There is no reason you can't still buy an AR style lower.

[dcmdon]

The AR15 is outlawed by name. But AR15 is a registered trademark of Colt's Incorporated.

If you bought a lower by someone else, its whatever the model is. Its not an AR15.

So if you buy an Aero Precision lower, it is an X15. There should be no reason you can't buy one of these now.
It is however the BUYER'S responsibility to build it into a compliant firearm. It could be built into any of the following:

1) A full evil AR15 style rimfire rifle. (The AWB only applies to centerfire rifles)
2) A single shot .50 BMG rifle.
3) A straight pull bolt action repeater

This is all black and white. What is fuzzy at this point and would represent risk would be building it up like this:

I could see the argument for its legality. The new statute says:

[(ii) A] (II) Any grip of the weapon, including a pistol grip, a thumbhole stock, or any other stock, the use of which would allow an individual to grip the weapon, resulting in any finger on the trigger hand in addition to the trigger finger being directly below any portion of the action of the weapon when firing

So the trick is that only the trigger finger can be DIRECTLY below the action. It looks like this stock will meet that requirement if you do not consider the buffer and buffer tube to be part of the action. If there is ever case law that does consider this to be part of the action. The answer is to use a modified piston upper that places the mainspring above the barrel. This also avoids the portion of the law that bans "Any of the following specified semiautomatic centerfire rifles, or copies or duplicates thereof " Since a piston driven upper with a mainspring above the barrel could never be considered to be a duplicate of the AR15.

To that end, this RRA upper, paired with the stock shown above, should be in compliance. Although on this, I'd wait and see what shakes out.

The other thing you could do is permanently affix the mag to the gun. This would need to be done more permanently than a CA style bullet button since the law is specifically written to eliminate the bullet button as a workaround. It says:

(4) "Detachable magazine" means an ammunition feeding device that can be removed without disassembling the firearm action;

So you would need to put some kind of internal screw or rivet. Which is doable.

For reference, the law is here.

AN ACT CONCERNING GUN VIOLENCE PREVENTION AND CHILDREN'S SAFETY.

This is actually a link to the final BILL. But this is the exact text adopted as law.

Don

AN ACT CONCERNING GUN VIOLENCE PREVENTION AND CHILDREN'S SAFETY.
AN ACT CONCERNING GUN VIOLENCE PREVENTION AND CHILDREN'S SAFETY.

 

[Kyarno]

Some interesting thoughts, Don.

Although, here's to a repeal of this bullshit law.

I would never make an AR with a rifle stock. I just can't. Seeing it makes me want to vomit.

So does CT...soooo......

 

[Mudfish]

I love NES and its ability to find a solution to any problem.

 

[exo]

Yeah... or you can choose to not comply.

 

[dcmdon]

Some interesting thoughts, Don.

Although, here's to a repeal of this bullshit law.

I would never make an AR with a rifle stock. I just can't. Seeing it makes me want to vomit.

So does CT...soooo......

Kyarno - you don't live in CT. You live in Fantasyland if you think this law is going to be repealed. You need to either come up with creative ways to comply or make the decision not to. I hear a lot of discussion about lawsuits. Trust me, they will not reach any kind of conclusion, one way or another for 5 years.

you must deal with the law as it is now.

Don

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah... or you can choose to not comply.

Exactly.

 

[AR MR2]

Am I wrong in thinking this will work for CT? *NEW* MR2 AR-15 AR-10 CT Mag Lock Fixed Magazine : AR15 Parts at GunBroker.com

Avoid the "detachable magazine" portion of the law and you can have all the evil features you'd like, right? I made these for California (we're just a bit behind CT in the race to the bottom), but I believe this applies to CT as well.

Thoughts?

 

[exo]

Am I wrong in thinking this will work for CT? *NEW* MR2 AR-15 AR-10 CT Mag Lock Fixed Magazine : AR15 Parts at GunBroker.com

Avoid the "detachable magazine" portion of the law and you can have all the evil features you'd like, right? I made these for California (we're just a bit behind CT in the race to the bottom), but I believe this applies to CT as well.

Thoughts?

Honestly, what good would that rifle be then? So you can have a telescoping stock, flash hider, or bayonet lug. Your rifle is still limited to one magazine's worth of ammo, and good luck swapping mags quickly.

Edit: I appreciate that you're trying to give people in these retarded states an option, but a rifle with those kinds of limitations is only ever going to be a range toy.

 

[AR MR2]

Honestly, what good would that rifle be then? So you can have a telescoping stock, flash hider, or bayonet lug. Your rifle is still limited to one magazine's worth of ammo, and good luck swapping mags quickly.

Edit: I appreciate that you're trying to give people in these retarded states an option, but a rifle with those kinds of limitations is only ever going to be a range toy.

Isn't that the point? A legal range toy that isn't flagged as an assualt weapon.... if the SHTF, then convert back as the laws are pretty much up for grabs anyway. In the meantime, protect your privacy and your investment.

 

[exo]

Isn't that the point? A legal range toy that isn't flagged as an assualt weapon.... if the SHTF, then convert back as the laws are pretty much up for grabs anyway. In the meantime, protect your privacy and your investment.

Hmm. Well, I get what you're saying. Since you're selling the product, have you gotten a legal opinion from anybody about it?

 

[AR MR2]

Hmm. Well, I get what you're saying. Since you're selling the product, have you gotten a legal opinion from anybody about it?

Afraid not. Stag said they would turn in a AR MR2 equipped rifle along with the .22LR prototype, and the police would not disposition, stating it's "not what we do."

Ironically enough, not a single compliance part I've ever heard of has received the "nod" from the authorities. These things are proven in court. I make no guarantee of any kind that this will not get you in trouble with the law (CMA). Of course, that .22LR from Stag is in the same boat, as is the stock (a hot mess, in my opinion) pictured in the OP.

All I know with certainty is there's only 2 reasons the government wants you to show them what you have (registration) and that is to tax it, or someday take it away. I'm only trying to buy us some options, and time.

-MR2

 

[PaulD]

Based on your OP and the wording in the law, would a bullpup be legal?

 

[exo]

Afraid not. Stag said they would turn in a AR MR2 equipped rifle along with the .22LR prototype, and the police would not disposition, stating it's "not what we do."

Ironically enough, not a single compliance part I've ever heard of has received the "nod" from the authorities. These things are proven in court. I make no guarantee of any kind that this will not get you in trouble with the law (CMA). Of course, that .22LR from Stag is in the same boat, as is the stock (a hot mess, in my opinion) pictured in the OP.

All I know with certainty is there's only 2 reasons the government wants you to show them what you have (registration) and that is to tax it, or someday take it away. I'm only trying to buy us some options, and time.

-MR2

Understood... I wonder if this would qualify in CT though. I thought there was language in the bill to try and gut things like bullet buttons and perhaps even your creation?

 

[EMitch]

Based on your OP and the wording in the law, would a bullpup be legal?

Yes and No from what I can tell. Because they define "Pistol grip" as being "beneath the action (trigger/ejection/loading mechanisms)" and don't really define "forward pistol grip" that well. Biggest issue would be the 30" limit (otherwise I'd be all over a new Tar-21).

 

[dcmdon]

Yes and No from what I can tell. Because they define "Pistol grip" as being "beneath the action (trigger/ejection/loading mechanisms)" and don't really define "forward pistol grip" that well. Biggest issue would be the 30" limit (otherwise I'd be all over a new Tar-21).

Thats the biggest issue for something like a Tavor. The action is above the grip and there is no way around it other than to make the gun
1) not semi-automatic
2) not able to use a detachable magazine without disassembling the action.

Prior to this ban, a tavor was practically "post ban" out of the box. No folding stock. No bayonet lug. All you had to do was pin and weld a brake on in place of the flash hider and you were done.

Don

 

[warwickben]

Find me a bolt action or semi auto hunting rifle with a normal stock like the typical shot gun where your finger aren't below the action ....
There there is none. So they basically out lawed every semi auto rifle.

Takes a box magazine , all the fingers are below the trigger.

 

[Hustler One]

You're misunderstanding it. With a pistol grip, all fingers including the trigger finger are directly below the action. Which the new law now forbids. With the above picture, only the trigger finger is DIRECTLY below the action of the weapon. Key word here being directly. The other fingers would not be directly below. And bolt actions are perfectly fine anyway.

 

[dcmdon]

Which is why when all the dust settles, an AR like this will be legal.

While less than ideal, you still have a fully functional rifle with a detachable mag. Actually, it doesn't need to be this featureless, it could have a standard barrel, handguard, front sight base and a brake.

The nice thing about this is if you decide to go rogue or (Gasp) this law is blocked or repealed, you can easily switch it back to standard configuration.

Don

 

[PaulD]

Would this fly?

Charon: A Printable AR-15 Lower With P90-Style Handguard | The Firearm Blog

 

[warwickben]

Burn it

 

[PaulD]

Burn it

wut?

 

[warwickben]

It was a joke my bad.

 

[Hustler One]

Would this fly?

Charon: A Printable AR-15 Lower With P90-Style Handguard | The Firearm Blog

Nope, thumbhole.

 

[PaulD]

Nope, thumbhole.

Read the OP's point about the Rock River PDS and where the action is.

 

[xtry51]

Read the OP's point about the Rock River PDS and where the action is.

Wrong. You didn't read the bill. It explicitly bans thumbhole stocks:

[(ii) A] (II) Any grip of the weapon, including a pistol grip, [that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon] a thumbhole stock, or any other stock, the use of which would allow an individual to grip the weapon, resulting in any finger on the trigger hand in addition to the trigger finger being directly below any portion of the action of the weapon when firing;

Please read the law.

 

[PaulD]

Wrong. You didn't read the bill. It explicitly bans thumbhole stocks:



Please read the law.

"the use of which would all an individual to grip the weapon resulting in any trigger on the trigger hand in addition to the trigger finger being directly below any portion of the action"

So, a thumbhole stock with a regular AR upper (including buffer, spring, etc) would be a no go. If the thumbhole stock places all the other fingers behind the action, that would be legit. The PDS has all of it's action in the upper itself and none of the action is in back of it (no buffer, etc needed).

Now, I realize this is possibly a bit marginal as the middle finger may creep forward, but that's a different argument vs. outright dismissal as you're saying. No, the law does not ban a thumbhole stock outright, based on the wording in the law. In other words, the law includes a qualifier.

 

[xtry51]

It says "or" not "and". The thumbhole stock is excluded completely, regardless of where your fingers end up.

"Or" is a legal separator of the two completely separate issue being addressed in that section.

If that were not true there would be absolutely no purpose to put thumbhole stock in there at all.

 

[PaulD]

It says "or" not "and". The thumbhole stock is excluded completely, regardless of where your fingers end up.

"Or" is a legal separator of the two completely separate issue being addressed in that section.

If that were not true there would be absolutely no purpose to put thumbhole stock in there at all.

Fair enough. I'm still getting used to legalese and it's making me hate lawyers even more.

 

[xtry51]

Fair enough. I'm still getting used to legalese and it's making me hate lawyers even more.

I completely agree.

 

[Stumpthumper]

Just hold the gun upsidedown. Fin.

 

[vipprimo]

Kyarno - you don't live in CT. You live in Fantasyland if you think this law is going to be repealed. You need to either come up with creative ways to comply or make the decision not to. I hear a lot of discussion about lawsuits. Trust me, they will not reach any kind of conclusion, one way or another for 5 years.

I just want to say I think this is the wrong thinking. I understand also that you won't agree, but people are out there fighting against this now and telling other people it's "Fantasyland" is not helping. We need more people who have a fire to burn down the laws and even if we don't agree we need to push them on that effort, which will eventually reward you as well (unless you already found a way to comply).

Mass. has been dealing with the AWB since 1994. It never changed here and that's because people got used to the watered down product that we had while the rest of almost the entire United States got to have "cosmetic" features and they laughed at us because we got complacent.

If you don't agree and feel that compliance and acceptance of your new masters is appropriate then that is your prerogative and understand that we will not and that we aren't living in Fantasy Land thinking that.