It’s a well built gun and legitimately fun to shoot. If I didn’t live in CT, I would buy one of the 16” guns. Suppressed only makes it better. They’ve been shipping since before the public announcement, so they’re out there, but availability should get better in the near term.
Again, that cannot be reconciled with the law. A handgun is defined by barrel length. If MSP takes the (incorrect) position that a handgun for purposes of the Regulated Firearm definition includes a frame or receiver that may become a handgun, all frames or receivers would have to be...
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...
To my recollection, MSP's position is that, since 5-101(r)(2) states that a regulated firearm is a "firearm" that is any of the enumerated firearms and the definition of "firearm" includes the frame or receiver, it is regulated. It's impossible to reconcile that interpretation to me, however...
Some receivers are treated by MSP as "Regulated Firearms" solely because they say so; an AR lower does not meet the definition of Regulated Firearm in 5-101.
Solely a stock attached to a frame or receiver does not make that frame or receiver a "rifle" for purposes of federal law...
Connecticut.
Any part or parts designed to make an "assault weapon" is, itself, an "assault weapon." Since we have a one-feature test for semi-auto pistols, it's technically unlawful to ship it here.
Definitely true on all counts. It will be interesting to see final counts.
Personally, I don't see how they can even fix the proposed rule based on the comments I know have been submitted. At its core, the marking requirements for "split/multi-piece frames or receivers" are impossible to...
A non-licensee, non-HQL holder can purchase and 77R a C&R handgun from a Regulated Firearms Dealer in MD. I'm a little confused what you're saying here...
Just wondering, but, if a loan of a regulated firearm was not allowed, why would the GA have attempted to pass HB0096 in 2019? I don't keep up with MD gun laws that much any more, but I don't believe a subsequent version of this passed.
From MSI at the time:
Stupid question that I should know the answer to, but have you tried calling customer service and asking if we'd sell you one? Worst they can say is no, but the grip frame is not marked as "factory fit only" in the instruction manual.
Mark IV 22/45 lite upper with one of the metal lowers is by far my favorite combo on the platform, but you have to piece it together. Tactical gets you close, but it’s pretty hefty when suppressed.
Look, I get it. Highly regulated business in an unfriendly state. But this isn’t a close question (to me at least). Any receiver cannot meet the definition of a regulated firearm and is cash and carry. Hard stop.
We aren’t taking federal law here, so the “not a receiver” issue doesn’t...
If MSP says that a receiver is legal, there is no way it can meet the definition of "regulated firearm" and require a 77R. If a firearm is a "regulated firearm" pursuant to PS 5-101(r)(2), it is banned as an "assault long gun" pursuant to CR 4-301(b).
It's almost as ridiculous and MSP's...