How do you go about registering a AR-15 pistol?

[thedonn007]

Say someone was to buy an aftermarker Ruger 10/22 receiver that was never a rifle or a pistol, and that person was to assemble it with a 4.5" barrel without a stock. It sounds like that would NOT need to be registered either.

[GreaseMonkeySRT]

Say someone was to buy an aftermarker Ruger 10/22 receiver that was never a rifle or a pistol, and that person was to assemble it with a 4.5" barrel without a stock. It sounds like that would NOT need to be registered either.

Correct.

[esq_stu]

What makes it incorrect, and how does the source change that?

The fact that nobody has presented an argument that the above assertions are wrong does not make them correct. They are just some unknown person's opinion. Fine. Let the OP accept that "legal" advice.

When I have given legal advice, because I legally can do so and non-lawyers may not legally do so, I rely on authority in addition to the text of the law: case precedents and interpretations based on rules of construction of those laws. No case law or use of the rules of construction have been offered here. So without that, buyer beware.

[GreaseMonkeySRT]

The fact that nobody has presented an argument that the above assertions are wrong does not make them correct. They are just some unknown person's opinion. Fine. Let the OP accept that "legal" advice.

When I have given legal advice, because I legally can do so and non-lawyers may not legally do so, I rely on authority in addition to the text of the law: case precedents and interpretations based on rules of construction of those laws. No case law or use of the rules of construction have been offered here. So without that, buyer beware.

So does a valid source magically make it correct? What would be required for that advice to be correct?

It's my understanding there is no case law precedent with this, more than likely because no one is going to spend the money to fight a $250 civil infraction, and no one on the government side would waste money over it either.

There is precedent over out of state CPLs which is pretty crystal clear.

What is even more clear, is that there really needs to be a major push to get pistol registration rescinded entirely in this state.

[esq_stu]

So does a valid source magically make it correct? What would be required for that advice to be correct?

OK we are getting pretty theoretical and maybe arguing past each other.

I do not consider a source valid based on who wrote it. I consider it valid based on the details of the legal analysis and not based on a statement that this or that is legal or not legal, especially when one says that trying to meet the purpose of the statute (to get pistols registered), might make doing so a felony. I would want more than quoting the statute on that one.

I agree with the assertion that a receiver is not a pistol. As was more or less previously stated, a firearm is legally a MI pistol if it is complete, can be fired, and is intended to be fired as a pistol (that is, no buttstock), and is less than 26 inches long. Until it is legally a pistol it makes no sense to try and register it as a pistol.

I am concerned about the argument that once it really is a pistol, the choice is between risking a $250 fine and committing a felony by trying to meet the intent of the statute. I don't think that is a valid choice because one does not analyze a statute based only on its words if the literal interpretation goes against the purpose of the statute - that is, to get pistols registered. I agree it is a badly worded statute and should be fixed. It would be a felony if there was some kind of wrongful intent (beyond getting the pistol registered) when filling out the RI-60, but that is not the case here. An example of wrongful intent might be to knowingly try to register a pistol in connection with an unlawful transfer. So in the absence of an analysis beyond just quoting the statute, I asked, in so many words, "says who." Maybe I should have just asked for a more detailed analysis of why it would be a felony, but this would not be the place.

This same issue has been argued in the Legal Beagle. It keeps getting contentious when all we are trying to do is find a way to stay out of trouble.

[GreaseMonkeySRT]

OK we are getting pretty theoretical and maybe arguing past each other.

I do not consider a source valid based on who wrote it. I consider it valid based on the details of the legal analysis and not based on a statement that this or that is legal or not legal, especially when one says that trying to meet the purpose of the statute (to get pistols registered), might make doing so a felony. I would want more than quoting the statute on that one.

I agree with the assertion that a receiver is not a pistol. As was more or less previously stated, a firearm is legally a MI pistol if it is complete, can be fired, and is intended to be fired as a pistol (that is, no buttstock), and is less than 26 inches long. Until it is legally a pistol it makes no sense to try and register it as a pistol.

I am concerned about the argument that once it really is a pistol, the choice is between risking a $250 fine and committing a felony by trying to meet the intent of the statute. I don't think that is a valid choice because one does not analyze a statute based only on its words if the literal interpretation goes against the purpose of the statute - that is, to get pistols registered. I agree it is a badly worded statute and should be fixed. It would be a felony if there was some kind of wrongful intent (beyond getting the pistol registered) when filling out the RI-60, but that is not the case here. An example of wrongful intent might be to knowingly try to register a pistol in connection with an unlawful transfer. So in the absence of an analysis beyond just quoting the statute, I asked, in so many words, "says who." Maybe I should have just asked for a more detailed analysis of why it would be a felony, but this would not be the place.

This same issue has been argued in the Legal Beagle. It keeps getting contentious when all we are trying to do is find a way to stay out of trouble.

Agreed, we're getting into the weeds.

I personally believe no one would ever get prosecuted for filling out a RI-60 as buyer and seller, and saying so is bad advice unless it actually has happened. Saying it could be interpreted that way isn't a crazy stretch. Maybe it's better to say that self assembly doesn't fit into the pistol transaction MCLs, so don't turn one in at your own risk of a $250 CI if it's more of a priority not to share your business with the government, or just turn one in if it feels better.

It's definitely gray and I wish it were more clear. As I said, out of state CPLs are very clear. I just wish sometime in the future pistol records can go away for good.

[Scoop]

The top of the RI-060 for clearly identifies it as a "PISTOL SALES RECORD". It does NOT identify it as a "PISTOL BIRTH CERTIFICATE".

The word "PURCHASER" is used 17 times on the form, while the word SELLER is used 15 times. I do not see the words BUILDER, ASSEMBLER or any synonyms of those words on the form.

At this point, the form is self-explanatory.

[Coctailer]

I offered to let LE give me a citation for my non registered pistol just to have a case to fight in court...... Would that clear it up forever?

I would even pay Shyster to represent me.

[PhotoTom]

I offered to let LE give me a citation for my non registered pistol just to have a case to fight in court...... Would that clear it up forever?

I would even pay Shyster to represent me.

Not unless the case made it to the appellate court or higher and it was published.

[Coctailer]

Not unless the case made it to the appellate court or higher and it was published.

Wouldn't it establish case-law?
I dont know about legal stuff.