MSP now saying all lowers require 77r??

[Bertfish]

Do not let some trooper and the FFL add extra rules

 

[KIBarrister]

Thank you. Forwarded it to my FFL. What would you do in my situation? Bite the bullet, fight the interpretation, or tell them to send the lower to my other, less green FFL (not sure they would let me do that)?

I'd take my business elsewhere. There are plenty of good FFL's around that don't have such weak knees. I have the original email I can forward too (rather than just a screenshot)

 

[Ammo Jon]

Pretty sure it's not in the law, it's an MSP interpretation.

And while personally I think a short barrel .308 is a bit nuts, some guys are building them.

Nuts!

 

[SkiPatrolDude]

Thank you. Forwarded it to my FFL. What would you do in my situation? Bite the bullet, fight the interpretation, or tell them to send the lower to my other, less green FFL (not sure they would let me do that)?

I would politely tell them that while I understand their hesitation and right to do whatever they want as a business, I will be going elsewhere for a lower.

Just because a police officer said that does not make it correct. It's concerning that it was said, though. Enough that I don't blame an FFL for hesitating.

But simply put, I am pretty sure many FFL's will still sell you an AR10 or an AR9 lower as cash and carry as the current law dictates.

 

[DutchV]

Nuts!

I guess you like fireballs?

 

[Ammo Jon]

I guess you like fireballs?

Thinking of adding a muzzle brake

 

[NateIU10]

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 interpretation that a "handgun frame" needs a 77R. There is no such thing as a "handgun frame" in MD law, and "handgun" is defined in the Public Safety Article based on barrel length. No barrel means it's not a handgun - pretty simple...

 

[mpollan1]

Nuts!

Where is that, it's beautiful? That looks like my kind of range. Self policing like the state game land ranges in PA?

 

[SWO Daddy]

Do not let some trooper and the FFL add extra rules

This. For heavens sake go somewhere else.

 

[Bountied]

I'd stop asking questions first of all. Go to another FFL, don't mention anything about the 77R, see if they sell it to you, if they do leave. Problem solved.

 

[DutchV]

Thinking of adding a muzzle brake

That's one way to clear some space at the range.

 

[ironpony]

Wow, good to hear from Nate !

 

[Ammo Jon]

Where is that, it's beautiful? That looks like my kind of range. Self policing like the state game land ranges in PA?

Issac Walton Hagerstown

 

[jcutonilli]

That's the MSP's reason an AR-15 lower requires a 77r. The MSP released a memo about banned long gun receivers a few years ago:

https://mdsp.maryland.gov/Document ...3 - Receivers of Banned Assault Long Guns.pdf

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 interpretation that a "handgun frame" needs a 77R. There is no such thing as a "handgun frame" in MD law, and "handgun" is defined in the Public Safety Article based on barrel length. No barrel means it's not a handgun - pretty simple...

The bulletin never really explains why a 77R is required.

The bulletin is correct that receivers are firearms. It also states that "the 'stripped' lower receiver is not, at that point, an assault pistol, an assault long gun or a copycat weapon." It further states that "a lower receiver of a banned assault long gun is classified by the State as a 'firearm,' but not a 'handgun.'"

A handgun is another way for a firearm to be considered a "regulated firearm", but they have explicitly stated that a stripped lower is not a handgun.

Any stripped lower should be transferred as a regular firearm and not a "regulated firearm"

 

[Bob A]

A handgun is another way for a firearm to be considered a "regulated firearm", but they have explicitly stated that a stripped lower is not a handgun.

To make things more confusing, IIRC BATFE has run into a problem with AR lowers not actually being "firearms" because some of the parts that would define a firearm are contained in the upper. There' was a case in CA I think where this was presented to the court, and the person selling lowers was found not guilty.

I don't have the reference at hand, but perhaps someone can post it up, for the sake of more clarity. (Sarcasm)

EDIT: Found it -
https://www.wfft.com/content/national/567651512.html

 

[ironpony]

Is it best for a LGS to Follow the officer’s instructions and do the 77R ?

 

[rbird7282]

Is it best for a LGS to Follow the officer’s instructions and do the 77R ?

Unless an advisory from MSP was sent out to all the FFLs in the state regarding this specific issue then why should they change? If I were them it would be cash and carry like it always has been


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jcutonilli]

To make things more confusing, IIRC BATFE has run into a problem with AR lowers not actually being "firearms" because some of the parts that would define a firearm are contained in the upper. There' was a case in CA I think where this was presented to the court, and the person selling lowers was found not guilty.

I don't have the reference at hand, but perhaps someone can post it up, for the sake of more clarity. (Sarcasm)

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.

 

[dist1646]

Is it best for a LGS to Follow the officer’s instructions and do the 77R ?

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.

 

[KIBarrister]

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.

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.