MSP now saying all lowers require 77r??

whistlersmother · Feb 3, 2021

jcutonilli said:
The actual law (both MD Public Safety 5-101(h)(ii), and Federal 18 USC 921(a)(3)) defines receivers as firearms. Neither law defines what a receiver actually is. The implementing federal regulations (27 CFR 478.11) provide a definition of what a receiver is. Based on the implemented definition of a receiver, it has been argued that an AR lower does not meet that implemented definition.

All the feds need to do is redefine the definition of a receiver to include an AR lower. It can be done through a rulemaking process that does not need congressional action.

So why hadn't BAFTE done that? Would it not have been done after BAFTE withdrew the charges in the CA case?

tkd4life · Feb 3, 2021

I lived in Arizona recently as a Maryland resident. The FBI did not approve my NICS check when I tried to buy a stripped AR15 lower in AZ as they said my home state would not allow the transfer because I could build it into a pistol. I had to sell the lower.

It was frustrating because I specifically asked the FFL in AZ if he could do the transfer before I bought the lower. He was just misinformed...

jcutonilli · Feb 3, 2021

KIBarrister said:
It's not an argument, it is indisputable fact that a receiver as defined can apply to a Kalashnikov, but not an Armalite. There was actually a rather involved criminal prosecution (CA IIRC) where the government opted to drop charges rather than risk caselaw cementing what anyone with even the weakest grasp of the English language understands: an AR lower is not a receiver as defined by statute.

It is not clear that an AR lower is not a receiver as defined by statute. There is in fact no definition included in the statute. The real argument is whether the regulation definition somehow limits the statutory requirements. The government chose to withdraw those charges that would have caused the statutory requirements to be limited to the regulation definitions.

Given the long history of people accepting that an AR lower is the receiver, the government's position that an AR lower is a receiver has merit.

jcutonilli · Feb 3, 2021

whistlersmother said:
So why hadn't BAFTE done that? Would it not have been done after BAFTE withdrew the charges in the CA case?

Until recently it had no reason to do so. It does take some time and resources to make rulemaking changes. It may not make sense given that the vast majority of the time, AR lowers are treated as the receiver.

KIBarrister · Feb 3, 2021

jcutonilli said:
It is not clear that an AR lower is not a receiver as defined by statute. There is in fact no definition included in the statute. The real argument is whether the regulation definition somehow limits the statutory requirements. The government chose to withdraw those charges that would have caused the statutory requirements to be limited to the regulation definitions.

Given the long history of people accepting that an AR lower is the receiver, the government's position that an AR lower is a receiver has merit.

Ah, yes, regulation. Proverbial slip of the tongue. Thank you for correcting.

"Firearm frame or receiver. That part of a firearm which provides housing for the hammer, bolt or breechblock, and firing mechanism, and which is usually threaded at its forward portion to receive the barrel." 27 CFR 478.11

The three items sandwiching the "and" are required to be a receiver. There may be some niche AR-looking rifles that have a monolithic upper and lower receiver, but as Mr. Stoner designed it, the lower is not a receiver.

Mark75H · Feb 3, 2021

Actually there is a definition (IDK if its in the statute or ATF regs) - where its defined it says the receiver has the fire control mechanism and has the barrel mount. Neither half of an AR meets the definition, where ever it is.

lazarus · Feb 3, 2021

tkd4life said:
I lived in Arizona recently as a Maryland resident. The FBI did not approve my NICS check when I tried to buy a stripped AR15 lower in AZ as they said my home state would not allow the transfer because I could build it into a pistol. I had to sell the lower.

It was frustrating because I specifically asked the FFL in AZ if he could do the transfer before I bought the lower. He was just misinformed...

Actually what I think you ran in to is that long guns may be transferred through an FFL in any state to a resident of any state so long as it is legal in that person's home state.

All others much be transferred by an FFL of the resident's home state. To the best of my knowledge, that includes firearm receivers (and certainly is all handguns).

So that is likely what you ran in to

Nickberg500 · Feb 3, 2021

lazarus said:
Actually what I think you ran in to is that long guns may be transferred through an FFL in any state to a resident of any state so long as it is legal in that person's home state.

All others much be transferred by an FFL of the resident's home state. To the best of my knowledge, that includes firearm receivers (and certainly is all handguns).

So that is likely what you ran in to

Seconded

ironpony · Feb 3, 2021

lazarus said:
Actually what I think you ran in to is that long guns may be transferred through an FFL in any state to a resident of any state so long as it is legal in that person's home state.

All others much be transferred by an FFL of the resident's home state. To the best of my knowledge, that includes firearm receivers (and certainly is all handguns).

So that is likely what you ran in to

Good catch.

dblas · Feb 3, 2021

trickg said:
IANAL, but it seems to me that unless some legislation has been passed, they can't simply decide to change the rules.

Does anyone else have any experience with this? This is part of the reason I do 80% builds now.

Sure they can, just look at bushmaster and the one shot requirement for the HQL.

dblas · Feb 3, 2021

Nickberg500 said:
True but like the other guy said, pistols have nothing to do with their silly 77r requirement on AR-15 lowers. It has to do with their capability of being built into a banned weapon.

Yeah...ummmm...Not according to MSP guidance.

rseymorejr · Feb 3, 2021

trickg said:
IANAL, but it seems to me that unless some legislation has been passed, they can't simply decide to change the rules.

Does anyone else have any experience with this? This is part of the reason I do 80% builds now.

Why do you think 1 shot needs to be fired for the HQL?
The MSP threw that in there

1841DNG · Feb 3, 2021

lazarus said:
Actually what I think you ran in to is that long guns may be transferred through an FFL in any state to a resident of any state so long as it is legal in that person's home state.

All others much be transferred by an FFL of the resident's home state. To the best of my knowledge, that includes firearm receivers (and certainly is all handguns).

So that is likely what you ran in to

If he lived in AZ at the time as well, wasn't there a way for people residing in two states to buy guns in say AZ which MD does not like but not bring them here? Something about proving you actually are staying in both states with a rent contract and utility bills?

dblas · Feb 3, 2021

dist1646 said:
Would you do it if it were your license at risk? Not saying MSP is right on this but the dealer has their livelihood at stake. Sometimes you just got to CYA. I would try another dealer instead. Be interesting to see what happens.

Following that logic, all of the LGS's in Maryland should have held all of the firearms until the MSP background check came back 112 days later, instead of following the law and releasing on the 8th day.

MSP can try to bully LGS's, most that have balls challenge them on the actual law and MSP backs down. Those that don't keep buying salt to help the taste of the boot leather.

lazarus · Feb 3, 2021

1841DNG said:
If he lived in AZ at the time as well, wasn't there a way for people residing in two states to buy guns in say AZ which MD does not like but not bring them here? Something about proving you actually are staying in both states with a rent contract and utility bills?

You can. However he said living in Arizona, as a Maryland resident. He didn’t say dual residency. There are hoops to prove dual residency as far as the ATF is concerned. Not major ones, but first is you’ve gotta say you do. Not sure if you’ve also gotta be paying income taxes in both states or not. I don’t remember all of the requirements.

But the point is, if he didn’t claim residency, and prove it, ATF is going to say no handguns or receivers for you unless you are back in your home state.

babalou · Feb 3, 2021

nice

Ammo Jon said:
Nuts!

it even has one of those trailer hitch bozack thingamajigs underneath

MossPumper · Feb 3, 2021

erwos said:
And that reasoning does not apply to AR-10 lowers. Find a new FFL.

I hope this is not true. I just purchased a lower and I guess we will find out in a few days when it arrives.

Athelney878 · Feb 3, 2021

Someone needs to clue the MSP in on the Rule of Lenity:

“In criminal law, the rule of lenity requires the court to resolve any statutory ambiguity in favor of a criminal defendant. See Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1, 11 n.8 (2004). This rule has been ingrained in our criminal law for decades. United States v. Wiltberger, 18 U.S. 76, 93 (1820) (“In criminal cases, a strict construction is always to be preferred; and if there be doubt, that is of itself conclusive.”).”

So if the law is unclear, courts have to resolve it in favor of the citizen, not the state.

Ammo Jon · Feb 3, 2021

babalou said:
it even has one of those trailer hitch bozack thingamajigs underneath

50 rounds is more than enough rounds in 1 sitting!

1841DNG · Feb 4, 2021

lazarus said:
You can. However he said living in Arizona, as a Maryland resident. He didn’t say dual residency. There are hoops to prove dual residency as far as the ATF is concerned. Not major ones, but first is you’ve gotta say you do. Not sure if you’ve also gotta be paying income taxes in both states or not. I don’t remember all of the requirements.

But the point is, if he didn’t claim residency, and prove it, ATF is going to say no handguns or receivers for you unless you are back in your home state.

Thanks for the info

MSP now saying all lowers require 77r??

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Peace through strength

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Opinionated Libertarian

MD Wear&Carry Instructor

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Member

Past President, MSI

Past President, MSI

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Past President, MSI

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics