To build a legal AR

[Archangel]

The lower IS a FIREARM, it is NOT a regulated ASSAULT WEAPON.

Riddle me this: If a stripped receiver is just a "firearm" but not an assault weapon, then why is it transferred as a regulated firearm?

 

[Markp]

Riddle me this: If a stripped receiver is just a "firearm" but not an assault weapon, then why is it transferred as a regulated firearm?

Well now, that's a really good question, isn't it.

Because if the receiver was the "assault weapon" then ALL AR variants would be regulated, and as we know, they aren't.

AR Machine Guns - Not Regulated
AR Firearms that are not handguns or rifles - Not Regulated (e.g Firearms other than rifle, AR-57's 16" barrel, etc)
AR Rifles with Heavy Barrels - Not Regulated

So how can the receiver be regulated, if it is used in the construction of non-regulated weapons? Riddle me that batman!

 

[PowPow]

I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm getting sick and tired of the word "regulated".

 

[Markp]

I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm getting sick and tired of the word "regulated".

Well in a few short months you'll be able to say "banned" instead... does that help?

 

[annihilation-time]

The lower IS a FIREARM, it is NOT a regulated ASSAULT WEAPON.

NO! The receiver, although transferred as a regulated firearm is not an assault long gun, assault pistol, or a copy cat weapon until it meets the definition of such.

I agree with you; however, the state would be contradictory if we couldn't build from a lower. Maryland treats stripped lowers as regulated long guns (and pistols), so there's no reason for us to accept the notion we cannot build a regulated AR-15 long gun from a legally transferred lower. According to them, it already is a regulated firearm. You can't manufacture something that already exists; you can only reconfigure it within the boundaries of the law.

 

[Archangel]

Well now, that's a really good question, isn't it.

Because if the receiver was the "assault weapon" then ALL AR variants would be regulated, and as we know, they aren't.

AR Machine Guns - Not Regulated
AR Firearms that are not handguns or rifles - Not Regulated (e.g Firearms other than rifle, AR-57's 16" barrel, etc)
AR Rifles with Heavy Barrels - Not Regulated

So how can the receiver be regulated, if it is used in the construction of non-regulated weapons? Riddle me that batman!

Under Maryland law (specifically 5-101(p)), a "Regulated Firearm" is one of 2 things.
1. A Handgun
2. Any of "the list" of 45 named "Assault Weapons," or their copies.

The AR-15 is on "the list," so it is by definition an "Assault Weapon" and therefore regulated.


According to 5-101(h)(1)(ii), the frame or receiver of a firearm is considered the firearm.

So an AR-15 receiver is considered an AR-15, which is regulated, so the receiver is regulated.


There are exceptions, certainly (HBAR, AR-57, etc), but to get the exception, you can't just say the the receiver COULD BE one of those exceptions. It has to actually BE one of them. ie, a complete AR-57. Until there is some definitive feature present which makes it NOT fall under the definition of AR-15, then a stripped AR-15 receiver is an AR-15, and therefore an "Assault Weapon," and therefore regulated.

That is, until Oct 1st, when the list of regulated Assault weapons turns into the list of banned Assault Long Guns.

 

[Markp]

Under Maryland law (specifically 5-101(p)), a "Regulated Firearm" is one of 2 things.
1. A Handgun
2. Any of "the list" of 45 named "Assault Weapons," or their copies.

The AR-15 is on "the list," so it is by definition an "Assault Weapon" and therefore regulated.


According to 5-101(h)(1)(ii), the frame or receiver of a firearm is considered the firearm.

So an AR-15 receiver is considered an AR-15, which is regulated, so the receiver is regulated.


There are exceptions, certainly (HBAR, AR-57, etc), but to get the exception, you can't just say the the receiver COULD BE one of those exceptions. It has to actually BE one of them. ie, a complete AR-57. Until there is some definitive feature present which makes it NOT fall under the definition of AR-15, then a stripped AR-15 receiver is an AR-15, and therefore an "Assault Weapon," and therefore regulated.

That is, until Oct 1st, when the list of regulated Assault weapons turns into the list of banned Assault Long Guns.

There is no exception for the AR-57. Just like there is no exception for the Mossberg 500 receiver (which just happens to be the same receiver as the Mossberg Assault Shotgun).

Where does it say this in the law:

"It has to actually BE one of them. ie, a complete AR-57. Until there is some definitive feature present which makes it NOT fall under the definition of AR-15, then a stripped AR-15 receiver is an AR-15, and therefore an "Assault Weapon," and therefore regulated."

You can't just make shit up that's not there in the law!

Are saying that if they engrave AR-57 on the lowers, it would be unregulated because it's not an AR-15 receiver?
And what if they engrave AR-15 SPORTER HBAR on the lower, suddenly that receiver is no longer regulated?

No, receivers are NOT assault weapons even if they can be used to manufacture one (which, one could do with a shovel apparently).

Are shovels now regulated firearms too? http://thechive.com/2012/12/06/appa...n-ak-47-out-of-just-about-anything-25-photos/

So let me get this right...

HBAR receiver - NOT REGULATED
AR-57 receiver - NOT REGULATED
AR-15 receiver - REGULATED

Did I get that right???

 

[b00sh]

There is no exception for the AR-57. Just like there is no exception for the Mossberg 500 receiver (which just happens to be the same receiver as the Mossberg Assault Shotgun).

Where does it say this in the law:

"It has to actually BE one of them. ie, a complete AR-57. Until there is some definitive feature present which makes it NOT fall under the definition of AR-15, then a stripped AR-15 receiver is an AR-15, and therefore an "Assault Weapon," and therefore regulated."

You can't just make shit up that's not there!

Basically he's saying the receiver is the legislated part, and the receiver is the part that is considered a long gun, so it falls in the same category as an AR-15. Where if you buy a complete AR-57, it does not.

 

[Markp]

Basically he's saying the receiver is the legislated part, and the receiver is the part that is considered a long gun, so it falls in the same category as an AR-15. Where if you buy a complete AR-57, it does not.

I know what he is saying, but that is not consistent with the law, now is it?

What does the law state... it doesn't state that an AR style receiver is not regulated when used to build a different weapon, does it?

I must have missed that section!

 

[b00sh]

I know what he is saying, but that is not consistent with the law, now is it?

What does the law state... it doesn't state that an AR style receiver is not regulated when used to build a different weapon, does it?

I must have missed that section!

He said the gun has to be complete to be considered an AR-57. Lower counts as AR-15, always.

 

[Markp]

He said the gun has to be complete to be considered an AR-57. Lower counts as AR-15, always.

Really, where does it say that?

JUST SHOW ME ONE PLACE IN WRITING EITHER IN THE STATE LAW, STATE CODE, AG LETTERHEAD, OR MSP BULLETIN.

And then, I'll be happy to STFU.

 

[b00sh]

Right here?

So an AR-15 receiver is considered an AR-15, which is regulated, so the receiver is regulated.

There are exceptions, certainly (HBAR, AR-57, etc), but to get the exception, you can't just say the the receiver COULD BE one of those exceptions. It has to actually BE one of them. ie, a complete AR-57. Until there is some definitive feature present which makes it NOT fall under the definition of AR-15, then a stripped AR-15 receiver is an AR-15, and therefore an "Assault Weapon," and therefore regulated.

That is, until Oct 1st, when the list of regulated Assault weapons turns into the list of banned Assault Long Guns.

 

[Markp]

Right here?

Oh, you mean on the internet with no legal citation, no reference to state law or code, and no other legal basis for saying so?

You can't just make the law up by pulling it out of your butt!



Ok, ya... I'll go with that. And you've decided that his opinion is right, why?

 

[b00sh]

Oh, you mean on the internet with no legal citation, no reference to state law or code, and no other legal basis for saying so?

You can't just make the law up by pulling it out of your butt!



Ok, ya... I'll go with that. And you've decided that his opinion is right, why?

You edited your post, I don't have legal quotations, just what is currently applied. From what I can tell, you can buy AR-57's and AR-15 HBAR's cash and carry. But if you just want a lower, even if it's to build one of those two guns, it is considered regulated.

What exactly are you arguing? I'm not sure we are in disagreement about anything specific. Maybe I misunderstand how things are currently.

 

[Markp]

You edited your post, I don't have legal quotations, just what is currently applied. From what I can tell, you can buy AR-57's and AR-15 HBAR's cash and carry. But if you just want a lower, even if it's to build one of those two guns, it is considered regulated.

What exactly are you arguing? I'm not sure we are in disagreement about anything specific. Maybe I misunderstand how things are currently.

Receivers are NOT regulated assault weapons.

PLEASE, go read the law, carefully.

 

[b00sh]

Receivers are NOT regulated assault weapons.

PLEASE, go read the law, carefully.

I get that part, but what is it listed as when you fill out the paperwork at the FFL? Is it listed as a receiver? The FFL is the one that picks the description they think best fits it, right?

 

[Archangel]

Really, where does it say that?

JUST SHOW ME ONE PLACE IN WRITING EITHER IN THE STATE LAW, STATE CODE, AG LETTERHEAD, OR MSP BULLETIN.

And then, I'll be happy to STFU.

http://www.oag.state.md.us/Opinions/2010/95oag101.pdf

"in order for a firearm to be considered a copy of a listed assault weapon, and therefore governed by the regulated firearms law, there must be a similarity between the internal components and function of the firearm in question and those of one of the listed weapons. "


So, a stripped receiver which is functionally and dimensionally identical to an AR-15 receiver is considered an AR-15, regardless of what it says on the side.

(The one possible exception to that would be if the receiver is actually marked "Colt Sporter HBAR," as there is an explicit exception in the law. I won't go into the whole HBAR thing, sine there is no real concise answer on that at this time. "What the law says," "what the MSP has historically done," and "what the MSP may do in the future" are all somewhat different in regards to that.)

 

[Archangel]

Also from that AG opinion:

"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 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."

 

[Markp]

http://www.oag.state.md.us/Opinions/2010/95oag101.pdf

"in order for a firearm to be considered a copy of a listed assault weapon, and therefore governed by the regulated firearms law, there must be a similarity between the internal components and function of the firearm in question and those of one of the listed weapons. "


So, a stripped receiver which is functionally and dimensionally identical to an AR-15 receiver is considered an AR-15, regardless of what it says on the side.

"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 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."

Right the legislature did specifically state that a receiver is a FIREARM and "includes the receiver or frame of such a weapon". THEY DID NOT STATE THAT A RECEIVER IS A REGULATED FIREARM. In fact, just a few paragraphs down in the same code section, they specifically did not include that in the definition of a regulated firearm!!! So why not?

Because they never INTENDED to regulate frames and receivers, only handguns and assault weapons. No where does it say that "regulated firearm" included "the receiver or frame of such a weapon".

Really, the stripped lower doesn't function at all like a listed assault weapon. Not until you add components to it, as a result you cannot determine it's classification until it is assembled.

Take the Mini-14 receiver and SKS receivers, most Mini-14's and SKS's are not regulated weapons, are you going to say that the Mini-14 and SKS receivers are regulated firearms? Seriously?

 

[dragonfire1911]

This leads to the question of multiple receivers and multiple uppers. I own several lowers and completed uppers in various lengths and barrel configurations. I like to play around with the configurations for different purposes, depends on what I like for the week. After 10/1, I can't do this anymore?