You will never get a straight answer. The AG's office knows that any response they give will directly assist plaintiffs in challenging SB281's legality and constitutionality. Define what you think an "illegal specification" is for a pre-ban lower in MD, assuming non-NFA. Your head is going to spin for the simple reason that it's undefinable and not governed by any MD law now or post-10/1. SB281 grandfathered pre-ban lowers, meaning they are exempted from anything else that SB281 says.
Specific HQL/AR15 question
- Thread starter OrbitalEllipses
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast
Member Benefits:
No ad networks! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
OrbitalEllipses
Ultimate Member
Thank you for your insight, Boom Boom.
necrodude
Active Member
So basically your saying that any lowers bought before Oct 1st you will be able to build them anyway you want?
Yes, assuming you comply with NFA and other relevant law.
The argument to the contrary is rendered moot and silly with simple examples. Per the argument, using parts manufactured post-10/1 like a handgrip screw, buffer spring, or safety lever would somehow render a pre-ban lower "illegal". It's an argument with no basis in law. A prosecutor bringing such a criminal lawsuit would be laughed out of the court room and would open up the county and/or state to massive civil lawsuits, especially if LE made an arrest for it.
The argument to the contrary is rendered moot and silly with simple examples. Per the argument, using parts manufactured post-10/1 like a handgrip screw, buffer spring, or safety lever would somehow render a pre-ban lower "illegal". It's an argument with no basis in law. A prosecutor bringing such a criminal lawsuit would be laughed out of the court room and would open up the county and/or state to massive civil lawsuits, especially if LE made an arrest for it.
Publius
Active Member
I am not a lawyer but would assume, specific to the AR-15, that this has case law going back at least twenty years, to the first federal assault weapons ban (1994). As far as I know it has always been the case that the stripped lower is the gun, and as long as you do not slap a short barrel on it (let's not start a Class III discussion) you are fine to add an upper and a stock whenever you want. I do not know if your question keeps popping up because people are being overly cautions or whether some people are spreading incorrect information. The government legally treats the stripped receiver exactly the same as the fully assembled rifle because that is infinitely easier than trying to control the commerce of an unbounded number of parts that can be added to a stripped receiver. So now adding parts to a stripped receiver, which is legally treated as a fully assembled rifle, will be legally treated as assembling a new rifle that legally was assembled to begin with? That to me does not make legal sense. I will stop here, I feel like I am hijacking the thread.
Users who are viewing this thread
Forum statistics
Latest threads
-
-
-
What would be the best Maryland compliant rifle I can buy for under $3000? (1 Viewer)
- Started by Tool
- Replies: 13
-
-
-
-
The Clock's Tickin': Be READY for Tomorrow!- Started by Target Sports USA
- Replies: 1