Transferring an AR lower post-October 1st

[mward]

Purchase order is NOT a purchase. It is an order to purchase at a FUTURE date when it is LEGAL for it to be purchased and transferred to him. Hell, if I had a one year old child, I would place a purchase order on their behalf today for 20 years from now. That's how the law was written, that's how it works, their stupidity, not mine.

Oh my.

 

[gmhowell]

Move out of state. Don't look back.

 

[erwos]

That's how the law was written, that's how it works

That's not how it works. Your FFL is NOT able to receive banned guns for the purpose of selling to a Marylander past October 1. There is no exemption anywhere for doing so that I can find. You were not the first person with this clever idea; I had it the moment the language went into the law, but discarded it after I found that there was no apparent way to get the guns into the state. The purchase order language will help you if you have guns on layaway, and maybe a few other very specific circumstances. It is not the gaping loophole that some of us initially saw it as.

If the MSP interpret the law differently, so be it, but that's how it's written, and I don't think it's a particularly clever reading of it.

I also disagree with your characterization of a purchase order. A purchase order is a legally binding contract. If that's not a purchase, I don't know what is. And purchasing a regulated firearm as a prohibited person is a totally separate offense to buying it; the law reads:

possess, sell, offer to sell, transfer, purchase, or receive an assault WEAPON

If you purchase a regulated firearm under 21 but don't transfer and take possession of it, you have still broken the law. It's not ambiguous at all. You guys need to actually read the damn laws before telling me my understanding of them is incorrect, please.

 

[Markp]

That's not how it works. Your FFL is NOT able to receive banned guns for the purpose of selling to a Marylander past October 1. There is no exemption anywhere for doing so that I can find. You were not the first person with this clever idea; I had it the moment the language went into the law, but discarded it after I found that there was no apparent way to get the guns into the state. The purchase order language will help you if you have guns on layaway, and maybe a few other very specific circumstances. It is not the gaping loophole that some of us initially saw it as.

If the MSP interpret the law differently, so be it, but that's how it's written, and I don't think it's a particularly clever reading of it.

I also disagree with your characterization of a purchase order. A purchase order is a legally binding contract. If that's not a purchase, I don't know what is. And purchasing a regulated firearm as a prohibited person is a totally separate offense to buying it; the law reads:


If you purchase a regulated firearm under 21 but don't transfer and take possession of it, you have still broken the law. It's not ambiguous at all. You guys need to actually read the damn laws before telling me my understanding of them is incorrect, please.

Well that just sucks Poo!

 

[teratos]

That's not how it works. Your FFL is NOT able to receive banned guns for the purpose of selling to a Marylander past October 1. There is no exemption anywhere for doing so that I can find. You were not the first person with this clever idea; I had it the moment the language went into the law, but discarded it after I found that there was no apparent way to get the guns into the state. The purchase order language will help you if you have guns on layaway, and maybe a few other very specific circumstances. It is not the gaping loophole that some of us initially saw it as.

If the MSP interpret the law differently, so be it, but that's how it's written, and I don't think it's a particularly clever reading of it.

I also disagree with your characterization of a purchase order. A purchase order is a legally binding contract. If that's not a purchase, I don't know what is. And purchasing a regulated firearm as a prohibited person is a totally separate offense to buying it; the law reads:


If you purchase a regulated firearm under 21 but don't transfer and take possession of it, you have still broken the law. It's not ambiguous at all. You guys need to actually read the damn laws before telling me my understanding of them is incorrect, please.

This is ambiguous. Just a few lines down, it says you can get it if you have a valid purchase order from before October 1, 2013. A purchase order implies that the firearm is not available for transfer (i.e. not in possession of the FFL) at the time the order is placed, otherwise it would be a transfer, which is mentioned separately in the bill.

 

[erwos]

This is ambiguous.

It's really not. There's a lot of wishful thinking going down on some of these supposed "loopholes" that is completely unsupported by the text of the law.

The reason I am coming down so hard on this kind of wishful thinking is that it's dangerous. People could lose a LOT of money if FFLs start refusing deliveries post-October, and those guns get trapped in a refund/blame game. Ditto for people who buy up tons of receivers only to find they can't be built post-October.

Just a few lines down, it says you can get it if you have a valid purchase order from before October 1, 2013.

This applies to individuals, not to FFLs. I fully agree that individuals don't have a problem picking up a gun that they had a pre-October purchase order for, if the FFL possessed it pre-October.

A purchase order implies that the firearm is not available for transfer (i.e. not in possession of the FFL) at the time the order is placed, otherwise it would be a transfer, which is mentioned separately in the bill.

It implies no such thing. This wording was put into the bill to prevent already-possessed-by-FFL pre-October guns from going into layaway hell (ie, where the person who had already bought them via layaway from the FFL's inventory could no longer take ownership of them). It was never ever supposed to be a blanket exemption to let you get post-October guns into the state.

Maybe the MSP or AG somehow will interpret it differently, but the law itself seems pretty clear in both text and intent. If you think there's ambiguity, please quote me a section where it directly allows an FFL to take possession of a gun post-October for the purposes of selling it in state to an individual. I don't think you'll find it, but I'd love to be proven wrong.

 

[swinokur]

Basicaly if your ordered the gun and the FFL has it in house before Oct.1. you're GTG . You can take possession of it after Oct 1. If the FFL does not have it in the shop prior to Oct 1, you're screwed.

My read.

 

[SomeGuy]

I was hoping that it would allow for paying for one of the ever so many 'temp out of stock' items, and then you get it when you get it.

 

[strube]

Wait how does the law prevent you from building whatever you want on a grandfathered lower? It's an AR-15 (named assault weapon) possessed before Oct 1.

EDIT: It occurs to me that this might be in reference specifically to going from a cash and carry HBAR to something else. True?

 

[gmhowell]

Wait how does the law prevent you from building whatever you want on a grandfathered lower? It's an AR-15 (named assault weapon) possessed before Oct 1.

EDIT: It occurs to me that this might be in reference specifically to going from a cash and carry HBAR to something else. True?

That might be one objection. If I understand correctly, there is another objection. It is something like: you cannot put a lower onto a grandfathered upper after 10/1 as that would be 'bringing a new assault rifle into the state' or something like that. Manufacturing? I don't know the correct verbiage, but essentially on 10/1, there is what the ATF thinks of as 'other' in the form of a lower. On 10/2 you attach an upper to said lower. Therefore, on 10/3, there are now more 'assault rifles' in MD, which is a no-no.

I think erwos believes in this interpretation and may either be able to explain it or link to where he has explained it before.

 

[phx223]

That might be one objection. If I understand correctly, there is another objection. It is something like: you cannot put a lower onto a grandfathered upper after 10/1 as that would be 'bringing a new assault rifle into the state' or something like that. Manufacturing? I don't know the correct verbiage, but essentially on 10/1, there is what the ATF thinks of as 'other' in the form of a lower. On 10/2 you attach an upper to said lower. Therefore, on 10/3, there are now more 'assault rifles' in MD, which is a no-no.

I think erwos believes in this interpretation and may either be able to explain it or link to where he has explained it before.

This was how the 94-04 federal ban played out. If a lower was not built into a banable configuration prior to the ban it could only be built into a post ban configuration. How MD carries out the law, well there are some lawyers in here that read it differently from eachother.

 

[strube]

This was how the 94-04 federal ban played out. If a lower was not built into a banable configuration prior to the ban it could only be built into a post ban configuration. How MD carries out the law, well there are some lawyers in here that read it differently from eachother.

That would make more sense for the 94 ban and for copycat weapons that would otherwise fail the features test but I can't imagine it would apply to a named assault weapon that was already registered with MSP when purchased as a regulated firearm well before 10/1.

 

[phx223]

That would make more sense for the 94 ban and for copycat weapons that would otherwise fail the features test but I can't imagine it would apply to a named assault weapon that was already registered with MSP when purchased as a regulated firearm well before 10/1.

Like I said, MD is crazy and I have no idea how this is going to pan out. But all my lowers will be complete and matted with an upper prior to 1 Oct.

 

[Armati]

To the OP:

I feel your pain. I was in my early 20's when the first AWB went into effect and did not have the means to purchase everything I wanted to.

Right now, here are some possible solutions:

Get an HBAR now. Search Gunbroker and have the transfer sent to your friendly neighborhood FFL. Talk to your FFL first about the possible transfer. Even with everything going on with gun laws you should be able to get a good deal. HBARs are generally not that desirable among serious AR collectors because they suffer from out of spec receiver pin holes to make it harder swap uppers. They make special pins to fix this problem. There are Colt factory 16" HBARs as well. When you get your HBAR begin to configure it as you like because the current law prior to 1 OCT only requires you own an "HBAR." It does not define what an HBAR is. The HBAR is actually a solid Colt gun and has good bones for further customization.

As far as I know, the ADCOR BEAR is not regulated. Somebody set me straight if I got this wrong.

AR10s are not regulated. Get an AR10 lower from Brownells and build it up. Now you have a legit 7.62mm battle rifle. The AR10 is used by the Army as the M110 SASS.

 

[Vandy]

HBARs are generally not that desirable among serious AR collectors because they suffer from out of spec receiver pin holes to make it harder swap uppers. They make special pins to fix this problem. There are Colt factory 16" HBARs as well. When you get your HBAR begin to configure it as you like because the current law prior to 1 OCT only requires you own an "HBAR." It does not define what an HBAR is. The HBAR is actually a solid Colt gun and has good bones for further customization

This is not necessarily true about HBARs. I do know Colt did/does make some "large pin" receivers, but to the best of my knowledge, the majority of HBARs have standard pin sizes. I know my Bushmaster does and all of my friends who bought HBARs have ones with standard size pins. HBAR, under current MSP interpretation, is not limited to Colt. Yes, he can configure the HBAR how he wishes (keeping minimum 16" barrel) while under 21, but he would also be able to do this after Oct 1 as long he does not have two or more of the features (folding stock, flash hider, grenade launcher).

If the OP is under 21 now (and on Oct 1, 2013) he cannot legally convert the HBAR to a non-HBAR configuration until he turns 21. What others are saying, is that the way we are reading the language, after Oct 1, you will not legally be able to turn a pre-ban HBAR into a post-ban non-HBAR.

 

[2AHokie]

It's really not. There's a lot of wishful thinking going down on some of these supposed "loopholes" that is completely unsupported by the text of the law.

The reason I am coming down so hard on this kind of wishful thinking is that it's dangerous. People could lose a LOT of money if FFLs start refusing deliveries post-October, and those guns get trapped in a refund/blame game. Ditto for people who buy up tons of receivers only to find they can't be built post-October.


This applies to individuals, not to FFLs. I fully agree that individuals don't have a problem picking up a gun that they had a pre-October purchase order for, if the FFL possessed it pre-October.


It implies no such thing. This wording was put into the bill to prevent already-possessed-by-FFL pre-October guns from going into layaway hell (ie, where the person who had already bought them via layaway from the FFL's inventory could no longer take ownership of them). It was never ever supposed to be a blanket exemption to let you get post-October guns into the state.

Maybe the MSP or AG somehow will interpret it differently, but the law itself seems pretty clear in both text and intent. If you think there's ambiguity, please quote me a section where it directly allows an FFL to take possession of a gun post-October for the purposes of selling it in state to an individual. I don't think you'll find it, but I'd love to be proven wrong.

I think your analysis is correct, but I have one line of questioning that I'm not knowledgeable enough to answer.

What if my purchase order is from an out of state dealer or internet site? The law says both that I can take possession and that no MD dealer can import it (except for some specific situations that I wouldn't qualify for). How does that kind of contradiction get resolved?

Why can't I go over to VA and set up an open-ended purchase order of X soon to be banned items? I'm confident that I can't, but I can't find the reason why.

 

[Markp]

Well here is an interesting question, suppose I am building an unbanned configuration, I should still be able to buy AR and AK lower receivers after Oct 1st because many of the configurations of the receiver that can be built are NOT banned... What say the collective?

Mark

 

[gmkoh]

Vandy: " HBAR, under current MSP interpretation, is not limited to Colt."

I have heard this, but not really understood it. The exemption is specifically for the COLT SPORTER HBAR. Colt made other AR's with HBAR'S not labeled as sporters.

So- is the MSP interpretation that any AR-15 type with a heavy barrel is non regulated?
Is there a reference for that and are FFL's honoring that?

pro that interpretation: the law lists banned guns and copy's. The exceptions are in the same list, ergo copies of the exceptions are also excepted

CON- exemptions from the list and copies are specified by make and model , ergo only specific makes and models are exempted.

so- is there a definitive interpretation and is there a reference?

 

[dblas]

Vandy: " HBAR, under current MSP interpretation, is not limited to Colt."

I have heard this, but not really understood it. The exemption is specifically for the COLT SPORTER HBAR. Colt made other AR's with HBAR'S not labeled as sporters.

So- is the MSP interpretation that any AR-15 type with a heavy barrel is non regulated?
Is there a reference for that and are FFL's honoring that?

pro that interpretation: the law lists banned guns and copy's. The exceptions are in the same list, ergo copies of the exceptions are also excepted

CON- exemptions from the list and copies are specified by make and model , ergo only specific makes and models are exempted.

so- is there a definitive interpretation and is there a reference?

Some FFLs honor any HBAR as cash and carry, some don't. The MSP provided guidance and a determination that the regulation was NOT limited to the Colt Sporter/HBAR. There is at least one gun store that has letter from MSP that says as much.