Kirkster
Active Member
I purchased a 2A-Armaments Xanthos-lite this year and it went through without a hitch (first week of the year) building a 6.5CM.
Trouble buying .308 Lower Receiver in 2020
- Thread starter Jdk022
- 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:
I confirmed with MSP just a few weeks ago (post 1/1) that 308 stripped lowers are still cash and carry in Maryland. A 77r is not required.
ETA, my email and the response from MSP's licensing division dated 3 January:
The AR-10 is not enumerated in statute (PS 5-101(r)(2)) and not a copy of an enumerated assault weapon. Therefore the AR-10 stripped lower is not regulated and does not require a 77R.
Thank you,
Sergeant Jason Edwards
Maryland State Police
Licensing Division
Firearms Registration Unit
Operations Supervisor
1111 Reisterstown Road
Pikesville, Maryland 21208
Responding to:
I am trying to obtain clarification on the sale/transfer of a "stripped" lower receiver for an AR-10/LR-308. I was unable to find any definitive answer in either the Maryland Code, nor did I have any success in COMAR. I did find Advisory LD-FRS-14-003. My review of that Advisory would seem to indicate that a stripped AR-15 lower receiver does in fact require the 77R process, because it is capable of being built into a specifically banned weapon. Since the AR-10/LR-308 was never named as a regulated/banned weapon, it would seem to follow that a stripped AR-10 receiver would not be subject to the 77R process. I understand that several FFL's are willing to transfer stripped receivers for firearms not specifically listed as regulated or banned (e.g., AR-10, 10/22, AR9, etc.), but I was hoping to get clarification that an AR-10 was legal to transfer with just a 4473 as a 'run of the mill' long gun such as Winchester 870 or Remington 700, rather than being subjected to the 77R process and attendant 7 day wait. If you can provide clarification, especially if there is a more recent Advisory from the Licensing Division directly on point, I would be grateful.
ETA, my email and the response from MSP's licensing division dated 3 January:
The AR-10 is not enumerated in statute (PS 5-101(r)(2)) and not a copy of an enumerated assault weapon. Therefore the AR-10 stripped lower is not regulated and does not require a 77R.
Thank you,
Sergeant Jason Edwards
Maryland State Police
Licensing Division
Firearms Registration Unit
Operations Supervisor
1111 Reisterstown Road
Pikesville, Maryland 21208
Responding to:
I am trying to obtain clarification on the sale/transfer of a "stripped" lower receiver for an AR-10/LR-308. I was unable to find any definitive answer in either the Maryland Code, nor did I have any success in COMAR. I did find Advisory LD-FRS-14-003. My review of that Advisory would seem to indicate that a stripped AR-15 lower receiver does in fact require the 77R process, because it is capable of being built into a specifically banned weapon. Since the AR-10/LR-308 was never named as a regulated/banned weapon, it would seem to follow that a stripped AR-10 receiver would not be subject to the 77R process. I understand that several FFL's are willing to transfer stripped receivers for firearms not specifically listed as regulated or banned (e.g., AR-10, 10/22, AR9, etc.), but I was hoping to get clarification that an AR-10 was legal to transfer with just a 4473 as a 'run of the mill' long gun such as Winchester 870 or Remington 700, rather than being subjected to the 77R process and attendant 7 day wait. If you can provide clarification, especially if there is a more recent Advisory from the Licensing Division directly on point, I would be grateful.
Last edited:
This entire MSP policy has zero legal basis. The law does not say "frames are like rifles and pistols", and there is no basis whatsoever for the MSP's interpretations here. The law is clear that a frame is a firearm. The definitions of rifles and pistols DO NOT say anything about frames. I am vaguely surprised that the gun stores don't file suit against the state on this one.
Further, this thing about "is it a copy of an enumerated weapon?" is also idiocy. If it's a copy of an enumerated weapon, it's banned. If it's not, it's not regulated unless it's a handgun. They do not have statutory authority to start making things regulated that are not defined as regulated weapons. I suspect the logic being used is "if it's not a banned rifle, it must be a pistol, so it's regulated!" Clever idea, but not actually true at the time of sale.
IANAL, etc.
Further, this thing about "is it a copy of an enumerated weapon?" is also idiocy. If it's a copy of an enumerated weapon, it's banned. If it's not, it's not regulated unless it's a handgun. They do not have statutory authority to start making things regulated that are not defined as regulated weapons. I suspect the logic being used is "if it's not a banned rifle, it must be a pistol, so it's regulated!" Clever idea, but not actually true at the time of sale.
IANAL, etc.
danb
dont be a dumbass
Actually and unfortunately I don't think that's quite true. The actual statute says a regulated firearm is the "frame or reciever " of one of the enumerated weapons.
One of the few areas I dont think that they are making stuff up.
Interesting point. Still don't see how it works with pistols.
Users who are viewing this thread
Latest posts
Forum statistics
Latest threads
-
-
(Duplicate - mods please close) MoCo trans student arrested for threatening school (7 Viewers)- Started by Lafayette
- Replies: 2
-
-
-
-
-
OCMD Third Street Park; “It’s a beautiful park with an ugly name” (10 Viewers)- Started by RFBfromDE
- Replies: 7