confused on 2 feature test

Pinecone · Sep 15, 2014

You are looking at it the wrong way. MD Law states any device that is labeled as a flash suppressor or any device THAT REDUCES THE VISIBLE FLASH is a flash suppressor.

So if it is sold as a muzzle brake (or called ANYTHING), but reduces the flash, MD considers that a flash suppressor.

NO idea how they would test this, but I would avoid any device that the advertising says ANYTHING about reducing the flash.

TheBulge · Sep 15, 2014

Pinecone said:
A Form 1 is an application to MANUFACTURE a National Firearms Act firearm.

Not exactly accurate.

Form 1 is an application to make and register a firearm.
Where the term “make”, and the various derivatives of such word,
shall include manufacturing, putting together, altering, any
combination of these, or otherwise producing a fiream.

I would argue that using an existing grandfathered Firearm receiver for a SBR is merely putting together or altering the existing firearm and not manufacturing a new firearm.

Pinecone · Sep 15, 2014

TheBulge said:
Not exactly accurate.

Form 1 is an application to make and register a firearm.
Where the term “make”, and the various derivatives of such word,
shall include manufacturing, putting together, altering, any
combination of these, or otherwise producing a fiream.

I would argue that using an existing grandfathered Firearm receiver for a SBR is merely putting together or altering the existing firearm and not manufacturing a new firearm.

My point was, a Form 1 is in no way, no how, a purchase order or anything like a purchase order.

A Form 4, might be considered to be similar.

IMBLITZVT · Sep 15, 2014

TheBulge said:
...
I would argue that using an existing grandfathered Firearm receiver for a SBR is merely putting together or altering the existing firearm and not manufacturing a new firearm.

No, I think it is manufacturing. Thats why you must mark it with your name and info. You become the manufacturer marked on the Form 4 from there out.

Pinecone said:
My point was, a Form 1 is in no way, no how, a purchase order or anything like a purchase order.

A Form 4, might be considered to be similar.

When you go to the post office, do you purchase stamps? Form 1 is a purchase order for the stamp...

I think this will be a moot issue on SBRs soon. The law says that a SBR is a handgun, so applying rifle copy cat law to it becomes a real issue! Also the law says an SBR is a handgun and not a Pistol. There is a difference. So the copy cat rules only address pistols. Even if they was not, the only Pistols that are copy cats are those with a fixed mag over 10 rounds. So you should be good there for the most part. Soon they will be forced back to the only position that makes sense. That an SBR is a SBR and not a rifle or a pistol. For the purpose of carrying, it qualifies as a Handgun but otherwise that means little. I will also note that SBSs and MGs could also qualify as handguns as the law defining a handgun covers almost anything short of a yard stick... and even then.

TheBulge · Sep 15, 2014

IMBLITZVT said:
No, I think it is manufacturing. Thats why you must mark it with your name and info. You become the manufacturer marked on the Form 4 from there out.

You are the maker, not the manufacturer.

The serial number must be engraved or stamped on the receiver of the firearm and the caliber, model,
and identification of the maker must be engraved on the barrel or frame or receiver of the weapon. The
marking and identification requirements for a maker are the same as for a manufacturer.

http://www.atf.gov/files/publications/download/p/atf-p-5320-8/atf-p-5320-8-chapter-6.pdf

hogarth · Sep 15, 2014

Oh Christ! I have to admit that I have lost some enthusiasm for having gotten my tax stamp on what is one of my kinda sorta dream guns. Oh well.

So.....back to the muzzle brake thing. Do we think that if I get a device that comes with BATFE documentation of being classified as a non flash suppressing device (thinking of this one: https://www.primaryarms.com/PWS_Flash_Suppressing_Compensator_5_56_1_2x28_p/3fsc12a1.htm), that I will be good to go, or at the very least can argue that I did some due diligence in choosing a muzzle device?

mtel · Sep 15, 2014

Unfortunately PWS advertises it as having flash suppressing ability...

http://primaryweapons.com/muzzledevices/fsc/

...so 281's language would classify it as a flash suppressor:

(G) “FLASH SUPPRESSOR” MEANS A DEVICE THAT FUNCTIONS, OR IS INTENDED TO FUNCTION, TO PERCEPTIBLY REDUCE OR REDIRECT MUZZLE FLASH FROM THE SHOOTER’S FIELD OF VISION.

hogarth · Sep 15, 2014

mtel said:
Unfortunately PWS advertises it as having flash suppressing ability...

http://primaryweapons.com/muzzledevices/fsc/

...so 281's language would classify it as a flash suppressor:

F*ck this law then! If BATFE declares a device as non flash suppressing but some company looking to make a few bucks through what is probably false advertising (what device really can do both things???) says that it can, then how can MSP or the AG possibly side with the company's opinion? Nuts!

jkeys · Sep 15, 2014

Pinecone said:
A purchase order is an agreement to purchase/sell an item.

A Form 1 is an application to MANUFACTURE a National Firearms Act firearm.

DIFFERENT things.

And MSP and BATFE has spoken, for now, SBRs being manufactured NOW, must meet the copy cat provisions of SB281.

If you actually read the law the term "purchase order" is never defined. Also, a tax stamp is a tax paid on the creation of the firearm. If you are paying a tax on it that sure as hell means you have a purchase agreement on the ability to manufacture it.

From wikipedia:
The Revenue Society has defined revenue stamps as " ...stamps, whether impressed, adhesive or otherwise, issued by or on behalf of International, National or Local Governments, their Licensees or Agents, and indicate that a tax, duty or fee has been paid or prepaid or that permission has been granted."

mtel · Sep 15, 2014

hogarth said:
F*ck this law then! If BATFE declares a device as non flash suppressing but some company looking to make a few bucks through what is probably false advertising (what device really can do both things???) says that it can, then how can MSP or the AG possibly side with the company's opinion? Nuts!

I know...you pretty much summed it up... :sad20:

As written, it casts a wide possible net.

Kicker is, IMO, it reduces almost no flash. At least, from my experience, the .30 cal version doesn't...

Pinecone · Sep 16, 2014

How you purchase something YOU are building?

ndicate that a tax, duty or fee has been paid or prepaid or that permission has been granted.

How does any of that equate to a PURCHASE order?

boatrental · Sep 21, 2014

Dumb question

Would a OEM muzzle brake on a AMD 65 be considered a FH? Also any problem with keeping the FHG on a SBR??

erwos · Sep 21, 2014

boatrental said:
Would a OEM muzzle brake on a AMD 65 be considered a FH?

Nope. Keep in mind that the AMD-65 in non-NFA form is a banned ALG, though.

Also any problem with keeping the FHG on a SBR??

The MSP is currently claiming that post-10/1-created SBRs must be compliant with the copycat tests. So, yes, FH+folder on a post-10/1 AMD-65 SBR is a problem. This may change based on a lawsuit, so stay tuned...

boatrental · Sep 22, 2014

AMD 65

How about the Foreword Hand Grip (FHG) that is on a AMD 65 ??
Is that a "Evil Feature" on a post 10-13 form 1 SBR in MD?

mtel · Sep 22, 2014

Nope, you’re fine. Vertical grips aren’t a copycat test feature.

Joshluseal · Sep 22, 2014

How do you come up with an OAL on an SBR that you have not built because to do so would be illegal. Do you guess?

Joshluseal · Sep 22, 2014

Joshluseal said:
How do you come up with an OAL on an SBR that you have not built because to do so would be illegal. Do you guess?

Be Gentle I am new to this! :sad20:

OrbitalEllipses · Sep 22, 2014

Educated guess. The receivers are a known set length, from there you would need to know maximum extended length of your stock of choice + buffer tube (less the part that overlaps, as the stock rides on the buffer tube), and then add the barrel length outside of the receiver or in other words not including the barrel extension that resides inside the upper receiver.

Joshluseal · Sep 22, 2014

Does the ATF have any guidance on how accurate they want the measurement to be?

OrbitalEllipses · Sep 22, 2014

It better not be shorter.

confused on 2 feature test

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Member

The Hebrew Hammer

Member

Ultimate Member

Member

Member

Ultimate Member

Member

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics