-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Lower Reciever
- Thread starter Big Buzzy
- Start date
Parker Duofold
NES Member
Your first mistake was "i before e except after c."
I think your purchase and impending "registration" is OK but YMMV.
I think your purchase and impending "registration" is OK but YMMV.
Last edited:
Artie
NES Member
Mass-diver
NES Member
Do you have proof it is pre-7/20, like a bill of sale?
Palladin
NES Member
Its up to the AG to pursue the FFL and this 4473, to prove the receiver WASN'T in play before 7/20
snax
NES Member
Are you willing to be a sacrificial lamb during this widespread anti AR15 kick the country is on? Right or not, her decree will probably hold up in a court in this state.
She needs us all to register in order to confiscate.
She needs us all to register in order to confiscate.
dcmdon
NES Member
The law is fuzzy because the actual law defines a firearm as capable of firing a shot. So receivers are not firearms and therefor can't be AWs. But the AG's guidance says that even a receiver is a firearm. Which is bullshit.
Clearly her intent with this statement is to stop dealers from continuing to sell new AR lowers. An unintended consequence is that it grandfathers receivers where otherwise a bare receiver would not be grandfathered.
Clearly her intent with this statement is to stop dealers from continuing to sell new AR lowers. An unintended consequence is that it grandfathers receivers where otherwise a bare receiver would not be grandfathered.
For FTF, is it protocol now for MA sellers to show that it was pre-7/20?
Lower with no receipt = $400
Lower with old receipt = $zillion
dcmdon
NES Member
There is no case law. So nobody knows. So a prudent person goes by what the chief law enforcement officer in the commonwealth says. Which means that all AR receivers are AWs, which means that pre 7/20 receivers are AWs.
71montess
NES Member
Are you jelly you didn't buy any and hold on ?
You are fine in terms of what the law says.
You would be in violation of what the AG is interpreting as the law.
Decision time.
amm5061
NES Member
Pay very close attention to the last line in that snippet right there.
![[laugh]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/012.gif "Laugh [laugh]")
INAL, but that “snippet’ doesn’t apply to the line above about not applying the Guidance to pre 7/20 owners.
It means the Guidance itself may be amended in the future.
Or I’m wrong lol.
GM-GUY
NES Member
Anyone, registering anything, in any state, at this point in time is a fool in my opinion. Have you seen some of the 'poorly written' (I would say intentionally so - and it's been mentioned in other threads) bills they are trying to pass?
A section of a proposed law that was concerned about detachable magazines causing a gun to be forbidden, then the next part goes into semi-automatics. By the way I read it, my son's Ruger Scout would be banned.
We (the citizenry) had a social/moral compact with the government that said we follow the laws as long as they are not capricious and don't change based on who is in power (term for all that - forget what it is). 7/20/16 BROKE that agreement, at least with me and several other I know.
What happens when Healy decides amend her guidance to weapons obtained post 1998 and you get a Bump-Stock letter with 'AR-15' in it's place?
A section of a proposed law that was concerned about detachable magazines causing a gun to be forbidden, then the next part goes into semi-automatics. By the way I read it, my son's Ruger Scout would be banned.
We (the citizenry) had a social/moral compact with the government that said we follow the laws as long as they are not capricious and don't change based on who is in power (term for all that - forget what it is). 7/20/16 BROKE that agreement, at least with me and several other I know.
What happens when Healy decides amend her guidance to weapons obtained post 1998 and you get a Bump-Stock letter with 'AR-15' in it's place?
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2017
- Messages
- 731
- Likes
- 1,201
Yes, you should be. But do not underestimate the vile intentions of our AG.
dcmdon
NES Member
For most firearms, all registering does is protect you.
Since there are a half dozen ways for the gun to lawfully no longer be possessed by you but still have you listed as its owner on the registry, the registry is meaningless.
I've personally worked with people who were in this situation in the case of a protective order. The cops ask about the gun. The gun owner says it was sold out of state and shipped to a dealer. The cops ask what dealer. If you were hiding something you could say you don't remember since there is no record keeping requirement. At that point you are lying and breaking the law. But its less risky than building a receiver into a firearm and then refusing to register it.
Unless you just want to burry it in your back yard. If you actually want to take it out and use it. Then not registering it is more risky.
Remember, if they ever actually do ban mere possession of these rifles, you can always just move it out of state and be in compliance. Just like with bump stocks.
Now, I'm not saying that if you were ever in that situation you should register all firearms. My inclination if I wanted to have an off-the books gun would be to do it legally. Keep the receiver as only a receiver. Then there is no legal requirement to register it. And if sh1t goes sideways, you can always build it with parts kept on hand.
The lowest risk action is always to do what you can that is 100% legal and off the books. Even if it means spending more money.
I know CT people who bought a number of pre94-ban ARs or lowers or full rifles on the secondary market prior to Newtown. At that time there was ZERO record keeping requirements. So no DPS3 was filed with the state. There also wasn't a requirment to register post-newtown pre94 guns.
So these people now have 100% legal guns that nobody knows about. Sure it cost them money. But if you have kids and a mortgage, etc. Its worth spending the extra to have a firearm that is both legal and invisible.
Last edited:
mikelawtown
NES Member
Have you heard of anyone getting clipped yet? You are not the 1st
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2017
- Messages
- 285
- Likes
- 509
I feel like this will never be prosecuted until they actually change the law to ALL Ar15s and the receivers are illegal no matter when you bought it. Healey says I'm not going to prosecute at this time because you can't prosecute someone just because she has decided to interpret the law differently. Whether you bought an Ar15 or receiver before or after 7/20 doesn't matter the law hasn't changed. Too bad some dealer and buyer who are well heeled doesn't just say to hell with it sell one then make a big public spectacle to watch nothing happen.
That's what I'm thinking , wether she loses in court it doesn't matter at least she made FFL stop selling them to the public for how ever long it takes , and if she's not enforcing the bs she spews then the FFL will continue not to sell it so she wins regardless .
^THIS !
