80% lowers

[wired]

I am trying real hard to wrap my mind around the 80% lower concept. Theres some neat jigs on the market right now but the 80% lowers are still as much as finished lowers. I know the only reason isnt economic but Ive never been able to finish an order for a 3 pack and Jig set. It would be fun to have a few totally unmarked guns for no other reason than I can.

Read More

 

[The Heretic]

It isn't just the cost of the jig.

There are other tools you will need to do it right.

I have yet to do mine, but I plan on getting a drill press (need one anyway), I bought a router, I need to get some drill bits and reamers, and I need to setup a workbench and see if the woodworking vise will be adequate or do I need to get a metal vise?

If you are putting the upper together yourself, then you will need tools for that too.

So yes, it does not make a lot of economic sense if any. It is almost solely about having a firearm off the books in a time when the only way to do this is to start with an 80% frame/receiver/etc.

 

[Stomper]

It's also about the satisfaction of actually cutting something into a finished product, rather than just "assembling" a "LEGO set".

 

[greghaz]

Here's a thought: wouldn't used firearms acquired from an individual in OR prior to 5/11/15 (when SB 941went into effect) also be "off the books"?

 

[wired]

All of them would be. You dont have to have any of them or an accounting of what happened to them after you took possession. The only real gun registration in Washington or Oregon is the NFA title 2 stuff.

 

[Koda]

All of them would be. You dont have to have any of them or an accounting of what happened to them after you took possession. The only real gun registration in Washington or Oregon is the NFA title 2 stuff.

Oregon keeps a record for up to 5 years. The FFL keeps the record for 20 minimum.

 

[wired]

They can keep records all they want but you arent required to keep a chain of custody like you are in actual registration schemes. All the 4473 does is say you bought it. What happens after that is a black hole. Sates like California and others including at the federal level for NFA are much more comprehensive/evil.

 

[The Heretic]

Also, if you take up residency in a 'free' state where private transfers can occur "privately" (no paperwork) then you have plausible deniability with regards to all firearms (non-NFA) that you purchased before your residency in the 'free' state. I.E., you can say that you sold them and they cannot require that you prove it.

Better yet, you can tell them to go pound sand and say nothing other than that after you purchased firearms in OR/CA/WA you were or are a resident of a state where private transfers are indeed "private" and that you do not have to prove anything - the state does.

This assumes that the scenario is confiscation, not a an inquiry where someone else used the gun in a crime.

After consulting a lawyer I would cooperate with the gov. thru the lawyer if it was an inquiry into such a crime.

But I generally do not keep records of who I transfer my guns to. Since the gov. has taken on that responsibility I leave it up to them.

 

[The Heretic]

They can keep records all they want but you arent required to keep a chain of custody like you are in actual registration schemes. All the 4473 does is say you bought it. What happens after that is a black hole. Sates like California and others including at the federal level for NFA are much more comprehensive/evil.

However, if they can prove that you sold a firearm without going thru the BGC the law requires, you may find yourself in court defending yourself, especially if a gun you once owned is used in a crime.

 

[wired]

You dont even need to move to free states. "I sent it to a dealer somewhere" is sufficient. You dont have to show where.

 

[notazombie]

The big difference is that an 80% and any parts beyond never had a number and were never on any list -- ever.

 

[The Heretic]

You dont even need to move to free states. "I sent it to a dealer somewhere" is sufficient. You dont have to show where.

I think that is debatable.

I personally intend to take up residence in a free state when I retire, for at least the first year or so.

I think confiscation in my lifetime is not likely, but then I did not think we would have a BGC law in both WA and OR at this point either and now they are talking about yearly permits.

 

[wired]

The big difference is that an 80% and any parts beyond never had a number and were never on any list -- ever.

True but if you sell it

I think that is debatable.

I personally intend to take up residence in a free state when I retire, for at least the first year or so.

I think confiscation in my lifetime is not likely, but then I did not think we would have a BGC law in both WA and OR at this point either and now they are talking about yearly permits.

Its not debatable at all. You are under no obligation to show a chain of custody even to an FFL in another state. Ive sold several guns over the years that transferred to dealers other states. Dont ask me where they went. I verified the FFL's info at the time. I verified the FFL received the gun and then destroyed the records because I am NOT required to retain them. I am required to keep my C&R information in my bound books and for guns in that category I certainly do .

The yearly permits thing is the brainchild of a few wackjob Dems on the west side. Its not going anywhere.

 

[Koda]

its debatable, that 'might' work in a confiscation scenario but then you would own contraband (which you already accepted). But if a gun you sold or traded turns up in a crime, the burden of proof is on the state but all they have to do is trace the gun back to the last FFL, which will be the one who sold it to you.

the thing to remember about building an 80% is that when it comes time to sell it still requires an FFL transfer and I doubt any are going to do that for anything without a serial number...

 

[wired]

the thing to remember about building an 80% is that when it comes time to sell it still requires an FFL transfer and I doubt any are going to do that for anything without a serial number...

Yeah, That's not going to happen. I can see the "I'm going to break the law and sell it without papers" rationale. Problem is that you never know who's going to roll over on you in a pinch. People are snakes.

 

[Koda]

as far as I know its legal to transfer it without a number but I just don't think any FFL will ever do it.

the thing to do is to build and use your 80% lower for you only, then when the time comes just put a serial number on it and sell it.

 

[wired]

Federally its legal to transfer without having a serial number but at the state level you cant transfer without going through an FFL . On the other side of federal legality is the requirement that dealers doing a transfer have a serial number for guns manufactured after 1968. So yes, while the feds dont care if you transfer a AR without a serial number they will not let you do it at a dealer like the state require without makers marks and serial numbers.

 

[P7M13]

I didn't think you could ever sell a 80% that you completed.
You would then be a manufacturer....

On the note of traceability, buddy asked if I had a metal detector. He had hidden some gear in his yard, and couldn't remember where....

 

[Koda]

well that would explain my hunch on why I didn't think any dealers would ever do it... lol.
Thank you for clarifying that. Didnt know.

this whole 80% thing would be fun and is tempting but its just the prohibitive cost in tooling that gets me.

I didn't think you could ever sell a 80% that you completed.
You would then be a manufacturer....

not exactly, that is if I understand correctly you just cant be in the business of manufacturing firearms. Similar to being in business to sell firearms, but you can still sell a used gun.

 

[wired]

You sure as hell can sell a home built gun. In OR and WA you have to go through an FFL and they are required to have makers marks and serial numbers to process the transaction.