Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 3/19/2006 1:18:52 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/19/2006 2:04:44 PM EDT by M45]
Hey guys-

I was wondering... can I register my stripped AR lower to use with a .50 BMG upper? I saw a website that offers .50BMG uppers that mate with AR lowers, and I was thinking I better riegister my lower before the .50 BMG deadline.

Is that doable?

Link Posted: 3/19/2006 1:49:56 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/19/2006 1:50:57 PM EDT by hawk1]
NO! You must have owned it prior to 1/05. If you do and get caught you're in for a world of problems.

From the DOJ website:


Effective January 1, 2005, any person who lawfully possesses a .50 BMG rifle prior to January 1, 2005, is required to do one of the following by April 30, 2006:



ETA: link to info http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/50bmg.htm

Link Posted: 3/19/2006 1:54:11 PM EDT
I did own the lower before 1/05.

Link Posted: 3/19/2006 1:59:51 PM EDT
Your Subject line said;
Registering an AR-15 off list lower as a .50BMG

Off list lowers were not in the state prior to 1/05. The concept of an "off list" was after that date. You would know if you owned it prior to 1/05 so go with that.
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 2:03:47 PM EDT
oh I used the term incorrectly-- thanks Hawk. Good link.

So can I register my lower.. it seems that it may be a loophole?
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 2:15:44 PM EDT
No loophole. The law is what is. If you owned it prior to 1/05 then by all means you're good to go. One of the only exception I can think of is a lower that was supposed to be registered as an assault weapon back in 2000 and wasn't is NOT able to be registered now as a .50 bmg.

Link Posted: 3/19/2006 2:29:48 PM EDT
no, that's why I called it 'off list' as it was not registered as an AW... it just sat in my safe as a lower. hmmm, I may look into registering it.



Link Posted: 3/19/2006 2:40:36 PM EDT
Decide for yourself, no one here will give you the go ahead with something illegal if they know it is illegal, and likewise no one will give you legal advice either.

If you LEGALLY owned it prior to January 1, 2005, which was nearly 15 months ago; then you can legally register it at a .50BMG. Hell you could register a Ruger 10/22 as a .50BMG if you can use it to fire .50GMB rounds. So IF you owned it priod to January 1, 2005 and it can fire .50BMG rounds under any configuration, then you can register it (which time for is running out). Just keep in mind that if you DIDN'T own it prior to January 1, 2005 and they find out (many FFLs take serial number records of all firearms, even on longguns) then you will not only lose your .50BMG, but every other gun you own, and your ability to ever own them again.

So weigh the actions and consequences. If it's legally owned, then go ahead and register it. If you are just saying it was to try and slide in last minute, you might want to reconsider.
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 3:23:01 PM EDT
Neo- I am not asking for legal advice nor am I asking anyone if I should do something illegal. I adhere to all state and federal laws. What I find interesting is the ability to use an AR lower with a BMG upper... and what it takes to do it LEGALLY.hat
Anyone out there actually register their lower as a .50 BMG?

Link Posted: 3/19/2006 3:32:14 PM EDT
See that there is the catch. The stripped lowe madness didn't start util almost a year after the last legally purchased .50BMG receiver; to top that off anyone with a legally owned Assault Weapon does not need to register it as a .50BMG AW because it is already an AW. So to register an AR receiver receiver as as a .50BMG is a VERY odd and suspicious cirumstance.
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 4:00:02 PM EDT

Originally Posted By NeoWeird:
See that there is the catch. The stripped lowe madness didn't start util almost a year after the last legally purchased .50BMG receiver; to top that off anyone with a legally owned Assault Weapon does not need to register it as a .50BMG AW because it is already an AW. So to register an AR receiver receiver as as a .50BMG is a VERY odd and suspicious cirumstance.




Originally posted by Hawk1:
Registering an AR-15 off list lower as a .50BMG...

Off list lowers were not in the state prior to 1/05. The concept of an "off list" was after that date. You would know if you owned it prior to 1/05 so go with that.



It turns out there are quite a few 'off-list lowers' that were in state as of the June Harrott decision. Most of them however, had been reg'd as AWs in 2000.

Quite a few very specific make/model combinations for AR lowers didn't get listed in late 2000. I believe there are some Colt variants, the Amer. Spirit Arms ASA15, and some others.

If these were not built into 'by features' guns, then these lowers were legal to have & possess as bare lowers since Jun 2001 (Harrott decision).

Bill Wiese
San Jose, CA

Link Posted: 3/19/2006 4:14:31 PM EDT
Thanks for all the great info guys. My lower is 100 percent legal and as I never built it, I never regisered it as an AW.... so it is still legal until I put a pistol grip on it. But thanks for sniffing it out to make sure I haven't broken any laws.

Now, has anyone registered their AR lower as a .50 BMG?
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 4:31:12 PM EDT

Originally Posted By M45:
Thanks for all the great info guys. My lower is 100 percent legal and as I never built it, I never regisered it as an AW.... so it is still legal until I put a pistol grip on it. But thanks for sniffing it out to make sure I haven't broken any laws.

Now, has anyone registered their AR lower as a .50 BMG?



I know someone that has done it with a Fab10, and I plan on doing it to mine too.
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 4:58:25 PM EDT
Blue- so do you have the upper yet or are you just going to register it and build it out later? I am not sure I will ever build mine out to a .50, but I want the option if I do.

Link:

http://www.50bmg.net/

It seems like a cheap way to shoot a .50 though I wonder about it's accuracy and quality. Do you have any experience with it?
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 5:04:13 PM EDT
I don't have the upper yet. I'll register it and then build it later. But I plan on buying from ALS just like you posted.
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 7:32:44 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 8:04:28 PM EDT
Thanks Ugly- I found it about 20 minutes after I posted the question. Good stuff!

Sorry if I posted in the wrong area.

Link Posted: 3/20/2006 6:34:30 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/20/2006 6:34:53 AM EDT by Chaingun]
As discussed before "PWA (all)" is an incorrect listing, based on the Harrott required Make/Model convention, making it a non-listed lower.

There might be others on the list.
Link Posted: 3/20/2006 8:20:29 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Chaingun:
As discussed before "PWA (all)" is an incorrect listing, based on the Harrott required Make/Model convention, making it a non-listed lower.

There might be others on the list.



It really is.... BUT:

.... the "... (all)" ones are way too close for comfort. I would not have any of these. This is the stuff that court fights are made from; if PWA only made AR recievers it would be worse for you than perhaps if PWA made a variety of firearms, some of which were not ARs or AWs.

I do think the DOJ will clean this up, but in the meantime you're exposed way more than other lowers.

Bill Wiese
San Jose
Link Posted: 3/20/2006 9:41:44 AM EDT
I think you guys are right as it might not be worth it to open yourself up to having the DOJ take your guns because the lines are blurry.

The new barrett .416 might be in order.

Also ALS is coming out with a Cali legal big bore upper as well.
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 6:23:31 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/21/2006 6:23:59 PM EDT by mike452]
Isn't having a never registered AW lower illegal? Then registering it now as a 50BMG will be admiting guilt?
Link Posted: 3/22/2006 6:59:53 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/22/2006 7:00:16 AM EDT by Chaingun]

Originally Posted By mike452:
Isn't having a never registered AW lower illegal? Then registering it now as a 50BMG will be admiting guilt?



What's being discussed is a technicality from the Harrott decision which requires Make/Model to be specifically stated.

For instance
"DPMS Panther (all)" shows Make/Model and covers futher sub-description by using (all)

Now
"PWA All Models" does not state Make/Model requiring the DOJ to update the list, and questions whether or not those who registered PWA receivers truely legally registered.

There's probably others on the Kasler list that require updates to Make/Model.

Another question I have, which bwiese can think about, has to do with those who registered their PWA receivers under the Kasler law, which requires specific Make/Model. Someone could not have registered a non-listed receiver on this list and it should have been kicked out. Anyone who registered a PWA receiver should have had their registration removed, and now it's too late to register under SB-23. As I see it, anyone with a registered PWA receiver and has a built up AW is breaking multiple felonies. I could imagine the court would be lenient, but they should be blind and prosecute to the fullest intent of the law. Bwiese, how about using this as an argument for updating the list?
Link Posted: 3/22/2006 9:33:02 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/22/2006 1:34:19 PM EDT by bwiese]

Originally Posted By Chaingun:
Another question I have, which bwiese can think about, has to do with those who registered their PWA receivers under the Kasler law, which requires specific Make/Model. Someone could not have registered a non-listed receiver on this list and it should have been kicked out. Anyone who registered a PWA receiver should have had their registration removed, and now it's too late to register under SB-23.



Actually, the Kasler decision really didn't directly require registration. It just said (amongst many other things) that copies & duplicates could be series members. But from that, the DOJ was then able to say all AR/AK 'clones' must be registered and have a separate registration - even though SB23 reg period was coincident at the end of 2000.

The period 8/16/00 (Kasler) - 6/28/01 (Harrott) was the period when "an AR is an AR is an AR...": basic look plus equivalent fitment & functionality was all that was required. While the Kasler list was really a 'guide' at the time, there was zero guarantee of its exclusivity (in fact, a guarantee almost the opposite!) and there was in fact complete risk that if you had an AR or AK receiver that was not on the Kasler list, it would still be regarded as an AW: that is, AR and AK "series" included all "copies and duplicates", whether listed or not. And there was no concern at that time for who determined series membership besides AG office - which might include trial courts, DAs, cops, etc. This was all up in the air.

I myself have a a couple of 'off-list' ASA receivers I'd gotten in 1999 that never made the Kasler list or DOJ "AW Guide" in 2000, and I registered them as AWs in December of 2000 as SB23 'by feature' guns.

If an AR built with a PWA receiver - or any other receiver not on the Kasler list, like my ASA off-list receiver - was registered by 12/31/00 as a generic 'by features' AW it was OK.

And remember, due to a filing/printing goof the DOJ blames on the Sec'y of State's office, the registration period deadline for AR/AK 'series' guns was moved up to 1/23/00 - thus the period 1/1/01-1/23/01 is what I and others call the "Kasler gap". (There is really a question as to whether the DOJ actually had statutory authority to register these via extending the reg period for those extra 23 days merely due to printing error - instead, they maybe should have issued AW permits instead, as reg periods for 12276.5 additions are mandated at 90 days and registration is not DOJ discretionary. Or, they perhaps should've voided the 'defective' AR/AK registration period by removing, then reinstantiating the declaration and starting a new 90-day reg period.

I believe some number of ARs and AKs were registered during this Kasler gap. (Most people probably did think the AW registration window ended at 12/31/00 and weren't aware of this separate Kasler gap 'extension', so most AR/AK series rifles that were registered were likely actually registered before end of 2000.)

Thus, the DOJ likely had reg'd quite a few brands registered as AWs during the Kasler gap even though these makes/models were not on the Kasler list. This is, I feel, the initial reason the Kasler list was not updated further - they felt (or at least felt they could hold the position) that anything that "looked like a duck, was a duck." So there was no need at that point of further list tweaks.

Harrott reshaped Kasler in that it said (totally aside from SB23 by-features issues) that something was not an AW until it was formally declared and officially listed, and that owners & trial courts did not have to worry themselves about determining 'series' membership - that was a job solely for DOJ/AG, and it must be publicized in Kasler list in CCR before it was considered an AW by name.

At this point, the DOJ should've updated the Kasler list regularly & periodically to keep off-list lowers out of circulation; instead they preferred to work off uncertainty for the next five years until a few barnstormers managed to confirm, in writing in mid to late 2005, that DOJ wouldn't bite in acquiring off-list lowers - and that further detailed reading of Harrott decision revealed complete protection.


As I see it, anyone with a registered PWA receiver and has a built up AW is breaking multiple felonies. I could imagine the court would be lenient, but they should be blind and prosecute to the fullest intent of the law.


No, again, if it was not a listed AR receiver but was reg'd in 2000 or even up thru 1/23/01, the reg was accepted by DOJ - the Kasler list really didn't apply, except as general guidance, since at that time "an AR is an AR is an AR...". Not until Harrott hit in Jun 2001 was there specific guidance for exact make/model listing.

In fact, I believe there have been several cases where folks were prosecuted for unreg'd AW possession but it didn't stick... such people had filled out the paperwork at an inappropriate early time - seems some folks thought they needed to register Colt Sporters and Colt Targets and Bushmaster clones in early 90s. These folks later missed out on the SB23 and Kasler registration periods, and were popped for AW possession charges for various reasons (house fire, etc.) They were able to somehow dredge up that they had filed w/DOJ early and somehow that made the charge go away at the local DA level, the AW reg was updated (?) and the people in question got their AWs back. I don't have all the details, may well be missing something, and I think the one person that posted this in the forums a year or so ago didn't even understand the situation properly enough to report it accurately, but that's what seemed to have happened when reading between the lines.


Bwiese, how about using this as an argument for updating the list?


That's no argument for doing that. The only real arguments are "consistency" and "public safety" ;)


Bill Wiese
San Jose


Top Top