Oregon obtaining a ARP under 21

[Yarome]

The nutshell: The only legal means to acquire/build an ARP in OR is if it is gifted to you under the family exemption or you owned an 80% lower prior to the new "ghost gun" law going into affect and build your own. (Which... if the new OR law is not overturned would have to be serialized by Sept 1, 2024)

If your intention is to put a pistol brace on it.... you would have to be a member of one of the organizations (GOA, FPC, SAF) that currently has injunctive relief from the courts. (Serialization requirement noted above would still apply)

If your intention is to put a stock on it (SBR) then the only option is if was a pre manufactured SBR that was gifted to you. There is no option to build/mfg one under 21.

All that said... the legal issues are currently in flux and could change at any time. If it were me... under 21... I would let the legal issues play out to completion before I started dipping my toes in that pond.

 

[Yarome]

I think the easiest way to acquire an AR pistol under 21; would be to find an AR "builder"; hire that person to build a "16"+ rifle" on a braced pistol lower that still has the short barrel upper; then buy /transfer that AR as a rifle, then convert back to pistol minus the brace? ("Permanently remove brace") i don't know. It would in a way be essentially the TC Contender kit, but have there been case law where someone transferred a TC Contender as a rifle to an 18-20 year old along with the pistol parts to convert back to pistol? That's an interesting question to ponder. Otherwise..just wait until 21?


Edit. The whole "once a rifle, always a rifle" is the issue from what I can see, federally . ATF says "pistol to rifle then pistol, no problem, as long as not in NFA configuration" but that's assuming it was sold/transferred as a pistol; correct?

So where does that leave the kit/AR modular system if transferred as a "Rifle" through a FFL; but still having the short barrel upper and pistol brace or tube?

Creative, but I'm pretty sure that if it's transferred as a "rifle".... it's then a "rifle" and can't legally be converted to a pistol. For under 21 they can only transfer/purchase a "shotgun" or "rifle". Everything else is a "firearm" (IE., lower only "other") and prohibited under fed law.

 

[CamoDeafie]

The nutshell: The only legal means to acquire/build an ARP in OR is if it is gifted to you under the family exemption or you owned an 80% lower prior to the new "ghost gun" law going into affect and build your own. (Which... if the new OR law is not overturned would have to be serialized by Sept 1, 2024)

If your intention is to put a pistol brace on it.... you would have to be a member of one of the organizations (GOA, FPC, SAF) that currently has injunctive relief from the courts. (Serialization requirement noted above would still apply)

If you intention is to put a stock on it (SBR) then the only option is if was a pre manufactured SBR that was gifted to you. There is no option to build/mfg one under 21.

All that said... the legal issues are currently in flux and could change at any time. If it were me... under 21... I would let the legal issues play out to completion before I started dipping my toes in that pond.

Right . What I'm saying is..

Hire/pay someone to "build" an AR rifle with 16"+ barrel, but using an AR Pistol (with or without brace, probably a bare tube); then transfer it as a "Rifle" but with the Pistol barrel and round buffer tube ?

The problem as stated is what part does the ATF consider "pistol to rifle to pistol=ok" and "rifle to pistol = SBR"? if let's say for example a FFL has the AR pistol on bound books records, but transfers it as a Rifle to the buyer with an 16"+ upper and stock kit; is that FFL violating the Federal law? Since the 4473 would say "AR rifle "kit"(?) " but same serial as the bound book as "AR pistol"?

Edit. A FFL could sell an AR with extra uppers and parts recorded; no question about that. The potential issue I can see is transferring the AR pistol as a "rifle"... could the ATF see it as "pistol from rifle; therefore unregistered SBR, therefore illegal"?

 

[Ginocide]

a family member purchasing a firearm with the intent of gifting it to you is still considered an illegal straw purchase.

Incorrect.

From form 4473:

Question 21.a. Actual Transferee/Buyer: For purposes of this form, a person is the actual transferee/buyer if he/she is purchasing the firearm for him/herself or otherwise acquiring the firearm for him/herself. (e.g., redeeming the firearm from pawn, retrieving it from consignment, firearm raffle winner). A person is also the actual transferee/buyer if he/she is legitimately purchasing the firearm as a bona fide gift for a third party. A gift is not bona fide if another person offered or gave the person completing this form money, service(s), or item(s) of value to acquire the firearm for him/her, or if the other person is prohibited by law from receiving or possessing the firearm.

If it's truly a gift, it's not a straw purchase.

 

[Yarome]

Incorrect.

From form 4473:

If it's truly a gift, it's not a straw purchase.

I should have been more clear. The clarification is spot on. Thanks!

A "true to blue" gift purchase is perfectly legal. Telling your Pops what firearm you want and either giving him the money or making other arrangements as compensation for him to go buy it for you... and "gifting" it to you... is a no go.

 

[CamoDeafie]

I should have been more clear. The clarification is spot on. Thanks!

A "true to blue" gift purchase is perfectly legal. Telling your Pops what firearm you want and either giving him the money or making other arrangements as compensation for him to go buy it for you... and "gifting" it to you... is a no go.

Indeed. Old trick my late father did, was to get something but I'd have to earn it by doing yardwork for however many hours it took to "pay off" the loan on the item.

 

[Yarome]

Indeed. Old trick my late father did, was to get something but I'd have to earn it by doing yardwork for however many hours it took to "pay off" the loan on the item.

I think that's in the "universal guide to fatherhood" book... and just plain good parenting.

Don't give them their "wants", but provide the means for them to earn them.

 

[CamoDeafie]

I think that's in the "universal guide to fatherhood" book... and just plain good parenting.

Don't give them their "wants", but provide the means for them to earn them.

Right, just saying he used that to keep me from just giving him the money for whatever it was I wanted, which would be perfect for this kind of situation.

 

[Yarome]

....which would be perfect for this kind of situation.

"A gift is not bona fide if another person offered or gave the person completing this form money, service(s), or item(s) of value to acquire the firearm for him/her"

Technically... it wouldn't fly, but all in all we're talking about "intent", which is pretty subjective and only provable by the 2 parties sworn testimony. Under the 5th... no one is obligated to incriminate themselves, so....... take that for what it's worth.

 

[Certaindeaf]

i am under the age of 21 and live currently in oregon, i've been itching to find a way to start my first ARP build, ive been told a couple different things about it, i came here to get input from people knowledgeable about the law here and that could help me obtain one. if i straight up cannot get one just let me know.

I'm pretty sure you need to be like 65 to join the AARP, gumption or not.

 

[wired]

Right . What I'm saying is..

Hire/pay someone to "build" an AR rifle with 16"+ barrel, but using an AR Pistol (with or without brace, probably a bare tube); then transfer it as a "Rifle" but with the Pistol barrel and round buffer tube ?

The problem as stated is what part does the ATF consider "pistol to rifle to pistol=ok" and "rifle to pistol = SBR"? if let's say for example a FFL has the AR pistol on bound books records, but transfers it as a Rifle to the buyer with an 16"+ upper and stock kit; is that FFL violating the Federal law? Since the 4473 would say "AR rifle "kit"(?) " but same serial as the bound book as "AR pistol"?

Edit. A FFL could sell an AR with extra uppers and parts recorded; no question about that. The potential issue I can see is transferring the AR pistol as a "rifle"... could the ATF see it as "pistol from rifle; therefore unregistered SBR, therefore illegal"?

They go from the inception of the gun. If the original manufacturer transferred it out as a pistol its always a pistol or if it went out as a bare receiver.

 

[ZA_Survivalist]

Going to catch flack for this..
*My FUDD energy intensifies*

A new member joins Monday, then comes onto the forum seeking how to obtain something that on the books they cannot legally obtain through standard practices via FFL and people are providing possible workarounds..

We should simply parrot what the law states and no more. No workarounds, no 80% advice.. they are under 21, they can wait.
It's what, 3 years? Come on.

My advice to the new member, just wait a few years. There is no rush for you, and beyond that an "ARP" (other than compactness for transport and storage) does not accomplish anything a standard length AR cannot already do.

 

[monkeybutler]

Nobidy should be posting workarounds here or any other public forum. Ever.

 

[wired]

Going to catch flack for this..
*My FUDD energy intensifies*

A new member joins Monday, then comes onto the forum seeking how to obtain something that on the books they cannot legally obtain through standard practices via FFL and people are providing possible workarounds..

We should simply parrot what the law states and no more. No workarounds, no 80% advice.. they are under 21, they can wait.
It's what, 3 years? Come on.

My advice to the new member, just wait a few years. There is no rush for you, and beyond that an "ARP" (other than compactness for transport and storage) does not accomplish anything a standard length AR cannot already do.

Nah, I have no problem with 18 year olds following the letter of the law. It was written the way it is for a reason right?

 

[ZA_Survivalist]

Nah, I have no problem with 18 year olds following the letter of the law. It was written the way it is for a reason right?

I do hear you, and I do support individuals seeking out info for their 2A rights and hobby.
But I do have a fairly tight tinfoil hat on and have seen some nefarious activity on various forums when it comes to this type of info on a public forum. Simply weary of it all due to the nonsense they've (anti gunners in Oregon) have pulled over the last year.

 

[Yarome]

Going to catch flack for this..
*My FUDD energy intensifies*

A new member joins Monday, then comes onto the forum seeking how to obtain something that on the books they cannot legally obtain through standard practices via FFL and people are providing possible workarounds..

We should simply parrot what the law states and no more. No workarounds, no 80% advice.. they are under 21, they can wait.
It's what, 3 years? Come on.

My advice to the new member, just wait a few years. There is no rush for you, and beyond that an "ARP" (other than compactness for transport and storage) does not accomplish anything a standard length AR cannot already do.

Otherwise legal exercise of a persons 2A rights is a "loophole" in the scheme to infringe on citizens rights... is it?

Going through an FFL has been imposed in every way possible in OR, but it my book... it is by no means "standard practice". Quite simply... nothing more than successful infringement of legal activity.

"Standard practice" would be any person being free to sell private property to anyone they wish without gooberment interference/regulation. Specific to firearms.... the legal right to mfg firearms for personal use is a well established right of the people.

 

[Stomper]

Otherwise legal exercise of a persons 2A rights is a "loophole" in the scheme to infringe on citizens rights... is it?

Going through an FFL has been imposed in every way possible in OR, but it my book... it is by no means "standard practice". Quite simply... nothing more than successful infringement of legal activity.

"Standard practice" would be any person being free to sell private property to anyone they wish without gooberment interference/regulation. Specific to firearms.... the legal right to mfg firearms for personal use is a well established right of the people.

But…. that'll mess up the (not so) secret gun registry that they deny exists, but that we all know they already have (because we're not stupid) and add to it daily.

 

[ZA_Survivalist]

Otherwise legal exercise of a persons 2A rights is a "loophole" in the scheme to infringe on citizens rights... is it?

Going through an FFL has been imposed in every way possible in OR, but it my book... it is by no means "standard practice". Quite simply... nothing more than successful infringement of legal activity.

"Standard practice" would be any person being free to sell private property to anyone they wish without gooberment interference/regulation. Specific to firearms.... the legal right to mfg firearms for personal use is a well established right of the people.

This will be a long winded response as to better clear things up.. I feel as if a lot of the folks here don't really understand what I'm getting at.

I do see the perspective of the libertarian, constitutionalist opinion here and I do not disagree with it. However, I am hyper protective of the forum and the possibility of posts being taken out of context only to be used as a means for further restriction.

I know some people want to have the whole "post it all on a public forum" approach, but this is simply additional information any bad actors would otherwise normally have to think up then separately look up only to then apply to more restrictive legislation.. which luckily they aren't too great at, however when information is publicly centralized and we quite literally walk people through various things, it's makes it far easier to now come up with ever increasing restrictions.

I fully agree with you when it comes to private citizens being able to sell their private property without government intervention and that the background check law was and is an infringement on a private citizens ability to obtain a firearm affordably and within a reasonable timeframe (which should be instant). I've made that clear in various posts time and time again. I don't think I should have to constantly rehash it as if I'm one of the Reddit communists coming on here attempting to say "all gun laws are swell".

But I don't think many here actually realize we aren't fighting a fair fight with anti gunners..
I would hope you and others suddenly jumping at me would realize that my past posts share the same sentiment as your own..
I'm not championing for further restriction nor am I supporting the new nonsense we're having to endure..
What I'm stating is: limiting information to new randos joining just a week or day ago simply for our protection. People are so eager to provide what could be seen as damning evidence should a "mass event" happen following said shared information OR giving the antis centralized information to further increase restrictions by providing ideas and information they have not thought of yet but can now see all laid out in black and white which they can pick apart..

I mean, I can't be the only one that realizes we don't have a fair system anymore, right? That we quickly see mass public opinion from the uninformed masses dictate the outcome of legal battles rather than the facts and merit of said court cases.. this isn't the 1950's anymore. Everything is corrupt and compromised. I have zero faith in our institutions and court cases regularly allow for biased public opinion to sway the outcome.

All it takes is a few bad posts, or attached posts (here) that are directly tied to a mass event or some other nonsense and suddenly the forum is gone. And despite everyone here being loud and proud (including myself when it comes to 2A rights), that won't mean a thing when the forum has to fight legal battles because it was dragged into court due to being suddenly tied to a bunch of nonsense.

Balk all you guys want, I do agree with what you are saying but I simply have reservations about being so open on the forum, that's the core of what I'm getting at. Not because I'm trying to be some legal eagle or that I support the nonsense Oregon puts us as gun owners through. Yes, I get and agree with the constitutional libertarian sentiment. But you have absolutely got to realize we aren't in a sane, fair, logical era anymore and that our rights are constantly under attack and quite often we (2A community) shoot ourselves in the foot (as seen with brace questions constantly sent into the ATF).. some guys thought they were being helpful and seeking clarification and all it did was make it a focus and was then acted on by the ATF.

 

[Yarome]

Balk all you guys want, I do agree with what you are saying but I simply have reservations about being so open on the forum, that's the core of what I'm getting at. Not because I'm trying to be some legal eagle or that I support the nonsense Oregon puts us as gun owners through. Yes, I get and agree with the constitutional libertarian sentiment. But you have absolutely got to realize we aren't in a sane, fair, logical era anymore and that our rights are constantly under attack and quite often we (2A community) shoot ourselves in the foot (as seen with brace questions constantly sent into the ATF).. some guys thought they were being helpful and seeking clarification and all it did was make it a focus and was then acted on by the ATF.

I understand what you are saying, but doesn't that play into the woke narrative and, as you say, isn't it "shooting ourselves in the foot" if we refrain from sharing what actions are legal... even if it falls outside of what the desired controls are?

Basically.... we shouldn't talk about things "they" don't approve of... or they may use it against us... is what I'm reading.

A fear tactic to keep everyone in line, silent, and ever moving toward their goals of absolute control. That's right out of the blue playbook. Silence the opposition, disrupt/discourage free communication and cause dissent among those that disagree with you.

Just sayin.....

 

[ma96782]

Of course, this is NOT advice.....




Aloha, Mark