What if an AR lower came in two halves split down the middle

Hmmm. It would have to be manufactured as 2 halves. And the tolerances would have to be pretty tight. ie expensive.

If you make a standard lower and then cut it in half, that would be illegal. Same reason demilled guns for parts kits have to have the receiver torch cut in 2 locations.

>>32758566
>>32758601
Also, it would still be a firearm after being assembled.
A half would not be though.
It's really just up to the ATF and how shootable your doggo is.

File: Photo Aug 04, 7 57 34 PM.jpg (2MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x2448px

I've actually been working on this exact question since I build bolt together AR lowers on my 3D printers.

I'm going to assume you're in the US since building your own guns isn't exactly a thing outside of the states (or Canada).

It comes down to the Firearms Technology Branch, which is a division of the ATF. Essentially you would have to send each part in for a determination and wait for a letter.

The problem is there is no consistent definition of what is legally a firearm in these cases, and FTB's determinations are often arbitrary and illogical at worst.

>>32758601
You would to go well beyond that to stay kosher. We're talking 2 factories, possibly owned by different companies making each side because of constructive possession. Again what constitutes "Readily convertible" is also up for debate. The real question is at what point do those 2 pieces legally become a firearm according to the FTB? If you put them together, fire it, then separate the 2 halves, do you then have 2 firearms or 1 and which half? What if you take half and build yet another firearm with it?

Questions like these go on and on forever because the system can't possibly make sense of it all, and ultimately it would be up to FTB and I hope you got really good lawyers if they decide to change their opinion.

See Technology Branch letters have Quasi-legal status. The short version is if they are being using to screw you they are as good as law, if you're trying to use them as part of a defense case they are merely "opinions of the bureau" subject to change at any time.

>>32758630
>I build bolt together AR lowers on my 3D printers
Neat
>>32758630
>We're talking 2 factories, possibly owned by different companies making each side because of constructive possession
Like one company that makes a hangable art piece and another company that makes a paperweight.
Art + paperweight = Gun

>>32758666
>Like one company that makes a hangable art piece and another company that makes a paperweight.

Devilish digits for a devilish idea

>>32758630
So, basically, we need to abolish the fucking ATF

File: AR15MOD2.jpg (65KB, 768x576px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 768x576px

>Like one company that makes a hangable art piece and another company that makes a paperweight. Art + paperweight = Gun

Yea that's the basic idea, but you would really need an FTB letter for both parts sent in separately so you have at least the bare minimum CYA insurance, and there's nothing that would prevent ATF from just declaring later on your making firearms unless you got really good lawyers and a lot of time and money.

EP Armory is an interesting story. The short version is ATF accused EP of making legal firearms, then filling in the fire control pocket as well as some "indexing" bs. EP's side of the story was the "biscuit" which was also a different color from the rest of the lower came first, and the lower itself was molded around it, so no firearm ever existed in the legal sense. Well FTB said that because it was "different enough" they were illegal firearms.

That got Ares Armor raided in spectacular fashion and a whole bunch of bullshit happened and eventually EP forfeited all of their lowers because they couldn't afford/didn't want to drag out the process in court.
https://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2016/02/10/ep-armory-forfeits-3800-80-polymer-lowers-feds-called-illegal/

It's one big fucking mess, and I think the only reason someone hasn't tried something like this is because of how stupid the entire system is. Someone does make an AR lower you can weld together yourself however.

>>32758736
Pretty much.

File: IMG_3614.gif (56KB, 400x231px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 400x231px

>>32758630
Before they went out of business, KT Ordnance sold a 80% AR bolt lower. The FCG still had to be machined, but since that was its own separate piece, it was very easy to accomplish.

File: IMG_3615.jpg (42KB, 800x533px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 800x533px

>>32758779
Better pic

>>32758566
No, however it would not be considered a firearm, in fact, there used to be bolt together kits for ar 15 lowers.

>>32758566
half a reciever is 50% of a receiver
you can buy 80% receivers legally
are you still unsure if 50% of a receiver is okay or do we need to do a little math here to explain this for you buddy

>>32758838
80% requires machining to make a firearm.
2 halves would just require some bolts or welding to make a firearm.

>>32758838
the thing you dont decide what is 80% of a completed receiver the atf does. they can pick and choose what they want.
what you think is 50% might be 80% or 100% in their eyes. then you get fucked.

>>32758838
>>32758970
"80%" in general is an industry marketing term. In the eyes of the ATF, determining whether something is a firearm or not is literally a binary solution.

>>32758630
On my CZ EVO the right side plate is the serialized receiver. It's literally a 7 x 3 piece of almost flat plastic. Their determinations are totally arbitrary.

>>32758566
Probably not unless it required some machining or gluing.

Something that takes 20 minutes to do and requires more than a screwdriver in tools.

>>32759455
While you are correct, the binary solution is "Do I call it a firearm or do I not call it a firearm. Hmm. Have I had unburnt coffee and a good shit this morning?" and nothing scientific or repeatable.

>>32758601

>Same reason demilled guns for parts kits have to have the receiver torch cut in 2 locations.

This is false. It's a common misunderstanding -- the 2 or 3 TORCH cuts apply to imported firearms, not firearms made and demilled domestically. There are technically no rules about how to offically demil that type of firearm but its generally accepted to be 'rendered inoperable in its current condition.'

File: screw-together-lower.jpg (107KB, 660x473px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 660x473px

>>32758566
what if you fabricated it instead of casting it

>>32758566
legally speaking, it would need to be cut in 3 places

>>32759902
Brilliant!

We build a receiver like
>>32759887
with all the parts laid out together as a single machined piece, combined flat in a line. Then torch cut them apart, and bolt them together to create a fully functional demilitarized firearm!

File: post-11-06660-15B_RT_Side_1.jpg (226KB, 1016x762px) Image search: [Google]

226KB, 1016x762px

>>32759902