MSP now saying all lowers require 77r??

[Nickberg500]

I just got a call from my FFL that when they asked MSP if an AR-10 lower requires a 77r, the MSP responded with this (attached). This can't be right; anyone have input on fighting this?

 

[DutchV]

Not really surprising. You could make a pistol from an AR-10 lower.

 

[Nickberg500]

Not really surprising. You could make a pistol from an AR-10 lower.

Yes but more likely a rifle. I thought the whole argument for AR-15 lowers was that they could be built into banned weapons? AR-10s have been cash and carry for years I thought.

 

[trickg]

I just got a call from my FFL that when they asked MSP if an AR-10 lower requires a 77r, the MSP responded with this (attached). This can't be right; anyone have input on fighting this?

IANAL, but it seems to me that unless some legislation has been passed, they can't simply decide to change the rules.

Does anyone else have any experience with this? This is part of the reason I do 80% builds now.

 

[rbird7282]

What FFL? Could be that S/T Bradley doesn’t know what he’s talking about, it wouldn’t be the first time they’ve gotten something wrong.
Could also be that they’re making stuff up, wouldn’t be the first time they’ve done that either.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[rbird7282]

IANAL, but it seems to me that unless some legislation has been passed, they can't simply decide to change the rules.

Does anyone else have any experience with this? This is part of the reason I do 80% builds now.

MSP LD changes the rules frequently without legislation......


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ponder_MD]

IANAL, but it seems to me that unless some legislation has been passed, they can't simply decide to change the rules.

Does anyone else have any experience with this? This is part of the reason I do 80% builds now.

Oh, but they can! The MSP frequently legislates by memo on a variety of issues in our lives. I have been subject to this outside of the firearms world.

 

[DutchV]

Yes but more likely a rifle. I thought the whole argument for AR-15 lowers was that they could be built into banned weapons? AR-10s have been cash and carry for years I thought.

Pretty sure it's not in the law, it's an MSP interpretation.

And while personally I think a short barrel .308 is a bit nuts, some guys are building them.

 

[ironpony]

Yeah.

 

[Nickberg500]

What FFL? Could be that S/T Bradley doesn’t know what he’s talking about, it wouldn’t be the first time they’ve gotten something wrong.
Could also be that they’re making stuff up, wouldn’t be the first time they’ve done that either.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"Geared Up Firearm Training Courses and Accessories, Inc."

They weren't sure about AR-10s so they had to ask.

 

[rbird7282]

I'm still trying to figure out how the MSP can make the ATF change their rules on the < 29" SBR for MD Only? Yeah.

They didn’t make the ATF do anything. The 29” rule is a MD law, the ATF uses that in determining whether or not to approve your SBR since you need to follow federal and state law.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[rbird7282]

"Geared Up Firearm Training Courses and Accessories, Inc."

They weren't sure about AR-10s so they had to ask.

I’d find another FFL


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JTH20]

Yes but more likely a rifle. I thought the whole argument for AR-15 lowers was that they could be built into banned weapons? AR-10s have been cash and carry for years I thought.

That's the MSP's reason an AR-15 lower requires a 77r. The MSP released a memo about banned long gun receivers a few years ago:

https://mdsp.maryland.gov/Document ...3 - Receivers of Banned Assault Long Guns.pdf

 

[Nickberg500]

Pretty sure it's not in the law, it's an MSP interpretation.



And while personally I think a short barrel .308 is a bit nuts, some guys are building them.

True but like the other guy said, pistols have nothing to do with their silly 77r requirement on AR-15 lowers. It has to do with their capability of being built into a banned weapon.

 

[Nickberg500]

I’d find another FFL


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I fully intend to. Buy once, cry once. Made a mistake trying to save a few bucks. Very pleasant people but these clarity questions got me into this situation.

 

[ironpony]

They didn’t make the ATF do anything. The 29” rule is a MD law, the ATF uses that in determining whether or not to approve your SBR since you need to follow federal and state law.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My bad. Fixed it.

 

[Nickberg500]

IANAL, but it seems to me that unless some legislation has been passed, they can't simply decide to change the rules.



Does anyone else have any experience with this? This is part of the reason I do 80% builds now.

Do you or anyone else have advice on where to go for an 80% DPMS compatible AR-10 lower? It looks like I might need one now that they're forcing me to register it.

 

[erwos]

That's the MSP's reason an AR-15 lower requires a 77r. The MSP released a memo about banned long gun receivers a few years ago:

https://mdsp.maryland.gov/Document ...3 - Receivers of Banned Assault Long Guns.pdf

And that reasoning does not apply to AR-10 lowers. Find a new FFL.

 

[KIBarrister]

I have formal correspondence from the State Licensing Division from about a year ago that AR-10's are not included in the 77r process.

ETA - email from 3 Jan. 2020

 

[Nickberg500]

I have formal correspondence from the State Licensing Division from about a year ago that AR-10's are not included in the 77r process.



ETA - email from 3 Jan. 2020

Thank you. Forwarded it to my FFL. What would you do in my situation? Bite the bullet, fight the interpretation, or tell them to send the lower to my other, less green FFL (not sure they would let me do that)?