Will the AWB ban Stripped Lowers in MD?

[Marksman]

so in order to "cover" yourself, If you already have a complete AR, couldn't you take your upper and pop it onto the stripped lower and take a pic or vid with a date/time stamp? Wouldn't that convert it from a regular stripped lower into a scary "complete" rifle? So as long as that is done prior to Oct. 1 it was a complete rifle prior to the ban date and is grandfathered in.

Why go through all that trouble? If you purchased the lower, stripped or dressed, you have legally purchased the firearm. Whether it has an upper or not on it is a moot point!

An AR lower is, in and of itself, a regulated firearm - if you sold it or lost it, stripped or not, you would be held accountable for it!

On top of that, it is the government's responsibility to prove your guilt, not your responsibility to prove your innocence...at least that's how it is supposed to be.

 

[chuckgregory]

Why go through all that trouble? If you purchased the lower, stripped or dressed, you have legally purchased the firearm. Whether it has an upper or not on it is a moot point!

An AR lower is, in and of itself, a regulated firearm - if you sold it or lost it, stripped or not, you would be held accountable for it!

On top of that, it is the government's responsibility to prove your guilt, not your responsibility to prove your innocence...at least that's how it is supposed to be.

Agreed. The piece that is regulated by the ATF is the firearm.

 

[obnoxious2]

If the cops come confiscating for your ar15's due to the mental portion of the bill (like what is happening in NY currently), I would take off the upper and hand them the lower assuming you started from a stripped lower.

 

[Name Taken]

If the cops come confiscating for your ar15's due to the mental portion of the bill (like what is happening in NY currently), I would take off the upper and hand them the lower assuming you started from a stripped lower.

Good luck with that.

 

[swinokur]

Cops ain't stupid.

 

[Wreckless]

Why go through all that trouble? If you purchased the lower, stripped or dressed, you have legally purchased the firearm. Whether it has an upper or not on it is a moot point!

An AR lower is, in and of itself, a regulated firearm - if you sold it or lost it, stripped or not, you would be held accountable for it!

On top of that, it is the government's responsibility to prove your guilt, not your responsibility to prove your innocence...at least that's how it is supposed to be.

Because there seemed to be a lot of back and forth earlier in this thread about whether or not it could be built up after the ban took effect. So, the obvious answer seemed to be to "build" it and document it prior to the ban.

 

[GBMaryland]

So change the name... they are called AR-1234s.

Funny thing, well, not so funny really, a manufacturer buddy of mine got a call the DAY AFTER the NY fiasco passed... and the distributor that called him asked if he could create an AR-15 clone without the pistol grip; the idea being that it would no longer have a feature test issue.

He told him to take a hike, as he wasn't going to involve himself in being targeted by Bloomberg... let alone it was going to be fairly expensive to develop overall.

 

[SomeGuy]

From the bill, "FLASH SUPPRESSOR MEANS A DEVICE THAT FUNCTIONS, OR IS INTENDED TO FUNCTION, TO PERCEPTIBLY REDUCE OR REDIRECT MUZZLE FLASH FROM THE SHOOTER’S FIELD OF VISION.

As some 'muzzle breaks' also function, at least partially, as flash suppressors, only time will tell whether or not that distinction holds up.

I take this to the logical conclusion, scopes, iron sights, rails, a flashlight on the rails, all perceptibly reduce flash, ... you can go until you get to the barrel itself, which at the moment the 'flash' exits it blocks fully 1 hemisphere of the muzzle flash from the shooter's field of vision.

if you are on a sandbag ...

Anything that you can perceive, that gets between your eye and any of the muzzle flash, is by very strict interpretation functions as a flash suppressor.

 

[smores]

I take this to the logical conclusion, scopes, iron sights, rails, a flashlight on the rails, all perceptibly reduce flash, ... you can go until you get to the barrel itself, which at the moment the 'flash' exits it blocks fully 1 hemisphere of the muzzle flash from the shooter's field of vision.

if you are on a sandbag ...

Anything that you can perceive, that gets between your eye and any of the muzzle flash, is by very strict interpretation functions as a flash suppressor.

I believe the ATF formed a working group or chartered a study to determine the effectiveness of and differences between different flash hiders, muzzle brakes and compensators. There were too many variables and they couldn't establish empirical differences, so it was abandoned.

I will search around and find it when I get home...



Si vis pacem para bellum

follow me @DiscipleofJMB

 

[bmelton]

Funny thing, well, not so funny really, a manufacturer buddy of mine got a call the DAY AFTER the NY fiasco passed... and the distributor that called him asked if he could create an AR-15 clone without the pistol grip; the idea being that it would no longer have a feature test issue.

I was talking to a gunsmith buddy of mine about the exact same thing. A good old "Fuddsy" looking rifle that just happened to use an AR platform receiver, shoots 5.56/.223, but otherwise looks like a traditional Remington 700.

He pointed me at the Browning BAR, and it took me until my hot head cooled down to realize that the BAR doesn't do .223. Otherwise, it's a semi-automatic hunting rifle that, except for being the appropriate caliber, does basically what you're looking for.

If anybody really wanted to make some money right now though, they'd start making classical wood furniture for the AR platform. If there are any gunsmiths/armorers/entrepreneurs listening to this, feel free to steal this idea.

 

[Ab_Normal]

If anybody really wanted to make some money right now though, they'd start making classical wood furniture for the AR platform. If there are any gunsmiths/armorers/entrepreneurs listening to this, feel free to steal this idea.

Already a couple companies doing this at about $350 per set.

 

[coinboy]

Funny thing, well, not so funny really, a manufacturer buddy of mine got a call the DAY AFTER the NY fiasco passed... and the distributor that called him asked if he could create an AR-15 clone without the pistol grip; the idea being that it would no longer have a feature test issue.

He told him to take a hike, as he wasn't going to involve himself in being targeted by Bloomberg... let alone it was going to be fairly expensive to develop overall.

https://www.exilemachine.net/shop/pages/hammerhead-customer-photos-3.html

 

[teratos]

https://www.exilemachine.net/shop/pages/hammerhead-customer-photos-3.html

My eyes!!!

 

[smores]

I was talking to a gunsmith buddy of mine about the exact same thing. A good old "Fuddsy" looking rifle that just happened to use an AR platform receiver, shoots 5.56/.223, but otherwise looks like a traditional Remington 700.

He pointed me at the Browning BAR, and it took me until my hot head cooled down to realize that the BAR doesn't do .223. Otherwise, it's a semi-automatic hunting rifle that, except for being the appropriate caliber, does basically what you're looking for.

If anybody really wanted to make some money right now though, they'd start making classical wood furniture for the AR platform. If there are any gunsmiths/armorers/entrepreneurs listening to this, feel free to steal this idea.

see below...

Already a couple companies doing this at about $350 per set.

This, plus the Mossberg MVP, a bolt rifle in 5.56 that takes AR mags is already on the market.



Si vis pacem para bellum

follow me @DiscipleofJMB

 

[bmelton]

Not to sound ungrateful, but I feel like the MVP is the farthest thing from the same idea. Looks nice though.

I really want an AR10 with Fudd furniture. I could hunt with a .308. I wouldn't feel comfortable deer hunting with .223.

 

[Ab_Normal]

Does "firearm" = "assault weapon"? I would assert that it does not! What they are saying is that a receiver is a "firearm", despite it not being a functional weapon and that it is controlled as a "firearm" would be... not as a "regulated firearm", not as a "copycat weapon", not as an "assault weapon". Why are you adding stuff to the definitions below that are NOT there?


(R) “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:


Does "firearm" = "assault weapon"? If so, then you have banned every firearm receiver manufactured. Because EVERY receiver is less than 29 inches.


(D) “ASSAULT WEAPON” MEANS:
(1) AN ASSAULT LONG GUN;
(2) AN ASSAULT PISTOL; OR
(3) A COPYCAT WEAPON.


(E) (1) “COPYCAT WEAPON” MEANS:

(I) A SEMIAUTOMATIC CENTERFIRE RIFLE THAT CAN ACCEPT A DETACHABLE MAGAZINE AND HAS ANY TWO OF THE FOLLOWING:
1. A FOLDING STOCK;
2. A GRENADE LAUNCHER OR FLARE LAUNCHER;
3. A FLASH SUPPRESSOR;

(II) A SEMIAUTOMATIC CENTERFIRE RIFLE THAT HAS A FIXED MAGAZINE WITH THE CAPACITY TO ACCEPT MORE THAN 10 ROUNDS;

(III) A SEMIAUTOMATIC CENTERFIRE RIFLE THAT HAS AN OVERALL LENGTH OF LESS THAN 29 INCHES;

(IV) A SEMIAUTOMATIC PISTOL WITH A FIXED MAGAZINE THAT CAN ACCEPT MORE THAN 10 ROUNDS;

(V) A SEMIAUTOMATIC SHOTGUN THAT HAS: A FOLDING STOCK

(VI) A SHOTGUN WITH A REVOLVING CYLINDER.

The problem is people are using firearm and weapon interchangeably. THE TERMS ARE NOT ALWAYS INTERCHANGEABLE.

Yes a new never assembled receiver is a firearm under federal law but not Maryland law - footnote 2 in the Gansler ruling on 'copies' confirms this. BUT a new never assembled receiver is NOT a weapon because it cannot nor has it ever been able to [expel a projectile through explosive force blahblahblah]. That last part in [brackets] is part of the definition for handguns and long guns (rifles and shotguns).

The only time receivers should be regulated according to Maryland law is after they have been assembled into a firearm that is capable of expelling a projectile. See definition below:

§ 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.

Take the recent clarification that as long as a receiver or frame is initially assembled as a handgun then it could always be returned to handgun configuration without any additional paperwork or tax payments. It has been written that way in the law for years. I have held that belief and argued from that position for years. Thanks to the atf for finally getting around to clarifying it.

SO...receivers 'SHOULD' be able to be legally purchased after the new law takes effect. But lets wait and see how the dealers interpret it.

Now, assembling it into certain firearms could be in violation of the new law.

FYI - for the same reasons stated above receivers are not regulated by law currently although many dealers choose to sell them as regulated.

YMMV

 

[rem87062597]

https://www.exilemachine.net/shop/pages/hammerhead-customer-photos-3.html

I came up with this.

 

[Infantry]

You won't have any choice.

Good luck with that.

I agree, good luck. They will take what they want especially if it is a 4am raid. If I knew the were coming I'd rather drop them off for sale in Delaware, Virginia, or PA and hand them the receipts. (copies of course.)

 

[NB1214]

I came up with this.

That's pretty damn impressive. I'd buy it just cuz it looks cool

 

[bmelton]

Those are all really impressive, but I was thinking of something more like this:

Seeing it actually applied tho, it looks pretty unnatural, and unconvincing. Effectively, I want a Browning BAR with an AR receiver.