HBAR/Lower Long Gun Transfer

[teratos]

...except dedicated PCC lowers are cash and carry.

Yep…and “pistol” is in the name…

 

[RRomig]

223/556 lowers are 77r because of the possibility of it being built into a banned rifle. Not saying it makes sense or I agree with it but that is the fact of the matter.
9mm , 45 , AR10 lowers can all be built into pistols but none can be built into a banned rifle.

 

[NateIU10]

Stripped lowers are regulated because they can be built into pistols. HBARs, PCCs, and an AR in any caliber other than 5.56 are cash and carry. In fact, I believe PCC stripped lowers are cash and carry. MD laws make no sense.

Incorrect. There is no possibility of MSP even coming close to making an argument that receivers of any type can meet the definition of Regulated Firearm pursuant to PS 5-101(r)(1) as a handgun is solely defined based on barrel length.

MSP also takes the position, or at least used to, that a stripped Glock frame is a Regulated Firearm, which is patently false.

 

[teratos]

Incorrect. There is no possibility of MSP even coming close to making an argument that receivers of any type can meet the definition of Regulated Firearm pursuant to PS 5-101(r)(1) as a handgun is solely defined based on barrel length.

MSP also takes the position, or at least used to, that a stripped Glock frame is a Regulated Firearm, which is patently false.

Are you telling me stripped Glock frames are cash and carry? The serialized part?

 

[RRomig]

Nope they are on 77r but as pistol frame. On 4473 they are other and no multi gun paperwork

 

[outrider58]

Let us also not forget, in the instance of the Ruger Mark series of pistols, the barrel 'group' is the serialized part of the gun and not the frame. A gun part...

 

[Bob A]

It's situations like these that demonstrate that law school is the greatest waste of intellectual capacity ever devised by the mind of man.

It must first be understood that "lawyer" is the larval state of "politician".

 

[jcutonilli]

Are you telling me stripped Glock frames are cash and carry? The serialized part?

I believe he is saying that stripped Glock frames do not meet the definition of "handgun" (Public Safety 5-101(n)(1)) because the firearm does not have a barrel less than 16 inch length. Since it is not a "handgun" or "assault long gun" it is not considered a "regulated firearm" (PS 5-101(r))

Theoretically they should be cash and carry, but MSP and FFLs may have different interpretations.

 

[sxs]

The MSP does not get to decide what firearms are "regulated firearms". The MD General Assembly does and they have determined that they are not "regulated firearms". If the MSP is concerned over the date of manufacture, all they need to do is trace the firearm and the manufacturer will disclose that information.

While I philosophically agree with you, MSP does state otherwise. Small business owners (e.g. Gun shop owners) don't want to lose their regulated firearms license and cost themselves perhaps 10s of thousands of dollars over probably multiple years. Even if they win they will have lost...likely including their business.

 

[sxs]

I'll throw another money wrench into this discussion. There have been multiple articles making very cogent and logical arguments that an AR lower does NOT meet the definition of a firearm receiver....and there are court decision that seem to support that:. https://nsjonline.com/article/2020/01/federal-rulings-could-redefine-what-constitutes-a-firearm/

 

[DaemonAssassin]

I'll throw another money wrench into this discussion. There have been multiple articles making very cogent and logical arguments that an AR lower does NOT meet the definition of a firearm receiver....and there are court decision that seem to support that:. https://nsjonline.com/article/2020/01/federal-rulings-could-redefine-what-constitutes-a-firearm/

The feds tried to prosecute a guy for selling AR-15's without a FFL. His lawyer proved to the feds that the AR as a assembled package does not meet the requirements in federal law to be considered a rifle or a firearm. The feds dropped the case and charges before ever going to court.

 

[jcutonilli]

While I philosophically agree with you, MSP does state otherwise. Small business owners (e.g. Gun shop owners) don't want to lose their regulated firearms license and cost themselves perhaps 10s of thousands of dollars over probably multiple years. Even if they win they will have lost...likely including their business.

I have not read all the guidance that MSP has put out on the subject but Advisory LD-FRU-19-002 seems to indicate that the answer depends on whether it is the receiver of an "assault weapon" or not. It would seem to me that any receiver that can legally be turned into an "assault weapon" would still be considered a "regulated firearm". Any receiver that cannot legally be turned into an "assault weapon", but can be possessed as a long gun, is simply a long gun and can be transferred as such.

While I disagree with the MSP that the "frame of a handgun (or the receiver of an assault weapon) is a 'regulated firearm'", they have clarified that not all receivers are regulated. It would seem to me that AR lowers should be cash and carry based on this guidance.

Maybe someone else has a different interpretation.

https://mdsp.maryland.gov/Organization/Licensing%20Division%20Documents/LD-FRU-19-002%20-%20Advisory.pdf

 

[jcutonilli]

I'll throw another money wrench into this discussion. There have been multiple articles making very cogent and logical arguments that an AR lower does NOT meet the definition of a firearm receiver....and there are court decision that seem to support that:. https://nsjonline.com/article/2020/01/federal-rulings-could-redefine-what-constitutes-a-firearm/

The feds tried to prosecute a guy for selling AR-15's without a FFL. His lawyer proved to the feds that the AR as a assembled package does not meet the requirements in federal law to be considered a rifle or a firearm. The feds dropped the case and charges before ever going to court.

That is a slightly different issue. The problem there was not with the law itself, it was with the regulations the ATF made. The feds dropped the case to ensure bad precedent was not established.

 

[outrider58]

I believe he is saying that stripped Glock frames do not meet the definition of "handgun" ...

Theoretically they should be cash and carry, but MSP and FFLs may have different interpretations.

At the end of the day, this is the only thing that counts and the reason these(ahem) discussions are an exercise in futility and a huge waste of time.

 

[mac1_131]

223/556 lowers are 77r because of the possibility of it being built into a banned rifle. Not saying it makes sense or I agree with it but that is the fact of the matter.
9mm , 45 , AR10 lowers can all be built into pistols but none can be built into a banned rifle.

No no no they were 77r before there were banned rifles. It's because they can be built into pistols.

 

[RRomig]

No no no they were 77r before there were banned rifles. It's because they can be built into pistols.

We can ping pong this all day but you are not correct. Call MD state police or email the licensing division. I have been doing this for a while now and am never shy about calling the sgt in charge to clear up some muddy water. If you were correct ALL AR 15/10 lowers would have to go through 77r process since they can all be made into pistols.
All that said believe what you will because it doesn’t matter what we say. 223/556 lowers are on 77r and to that we both agree.
Take care.

 

[lazarus]

No no no they were 77r before there were banned rifles. It's because they can be built into pistols.

No, it is because it is the frame or receiver of a regulated firearm. That has been the case always for MSP. The frame or receiver of a regulated firearm has to be done on a 77r, even if the final firearm might not be regulated.

 

[outrider58]

No no no they were 77r before there were banned rifles. It's because they can be built into pistols.

...except dedicated PCC lowers are cash and carry.

...and they too may be(and often are) built into pistols.

 

[outrider58]

Somewhere, deep in the bowels of the Md statehouse, in a poorly ventilated 10x10 room, those responsible for drafting Md's onerous gun bills are rolling on the floor, laughing their guts out.

 

[RRomig]

Somewhere, deep in the bowels of the Md statehouse, in a poorly ventilated 10x10 room, those responsible for drafting Md's onerous gun bills are rolling on the floor, laughing their guts out.

I think it’s more like they’re in a padded room licking the window on the door