didn't know they were ruled cash n carry.

May 24, 2010

 

[smokey]

I bought a rra lar 8 back in 2010. It was handled as regated. Later found out it wasnt regulated. Seen a bunch treated that way. Dealer did it as a "cya" i believe.

Yeah, I just haven't really heard of any dealer treating a lower as cash n carry yet. The direction they get from the state doesn't always line up with how we'd interpret the law. They are typically written to be arbitrary and capricious. Even in gansler's opinion on it he doesn't come out and say, "No. A lower receiver for an AR-15 is not a regulated firearm and subject to the 77r forms". If FFL's are currently selling lowers as non-regulated, cool. If not, I'm not sure this is going to make them feel comfortable enough to start unless there's more concrete direction from the state.

 

[Ab_Normal]

Yeah, I just haven't really heard of any dealer treating a lower as cash n carry yet. The direction they get from the state doesn't always line up with how we'd interpret the law. They are typically written to be arbitrary and capricious. Even in gansler's opinion on it he doesn't come out and say, "No. A lower receiver for an AR-15 is not a regulated firearm and subject to the 77r forms". If FFL's are currently selling lowers as non-regulated, cool. If not, I'm not sure this is going to make them feel comfortable enough to start unless there's more concrete direction from the state.

It is in black and white for those who are capable of comprehending it.

 

[Celtic159]

While interesting, I'll wager that none of the thousands of lowers sold since May 24, 2010 have been sold cash and carry (mine certainly weren't).

Good luck getting an FFL to be the test case for this.


Edited to add - Not that I'm calling BS on this, as it seems to be pretty cut & dried. I just don't see the thousand lowers from the Engage pre-order walking out the door the day they come in.

 

[smokey]

It is in black and white for those who are capable of comprehending it.

riiiiiiiiight, so which ffl's are selling lowers as non-regulated then? Or does every FFL in maryland also lack your exceptional reading comprehension?

 

[hogarth]

Since the AR 15 is specifically named, and as far as I am aware the AR lower is considered "the gun" nationwide, well, I don't think you will have much luck with this.

 

[Schipperke]

I bet getting an 80% Lower after October will be sketchy.

 

[fabsroman]

I honestly have no idea why we are debating this entire thing. Fine, assuming arguendo that an AR-15 stripped lower is NOT regulated right now, and that it will not be "banned" after October 1, 2013, what the heck are you going to do with one that you buy after October 1, 2013? The minute you build it into anything other than an HBAR or an AR-57, you are in deep poo because you now possess a banned "assault weapon". So, buying an AR-15 lower after October 1, 2013 really does not get you much other than a HBAR or AR-57, both of which are not banned in the first place.

 

[Abacab]

I think it does clearly state receivers are regulated. If I am wrong, please tell me I am because I want to be wrong. Here's how I get there based on what you posted, Ab_Normal:

§ 5-101
(h) Firearm.-
(1) "Firearm" means:
(i) a weapon that expels, is designed to expel, or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; or
(ii) the frame or receiver of such a weapon.
(2) "Firearm" includes a starter gun.

(p) Regulated firearm.- "Regulated firearm" means:
(1) a handgun; or
(2) a firearm that is any of the following specific assault weapons or their copies, regardless of which company produced and manufactured that assault weapon:

Unless the definition of FIREARM is different in the section on regulated firearms, a FIREARM includes the frame or receiver of such a firearm. Hence, a stripped 1911 frame is still a handgun and thus regulated. It may not fire in such a condition, but can be readily converted to such a state. Since I am not looking at the complete law, the definition of a firearm may not apply to the whole section. However, that seems unlikely when what you pasted has section H and section P. The definition of a REGULATED FIREARM says a FIREARM that is on the list or a copy of something on the list. So, unless the initial definition of FIREARM is somehow substantially removed or specifically excluded from being related to that of REGULATED FIREARM, a receiver or frame of a listed ASSAULT WEAPON is thus regulated.

Gansler's opinion is not an official opinion, IIRC. Again, I hope I am wrong so please make me such.

 

[dblas]

it's maryland...that's your interpretation, but your interpretation doesn't matter. Our overlords have declared a receiver to be regulated soooo....we're boned.

They can declare a receiver to be regulated, but that doesn't make it banned.

Handguns will still be regulated, but they won't be banned.

Look at an ATF form 4473, there is a specific classification for receivers. When a receiver is purchased, it is not classified as a rifle, shotgun or handgun, so it is not treated as any of those.

Furthermore, that ATF does not classify a receiver as a rifle, shotgun, handgun or pistol, so neither can Maryland.

 

[Abacab]

Furthermore, that ATF does not classify a receiver as a rifle, shotgun, handgun or pistol, so neither can Maryland.

It absolutely can regulate them any way it sees fit.

 

[dblas]

I think it does clearly state receivers are regulated. If I am wrong, please tell me I am because I want to be wrong. Here's how I get there based on what you posted, Ab_Normal:





Unless the definition of FIREARM is different in the section on regulated firearms, a FIREARM includes the frame or receiver of such a firearm. Hence, a stripped 1911 frame is still a handgun and thus regulated. It may not fire in such a condition, but can be readily converted to such a state. Since I am not looking at the complete law, the definition of a firearm may not apply to the whole section. However, that seems unlikely when what you pasted has section H and section P. The definition of a REGULATED FIREARM says a FIREARM that is on the list or a copy of something on the list. So, unless the initial definition of FIREARM is somehow substantially removed or specifically excluded from being related to that of REGULATED FIREARM, a receiver or frame of a listed ASSAULT WEAPON is thus regulated.

Gansler's opinion is not an official opinion, IIRC. Again, I hope I am wrong so please make me such.

A stripped 1911 frame is sold as a receiver on a for 4473, not a handgun.

A receiver is not a copy, it IS a firearm classification on par with rifle, shotgun, pistol, handgun, etc.

Show me where a receiver is sold as a rifle? Show me where the 1911 frame is sold as a handgun and not a receiver?

 

[dblas]

It absolutely can regulate them any way it sees fit.

I did NOT say regulate, I said classify. Re-read it.

The ATF doesn't declare what is regulated, MD does, but MD cannot call a receiver a rifle (Classify) without going against the ATF.