Should I Buy 10 AR Lowers?


PDA






USMCsilver
August 27, 2004, 05:49 PM
On the 15th of next month, I am seriously considering purchasing 10 AR-15 lower receivers. Yeah, it'll be about $1000.00, but, well, I would consider it "an investment".

I look at it this way -- I payed $750 for a stripped lower 3 years ago. If even I could get $500/lower in future years, well, I'd make $4,000. And, at the rate of inflation, well, who knows what it would ultimately amount to?

I have pre-ordered a Beta-C and am seriosly considering 3 more to make it an even 4. Why? Again, investment.

I hate to try to make money off of things like future AWB, but, this is America; we are capitalists by heart, and by nature.

Anyone else have any plans to stock up on previous pre-ban parts/mags/lowers/etc.?

If you enjoyed reading about "Should I Buy 10 AR Lowers?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
hso
August 27, 2004, 06:43 PM
Why wait? Since everything that is post band and pre ban becomes irrelevant you could start buying now and build them up on the 14th and be perfectly legal. All the parts are available now it's just the silly part of putting the folding/collapsable stocks and bayonet lugs on a receiver with a specific serial number range.

dukeofurl
August 27, 2004, 08:24 PM
I would buy one or two for the capitalism closet, but thats it.

Last time I bought 10 of the same firearm it backfired bigtime.

nemesis
August 27, 2004, 08:31 PM
I guess I just don't understand why a lower receiver that currently sells for $120 to $140 is going to be worth more in the future. Also, I don't think I understand why you had to pay $750 to buy a lower receiver three years ago. You can buy a complete rifle for much less than that.

Am I missing something here?

USMCsilver
August 27, 2004, 08:40 PM
Also, I don't think I understand why you had to pay $750 to buy a lower receiver three years ago. You can buy a complete rifle for much less than that.

Am I missing something here?

Not being a smartass here, but obviously you don't understand the difference between pre-ban and post-ban. Yeah, it was a lot of money, but, oh well. The past is the past...

ddc
August 27, 2004, 09:03 PM
So I think your logic here is:

1. buy 10 lower receivers for $1000
2. gamble that the AWB comes back in some shape or form
3. at that point the lower receivers become pre-ban receivers and immediately appreciate from $100 to around $500 making your investment worth $5000

Is that the general idea?

Harry Tuttle
August 27, 2004, 09:24 PM
the problem is,
what if President Hillary passes a ban that empowers a 200 tax on ownership?

i would only buy what you intend on shooting

USMCsilver
August 27, 2004, 09:29 PM
ddc, you hit the nail on the head.

And as far as taxing them, it would never happen. No "proof of ownership".

PMDW
August 27, 2004, 10:03 PM
And as far as taxing them, it would never happen. No "proof of ownership".

I believe he meant a $200 transfer tax, like with automatic wepons, not an annual $200 tax to you.

Chris Rhines
August 27, 2004, 10:06 PM
...Except that, unless you buy your 10 lower recievers privately, there will be ten Form 4473s with your name on them at your local FFLs, to be turned over to the BATFE on demand.

Now as for your question, well, I just bought five AR lowers. But the price was right and I plan on building them up as time and money allows. I would never buy guns for investment purposes - put your investment money in mutual funds or real estate or Krugerrands or something...

- Chris

ddc
August 27, 2004, 10:45 PM
You might want to consider the following issues:

1. Your scheme only works if a new AWB is enacted.
2. Assuming that takes place then you are also assuming that the new AWB is a mirror image of the current one.

What if this new AWB is designed such that no grandfathering is allowed? What if it is designed such that the only lower receivers that qualify for "pre-ban-ness" are those which qualified under the previous (the current) AWB? I know that is hard to contemplate but could it(in our worse nightmares) happen?
(I have no idea if a law could be written in such a fashion; I'm not an attorney and I don't play one on TV)

I also think you might want to consider whether you want to get involved in a scheme whose success would be considered a very Pyrrhic victory.

In other words if you win your victory is only monetary; think of what you have lost as a result. A new AWB, and additional, maybe permanent this time, limitations on our constitutional rights.

I'm all for capitalism and making savvy investments. I'm not so naïve that I would think that none of the investments in my meager retirement portfolio made money as a result of similar negative circumstances. But I'd have to ask myself of I really wanted to plan from the start to make money in this fashion? It just seems to involve a little to much negative energy for me. I think if I had a thousand dollars to invest I'd choose a different avenue but that would just be my personal decision.

USMCsilver
August 27, 2004, 10:45 PM
I would never buy guns for investment purposes - put your investment money in mutual funds or real estate or Krugerrands or something...

Would you be saying that if you had purchased 20 or 30 H&K rifles back in the '80's?

USMCsilver
August 27, 2004, 10:50 PM
I think if I had a thousand dollars to invest I'd choose a different avenue but that would just be my personal decision.

Look at the bright side, dude -- if I screw myself in the $1000 "investment" I have the perfect excuse to build TEN MORE RIFLES!

Justin
August 27, 2004, 10:58 PM
Would you be saying that if you had purchased 20 or 30 H&K rifles back in the '80's? Versus putting the money in a mutual fund? Yes. Unless you've got the corner of some specialty collector's market, or are nearly psychic, guns will always be at best a mediocre investment compared to practically any kind of diversified mutual fund. There's also a bonus in that the value of your investment doesn't derive a great deal of it's value from whichever way the political winds happen to be blowing.

dukeofurl
August 27, 2004, 10:59 PM
If they ban guns retroactively, I intend to vote retroactively.

USMCsilver
August 27, 2004, 11:00 PM
Justin, you do have a point.

I guess, ultimately, it just pisses me off what happened to the gun world and the bans we have seen. I would love to have a couple dozen pre-ban whatevers in my safe, say, SIG 550's especially, but I don't. Had I been psychic, well, I guess I woulda gotten into Microsoft insead of guns.

Anyway, it was just a thought. Pay me no attention; it's late.

petrel800
August 27, 2004, 11:16 PM
It was my understanding that stripped lowers would not be recognized as a pre-ban gun if assembled after the original AWB was put in place. The gun had to be fully assembled with all of the bad features before the law was enacted to be "pre-ban." So if you were to buy 10 stripped lowers and hold on to them and sell them after a future ban (I am assuming that the new ban would be the same or even more stringent then the one set to expire) you would be selling post ban lower receivers because they were not fully assembled guns before the future ban is enacted. Unfortunatly, the burden of proof would be upon you to prove these were fully assembled "Assault Weapons" for them to be grandfathered under a future ban.

That was just my understanding of the expiring law. Someone let me know if I am wrong.

I do however expect to load up on 30 round mags, but in all likelihood they will be for me and not investment purposes. I am also looking forward to buying some 50 round 10/22 mags. Those preban 10/22 mags were where the real money was at.

Soap
August 27, 2004, 11:46 PM
If you must invest in firearms, invest in Title II machineguns.

I don't throw darts. I bet on sure things.
-Michael Douglas as "Gordon Gekko" in Wall Street

deej
August 28, 2004, 01:51 AM
You could always buy 10 80% receivers and a drill jig.

MAKOwner
August 28, 2004, 03:22 AM
Yeah, my understanding is the few suckers shelling out good money for "Pre-ban Stripped Lowers" got hosed, if they weren't built into AW form prior to the ban they aren't truly "pre-ban".

PAC 762
August 28, 2004, 10:30 AM
if they weren't built into AW form prior to the ban they aren't truly "pre-ban".

If they attached a pre-ban upper for even a second before the ban was in effect, the receiver would be legal to build into a pre-ban rifle after the ban went into effect. You just had to make sure the receiver had the evil features attached to it at one pint before the ban.

SOT_II
August 28, 2004, 11:54 AM
I think he may actually understand more than most:

A preban lower is only good as a preban lower if it's in the configuration of an assault weapon prior to the ban date. You can not assemble an assault weapon after the ban date from preban parts. Now one could say...who's going to know...but in the end, it's is (hopefully was and never will be again) the law.

Stripped lower with preban parts assembled after the ban = a post ban gun.

This interestingly varies greatly from the maching gun ban in that the actual components (sears, receivers) were considered the actuall maching gun.

Not being a smartass here, but obviously you don't understand the difference between pre-ban and post-ban. Yeah, it was a lot of money, but, oh well. The past is the past...

SOT_II
August 28, 2004, 12:02 PM
Again not true, if you transfer the ownership of the item without the configuration that made it a preban gun...then it's not a pre ban gun any more.

In the instance of the AR some of the evil features were on the upper. The only time these issues come into play is when modifying an preban gun or repairing one. People seem to have bastardized active contrcution and what preban really means.

If you had a preban gun and your barrel failed...you would be able to replace it with a like set up barrel. This does not mean you can take a preban lower that is stripped out...and attach a new barrel to it, have that barrel threaded or whatever and be on your merriy way.



If they attached a pre-ban upper for even a second before the ban was in effect, the receiver would be legal to build into a pre-ban rifle after the ban went into effect. You just had to make sure the receiver had the evil features attached to it at one pint before the ban.

WhiteKnight
August 28, 2004, 02:38 PM
If you must invest in firearms, invest in Title II machineguns.

Ding ding ding! We have a winner, folks!

With a static number of machineguns on the market, and an ever-increasing demand (growing population) it only stands to reason the price will shoot higher and higher.

Justin
August 28, 2004, 10:02 PM
I guess, ultimately, it just pisses me off what happened to the gun world and the bans we have seen. I would love to have a couple dozen pre-ban whatevers in my safe, say, SIG 550's especially, but I don't. Had I been psychic, well, I guess I woulda gotten into Microsoft insead of guns.

Anyway, it was just a thought. Pay me no attention; it's late.


Don't sweat it. I wish guns were a good investment, that way I could spend more money on 'em! :D

If you enjoyed reading about "Should I Buy 10 AR Lowers?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!