Re: 80% Lower Update on PICS
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mmi
my lgs got the forms w/out instructions . so there on the ball sort of .
The forms are for if you buy from an ffl. Online isnt an ffl so no need for paperwork. I've been trying to see what is new on this but keep finding that it's just really unclear and no one has a definite answer. I had another midway order come in 1/21 so they still ship. So from what I gather it's still if your leagally aloud to own a firearm you can legally own a 80% unless it comes down to the cops "opinion" but an opinion isnt a law. Hopefully someone can comment back on what's going on.
Re: 80% Lower Update on PICS
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Snuff
The forms are for if you buy from an ffl. Online isnt an ffl so no need for paperwork. I've been trying to see what is new on this but keep finding that it's just really unclear and no one has a definite answer. I had another midway order come in 1/21 so they still ship. So from what I gather it's still if your leagally aloud to own a firearm you can legally own a 80% unless it comes down to the cops "opinion" but an opinion isnt a law. Hopefully someone can comment back on what's going on.
Since it NOT legally a firearm, anyone can own it.
In fact, give it to your kid to take to Show and Tell, so the other kids can see how cool his dad is, making his own firearms!
Re: 80% Lower Update on PICS
While I am not going to go into everything that was said/argued yesterday during the hearing on the preliminary injunction, I was quite surprised when Judge Brobson asked the AG's Office (which is representing the PSP), what the PSP's position is on percentage of completion of a "frame or receiver" before it becomes a "frame or receiver" and they said they are taking a more broad interpretation than the AG's Opinion (after Brobson already called the AG's Opinion broad) and that the PSP now contends that everything from .000001 to 100% is a "frame or receiver." Brobson made clear during the hearing that he agreed with our one statutory argument that "designed to" and "may readily be converted to" only modify "weapon" not "frame or receiver."
Perhaps the best part was during oral argument, after I had questioned Lt. Col. Scott Price of the PSP (who I genuinely like) and solicited testimony from him that he purchased a non-firearm object within the past several months and had it shipped to his house without going through an FFL. During oral argument, Judge Brobson pulled no punches and said to opposing counsel - You're telling me that this statutory text, as has existed since 1995, so clearly applies to these objects, but your own witness, a Lt Col of the PSP, testified that he didn't think the law required him to go through an FFL and obtained one of the objects without doing so? Opposing counsel's response is that they aren't applying it retroactively...let that one sink in for a bit..
Re: 80% Lower Update on PICS
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SigForLife
While I am not going to go into everything that was said/argued yesterday during the hearing on the preliminary injunction, I was quite surprised when Judge Brobson asked the AG's Office (which is representing the PSP), what the PSP's position is on percentage of completion of a "frame or receiver" before it becomes a "frame or receiver" and they said they are taking a more broad interpretation than the AG's Opinion (after Brobson already called the AG's Opinion broad) and that the PSP now contends that everything from .000001 to 100% is a "frame or receiver." Brobson made clear during the hearing that he agreed with our one statutory argument that "designed to" and "may readily be converted to" only modify "weapon" not "frame or receiver."
Perhaps the best part was during oral argument, after I had questioned Lt. Col. Scott Price of the PSP (who I genuinely like) and solicited testimony from him that he purchased a non-firearm object within the past several months and had it shipped to his house without going through an FFL. During oral argument, Judge Brobson pulled no punches and said to opposing counsel - You're telling me that this statutory text, as has existed since 1995, so clearly applies to these objects, but your own witness, a Lt Col of the PSP, testified that he didn't think the law required him to go through an FFL and obtained one of the objects without doing so? Opposing counsel's response is that they aren't applying it retroactively...let that one sink in for a bit..
Thanks for the update Mr. Prince!
Re: 80% Lower Update on PICS
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SigForLife
While I am not going to go into everything that was said/argued yesterday during the hearing on the preliminary injunction, I was quite surprised when Judge Brobson asked the AG's Office (which is representing the PSP), what the PSP's position is on percentage of completion of a "frame or receiver" before it becomes a "frame or receiver" and they said they are taking a more broad interpretation than the AG's Opinion (after Brobson already called the AG's Opinion broad) and that the PSP now contends that everything from .000001 to 100% is a "frame or receiver." Brobson made clear during the hearing that he agreed with our one statutory argument that "designed to" and "may readily be converted to" only modify "weapon" not "frame or receiver."
Perhaps the best part was during oral argument, after I had questioned Lt. Col. Scott Price of the PSP (who I genuinely like) and solicited testimony from him that he purchased a non-firearm object within the past several months and had it shipped to his house without going through an FFL. During oral argument, Judge Brobson pulled no punches and said to opposing counsel - You're telling me that this statutory text, as has existed since 1995, so clearly applies to these objects, but your own witness, a Lt Col of the PSP, testified that he didn't think the law required him to go through an FFL and obtained one of the objects without doing so? Opposing counsel's response is that they aren't applying it retroactively...let that one sink in for a bit..
Interesting updates and thanks for coming on to post.
So am I reading that correctly that any % finished from raw material all the up to an 80% would be considered a finished receiver the way PSP is interpreting this opinion that's trying to pose as an enforceable law?
Re: 80% Lower Update on PICS
So a 2lb aluminum block is a unfinished lower receiver now? I guess they can make that determination by assuming that what it must be if you happen to own other firearms?
Re: 80% Lower Update on PICS
There's an aluminum recycling plant near me, that produces these.
https://photos.truckingtruth.com/pic...84238.2342.jpg
I expect PSP to be arresting every driver that leaves the plant with them for possession of an unregistered arsenal.
Re: 80% Lower Update on PICS
Quote:
Originally Posted by
streaker69
aluminum vagina's in block form?
Re: 80% Lower Update on PICS
So the forest is actually full of gunstocks and railroad tracks are "unfinished receivers"? That means that anyplace that makes metal (in sizes big enough) is actually manufacturing "firearms??? Oh, and places that make polymers (that "could" be used in AR lowers) are also making firearms now?
It's laughable, and sad, when politicians and officials come out with broad statements that cover way too much. Because they waddled their big ideas out, we now have a bigger, muddier mess to define. Simpler if the AG just came right out and admitted he "overspoke" on the topic and retracted everything. Bad enough all the time and $$$ spent on these silly forms the PSP now has, plus postage to ship them out. I wonder how much taxpayer money has already been wasted on this whole thing?
Re: 80% Lower Update on PICS
In addition to ar15safespace Midway USA is also shipping here at least as of last week since my poly pistol lower arrived yesterday from them. No idea if they've changed since last week.