confused on 2 feature test

hogarth · Sep 11, 2014

Hi all,

I posted last week in the "no more SBRs" thread, but thought this might warrant it's own topic.

I just got my tax stamp on my Form 1 for a Sig P556 to be turned into a Sig 556 SBR. The P556 was purchased pre-Oct 1, 2013.

MSP signed off on it, and I got word of that in January of 2014. And then I just got my BATFE tax stamp.

My concern is the 2 feature test. The rifle has a Swiss style folding stock AND the factory flash hider (basically, an AR 15 FH). The folding stock is a must for me (it's one of the main reasons I chose the 556 over an AR to give the SBR treatment to).

So, do I need to trade out the flash hider for a muzzle brake?

Part of me says that MSP and BATFE signed off on it, so it must be okay (as configured, it is set up EXACTLY like a Sig 556 SBR from the factory), but then I know that ultimately I am responsible for making sure the rifle is set up in a legal configuration. Since clearly the 29 inch rule is in effect on these, is the 2 feature test as well? Does the fact that it is pre Oct 1 matter?

Thoughts?

And, part 2: IF I need a brake, any recommendations?

Thanks!

jkeys · Sep 11, 2014

hogarth said:
Hi all,

I posted last week in the "no more SBRs" thread, but thought this might warrant it's own topic.

I just got my tax stamp on my Form 1 for a Sig P556 to be turned into a Sig 556 SBR. The P556 was purchased pre-Oct 1, 2013.

MSP signed off on it, and I got word of that in January of 2014. And then I just got my BATFE tax stamp.

My concern is the 2 feature test. The rifle has a Swiss style folding stock AND the factory flash hider (basically, an AR 15 FH). The folding stock is a must for me (it's one of the main reasons I chose the 556 over an AR to give the SBR treatment to).

So, do I need to trade out the flash hider for a muzzle brake?

Part of me says that MSP and BATFE signed off on it, so it must be okay (as configured, it is set up EXACTLY like a Sig 556 SBR from the factory), but then I know that ultimately I am responsible for making sure the rifle is set up in a legal configuration. Since clearly the 29 inch rule is in effect on these, is the 2 feature test as well? Does the fact that it is pre Oct 1 matter?

Thoughts?

And, part 2: IF I need a brake, any recommendations?

Thanks!

If you submitted the paperwork to the MD state police before 10/1 that would qualify as a purchase order under the law. Therefore the copy cat tests would not apply. If you submitted the ATF paperwork to them after 10/1 you are manufacturing a post 10/1 firearm without a purchase order and the two feature test applies.

hogarth · Sep 11, 2014

Yes, I submitted the paperwork to MSP in September of 2013.

hogarth · Sep 11, 2014

jkeys said:
If you submitted the paperwork to the MD state police before 10/1 that would qualify as a purchase order under the law. Therefore the copy cat tests would not apply. If you submitted the ATF paperwork to them after 10/1 you are manufacturing a post 10/1 firearm without a purchase order and the two feature test applies.

Are we all in agreement?

CrawfishStu · Sep 11, 2014

I think not. I have had 2 stamps turned down that were submitted pre 10/1. Ones that would have been legal to make prior to 10/1. You can't make it until approved and now you can't get a banned configuration approved.

I would just put a brake on it and be safe.

Daniel defense climb mitigation muzzle device is a nice and readily available one. Or if your going to suppress it, something like the AAC brake is a good choice. Or even a good choice so you can toss on a friend's suppressor if you get the chance.

erwos · Sep 11, 2014

I am with CrawFishStu. Build date is what matters for a form 1. You should not build it in a copycat configuration until the MSP responds to the Engage lawsuit. Therefore, you should exchange the FH for a brake.

This is precisely the reason that, back in September 13, I had Engage do the P556 SBR transfer on a form 4. No P556 to play with for nine months, but no doubts as to legality in a copycat config.

FWIW, I am in the same situation as you with my AMD-65 SBR. Form 1 came back in October 2013, so I didn't feel comfortable putting a FH on it.

erwos · Sep 11, 2014

CrawfishStu said:
Or even a good choice so you can toss on a friend's suppressor if you get the chance.

Suppressors are flash hiders. Do NOT put on a suppressor onto gun that would become a copycat with a FH.

hogarth · Sep 11, 2014

erwos said:
Suppressors are flash hiders. Do NOT put on a suppressor onto gun that would become a copycat with a FH.

Well this just gets better every second!

jkeys · Sep 11, 2014

You can't say the build date is what matters when the law carves out an exemption for lowers or guns with a purchase order. If that was the case, anyone who assembled a lower after 10/1 would be in deep doodoo.

If your SBR form was denied by the ATF you are one of the few that probably got illegally screwed by MDSP. Engage has had their lawyer contact the MDSP and ATF already over their incorrect interpretation of the law.

erwos · Sep 11, 2014

jkeys said:
You can't say the build date is what matters when the law carves out an exemption for lowers or guns with a purchase order. If that was the case, anyone who assembled a lower after 10/1 would be in deep doodoo.

I am saying exactly that. I said over a year ago that this very situation could arise... and it did. I advised everyone with a pre-10/1 lower to mate it, even temporarily, to an non-HBAR upper pre-10/1.

Form 1s are permission to make or manufacture. They do not have anything at all to do with selling or buying stuff. The law has no grandfathering clause for "intent to manufacture".

If your SBR form was denied by the ATF you are one of the few that probably got illegally screwed by MDSP. Engage has had their lawyer contact the MDSP and ATF already over their incorrect interpretation of the law.

Uh huh. Until the MSP clarifies their stance, that's the interpretation of the law. Stupid, probably, but they're the people who will arrest your ass and make you pay legal fees if you get caught.

Pinecone · Sep 12, 2014

jkeys said:
You can't say the build date is what matters when the law carves out an exemption for lowers or guns with a purchase order. If that was the case, anyone who assembled a lower after 10/1 would be in deep doodoo.

The exemption for lower and firearms was for PURCHASING them.

And lowers are no longer prohibited, as you can make them into legal firearms (pistol or HBAR or SBR).

BUT, MSP is taking the build date as being important. Even if you have a pre-Ot 1, 2013 lower, you MAY NOT built it into a <29" SBR at this time.

hogarth · Sep 12, 2014

Anyone think it is worth calling MSP about this? Or will I just get different answers depending on who I talk to each time I call?

jkeys · Sep 12, 2014

hogarth said:
Anyone think it is worth calling MSP about this? Or will I just get different answers depending on who I talk to each time I call?

Contact the attorney general's office and ask that they clarify whether or not an application into the state police and a $200 tax stamp qualifies as a purchase order.

Pinecone · Sep 13, 2014

Considering what they formally told BATFE about overall length, the build date is the important one.

And currently they ARE applying the copy cat rules to SBRs built after Oct 1, 2013.

Mark75H · Sep 13, 2014

jkeys said:
Contact the attorney general's office and ask that they clarify whether or not an application into the state police and a $200 tax stamp qualifies as a purchase order.

I think that has to go thru a legislator

jkeys · Sep 13, 2014

Mark75H said:
I think that has to go thru a legislator

In classes like this the attorney general can and should issue his opinion.

Pinecone · Sep 14, 2014

jkeys said:
Contact the attorney general's office and ask that they clarify whether or not an application into the state police and a $200 tax stamp qualifies as a purchase order.

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.

hogarth · Sep 14, 2014

Thanks for all the advice. Looks like I will get a brake and then await the result of the Engage question.

hogarth · Sep 14, 2014

Okay, so what are the "rules" for what constitutes a muzzle brake? There are many devices advertised to do a bit of both. Is that okay? Are there key things to look for, like the word "compensator"? Is there an ATF or MSP list somewhere? Ugh.

Mark75H · Sep 14, 2014

hogarth said:
Okay, so what are the "rules" for what constitutes a muzzle brake? There are many devices advertised to do a bit of both. Is that okay? Are there key things to look for, like the word "compensator"? Is there an ATF or MSP list somewhere? Ugh.

Nope, if you get on the wrong side of fuzzy, you will have to have it decided by a judge appointed by MOM or elected by the same people who elected MOM , Gansler and Frosch. Its done that way in MD on purpose

confused on 2 feature test

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Creeper

The Hebrew Hammer

The Hebrew Hammer

Ultimate Member

Active Member

The Hebrew Hammer

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

MD Wear&Carry Instructor

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

MD Wear&Carry Instructor

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics