Pre-October final pick ups

[01xdime]

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

Seems like some dealers are doing that and some aren't. The one i got my SR556 from said it would be months.

 

[AwesomeBill]

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.

Oh, I'm with you. I'm actually squared away, I was just more thinking for those who are getting a very late start to the game. It's all intellectual masturbation at this point.

For point of discussion, let's say I have 4 "banned" configuration ARs at this moment. After Oct 1st, does the new law prohibit me from putting new uppers on them or new FCGs in them or new stocks on them? I don't believe so. In fact, I don't believe it would be against the law to totally change everything on them. If this is in fact a violation of the new law, I totally missed something.

And here is where the internet commando intellectual masturbation really kicks into high gear. If building (or assembling, or whatever you want to call it) an AR from a lower and all of the requisite parts is considered to be manufacturing, and thus banned after Oct 1st, is this only for the first time that the lower is used? Because if it is for every time parts are swapped out on a lower, then we are stuck with the configuration we have on midnight, Sept 30th.

Or, one could buy 4 lowers, and one full build kit (complete with evil non-HBAR barrel), and sit in front of his (or her!, got to give a shout out to our lady shooters!) tv one Saturday in and proceed to build 1 AR. Then pull it down and repeat 3 more times. Over the course of the afternoon, 4 pre-ban grandfathered guns were built. Can those lowers now be used to build pre-ban ARs post OCT 1st? They were just as much pre-ban ARs as the 4 from my previous example.

So, I can certainly see the argument where a lower that has never been built in a banned configuration could not legally be built into a banned configuration after Oct 1st, regardless of when it was purchased.

The problem is that the law uses terms that are not defined for purposes of the law. "Manufacture" is not defined. For that matter, "HBAR" isn't defined.

The amateur gunsmithing bug bit me last year. I would love to be buying AK lowers and kits and building them this winter. I really wanted to build an AK-54r to keep my PSL company. But a very strong argument for that being considered "manufacturing" can be made. So the question is, barring this issue being cleared up pre-Oct (I'm not holding my breath), what risk do I want to take. I don't have the money to get everything pre-Oct, and I certainly don't have any time to build anything before then. Do I want to be a test case? Absolutely not. What are the odds of me being a test case? Don't know. But I have a wife and kids. Regardless of my beliefs and convictions, my responsibilities to them are more important. Do I want to buy the parts and risk not being able to build them and have to sell them out of state later? Maybe. Although, see aforementioned "kids". I don't really have money to tie up in a gamble for months.

I don't know. None of us do. And the jackasses that passed this crap don't either.

We'll just have to wait and see. And until then, each of us just has to use the best judgement possible.

But that money that would have bought those parts to build that AK-54r? Yeah, that's going to go to MSI and SAF. And those weekends that would have been spent building? I think I'm going to take some of those NRA instructor courses. Then I'll find people that want to learn about firearms and shooting and I'll teach them for free.

 

[BLACKTALON]

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

yes actually everyone that bought a AR15 is now buying AR 10s lol

 

[HumbleEinstein]

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?

According to your post, the firearm has to be "fully assembled" and the drop-in parts have to be "replacement" parts. Frankly, with that said, I am above the opinion that the federal and state laws have little to do with each other on this point. Manufacturing is not prohibited by the new law. Possession is. The only relevant question is whether the AG will consider a stripped lower to be one firearm and then consider that same lower to be a completely different firearm when fully assembled. If they do that, then their position is that you are within your rights to build it, but you are violating the law by possessing this new prohibited firearm that you did not own before 10/1. The way to solve this problem is very simple. Complete all your lower before 10/1. Buy one upper with every banned feature you can get on it and take detailed photos with it on every lower you have. The more barrel lengths and types you do this with, the more options you will have with that lower going forward. THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE.

 

[01xdime]

yes actually everyone that bought a AR15 is now buying AR 10s lol

So when are you getting yours? Scott has that DPMS for $1100. I was gonna get that but the CMMG was far and away a better gun and worth the extra coin.

 

[spclopr8tr]

According to your post, the firearm has to be "fully assembled" and the drop-in parts have to be "replacement" parts. Frankly, with that said, I am above the opinion that the federal and state laws have little to do with each other on this point. Manufacturing is not prohibited by the new law. Possession is. The only relevant question is whether the AG will consider a stripped lower to be one firearm and then consider that same lower to be a completely different firearm when fully assembled. If they do that, then their position is that you are within your rights to build it, but you are violating the law by possessing this new prohibited firearm that you did not own before 10/1. The way to solve this problem is very simple. Complete all your lower before 10/1. Buy one upper with every banned feature you can get on it and take detailed photos with it on every lower you have. The more barrel lengths and types you do this with, the more options you will have with that lower going forward. THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE.

Again, the above definition applies to manufacturing for the purpose of sale or profit. An individual is not manufacturing if he isn't going to sell what he assembles. There may be other areas of the ATF rulings regarding not for profit assembly, but I was unable to find any evidence of this using Google. My challenge to armed ferret was to provide some evidence that the ATF considered an individual with a legally registered lower from assembling the upper, banned configuration or not, after 1 OCT. But if you are going to argue this is considered manufacturing, then you have to look at the ATF definition of manufacturing. If this isn't your normal trade or you aren't building these from receivers for the purpose of profit, then the ATF does not consider that manufacturing. Additionally, there is another thread on this forum that does give the AG interpretation that any receiver ordered prior to 1 OCT can be delivered to the purchaser. I don't recall if it stipulated the receiver could not then be assembled into a full up firearm.

But I do understand your point about assembling the evil banned black assault weapon configuration prior to 1 OCT. Again, my opinion is that this assembly is not prohibited and there would be virtually no way for the MSP to know when you assembled or what configuration you first assembled it unless you take pictures and mail them to the MSP with a note that says, "hey looky what I just did".

 

[HumbleEinstein]

Again, the above definition applies to manufacturing for the purpose of sale or profit. An individual is not manufacturing if he isn't going to sell what he assembles. There may be other areas of the ATF rulings regarding not for profit assembly, but I was unable to find any evidence of this using Google. My challenge to armed ferret was to provide some evidence that the ATF considered an individual with a legally registered lower from assembling the upper, banned configuration or not, after 1 OCT. But if you are going to argue this is considered manufacturing, then you have to look at the ATF definition of manufacturing. If this isn't your normal trade or you aren't building these from receivers for the purpose of profit, then the ATF does not consider that manufacturing. Additionally, there is another thread on this forum that does give the AG interpretation that any receiver ordered prior to 1 OCT can be delivered to the purchaser. I don't recall if it stipulated the receiver could not then be assembled into a full up firearm.

But I do understand your point about assembling the evil banned black assault weapon configuration prior to 1 OCT. Again, my opinion is that this assembly is not prohibited and there would be virtually no way for the MSP to know when you assembled or what configuration you first assembled it unless you take pictures and mail them to the MSP with a note that says, "hey looky what I just did".

I'm not going to debate who can prove what with you. I'm just talking about what the law is. This question of MD 10/1 law has nothing to do with ATF. It is strictly a MD legal question. I for one, am not going to take a "let them prove it" attitude. My approach is "I have proof that I'm within the law."

 

[spclopr8tr]

I'm not going to debate who can prove what with you. I'm just talking about what the law is. This question of MD 10/1 law has nothing to do with ATF. It is strictly a MD legal question. I for one, am not going to take a "let them prove it" attitude. My approach is "I have proof that I'm within the law."

I think you may have missed the original discussion with armed ferret. He was the one who brought in "the ATF decided". I was simply responding to his post about the ATF and manufacturing and to Google what they said about manufacturing. That has everything to do with the ATF as he was the one who introduced that element to the discussion.

While I agree it is a MD legal question, you also can't simply disregard federal law (yeah, I know the MD legislative body does that routinely.) You and I appear to be from different perspectives. I believe the burden of proof is on the state that you broke the law. You appear to be from the school of I am going to have ample evidence in case they come looking for me. Only time will tell which approach works out.

 

[BLACKTALON]

So when are you getting yours? Scott has that DPMS for $1100. I was gonna get that but the CMMG was far and away a better gun and worth the extra coin.

I am a AK guy im buying 2 more of them and a FAL

 

[byf43]

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.

The 'state' is o.k., it's the _ _ _-_ _ _ _ed sphincter muscles that are in the political arena, that through their socialistic pinheads, have screwed this place up, beyond repair.

The lazy bastiges that are promised a handout have kept these sphincter muscles in office, because of the promise of FREEBIES!!!!!

I was brought here by my parents, in 1967.
The ONLY reason I'm still in this _ _ _ _hole is because of my job and the $$$.


Once I retire..... I'm outta here.
I CAN'T deal with this dung very much longer.
These bastiges are choking Freedom and killing it.






Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. I feel so much better, now.

 

[fabsroman]

I really want to pick up a tavor before October, I'm waiting for my dealer to get a fde one in stock and i think that would be my last big purchase. I'm buying a fnx tactical with rmr this week also that was to good of a deal pass on...the only gun i might regret not buying is the Romanian psl at lous.




This is the main reason i built out all my spare ar receivers to complete and attached one of my uppers to each one to cover myself before oct 1. That way they were all in a ban configuration and i can't be accused of manufacturing the wallet took a beating on buying lpk/stocks.


Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

If a single upper worked to build/manufacture all those rifles into a banned rifle, why couldn't you use ALL the same parts between rifles. In essence, a single lpk, stock, and upper?

Think I'll borrow my brother's complete AR-15, tear it down, build each of my lowers with the parts from his gun, draft an affidavit stating I did it and get it notarized, pinky swear with my daughter on it, etc.

I can see manufacturing a lower as an issue, but everything else is just parts for the rifle, which can be interchanged between other AR's readily. What if I build up several different uppers for different cartridges after October 1, 2013. Am I manufacturing a new rifle every time I put a different upper on a lower?

I think it is pretty clear that taking a block of aluminum or an 80% lower and making a complete lower after October 1, 2013 is illegal. The rest is extremely grey, and one would think that MSP requiring all "receivers" to be registered even if they are not complete guns deals with this issue.

 

[daijizai]

I have a XDm 5.25 in the log jam at 2A and want to add a P226 w/ SRT and a few more black rifle lowers. If I can find a buyer for my P556 SWAT, I might look into a SCAR or a PS90 if I can find one and there is time.

Also want to get a few 1911 receivers and slides and build them out myself, but it looks like that will be after the license requirement hits - can't afford it before.

 

[rangerone314]

last ones

I am waiting on background check on two Stag Arms AR15 lower receivers, and three M+M M10-762 AK47s (complete). (I already have one complete AR15 that I got in 2010)

That's my version of an extended middle finger to MoM.

 

[AssMan]

I'd like to buy one more. Here's what I'm thinking:

1) SCAR (not sure if this is banned post 10/1)
2) Sig 556r (Banned due to evil features)
3) M1A (Banned by name)
4) met a cute KelTec RFB yesterday (Banned due to OAL below 29")

Thoughts on any of the above? I had my heart set on the M1A, but now I'm leaning more toward the SCAR or RFB. I've had bad luck with KT products and if the SCAR is still available after 10/1, then I'd rather wait. With 3 AK's, I'm beginning to doubt the benefit of adding the 556r to the collection.

 

[armed ferret]

Seems like some dealers are doing that and some aren't. The one i got my SR556 from said it would be months.

find a new dealer. they're not operating their business in accordance with the ACTUAL law, just what they THINK is the law. ask them to send the firearm to the new dealer (if they won't, cancel the transaction and file a charge-back with your credit card if they refuse a full refund) and buy it elsewhere.

 

[phx223]

Is there a way to ignore all posts by people who joined the forum in 2013? Like as in they don't even show up on my screen.

 

[lkenefic]

I'm done buying too. I bought a Glock M19 at the beginning of the year and just put cash down on a YHM lower yesterday. 2A will release in 30 days, which will give me time to build prior to Oct 1. My concern is future parts and replacing broken parts in the future...

 

[armed ferret]

Is there a way to ignore all posts by people who joined the forum in 2013? Like as in they don't even show up on my screen.

not *ALL* the '13 members are worthy of ignore list. just most.

that said, i don't know of a way to blanket-ignore. just have to add each individually as you come across them.

 

[BLACKTALON]

not *ALL* the '13 members are worthy of ignore list. just most.

that said, i don't know of a way to blanket-ignore. just have to add each individually as you come across them.

I have a few people on here on mine it reminds me not to bother with them and to not let them get in on karma

 

[anderson76]

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?

If your lower has never been assembled into a banned configuration; after October 1st it will be unlawful to assemble it into a banned configuration. This is clear. Lets take a look at the applicable law:

§ 4-303 (a) of the Criminal Article, as amended by the Firearm Safety Act of 2013 (the “Act”), prohibits the possession of what meets the definition of Assault Weapon:

(a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, a person may not:
(1) transport an assault WEAPON into the State; or
(2) possess, sell, offer to sell, transfer, purchase, or receive an assault WEAPON.
Id.


§ 4-301(D) of the Criminal Article, as amended by the Act, defines Assault Weapon as follows:

(D) “ASSAULT WEAPON” MEANS:

(1) AN ASSAULT LONG GUN;
(2) AN ASSAULT PISTOL; OR
(3) A COPYCAT WEAPON.
Id.


The prohibition against possession of Assault Weapons contained in §4-303(b)(3) does not apply to Assault Weapons lawfully possessed of purchases prior to October 1, 2013:


A PERSON WHO LAWFULLY POSSESSED OR PLACED A HAS A PURCHASE ORDER FOR, OR COMPLETED AN APPLICATION TO PURCHASE AN ASSAULT LONG GUN OR A COPYCAT WEAPON BEFORE OCTOBER 1, 2013, MAY: (I) CONTINUE TO POSSESS AND TRANSPORT THE ASSAULT LONG GUN OR COPYCAT WEAPON; OR . . .

See Crim. Art. § 4-303(b)(3), as amended by the Act.

Consequently, one must, prior to October 1, 2013, purchase or posses what is defined as either an Assault Long Gun or Copycat Weapon.

The Act defines Copycat Weapon according to an evil feature test. In pertinent part it provides:

“COPYCAT WEAPON” MEANS:

(I) A SEMIAUTOMATIC CENTERFIRE RIFLE THAT CAN
ACCEPT A DETACHABLE MAGAZINE AND HAS ANY TWO OF THE FOLLOWING:

1. A FOLDING STOCK;

2. A GRENADE LAUNCHER OR FLARE LAUNCHER;

3. A FLASH SUPPRESSOR;

See Crim. Art. § 4-301(E)(1), as amended by the Act.

The act defines Assault Long Gun with reference to the named assault weapons listed in §5-101(R)(2) of the Public Safety Article:

“ASSAULT LONG GUN” MEANS ANY ASSAULT WEAPON LISTED
UNDER § 5–101(R)(2) OF THE PUBLIC SAFETY ARTICLE.

See Crim. Art. § 4-301(B), as amended by the Act.


§ 5-101(R)(2) of the Public Safety Article provides in pertinent part:

(2) a firearm that is any of the following specific assault weapons or their copies, regardless of which company produced and manufactured that assault weapon:
(i) American Arms Spectre da Semiautomatic carbine;
(ii) AK–47 in all forms;
(iii) Algimec AGM–1 type semi–auto;
(iv) AR 100 type semi–auto;
(v) AR 180 type semi–auto;
(vi) Argentine L.S.R. semi–auto;
(vii) Australian Automatic Arms SAR type semi–auto;
(viii) Auto–Ordnance Thompson M1 and 1927 semi–automatics;
(ix) Barrett light .50 cal. semi–auto;
(x) Beretta AR70 type semi–auto;
(xi) Bushmaster semi–auto rifle;
(xii) Calico models M–100 and M–900;
(xiii) CIS SR 88 type semi–auto;
(xiv) Claridge HI TEC C–9 carbines;
(xv) Colt AR–15, CAR–15, and all imitations except Colt AR–15 Sporter H–BAR rifle;
(xvi) Daewoo MAX 1 and MAX 2, aka AR 100, 110C, K–1, and K–2;
(xvii) Dragunov Chinese made semi–auto;
(xviii) Famas semi–auto (.223 caliber);
(xix) Feather AT–9 semi–auto;
(xx) FN LAR and FN FAL assault rifle;
(xxi) FNC semi–auto type carbine;
(xxii) F.I.E./Franchi LAW 12 and SPAS 12 assault shotgun;
(xxiii) Steyr–AUG–SA semi–auto;
(xxiv) Galil models AR and ARM semi–auto;
(xxv) Heckler and Koch HK–91 A3, HK–93 A2, HK–94 A2 and A3;
(xxvi) Holmes model 88 shotgun;
(xxvii) Avtomat Kalashnikov semiautomatic rifle in any format;
(xxviii) Manchester Arms “Commando” MK–45, MK–9;
(xxix) Mandell TAC–1 semi–auto carbine;
(xxx) Mossberg model 500 Bullpup assault shotgun;
(xxxi) Sterling Mark 6;
(xxxii) P.A.W.S. carbine;
(xxxiii) Ruger mini–14 folding stock model (.223 caliber);
(xxxiv) SIG 550/551 assault rifle (.223 caliber);
(xxxv) SKS with detachable magazine;
(xxxvi) AP–74 Commando type semi–auto;
(xxxvii) Springfield Armory BM–59, SAR–48, G3, SAR–3, M–21 sniper rifle, M1A, excluding the M1 Garand;
(xxxviii) Street sweeper assault type shotgun;
(xxxix) Striker 12 assault shotgun in all formats;
(xl) Unique F11 semi–auto type;
(xli) Daewoo USAS 12 semi–auto shotgun;
(xlii) UZI 9mm carbine or rifle;
(xliii) Valmet M–76 and M–78 semi–auto;
(xliv) Weaver Arms “Nighthawk” semi–auto carbine; or
(xlv) Wilkinson Arms 9mm semi–auto “Terry”.
Id.

Have just read that, now ask yourself the following question: Does a stripped lower, never having been assembled prior to Oct 1st, meet the definition of either Assault Long Gun or Copycat Weapon. The answer is NO. Consequently, that stripped lower was never a “lawfully possessed” Assault Long Gun or Copycat Weapon prior to October 1st. Therefore, it is not grandfathered and can never be lawfully assembled into an Assault Long Gun or Copycat Weapon after Oct 1st.

Does this mean that you should build out all those stripped lowers that you have stashed away? Before making that decision consider what the State of MD would have to prove to convict you building up that lower after Oct 1st. First, they would have to catch you with the lower in a banned configuration. Second, they would have to prove beyond and to the exclusion of all reasonable doubt that you never assembled that lower into a banned configuration prior to Oct 1st. Absent an admission from the defendant, this will be a tough case to make.

If, however, that lower is sitting in MSP purgatory, and will not be let out until after Oct 1, then it would be a relatively simple endeavor to prove that it was never assembled into a banned configuration prior to Oct 1.

Here is the big takeaway point: If you are just getting around to buying a stripped lower, do you transfer with an FFL that is doing an on time / early release. You really want this in your hands prior to Oct 1.