Posted: 12/27/2012 8:36:15 AM EDT
| I do not think any of us would be against paying a premium to get a LaRue lower. My idea is offer them to LaRue customers who currently have a rifle on order and make the price point say double to $500. If no assault ban happens then great, if one does at least we have the lowers. I would much rather like to pay for the complete lowers for my rifles on order if the upper/barrel is the hold up. Ideas? |
| I'm meaning since I have 2 rifles on order, if lowers are available and the hold up is in the barrels or uppers......build the lowers/charge the customers for the lowers/send them out as complete lowers. Not saying they even have the lowers built, just an idea. |
|
Quoted:
I'm meaning since I have 2 rifles on order, if lowers are available and the hold up is in the barrels or uppers......build the lowers/charge the customers for the lowers/send them out as complete lowers. Not saying they even have the lowers built, just an idea. I don't know how the LaRue folks do it, but as a lower is built and serialized, it could be entered into the book (or whatever a manufacturer uses for the ATF) then assigned against a customer's order. At that point, it makes no difference if it's in a customer's hand or not as it has been serialized and recorded as manufactured. An upper could follow a month later and it would not make a difference as to the recorded and built lower. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm meaning since I have 2 rifles on order, if lowers are available and the hold up is in the barrels or uppers......build the lowers/charge the customers for the lowers/send them out as complete lowers. Not saying they even have the lowers built, just an idea. I don't know how the LaRue folks do it, but as a lower is built and serialized, it could be entered into the book (or whatever a manufacturer uses for the ATF) then assigned against a customer's order. At that point, it makes no difference if it's in a customer's hand or not as it has been serialized and recorded as manufactured. An upper could follow a month later and it would not make a difference as to the recorded and built lower. I think the hold up would theoretically be in the transfer... In the theoretical case that the theoretical ban were to be proposed and approved. Just theory 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm meaning since I have 2 rifles on order, if lowers are available and the hold up is in the barrels or uppers......build the lowers/charge the customers for the lowers/send them out as complete lowers. Not saying they even have the lowers built, just an idea. I don't know how the LaRue folks do it, but as a lower is built and serialized, it could be entered into the book (or whatever a manufacturer uses for the ATF) then assigned against a customer's order. At that point, it makes no difference if it's in a customer's hand or not as it has been serialized and recorded as manufactured. An upper could follow a month later and it would not make a difference as to the recorded and built lower. I think the hold up would theoretically be in the transfer... In the theoretical case that the theoretical ban were to be proposed and approved. Just theory But since the lower, and thus the "rifle" was already manufactured and enetered into the book, it wouldn't matter when the transfer takes place as any ban would be targeting the manufacturing date. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm meaning since I have 2 rifles on order, if lowers are available and the hold up is in the barrels or uppers......build the lowers/charge the customers for the lowers/send them out as complete lowers. Not saying they even have the lowers built, just an idea. I don't know how the LaRue folks do it, but as a lower is built and serialized, it could be entered into the book (or whatever a manufacturer uses for the ATF) then assigned against a customer's order. At that point, it makes no difference if it's in a customer's hand or not as it has been serialized and recorded as manufactured. An upper could follow a month later and it would not make a difference as to the recorded and built lower. I think the hold up would theoretically be in the transfer... In the theoretical case that the theoretical ban were to be proposed and approved. Just theory But since the lower, and thus the "rifle" was already manufactured and enetered into the book, it wouldn't matter when the transfer takes place as any ban would be targeting the manufacturing date. Another question needs answering. Will the "grandfathered" rifles (which are to be registered under the NFA in the proposed legislation) be subject to a $200 tax or a $5 tax or $1000 tax? Seems like the ATF could charge at will. 
|