NFA Untouched by Post Oct 1st Laws

squirrels · Aug 14, 2013

r3t1awr3yd said:
Why couldn't you buy an SBR from a local dealer on a Form 4???

I think you're only thinking of building and not buying...

(a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, a person may not:
(1) transport an assault [pistol] WEAPON into the State; or
(2) possess, sell, offer to sell, transfer, purchase, or receive an assault [pistol] WEAPON.

You can't buy an SBR on a form 4 if it's an "Assault Weapon" as defined by MD law, which means Assault pistols, long guns, and copycats.

Again, you could probably get away with buying a cut-down bolt-action on a Form 4, or a semi-auto that's longer than 29" OAL and passes the "evil features" test.

But forget getting yourself an AR15 SBR.

squirrels · Aug 14, 2013

teratos said:
No. You can take a receiver off the NFA roles by writing a letter to ATF. Then it will revert to being a normal regulated firearm (in MD). A barrel under 16" is a SBR. If it is not registered it is illegal.

ATF does not require a written letter. Legally if you dispose of the parts that make it an SBR (sell all your short-barrel uppers) and place a full-length upper on it, it is no longer NFA. ATF recommends a written letter just so there's no confusion if the gun is stolen and used in a crime.

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/nat...arreled-rifles-shotguns.html#atf-notification

Q: Is it necessary to send notification to ATF and receive acknowledgement that the SBR or SBS has been removed from the purview of the NFA before it may be sold as a GCA firearm?
There is no requirement for the possessor of a registered NFA firearm to notify ATF that the firearm has been removed from the purview of the NFA. However, ATF recommends the possessor notify the NFA Branch of such changes in writing so that the possessor is not mistakenly identified as the owner if the firearm is later used in a crime. If, at the time of transfer, the firearm does not meet the definition of a SBR, it should be transferred without filing the NFA transfer application and without payment of the transfer tax.

If, after you transfer it as a full-length firearm, the person you transfer it to wishes to re-convert it to an SBR, they will need to get a stamp of their own. (Form 1)

aquaman · Aug 14, 2013

squirrels said:
(a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, a person may not:
(1) transport an assault [pistol] WEAPON into the State; or
(2) possess, sell, offer to sell, transfer, purchase, or receive an assault [pistol] WEAPON.

You can't buy an SBR on a form 4 if it's an "Assault Weapon" as defined by MD law, which means Assault pistols, long guns, and copycats.

Again, you could probably get away with buying a cut-down bolt-action on a Form 4, or a semi-auto that's longer than 29" OAL and passes the "evil features" test.

But forget getting yourself an AR15 SBR.

1. I dont think MD considers SBR's as a rifle, so the features test does not apply but if it did...

2.telescoping stock and flash hider is fine if the barrel doesn't reduce in diameter under the rail. the M4 CQBR (10.3 inch barrel) is 30inches with stock extended so why would this be an issue if the barrel is not govt profile?

r3t1awr3yd · Aug 14, 2013

squirrels said:
(a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, a person may not:
(1) transport an assault [pistol] WEAPON into the State; or
(2) possess, sell, offer to sell, transfer, purchase, or receive an assault [pistol] WEAPON.

You can't buy an SBR on a form 4 if it's an "Assault Weapon" as defined by MD law, which means Assault pistols, long guns, and copycats.

Again, you could probably get away with buying a cut-down bolt-action on a Form 4, or a semi-auto that's longer than 29" OAL and passes the "evil features" test.

But forget getting yourself an AR15 SBR.

Is an SBR an Assault Weapon?

fabsroman · Aug 14, 2013

Kingjamez said:
So my question is: Was the question asked of MSP refering to SBR's / NFA items in general, or named "Assault Weapons"?

I can very much understand a MSP person saying that SBR's are legal as there certainly will be legal SBR's under SB281 (SBR 22's, SBR bolt action). The question is whether making a gun that is otherwise a banned assault weapon into a SBR will magically make it no longer a banned assault weapon.

Everybody: I wouldn't start gloating yet... this is a good start but until we know the context and have it in writing. I'm still not convinced.

-Jim

Yeah, until the Maryland Court of Appeals issues an opinion on this 5+ years from now, I don't think anything is is in stone.

IMBLITZVT · Aug 14, 2013

fabsroman said:
Yeah, until the Maryland Court of Appeals issues an opinion on this 5+ years from now, I don't think anything is is in stone.

After seeing where this has gone after the SCOTUS confirms this, there will be those saying its not written in stone as another SCOTUS would overrule it down the line!

It will never get to the court of appeals because no one will ever appeal it!!!

Come on guys, time to relax a bit...

squirrels

You need to go back an do some reading. We have gone over this in great detail. Short answer is that a SBR is not a semi auto rifle... end of story, thats why they are legal post Oct 1.

erwos · Aug 14, 2013

Like I said before, I'm not doing a victory dance because a friend of a friend said something not-very-specific about SBRs and the post-10/1 period. As I noted before, I've got questions that will be sent to the AG by a delegate for formal opinion that will clarify this stuff for once and for all (well, at least until the courts get involved?).

Again: I agree that SBRs should be exempt. I simply don't have 100% confidence.

fabsroman · Aug 14, 2013

IMBLITZVT said:
After seeing where this has gone after the SCOTUS confirms this, there will be those saying its not written in stone as another SCOTUS would overrule it down the line!

It will never get to the court of appeals because no one will ever appeal it!!!

Come on guys, time to relax a bit...

You need to go back an do some reading. We have gone over this in great detail. Short answer is that a SBR is not a semi auto rifle... end of story, thats why they are legal post Oct 1.

Do you have any legal precedent stating that a SBR AR-15 is a completely different animal than a long barrel AR-15? I would actually like to know if this issue has ever been decided by a court. Probably not since these assault weapon bans are just coming around.

What was the case back in 1994 to 2004 with the national ban. Did not pay much attention to the issue back then, so I have no idea if the AR-15 was specifically banned, or if it was all a feature test. Would be interested in knowing whether the SBR was treated differently than the other banned weapons.

Flipz · Aug 14, 2013

erwos said:
Like I said before, I'm not doing a victory dance because a friend of a friend said something not-very-specific about SBRs and the post-10/1 period.

This info wasn't from a friend of a friend's second cousins uncle's former roommate. It was directly from a good friend who manages a Class III FFL and he was at the training session yesterday. I wouldn't have posted it unless I trusted the source. NFA is untouched by post Oct 1st laws. That is exactly what I was told and exactly what I posted. Time will prove this right or wrong. But I'm much more likely to trust someone who I know well, and who was there, than all the conspiracy theorists who weren't there.

squirrels · Aug 14, 2013

aquaman said:
1. I dont think MD considers SBR's as a rifle, so the features test does not apply but if it did...

Why does MD not consider a short-barrel rifle to be a rifle??

You lost me there...can you point me out where MD law doesn't classify SBRs as "rifles"?

2.telescoping stock and flash hider is fine if the barrel doesn't reduce in diameter under the rail. the M4 CQBR (10.3 inch barrel) is 30inches with stock extended so why would this be an issue if the barrel is not govt profile?

The M4 CQBR is an AR15, which is banned by name. Length and "features" don't matter.

r3t1awr3yd said:
Is an SBR an Assault Weapon?

Depends on the SBR.

An AR15 is an assault weapon. Any short-barreled AR15 is a short-barreled "assault weapon" and is banned if not owned prior.

An SBR cannot be an "HBAR sporter", and I'm not sure of the legality of cutting the barrel on one under a Form 1...may constitute construction an assault weapon. Almost certainly would be if the OAL is less than 29 inches. You can be the test-case, if you like.

Any semi-auto centerfire rifle with an OAL of under 29 inches, regardless of features or listing, is considered a "copycat" and is also therefore an Assault Weapon and banned. An AR15 with a barrel small enough to give it an OAL of under 29" is therefore illegal in the state of MD unless previously possessed.

If you took a hunting rifle (bolt-action) or a 22 rifle (non-centerfire) not on the "evil guns" list, and cut the barrel down on a Form 1, and it didn't have a flash hider AND folding stock, I assume that would be a legal SBR in MD. Assuming you can twist MSP's arm into approving it.

But if you want your Colt Commando or LMT Mk18...forget it.

anderson76 · Aug 14, 2013

squirrels said:
Why does MD not consider a short-barrel rifle to be a rifle??

You lost me there...can you point me out where MD law doesn't classify SBRs as "rifles"?

The M4 CQBR is an AR15, which is banned by name. Length and "features" don't matter.

Depends on the SBR.

An AR15 is an assault weapon. Any short-barreled AR15 is a short-barreled "assault weapon" and is banned if not owned prior.

An SBR cannot be an "HBAR sporter", and I'm not sure of the legality of cutting the barrel on one under a Form 1...may constitute construction an assault weapon. Almost certainly would be if the OAL is less than 29 inches. You can be the test-case, if you like.

Any semi-auto centerfire rifle with an OAL of under 29 inches, regardless of features or listing, is considered a "copycat" and is also therefore an Assault Weapon and banned. An AR15 with a barrel small enough to give it an OAL of under 29" is therefore illegal in the state of MD unless previously possessed.

If you took a hunting rifle (bolt-action) or a 22 rifle (non-centerfire) not on the "evil guns" list, and cut the barrel down on a Form 1, and it didn't have a flash hider AND folding stock, I assume that would be a legal SBR in MD. Assuming you can twist MSP's arm into approving it.

But if you want your Colt Commando or LMT Mk18...forget it.

The Public Safety Art. 5-101(n) defines the term “Handgun” to include firearms with barrels less that 16 inches:

(n) Handgun. --
(1) "Handgun" means a firearm with a barrel less than 16 inches in length.
(2) "Handgun" includes signal, starter, and blank pistols.

The Criminal Art. § 4-201(f) defines the term “Short-barreled riel” as follows:

(f) Short-barreled rifle. -- "Short-barreled rifle" means: **

(1) a rifle that has one or more barrels less than 16 inches long; or**

(2) a weapon that has an overall length of less than 26 inches and that was made from a rifle, whether by alteration, modification, or otherwise.

Some will argue that because an SBR AR15 meets the definition of “Handgun” and “Short-Barreled rifle” it should not be considered as a copy of a colt AR15 (which is banned come Oct 1st) nor should it be considered a “center-fired rifle” for the purposes of a copycat test. Basically, they argue that the SBR is a loophole to the ban on AR15s.

I don’t believe this is the correct interpretation of the statute. However, given the way that the MSP has interpreted things in the past, there is hope that they may adopt the loophole interpretation.

Flipz · Aug 14, 2013

Wow, this is the last time I try to help out by posting info many are curious about. Some of you are just ridiculous in the extent you will twist wording to meet your doomsday scenario.

Squirrel, you want us to show you documentation? How about you show me where in SB281 it makes any mention of any NFA firearms, including SBR'S? And the OAL language does not count as even before SB281, SBR's were exempt for the OAL requirement given their nature of being an SBR. There is no mention in SB281 that that has changed. In fact, there is no mention of Title II/NFA firearms anywhere in SB281.

annihilation-time · Aug 14, 2013

squirrels said:
Why does MD not consider a short-barrel rifle to be a rifle??

You lost me there...can you point me out where MD law doesn't classify SBRs as "rifles"?

SBRs are handguns under MD law, and only rifles are subject to the copy cat provision.

IMBLITZVT · Aug 14, 2013

fabsroman said:
Do you have any legal precedent stating that a SBR AR-15 is a completely different animal than a long barrel AR-15? I would actually like to know if this issue has ever been decided by a court. Probably not since these assault weapon bans are just coming around.

What was the case back in 1994 to 2004 with the national ban. Did not pay much attention to the issue back then, so I have no idea if the AR-15 was specifically banned, or if it was all a feature test. Would be interested in knowing whether the SBR was treated differently than the other banned weapons.

Completely different animal... well they are both still guns. Since the law in MD clearly defines a SBR and no where in the new law does it restrict an SBR, nothing more is needed. It comes from a proper understanding of a tiered system where once you move up, you are no longer held to the same restrictions as those below. Legal Precedent that says a SBR the same as a rifle? I think in the first NFA case, a guy got sentenced for having a SBS. It was ruled it was not a shotgun and so he was in trouble... Legal precident... its near impossible to find when the law enforcement reads the law correctly and does not charge citizens with not breaking a law...

Flipz said:
.... I wouldn't have posted it unless I trusted the source. NFA is untouched by post Oct 1st laws.....

Don't worry, if they would have chipped it in as the 11th commandment we would still be second guessing it!

squirrels said:
Why does MD not consider a short-barrel rifle to be a rifle??

You lost me there...can you point me out where MD law doesn't classify SBRs as "rifles"?

Simple because one is a SBR and one is a rifle. Its the same reason that full auto M16 assault rifle is not a rifle by law. There is a tiered category of guns. SBRs are not rifles, they are SBRs. MGs are not SBRs even if they have a short barrel and they are not semi auto rifles even if they do shoot semi automatic and are rifles... you really have to read some past threads...

An AR15 is an assault weapon. Any short-barreled AR15 is a short-barreled "assault weapon" and is banned if not owned prior.

Wrong there is no such thing as a SBAW (short barreled assault weapon. As SBR AR15 is a SBR and nothing else...

An SBR cannot be an "HBAR sporter", and I'm not sure of the legality of cutting the barrel on one under a Form 1...may constitute construction an assault weapon. Almost certainly would be if the OAL is less than 29 inches. You can be the test-case, if you like.

Why can't a SBR be an HBAR Sporter? HBAR is simply a heavy barrel with no consideration of length. Colt make different length HBARs. What is a sporter? A gun used for sport? Don't see why an SBR could not be used for sport.

Any semi-auto centerfire rifle with an OAL of under 29 inches, regardless of features or listing, is considered a "copycat" and is also therefore an Assault Weapon and banned. An AR15 with a barrel small enough to give it an OAL of under 29" is therefore illegal in the state of MD unless previously possessed.

Correct. However a SBR is not a semi-auto centerfire rifle. So without a stamp and less than 29"s yes you are right.

If you took a hunting rifle (bolt-action) or a 22 rifle (non-centerfire) not on the "evil guns" list, and cut the barrel down on a Form 1, and it didn't have a flash hider AND folding stock, I assume that would be a legal SBR in MD. Assuming you can twist MSP's arm into approving it.

Twist MSP arms... don't think so. SBRs are not in the new law and so not restricted anymore than before...

anderson76 · Aug 14, 2013

Flipz said:
Wow, this is the last time I try to help out by posting info many are curious about. Some of you are just ridiculous in the extent you will twist wording to meet your doomsday scenario.

Squirrel, you want us to show you documentation? How about you show me where in SB281 it makes any mention of any NFA firearms, including SBR'S? And the OAL language does not count as even before SB281, SBR's were exempt for the OAL requirement given their nature of being an SBR. There is no mention in SB281 that that has changed. In fact, there is no mention of Title II/NFA firearms anywhere in SB281.

Flipz

I’m glad you are passing along whatever inside info you come across. However there is a counter argument to your position.

I believe that you are arguing that because and SBR AR15 meets the definition of short-barreled rifle or handgun it cannot also meet the definition of Assault Weapon (under the assault lung gun definition or copy cat test)?

Let me put forth the counter argument: An SBR AR15 can be all three, hand gun, short barreled rife and assault weapon.

If you have an item that meets the definition of Assault Weapon then it subject to a certain set of restrictions under the code.

If you have an item that meets the definition of Short Barreled Rifle then is subject to a certain set of restriction under the code.

If you have an item that meets the definition of Assault Weapon and Short Barreled Rifle, then absent language to the contrary, it will be subject to the both sets or restriction attached to Assault Weapons as well as Short Barreled Rifles.

It seems to me that an SBR AR15 is both an Assault Weapon (either Assault Long Gun or Copy Cat or both) as well as a Short Barreled Rifle. If this is the case, then there is no SBR loop hole for SBR’d AR15s because they will be banned as an Assault Weapon.

I hope I am wrong. But until we have something in detail from the MSP lets to make any grand proclamations as to the post Oct 1st legality of AR15 SBRs.

IMBLITZVT · Aug 14, 2013

anderson76 said:
....
Some will argue that because an SBR AR15 meets the definition of “Handgun” and “Short-Barreled rifle” it should not be considered as a copy of a colt AR15 (which is banned come Oct 1st) nor should it be considered a “center-fired rifle” for the purposes of a copycat test. Basically, they argue that the SBR is a loophole to the ban on AR15s.

I don’t believe this is the correct interpretation of the statute. However, given the way that the MSP has interpreted things in the past, there is hope that they may adopt the loophole interpretation.

Its no loophole... and its not just AR15s. You guys keep calling it a loophole and I am sure they will fix it! Understand the law so there is no need to call it a loophole!

Flipz said:
... Some of you are just ridiculous in the extent you will twist wording to meet your doomsday scenario.

Squirrel, you want us to show you documentation? How about you show me where in SB281 it makes any mention of any NFA firearms....

Yes they are out of control ridiculous and nothing will stop them until they get something telling them its illegal! Yes they keep asking for proof but you never have proof that something is legal. Just proof that its not! Fundamental lack of understanding of how law works. MSP will never charge anyone for having a SBR as a banned semi auto rifle, correctly, and so it will never go to court...etc.

annihilation-time said:
SBRs are pistols under MD law, and only rifles are subject to the copy cat provision.

No SBRs are handguns not pistols. Big difference. However for some reason SBRs are also not required on the handgun Roster? That one I actually don't get but I will go with it...

anderson76 said:
Let me put forth the counter argument: An SBR AR15 can be all three, hand gun, short barreled rife and assault weapon.
...s.

No, it can't! Sorry you are just not correct.

Flipz · Aug 14, 2013

anderson76 said:
Flipz

I’m glad you are passing along whatever inside info you come across.

This isn't inside info. It is what MSP and ATF explained during the session yesterday to all FFL's in attendance.

Im done. Some of you guys are just nutz.

annihilation-time · Aug 14, 2013

IMBLITZVT said:
No SBRs are handguns not pistols. Big difference. However for some reason SBRs are also not required on the handgun Roster? That one I actually don't get but I will go with it...

I know. Thanks. I edited my post.

annihilation-time · Aug 14, 2013

SBRs directly from the manufacturer only go through the law enforcement sign off process with MSP. Correct?

Kingjamez · Aug 14, 2013

Flipz: wasn't trying to upset you. For me, knowing the answer without the question makes for difficult interpretation.

This conversation reminds me of an Obama quote where he says " we've decimated Al-Qaeda, but groups like AQAP are still very capable". He said AQAP instead of Al-Qaeda Arab Peninsula because that would make his statement look ridiculous. Kind of like this one:

However, a SBR is not a semi-auto centerfire rifle

In the end we can call each other terrible names all we want. When someone successfully transfers a new SBR semi-auto AK. I'll be convinced. Until then, I believe the below is a pictorial description of us all (including me).

NFA Untouched by Post Oct 1st Laws

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Who cooks for you?

Who cooks for you?

Ultimate Member

Meh.

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

The Hebrew Hammer

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Who cooks for you?

Active Member

Ultimate Member

MOLON LABE

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

MOLON LABE

MOLON LABE

Gun Builder

Attachments

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics