MD legal SBRs

bigsilverstang · Jul 14, 2014

I'm looking to get my first SBR and was wondering what is actually legal for me to buy vs. what I think I want. I also heard from my local gun shop(who doesn't deal in NFA) that a whole bunch of SBRs got approved on the roster. Although he didn't share the details, I was hoping someone here might know? In a perfect world I'd like to see Daniel Defense, LWRC, Colt, just to name a few get approved. Thanks for the info!

OrbitalEllipses · Jul 14, 2014

Click the arrow next to Nate's username to go to the post where he uploaded the Handgun Roster Board approved list.

NateIU10 said:
Here is the list from the MD Register, if anyone does not want to download the entire document.

mtel · Jul 14, 2014

bigsilverstang said:
In a perfect world I'd like to see Daniel Defense, LWRC, Colt, just to name a few get approved. Thanks for the info!

Good news is that two of those three are on the roster. IMO it's be great if LWRC (and PWS) was added too.

Calengor · Jul 14, 2014

mtel said:
Good news is that two of those three are on the roster. IMO it's be great if LWRC (and PWS) was added too.

LWRC PSD is listed as the pistol on the roster, I thought.

mtel · Jul 14, 2014

I saw LMT on there but not LWRC. I haven't studied it that closely though. My eyes don't stray much past Arsenal's 104UR.

It's entirely possible I just missed LWRC.

TNW · Jul 14, 2014

Or you could Form 1 an HBAR. That way you can efile and save time too!

rico903 · Jul 15, 2014

TNW said:
Or you could Form 1 an HBAR. That way you can efile and save time too!

This was my plan but from what I understand you'd have to get it approved by the roster board since you are now manufacturing a pistol according to them.

swinokur · Jul 15, 2014

A handgun (or SBR) only needs to be on the roster for a sale or transfer. Not for making a firearm.

Making and manufacturing are not the same thing BTW

IANAL

sleev-les · Jul 15, 2014

rico903 said:
This was my plan but from what I understand you'd have to get it approved by the roster board since you are now manufacturing a pistol according to them.

swinokur said:
A handgun (or SBR) only needs to be on the roster for a sale or transfer. Not for making a firearm.

Making and manufacturing are not the same thing BTW

Exactly.. You only need to submit to the roster if you sell or transfer the gun. I have that in writing from "them" (MSP, Cpl Edwards)

swinokur · Jul 15, 2014

It's also in the statute and COMAR IIRC.

fred333 · Jul 15, 2014

Oddly, the Czech 58/2008, which is functionally/visually a Kalashnikov, is not only not banned, but also unregulated (i.e., cash 'n' carry) in state.

mtel · Jul 15, 2014

Fortunately they got that one right. Other than a similar appearance, it has a completely different action (and mags).

OrbitalEllipses · Jul 15, 2014

mtel said:
Fortunately they got that one right. Other than a similar appearance, it has a completely different action (and mags).

That is why it's not a copy.

backhome426 · Jul 15, 2014

Im looking to make an SBR too. It is whatever is approved on the roster board. Engage E4 is approved and some others were put on the list on 6/19. E4 or wait till 8/11 when the 6/19 meetings are updated on the roster.

fred333 · Jul 15, 2014

mtel said:
Fortunately they got that one right. Other than a similar appearance, it has a completely different action (and mags).

Yeah, but, when it comes to "assault" weapons, it's not the action that makes the left wet their panties, it's the (evil) appearance. And I don't believe they (the Maryland legislators) got this one right; instead, they simply missed these out of sheer ignorance. In this case, (their) ignorance is (our) bliss. Though, I'm certain that, eventually, they'll figure it out and ban these, too.

Combloc · Jul 15, 2014

I'm still confused. Will they approve a Form 1 on an HK94? The rifle is banned but I've had it for many years.

mtel · Jul 15, 2014

OrbitalEllipses said:
That is why it's not a copy.

Yep

fred333 said:
Yeah, but, when it comes to "assault" weapons, it's not the action that makes the left wet their panties, it's the (evil) appearance. And I don't believe they (the Maryland legislators) got this one right; instead, they simply missed these out of sheer ignorance. In this case, (their) ignorance is (our) bliss. Though, I'm certain that, eventually, they'll figure it out and ban these, too.

You speak truth, could be banned in the future; never know. Currently it's on pretty solid ground (for now anyway).

MSP’s 14-001 bulletin (from 7/9/14) just re-stated that to be considered a copy it has to be similar in appearance and have the same completely interchangeable internals. As you said, never know what'll happen in future GA sessions though.

Wayne1one · Jul 15, 2014

fred333 said:
Oddly, the Czech 58/2008, which is functionally/visually a Kalashnikov, is not only not banned, but also unregulated (i.e., cash 'n' carry) in state.

This is not functionally the same as an AK and the parts are not interchangeable with the AK, so therefor it is not banned. Since it was not previously listed as regulated makes it's cash and carry rifle.

rob-cubed · Jul 15, 2014

fred333 said:
Yeah, but, when it comes to "assault" weapons, it's not the action that makes the left wet their panties, it's the (evil) appearance. And I don't believe they (the Maryland legislators) got this one right; instead, they simply missed these out of sheer ignorance.

For the most part, they simply took the old regulated list and turned it into a ban list. I don't think this was done out of ignorance. They did the easiest thing that followed precedent and didn't require debating why a bunch of firearm models currently sold as cash-and-carry should suddenly be placed in the ban bucket. That would've bogged the bill's progress down significantly and possibly convinced a few more people to vote against it.

If they thought they could have make a bigger grab, they would have. And they will try in the future. It's an incremental game.

fred333 · Jul 15, 2014

Wayne1one said:
This is not functionally the same as an AK and the parts are not interchangeable with the AK, so therefor it is not banned.

From the standpoint of functionality, they are the same. They're just not the same internally. Sorta like VHS and Beta. They differ internally, but do the same thing--record and play on video tape. Actually, the AK and VZ58/2008 are even more alike than VHS and Beta since they both share the same tape (i.e., round).

From my conversations with the MD Attorney General's office, the goal of the MD legislature last October was to ban those weapons that have two or more "assault weapon" (evil) features. The banning of clones/copy-cats was done to eliminate loop holes so assault weapons with different names/model numbers that're functionally similar wouldn't get missed. But, of course, if you know little or nothing about weapons, in general, and even less about foreign military weapons of the 20th century, in particular....well, you know what they say about best laid plans....

MD legal SBRs

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

wishes he were spike

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

In a State of Bliss

Gata Needs His Gat

In a State of Bliss

Banned

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Member

Banned

Stop Negassing me!!!!!

Ultimate Member

gun aficionado

In need of moderation

Banned

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics