PDA

View Full Version : 80% Lowers and the 5150ed.


USMCM16A2
02-20-2012, 12:08 PM
Gents,



Since a 80% is not considered a firearm by the BATF, I have had an inquiry from a family member who was 5150ed who is about two years from completing his 5yr ban could he buy an 80% Lower. I advised against it because he is a prohibited person and it is not worth the $$$$$ to fight in court for something he will be buy legally in 2 yrs. Anyway interested in all opinions. Thanks, A2

aklover_91
02-20-2012, 12:16 PM
If it stayed 80% and a paperweight it would probably be fine, but if he did any work on it it would change to possession of a firearm.

BKinzey
02-20-2012, 12:16 PM
It's not a firearm, they are legal for him to purchase. Does he plan to build a firearm now or wait the 2 years?

bwiese
02-20-2012, 12:26 PM
There's theory, then there's people looking for trouble.

He can wait out his 2 years or try to litigate validity of 5150.

wildhawker
02-20-2012, 12:33 PM
There's theory, then there's people looking for trouble.

He can wait out his 2 years or try to litigate validity of 5150.

I agree with Bill 100%. Tell your family member that they shouldn't play this game unless they are independently wealthy and willing to trade freedom for 24 months of possessing a paper weight.

-Brandon.

njineermike
02-20-2012, 12:44 PM
Tell him to buy the 80% (or several) and sit on them. They may be pricey before they're cheap if things continue on their present course.

JSilvoso
02-21-2012, 9:07 AM
The person knows that they can request a restoration of their firearm rights before the 5 year ban for a 5150 is over... right?

stix213
02-21-2012, 9:23 AM
:facepalm: As if he has no plans to build a firearm out of it in the next two years....

Curley Red
02-21-2012, 9:29 AM
One mistake and he can go from 5 year ban to lifetime ban. Ask him if it is really that important to own a 80% right now.

Jason_2111
02-21-2012, 10:46 AM
If for some reason it is that important to get an 80% (are going away some time soon, or that the prices are going to go through the roof or some other concern) ... have him buy the ones he wants, and YOU sit on them until his 5150 issue is all cleared up. Put them in the back of a closet and forget about them for a few years.
That would remove the temptation to do some work on them and get into a bad situation, while alleviating the fear of future in-availability.

Either that, or just wait. (safest bet).

bwiese
02-21-2012, 12:56 PM
If for some reason it is that important to get an 80% (are going away some time soon, or that the prices are going to go through the roof or some other concern) ...

Most concerns such as these are unfounded.

USMCM16A2
02-22-2012, 1:11 PM
Mr Silvoso,



He is aware of the process of restoration, but does not have the $2500-$5000 it would take to do it. I have said this before and will say it again, having problems and making mistakes is not a crime. But California makes the process so cumbersome and expensive. I do believe also that if someone is organically mentally ill, makes threats, there should no allowance for firearms possession.
I also understand that lawyers have families to feed, and assist clients in recovering their 2A rights. When some is been smacked by life and makes one comment to an ER Doc or Crisis Intervention Staffer, that is all it takes to have a basic fundamental Right taken away for five years. The State should not have this power. A2

wilit
02-22-2012, 2:12 PM
Gents,



Since a 80% is not considered a firearm by the BATF, I have had an inquiry from a family member who was 5150ed who is about two years from completing his 5yr ban could he buy an 80% Lower. I advised against it because he is a prohibited person and it is not worth the $$$$$ to fight in court for something he will be buy legally in 2 yrs. Anyway interested in all opinions. Thanks, A2

Sounds like a crazy idea... Hmmm... Maybe that 5150 is valid after all.

USMCM16A2
02-22-2012, 3:08 PM
wilit,



Your empty headed sarchasm does not help the issue, this was a legit inquiry. He has NO plans to break the law that is why he asked, that is why I posed the question. People have problems, maybe big mouths like you should walk a mile in anothers shoes before you make such crass comments. Ever lose a child, have your wife leave you, lose your entire family?. Suffer from PTSD from serving numerous combat tours in Iraq or Afganistan, if you have not faced the pain of anxiety or depression then STFU. Mental illness is not a crime or a condition that should be stigmatized, do you avoid people or stigmatize those suffering from breast cancer, brain tumors, things happen to people. So when you say the 5150 was justified you should evaluate the facts before you open your pie hole, the sane person was the person who posed the question before moving forward. A2

stix213
02-22-2012, 3:43 PM
Your empty headed sarchasm does not help the issue, this was a legit inquiry. He has NO plans to break the law that is why he asked, that is why I posed the question.

He knows he is banned from possession of firearms. If he truly has no plans to break the law, I'm genuinely curious as to what his planned use is for all these 80% lowers he wants to acquire that would in no way involve building firearms.

Is there some kind of alternate use for 80% lowers I'm not aware of?

I'm torn between thinking you're either naive to what he plans to use them for, or are trying to insult everyone's intelligence.

stix213
02-22-2012, 3:55 PM
If he must must must get a firearm now, and is willing to risk his freedom with 80% lowers to make it happen, then he should just move out of CA. 5150 5 year ban is only a CA thing. He can move to Nevada and buy all the guns he wants legally.

wilit
02-22-2012, 8:31 PM
wilit,



Your empty headed sarchasm does not help the issue, this was a legit inquiry. He has NO plans to break the law that is why he asked, that is why I posed the question. People have problems, maybe big mouths like you should walk a mile in anothers shoes before you make such crass comments. Ever lose a child, have your wife leave you, lose your entire family?. Suffer from PTSD from serving numerous combat tours in Iraq or Afganistan, if you have not faced the pain of anxiety or depression then STFU. Mental illness is not a crime or a condition that should be stigmatized, do you avoid people or stigmatize those suffering from breast cancer, brain tumors, things happen to people. So when you say the 5150 was justified you should evaluate the facts before you open your pie hole, the sane person was the person who posed the question before moving forward. A2

I have certainly dealt with many of those issues. Have I had a wife leave me? Yes, a few days before my birthday. Have I lost a child? No, but I live in constant fear that his heart defect will take him at any time. Have I dealt with depression, I have. Have I lost family, I have. While my own health issues have kept me from serving, both my father and step-father have dealt with their own PTSD issues. With 5 purple hearts between the two of them, I can certainly empathize with their struggles. I may not have walked mile in your family member's shoes, but I have certainly walked 6/10 of a similar path.

Sure my comment may have been a bit crass, but if you can't find a tiny bit of humor in a crappy situation, then the anger, pessimism and despair will eat you alive. I apologize if it rubbed you the wrong way. It wasn't meant to take anything away from your family, just merely bring some (ill) humor to the situation.

Your family member obviously knows he's a prohibited person. You know he's a prohibited person. Why is this even a question up for discussion? One mistake was made that took his rights away for 5 years. Why flirt with a more egregious mistake that would most certainly take away his freedom? If he can't afford the money to restore those rights now, how is he going to have the money to defend his freedom? Those costs are easily 10 times more expensive. Look at how much money it took to keep Blackwater Ops out of prison when he was slapped with bogus charges.

Tell your family member, it's a bad idea. Talk him out of it as best you can.

tyrist
02-22-2012, 8:34 PM
I believe the 5150 prohibition includes firearm parts.

spencerk
02-22-2012, 8:42 PM
what about someone who loves guns and just wants something to look at and say is his own without it being an actual gun and just a symbol of the good things to come? obviously that makes no difference legally but if its not a gun and he has no other parts for guns even cleaning cits, i dont see how they could incriminate him for it. at the same time though, the way this state is, they would probably find a way to say he could take a pipe, a hammar, a cap, and a nail and make a working boomstick... I still wouldnt try it, just trying to look on the side of good. if he does need it he should give you the money for it and leave it at your house where he can come look at it and and hold it all he wants. that way, it becomes a double gift situation. if that is even possible. lol

watsonville
02-22-2012, 8:49 PM
i also know some felons who build 80%'s that doesnt mean come and loudmouth them on a internet forum tell him he has two years to make a wishlist and save money to buy a complete ar

6172crew
02-22-2012, 9:16 PM
The person knows that they can request a restoration of their firearm rights before the 5 year ban for a 5150 is over... right?

I'd throw my money in this mans direction. Why not look into having the ban removed early if it can be done?

Jason_2111
02-23-2012, 6:04 AM
Most concerns such as these are unfounded.

Sorry, I should have said "perceived concerns".
If he believes that he must get one sooner because for some reason, more than likely unfounded, the he won't be able to get one later. :)

sergtjim
02-23-2012, 9:32 AM
I believe the 5150 prohibition includes firearm parts.
An 80% lower is a firearm part in the exact same sense as a solid block of aluminum is a firearm part.

Neither can function as a firearm, but both have the potential to become a firearm or a firearm part. Unlike a trigger or a hammer, which are functional as firearm parts.

Seesm
02-23-2012, 9:46 AM
I think it's a bad idea... It is a gun when you do the last 20%.. I do not even think having the forging around is the best idea for him right now. Wait the time out and make it legally in accordance to all the great laws we have. I will toss in a few bucks for his legal work if that helps... That's gun love baby!!

tyrist
02-23-2012, 9:43 PM
An 80% lower is a firearm part in the exact same sense as a solid block of aluminum is a firearm part.

Neither can function as a firearm, but both have the potential to become a firearm or a firearm part. Unlike a trigger or a hammer, which are functional as firearm parts.

Ahh not quite; It would be taken to a jury and likely end up bad.

Jason_2111
02-25-2012, 7:48 AM
Ahh not quite; It would be taken to a jury and likely end up bad.

This is why gun laws, and the implementation of them, cause us all so much frustration.
You can have a law in black and white, spell out what is and isn't ok... then let poorly informed people make a grey decision based on it, guided by a judge that may or may not be for that law. (letter vs. spirit of the law)
Then, even when in the right, you have to spend a bunch to just not lose the case... money you don't get back.

Rather then worry about walking too close to the edge, I'd personally prefer to stay away from it all together. In this scenario, that would mean not having that 80% at all.

dantodd
02-25-2012, 8:03 AM
Even if the prices of guns go through the roof in November the receiver is the least expensive part for a gun.

I am confident that possessing an 80% casting is legal as long as he does no more work on it. I am NOT confident at all that a DA might decide to charge him with a crime if there is any drama over the piece.

Defending himself against a bad prohibited person in possession charge will be more expensive than having his rights restored. So, spend $X up front and be able to own, shoot, hunt, etc. or risk legal trouble that will cost $2X and may cost him the right FOREVER.

The choice seems pretty obvious. Also, he can try having the prohibition lifted early on his own rather than paying an attorney. Even if he screws it up he only has to wait 2 years. This is very different than someone trying to sue the state or put up a criminal defense on his own.