Pre-October final pick ups

[spclopr8tr]

Everything on here is opinion; it's an internet chat board. If you want to know the law, retain an attorney or have your senator or delegate ask MSP or the States' Attorneys' office for clarification.

I was responding to his statement "ATF decided a while ago . . ". I was merely asking him for his source. This sounded like a fact that could be verified, not an opinion. He referred me to Google. Google is not a source, and if you are going state something as a fact, then there should be a source documenting the fact (in my opinion).

 

[BLACKTALON]

I talked to some AK builders FFL/SOT and all said I was gtg if I had the registered part before my ban cut off and could show documentation of such.

 

[JADCecil]

Registering Stripped Lower as a Banned Rifle and Not as "Other"?

So, it light of this lack of clarity on the issue: is it possible to have your FFL run the paperwork on a stripped lower as a Banned Rifle? And would this would limit the owner of the lower to a particular caliber?

Absolutely. You should do a little Google searching on the BATFE policies during the AWB era, you will find them enlightening. Basically, going from "other" to "banned rifle" was a no-no, even if you had the lower/receiver before the ban.

This is why I keep saying that stocking up on hojillions of receivers is a MUCH riskier option than some people realize, especially if you take possession after October 1, or they're being built by someone else after October 1. Federal law isn't Maryland law, but I don't know if people have noticed that our overlords have not been so benevolent lately...

 

[impretzle]

My pre October never going to be able to buy them ever again pick ups so far:

G3
Mp5
Akm
USP 45 tac
Steyr Aug
Sig 551

and maybe I'll get another ar lower.

 

[AwesomeBill]

I do love our state. So, looks like the worst case scenario is that we'd have to build HBARs if they aren't built before the cut-off.

 

[MississippiJoe]

Only thing I have left to pick up is a FNX-45 tactical. Ok, maybe one or two more lowers but thats it....I think.

 

[erwos]

I do love our state. So, looks like the worst case scenario is that we'd have to build HBARs if they aren't built before the cut-off.

Agreed.

 

[armed ferret]

I do love our state. So, looks like the worst case scenario is that we'd have to build HBARs if they aren't built before the cut-off.

make sure at least one of your lowers is built in "naughty" configuration before the cut-off. Then you can build/buy as many uppers in whatever lawful configurations (i.e. non-NFA unless you have a tax stamp for the lower) you want, because you have a lower any one of them could go on. then an HBAR-style upper for anything that isn't.

as long as you have AT LEAST one completed in naughty configuration before the cut-off date, it would be impossible to say "beyond a reasonable doubt" that you intended to violate the law, as you enjoyed mixing things up and not taking the same gun(s) to the range every time. so you wanted different configurations.

 

[BLACKTALON]

I hate that AR lowers seem to be alright but others not so much will have to build all mine out before oct 1

 

[01xdime]

First of all this is my first post so Hi everyone. i just put a down payment on a Ruger SR556 (i'm already used to the eye rolling) and a CMMG Mk 3 AR10. The CMMG is cash and carry so i should have that next week but i'm gonna be waiting for the other one forever. Thats ok i'm kinda more excited for the AR10 lol. Already have PMAGS and a bunch of other goodies waiting for them both!

 

[BLACKTALON]

First of all this is my first post so Hi everyone. i just put a down payment on a Ruger SR556 (i'm already used to the eye rolling) and a CMMG Mk 3 AR10. The CMMG is cash and carry so i should have that next week but i'm gonna be waiting for the other one forever. Thats ok i'm kinda more excited for the AR10 lol. Already have PMAGS and a bunch of other goodies waiting for them both!

Josh is that you lol

 

[armed ferret]

Shouldn't be waiting forever, MSP told dealers to do 8-day release.

 

[BradMacc82]

I'm done buying.

I have seen the vision of our illustrious leprechaun-like demi-god Gov. and have gotten rid of all my firearms since they're icky and scary looking.

(If you believed that, I got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. Real cheap too. )

 

[jsnider22]

Sorry to hi jack a bit but it seems the issue is building vs manufacturing with the ak's but how would it work if you bought the reciever and parts kit and had it sent out to a manufacturer to be built after Oct 1? Is that going to be allowed or is there a clear answer to that?

 

[vgplayer]

Nobody's suggesting you should. Merely laying out the policy/adjudication as to what constitutes "manufacture" in the eyes of the ATF, combining it with 281 which if memory serves says you can't manufacture anything on the naughty list after 1 october. What you do with that information is up to you...but as we've seen in the Olofson case, a malfunction at the range can lead to you being on ATF's radar even though you never intended to be. And do you really think they'll NOT demand proof everything is kosher once they start piling on charges to get a conviction/plea deal?

IANAL but manufacture of assault long guns and copy cats is not explicitly forbidden, however the process of making a firearm ultimately results in possession and therefore illegal. However since MD considers a reciever a firearm I see no issues with a owner of a serialized receiver that was purchased and did the paperwork for before 10/1 completing the firearm him or herself after 10/1.

 

[SevernBob]

I'd love to get a VEPR 54R before the bell rings, 20.5 or 23 inch barrel. The Mosins can't shoot all that ammo fast enough.

 

[armed ferret]

IANAL but manufacture of assault long guns and copy cats is not explicitly forbidden, however the process of making a firearm ultimately results in possession and therefore illegal. However since MD considers a reciever a firearm I see no issues with a owner of a serialized receiver that was purchased and did the paperwork for before 10/1 completing the firearm him or herself after 10/1.

except the part where the feds say it constitutes "manufacturing". state laws or state AG/police chief opinions don't supersede that. period....nor do opinions of individuals on internet message boards.

 

[vgplayer]

except the part where the feds say it constitutes "manufacturing". state laws or state AG/police chief opinions don't supersede that. period....nor do opinions of individuals on internet message boards.

I am not talking about giving a parts kits to someone else to perform the work or even using someone else's equipment.

 

[spclopr8tr]

except the part where the feds say it constitutes "manufacturing". state laws or state AG/police chief opinions don't supersede that. period....nor do opinions of individuals on internet message boards.

OK, so I followed your advice and Googled the ATF definition of manufacturing. Quoted from http://www.atf.gov/regulations-rulings/rulings/atf-rulings/atf-ruling-2010-10.htm

"Manufacturing

ATF’s long-standing position is that any activities that
result in the making of firearms for sale or distribution, to include
installing parts in or on firearm frames and receivers, and processes that
primarily enhance a firearm’s durability, constitute firearms manufacturing
that may require a manufacturer’s license. In contrast, some activities are
not firearms manufacturing processes, and do not require a manufacturer’s
license. For example, ATF Ruling 2009-1 (approved January 12, 2009) explained
that performing a cosmetic process or activity, such as camouflaging or
engraving, that primarily adds to or changes the appearance or decoration of a
firearm is not manufacturing. Likewise, ATF Ruling 2009-2 (approved January
12, 2009) stated that installing “drop-in” replacement parts in or on existing,
fully assembled firearms does not result in any alteration to the original
firearms. Persons engaged in the business of these activities that do not
constitute firearms manufacturing need only obtain a dealer’s license.

Although installing parts in
or on firearms, and applying special coatings and treatments to firearms are
manufacturing activities, the definition of “manufacturer” in 18 U.S.C.
921(a)(10) and 27 CFR 478.11 also requires that a person be “engaged in the
business” before the manufacturer’s license requirement of section 923(a)
applies. Thus, a person who manufactures a firearm will require a
manufacturer’s license if he/she devotes time, attention, and labor to such
manufacture as a regular course of trade or business with the principal
objective of livelihood and profit through the sale or distribution of the
firearms manufactured. If the person is performing such services only for
a customer on firearms provided by that customer, and is not selling or
distributing the firearms manufactured, the person would be a “dealer” as
defined by 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(11)(B) and 27 CFR 478.11, requiring a dealer’s
license, assuming the person is “engaged in the business” as defined in 18
U.S.C. 921(a)(21)(D) and 27 CFR 478.11 (i.e., “gunsmithing”).""

So, if an individual is NOT making firearms for sale or distribution, how is the assembly of AK or AR from a lower receiver considered BANNED under existing ATF rulings? Can you point to another ATF ruling that contradicts the definition of manufacturing?

 

[01xdime]

Josh is that you lol

Do you know many people that bought that combo in 2 days? lol yeah its me