Assault Pistols? Mac-10 vs MPA930ST (open vs closed bolt)

While they look similar, I believe that these pistols are different. If I own an MPA930ST and I move to MD will this pistol be illegal?

The Masterpiece Arms is a closed bolt design and the MAC-10 and it's derivatives are an open bolt design, so is the MPA930ST or MPA930TA an illegal pistol in MD? Or is it substantially different enough due to the different firing mechanism?

Mark

excellent question
can't wait to see where this goes

The open vs. closed bolt is a non-issue because all MAC 10/11 semi auto pistols are on the list regardless.

If it is not as copy of a MAC 10, Partisan Avenger and the SWD Cobray, or a copy of any variation of a MAC 10/11 (or other AP), then it is an AP. If it is not a copy, then it is not as I see it.
Since the MAC 10/11 has the bolt hendle on top and this gun has it on the side, it seems on the surface to be legal and worth a letter to the MDSP for a determination (make sure you get any ok in writing).

Just got a better look at the drawings. If the lower is interchangeable with a MAC 10, then I think it would be on the banned list.

novus collectus said:

Just got a better look at the drawings. If the lower is interchangeable with a MAC 10, then I think it would be on the banned list.

Click to expand...

Well how am I supposed to know that if I don't have a MAC-10 to compare it with. Really, that's an unrealistic expectation of the law, and one that CA has had case precedence with. My guess is that the law as written fails the sniff test and requires a level of expertise above that available to the ordinary citizen user of a firearm, as seen in Kasler v. Lockyer 2000.

Actually the open versus closed bolt is relevant. Just because both are semi-auto and look externally the same doesn't mean they are the same gun! The point of banning an assault pistol is based on looks or operation. If it's on looks, then the side lever one is sufficiently different, if it's based on operation then open vs closed bolt designs are VERY different.

So the question is, where does variation end and begin? Does variation include the mini, in which the lower won't fit a standard MAC10/11? How different does it need to be. All the examples cited in the current law are open bolt designs and not closed bolt. I guess I will have to write the AG for an opinion or I risk being a criminal when I move.

Mark

Markp said:

Well how am I supposed to know that if I don't have a MAC-10 to compare it with. Really, that's an unrealistic expectation of the law, and one that CA has had case precedence with. My guess is that the law as written fails the sniff test and requires a level of expertise above that available to the ordinary citizen user of a firearm, as seen in Kasler v. Lockyer 2000.

Click to expand...

I agree, the law stinks in more than one way and one of them is that is smellls fishy and might be challenged in court. I however do not want to be the test case in a court on this one.

Actually the open versus closed bolt is relevant. Just because both are semi-auto and look externally the same doesn't mean they are the same gun! The point of banning an assault pistol is based on looks or operation. If it's on looks, then the side lever one is sufficiently different, if it's based on operation then open vs closed bolt designs are VERY different.

Click to expand...

It is irrelevant here for a few reasons. One is that open bolt guns, specifically MACs, are considered full auto by the ATF..... and if registered as such before 1986 with the ATF, then ironically they are legal in MD because they are no longer "pistols".
The second is that when the ban was passed, it said all variations and that includes the closed bolt ones that existed at the time at the least.
The reciever is the item that is the firearm, so if you have the reciever that is on the banned list and if it is a pistol or handgun, then it is likely illegal, but this might be tested in courts if it hasn't yet, and if the reciever is used as a carbine or is registered as a AOW/DD/SBR/machine gun while in MD, then it is no longer a "semi auto pistol" and therefore not on the banned list.

So the question is, where does variation end and begin? Does variation include the mini, in which the lower won't fit a standard MAC10/11? How different does it need to be. All the examples cited in the current law are open bolt designs and not closed bolt. I guess I will have to write the AG for an opinion or I risk being a criminal when I move.

Mark

Click to expand...

Yes, where does "variation" and "copy" end and begin? That is the question. It is one I wish we all knew because as it stands it is as if the state can say whatever gun they want is a variation or copy.
Forget the closed bolt argument with the AG because closed bolt MAC 10/11 semi auto pistols are on banned list.

By the way, if you install a buttstock (folding or fixed) and a 16" barrell, then it will be legal in MD if the overall length is at least 26" (26" measured with the buttstock externded. It will not longer be a "pistol". This is one way of a few you can bring it with you to MD legally.

novus collectus said:

I agree, the law stinks in more than one way and one of them is that is smellls fishy and might be challenged in court. I however do not want to be the test case in a court on this one.

Forget the closed bolt argument with the AG because closed bolt MAC 10/11 semi auto pistols are on banned list.

Click to expand...

Did Ingram make a closed bolt MAC? You see here is the problem, the law doesn't state which MAC 10/11 they are talking about. I should just put a shoulder stock on it and SBR it then? I was under the impression that the Cobray and Ingram MAC's were all open bolt designs.

That's one option. I really don't care if I need to fill out a Form-1 to change it to an AOW or SBR, if that's what it takes to bring my "rifle" in.

Mark

Nearly all of the machine guns that came from RPB were either frame flats, frames or completed guns which were bought from MAC in the auction. Because the machine gun market at that time was not as popular as it is today, RPB came up with a new marketing strategy, which was to offer the MAC-10 as a Title I weapon (a semi-automatic) creating an Open Bolt semi-automatic firearm. BATF stepped in mid-1982 and halted the manufacture of open bolt semi's because they were easily convertible to full-auto. About a year later, RPB went out of business.

SWD Incorporated. In 1983, Wayne Daniels, a former principal at RPB Industries, started his own company. He modified the existing MAC design and created the SWD (Sylvia and Wayne Daniels) M11/9. The gun was MASS-PRODUCED, and that is the reason that so many are still offered for sale NIB. When the MG ban went through in 1986, SWD sold the rights (or became part of) Cobray. Cobray started marketing the closed bolt design Cobray M11/9. This semi-auto uses the exact same MG receiver as did the SWD M11/9, with only a few exceptions (selector switch not drilled, sear pin, and re-enforcing plates absent). After the Assault Weapons Ban in 1994, the Cobray M11/9 could no longer be made, so Cobray re-marketed the gun with a non-threaded barrel and a mag release as the PM-11/9.

Click to expand...

http://www.firearmsid.com/Feature Articles/012001/Mac10History.htm

An assault pistol is defined as any of the following specified firearms or their copies regardless of which company produced and manufactured the firearm: ...


....#
# Ingram MAC 10/11 semi-automatic pistol and any variation including the Partisan Avenger and the SWD Cobray;

Click to expand...

It may still not be applicablbe, but ya never know....however I still would not want to be the test case on this one.

I should just put a shoulder stock on it and SBR it then?

Click to expand...

If you have an SOT manufacturer install a forward handgrip on it, then it will be an AOW and the tax stamp is five dollars (the SOT may still charge you the manufacturing tax though, but it shoulld still cost you, with the transfer fee and all that, a whole lot less that the $200 tax it would cost you to doi it yourself)

novus collectus said:

http://www.firearmsid.com/Feature Articles/012001/Mac10History.htm

It may still not be applicablbe, but ya never know....however I still would not want to be the test case on this one.

If you have an SOT manufacturer install a forward handgrip on it, then it will be an AOW and the tax stamp is five dollars (the SOT may still charge you the manufacturing tax though, but it shoulld still cost you, with the transfer fee and all that, a whole lot less that the $200 tax it would cost you to doi it yourself)

Click to expand...

Well there will be $200 involved one way or another... I would be a little annoyed, but otherwise ok with that. I wrote the AG, I suspect that I might be told that it's a derivative. In which case, I will SBR or AOW it and be done with it. I have the facilities to build just about anything you can imagine.

One way or another, it's coming here. Either as a pistol or as an SBR/AOW. Up to them to decide.

Mark

Did anything come of this?

gone3uo6 said:

Did anything come of this?

Click to expand...

Well, Mark moved into MD and has since moved out of the state. Last I heard he was possibly being assigned to some island that the US has a military base on. He still shows up on the forum when his schedule allows.