OAL Issues

HT4 · Sep 16, 2014

A couple questions regarding OAL:

1 - Does anyone know if Maryland has issued guidance on whether butt pads count toward the 29" OAL requirement?

2 - Does anyone know the reasoning behind the ATF's policy that a muzzle device does not count towards OAL? I understand why it doesn't count towards barrel length (unless permanently affixed), but I don't understand what distinguishes a muzzle device from other parts of the gun that do count towards OAL, but can be screwed off (like a butt stock).

Thanks,
Harry

Pinecone · Sep 16, 2014

You expect logic?????? What have you been smoking?

Butt pads, if screwed on count. I doubt if they would count a slip on butt pad.

But BATFE has decreed that muzzle devices must be permanently attached to count for overall length, and MD goes by the BATFE rules.

They are what they are.

HT4 · Sep 16, 2014

Logic would be nice.

I'm in a strange place. I discovered potential OAL issues with my planned m92 w/ triangle side folder SBR build. Unless the MSP responds in a positive way to the letter that Engage recently sent, it looks like I will have to either permanently affix the muzzle brake on or add the butt pad pictured below... either one will cover me, but neither should be necessary if SB281 was applied as written. I only have to do this because of two compounding misreadings of the law:

1 - Copycat requirements should not apply to SBR's since SBR's are defined as handguns.

2 - "overall" should mean "overall," not "overall minus one arbitrarily excluded part."

This crap is really frustrating.

SneakySh0rty · Sep 16, 2014

HT4 said:
Logic would be nice.

I'm in a strange place. I discovered potential OAL issues with my planned m92 w/ triangle side folder SBR build. Unless the MSP responds in a positive way to the letter that Engage recently sent, it looks like I will have to either permanently affix the muzzle brake on or add the butt pad pictured below... either one will cover me, but neither should be necessary if SB281 was applied as written. I only have to do this because of two compounding misreadings of the law:

1 - Copycat requirements should not apply to SBR's since SBR's are defined as handguns.

2 - "overall" should mean "overall," not "overall minus one arbitrarily excluded part."

This crap is really frustrating.

out of curiosity, how short are you from the 29" mark? In the future I want a m92 SBR. I was going to go with a form 1 M92 pistol (whenever that gets approved) with a cncwarrior sidefolder to reduce wait time.

HT4 · Sep 16, 2014

SneakySh0rty said:
out of curiosity, how short are you from the 29" mark? In the future I want a m92 SBR. I was going to go with a form 1 M92 pistol (whenever that gets approved) with a cncwarrior sidefolder to reduce wait time.

About half an inch short using a triangle sidefolder. I suspect the cnc warrior setup is long enough that you will not have to worry.

I'm also starting with a pistol, but I'm not waiting for approval. Since I was planning to cut the gun up and rebuild it on a "khyber pass" style receiver, I'm having a FFL demill one and sell me the parts kit. I should be able to start assembly in a couple weeks.

Wayne1one · Sep 17, 2014

let me know if you need to get rid of an extra triangle folder!

HT4 · Sep 17, 2014

Wayne1one said:
let me know if you need to get rid of an extra triangle folder!

Nope. Got plans for both of the ones I have. :p

Wayne1one · Sep 17, 2014

HT4 said:
Nope. Got plans for both of the ones I have. :p

Figured that was the case...

TyFromMD · Sep 30, 2014

I have another question, for the purposes of OAL, if I have an attached handguard that extends beyond the muzzle of the barrel is OAL measured from the muzzle of the barrel or the end of the handguard?

erwos · Sep 30, 2014

Muzzle of the barrel.

Pinecone · Sep 30, 2014

BATFE says muzzle of the barrel.

Some people feel that a monolithic upper would allow the handguard length to be used. But in that case, the handguard is part of the receiver and cannot be removed.

HT4 · Sep 30, 2014

ATF really needs to look up the word "overall" in a dictionary.

Pinecone · Oct 1, 2014

Dictionary definitions have NOTHING to do with laws or regulations. In laws and regulations, words mean what they say they mean.

swinokur · Oct 1, 2014

Many laws have a preamble which defines the terms used in the law. Not necessarily comporting to the dictionary.

bobthefisher · Oct 1, 2014

SneakySh0rty said:
out of curiosity, how short are you from the 29" mark? In the future I want a m92 SBR. I was going to go with a form 1 M92 pistol (whenever that gets approved) with a cncwarrior sidefolder to reduce wait time.

Where did you get those butt pads for the triangle stock? They don't actually look half bad.

HT4 · Oct 1, 2014

HT4 said:
ATF really needs to look up the word "overall" in a dictionary.

Pinecone said:
Dictionary definitions have NOTHING to do with laws or regulations. In laws and regulations, words mean what they say they mean.

swinokur said:
Many laws have a preamble which defines the terms used in the law. Not necessarily comporting to the dictionary.

You are both generally correct, but also wrong in this case. I'm very familiar with statutory interpretation -- I'm a lawyer and that is part of what I do for a living. You are correct that one should first look to statutory definitions; however, I have not been able to locate any statutory definition of "overall length" in either the NFA or SB281. In such circumstances, courts have consistently held that words found in statutes must be given their plain and ordinary meaning. A dictionary is a pretty common place for a court to look in deciding the plain and ordinary meaning of a term.

If there is a regulatory definition, that definition must be consistent with the statute. Thus, absent a statutory definition, any regulatory definition must be consistent with the plain and ordinary meaning of the term... something usually gleaned from the dictionary.

I should note that there is an often incorrectly cited regulatory definition of "overall length." I say incorrectly cited because people often say it applies to SBRs when, it appears to only apply to weapons made from rifles and shotguns:

"The overall length of a weapon made from a shotgun or rifle is the distance between the extreme ends of the weapon measured along a line parallel to the center line of the bore."

27 CFR 479.11. This definition, I think, is consistent with the statute, and would probably work if it were applied across the board. But, unfortunately, the ATF has decided to eschew this definition for reasons that remain beyond my reckoning.

In short, I stand by my original statement... the dictionary is where the ATF should be looking. :thumbsup:

HT4 · Oct 1, 2014

bobthefisher said:
Where did you get those butt pads for the triangle stock? They don't actually look half bad.

I got mine here:

http://www.russiansurplus.net/product_p/recoil-pad-triangle-stock.htm

Out of stock now...

Pinecone · Oct 1, 2014

HT4 said:
If there is a regulatory definition, that definition must be consistent with the statute. Thus, absent a statutory definition, any regulatory definition must be consistent with the plain and ordinary meaning of the term... something usually gleaned from the dictionary.

Must be and Are are not always done properly.

There are many regulations that define certain terms that were not defined in the law.

The thing I have heart burn about is that there is a BATFE document that tells you how to measure firearms. It talks extensively about barrel length and that any included muzzle devices have to be permanently installed. In talking about OAL, there is NOTHING about permanently installed devices.

BUT, later BATFE comes out with a letter that says that to be included in OAL, the muzzle devices have to be permanently installed. Which does NOT track with any need for the butt stock to be permanently installed.

I can live with a CONSISTENT definition that may not be totally dictionary based, but changing things on the fly is NOT good.

Of course, one could push the issue and be the test case to see how the courts interpret it.

HT4 · Oct 1, 2014

Pinecone said:
Must be and Are are not always done properly.

There are many regulations that define certain terms that were not defined in the law.

The thing I have heart burn about is that there is a BATFE document that tells you how to measure firearms. It talks extensively about barrel length and that any included muzzle devices have to be permanently installed. In talking about OAL, there is NOTHING about permanently installed devices.

BUT, later BATFE comes out with a letter that says that to be included in OAL, the muzzle devices have to be permanently installed. Which does NOT track with any need for the butt stock to be permanently installed.

I can live with a CONSISTENT definition that may not be totally dictionary based, but changing things on the fly is NOT good.

Of course, one could push the issue and be the test case to see how the courts interpret it.

Test case... sounds like fun! :tdown:

That's actually part of the reason that we have to deal with this garbage... the ATF gets away with so much because no one can risk being the test case. The costs of fighting the government are so high that no rational person would do so. That is why I am so heartened seeing Sig taking the ATF on and challenging them when they overstep. :thumbsup:

While there is much to be said for certainty (i.e., knowing that the ATF will not change their interpretation the day after your build), I don't subscribe to your consistency argument in this instance. The statutory language is paramount. Being wrong for an exceptionally long time does not make the ATF right.

The thing about muzzle devices is that it makes perfect sense why the device would have to be permanently attached to be counted toward "barrel length." After all, "barrel length" indicates the length of one part... namely the barrel. If it is not part of the barrel (i.e., permanently attached), it should not be included in "barrel length." It makes no sense, however, why a muzzle device would be excluded from "overall length." The inquiry in determining "overall length" is the length of an assembled collection of parts... there is absolutely no reason to arbitrarily exclude one part from that measurement.

Just my $.02
:thumbsup:

Pinecone · Oct 1, 2014

HT4 said:
The thing about muzzle devices is that it makes perfect sense why the device would have to be permanently attached to be counted toward "barrel length." After all, "barrel length" indicates the length of one part... namely the barrel. If it is not part of the barrel (i.e., permanently attached), it should not be included in "barrel length." It makes no sense, however, why a muzzle device would be excluded from "overall length." The inquiry in determining "overall length" is the length of an assembled collection of parts... there is absolutely no reason to arbitrarily exclude one part from that measurement.

Just my $.02

Totally agree with that.

OAL Issues

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Dum spiro spero.

Ultimate Member

Dum spiro spero.

Active Member

Dum spiro spero.

gun aficionado

Dum spiro spero.

gun aficionado

Ultimate Member

The Hebrew Hammer

Ultimate Member

Dum spiro spero.

Ultimate Member

In a State of Bliss

Durka ninja

Dum spiro spero.

Dum spiro spero.

Ultimate Member

Dum spiro spero.

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics