SBR with post Oct 1st lower?

Pinecone · Sep 8, 2014

mtel said:
Someone could definitely argue that as a possible outcome (as you said, today, right now). With all the established federal language on making, seems much easier for MD to make that case about Title II than I. Although of course ironically, finally enforcing SBRs as handguns provided the chink that made Engage’s pending SBR argument stronger.

I haven’t seen pre-10/1 Title I lowers being enforced this way (not that I’ve been looking). I’ve seen how non-permanent and arbitrary some of MD’s decisions have been since 10/1 though, so what you’re saying definitely has to be considered.

Check the threads in this section. Several people had SBRs denied due to being under 29".

There was a period of time when a pre-Oct 1 lower could be made into a sub 29" SBR, while a post-Oct 1 lower could not, but that was a very small window.

Yes, MSP is applying a part of the law that clearly states RIFLE, to a firearm that the law clearly says is a PISTOL. But not much we can do until the Engage letter gets answered or the issue goes to court.

methlab · Sep 8, 2014

I have a pre 10-1-13 lower and was denied because of the less that 29".

Now is the overall length greater than 29" with a collapsible stock extended? If so, then wouldn't it be less than 29" when collapsed? It will still be in shooting configuration. Curious minds want to know :shrug:

Flipz · Sep 8, 2014

methlab said:
I have a pre 10-1-13 lower and was denied because of the less that 29".

Now is the overall length greater than 29" with a collapsible stock extended? If so, then wouldn't it be less than 29" when collapsed? It will still be in shooting configuration. Curious minds want to know

The measurement from bare muzzle to the buttpad of the stock when fully extended is all the matters. As long as that measurement is 29" or more, you're good to go.

methlab · Sep 8, 2014

Thanks

mtel · Sep 8, 2014

Pinecone said:
Check the threads in this section. Several people had SBRs denied due to being under 29".

Sure, I remember those threads around May (ATF examiners eventually being directed by MSP to decline ALL < 29”, regardless of ownership date).

Ah, when you wrote earlier -- “Maybe needed if building a pre-Oct 1 lower into a rifle NOW” -- I thought “rifle” implied you felt MSP was attempting to extend copycat/OAL to pre-10/1 receivers being built into non-NFA rifles too. You were still referencing SBRs though. Apologies, I misunderstood.

Pinecone said:
There was a period of time when a pre-Oct 1 lower could be made into a sub 29" SBR, while a post-Oct 1 lower could not, but that was a very small window.

Have a couple (submitted 9/13, approved 12/13 and 1/14). Haven’t built them out yet. Too murky, waiting for more clarity first.

Pinecone said:
Yes, MSP is applying a part of the law that clearly states RIFLE, to a firearm that the law clearly says is a PISTOL. But not much we can do until the Engage letter gets answered or the issue goes to court.

Waiting patiently. They've made good headway in certain areas, without actual litigation. Be nice if that continues.

Pinecone · Sep 9, 2014

The point is, for SBRs they are taking the date of completion as whether FSA 2013 applies.

That implies that the date of completion also applies to a rifle build. So, IMO, building a banned configuration NOW, even on a lower purchased pre-Oct 1, 2103, would NOT be legal.

Flipz · Sep 9, 2014

Pinecone said:
The point is, for SBRs they are taking the date of completion as whether FSA 2013 applies.

That implies that the date of completion also applies to a rifle build. So, IMO, building a banned configuration NOW, even on a lower purchased pre-Oct 1, 2103, would NOT be legal.

Captain Brady, who is head of the Firearms Registration Section at MSP, brought this up at a recent dealers seminar a few weeks ago. She basically said that right now, they have no opinion on what can be done (build into ALG?) with PreOct lowers. She said that they had put in a request to the AG for clarification but had not heard back yet.

Keep in mind that this did not include SBR's. She and one of her Corporals addressed that separately after I posed a few questions to them. Even though their answers were completely baseless, the 29" rule is what they're going with right now. Hopefully that will change soon.

mtel · Sep 9, 2014

Pinecone said:
The point is, for SBRs they are taking the date of completion as whether FSA 2013 applies.

That implies that the date of completion also applies to a rifle build. So, IMO, building a banned configuration NOW, even on a lower purchased pre-Oct 1, 2103, would NOT be legal.

Yes, which is why I previously replied that the necessity of obtaining permission to make seems to blur the meaning of completion for Title I and II.

Not saying you’re incorrect. I just haven’t seen evidence (yet) that MSP is treating assembling the same as making. It’s possible though (which is why I mated all my lowers before 10/1).

Pinecone · Sep 9, 2014

Do you want to be the first one to test this, by being arrested?

As always, do what YOU feel is OK, but if you push the line, don't whine when the line pushes back.

mtel · Sep 9, 2014

My commenting about a lack of complete information doesn’t equate to an active position. Broad assumptions don't build bridges.

You’re very consistent. Something to be said for that. I’ll probably muddle through without arrest or whining, appreciate the concern though.

IMBLITZVT · Sep 9, 2014

Pinecone said:
...
That implies that the date of completion also applies to a rifle build. So, IMO, building a banned configuration NOW, even on a lower purchased pre-Oct 1, 2103, would NOT be legal.

I am fairly sure that any Pre-October Form 1 or 4 will be covered by the Purchase order part of SB281. You had your purchase order in for the $200 stamp. Either way, if you have a signed, approved Form 1 or 4, I would not worry about it! Not a court in the world that is going to go after you with ATF sign off(maybe MSP sign off as well).

Pinecone said:
Do you want to be the first one to test this, by being arrested?...)

Yeah because thats really going to happen... The Officer is going to examine the dates on the form 1 or 4, which you are not legally required to supply him with, see that you must have put some parts... not typing the rest out. You have an approved Form 1 or 4, you are good.

erwos · Sep 9, 2014

A form 1 is NOT a purchase order. It has nothing whatsoever to do with purchasing. A form 4 will cover you.

Pinecone · Sep 9, 2014

IMBLITZVT said:
I am fairly sure that any Pre-October Form 1 or 4 will be covered by the Purchase order part of SB281. You had your purchase order in for the $200 stamp. Either way, if you have a signed, approved Form 1 or 4, I would not worry about it! Not a court in the world that is going to go after you with ATF sign off(maybe MSP sign off as well).

Yeah because thats really going to happen... The Officer is going to examine the dates on the form 1 or 4, which you are not legally required to supply him with, see that you must have put some parts... not typing the rest out. You have an approved Form 1 or 4, you are good.

If you read the threads, people had From 1s denied when the Form 1 was submitted prior to Oct 1, 2013 for <29" SBRs. It all depended on when the examiner did the Form 1. If they did it before the MSP guidance to BATFE, you got approved, if after, you got denied. It did not matter when it was submitted or when the lower was purchased.

So that is NOT true.

IMBLITZVT · Sep 10, 2014

Pinecone said:
If you read the threads, people had From 1s denied when the Form 1 was submitted prior to Oct 1, 2013 for <29" SBRs. It all depended on when the examiner did the Form 1. If they did it before the MSP guidance to BATFE, you got approved, if after, you got denied. It did not matter when it was submitted or when the lower was purchased.

So that is NOT true.

I was not talking about denied form 1s. I am talking about approved ones. If you have one thats approved, you are good. There is no legal requirement to get onto MDshooters and get scared about building a gun that the ATF have approved and MSP may have signed off on. ATF is not going back and pulling form 1s by all accounts. MSP does not know what the law says as we have seen them say everything from all SBRs are banned to banning AR15 receiver sales... just to back out of it later. It says right on the form that they will not approve it if it violates any state laws. So if you have an approved Form 1, you are good to go!

On another note, I don't see everyone going back and un-SBRing all the SBRs they bought that are not on the Roster list! No one is freaking out about that and MSP is not going back and going after people who bought them without being on the Roster list. Why, because they had Government approval to have that firearm.

There is long standing history, that if the Government approves you for a firearm, that you have a legal right to it. Want another example. Many MGs where taken as war trophies in WWII. Some had legal military paperwork allowing them to bring them back into the US. In 1968, all these guns were required to be registered. However some were not. Today if you find one of these guns its normally required to be demilled. However if you can produce paperwork that the military allowed you to bring it home than they are forced to allow you to register it into the system and you can keep the MG.

The worst case.... the worst case... would be that the ATF would go back and pull these form 1s. If this happened you would have to un-SBR the firearm or turn it in. You are not going to get arrested or in trouble. They just had an example like this where they deemed certain "80%" receivers to be firearms and went and made people turn them in. They did not arrest them or anything else. Since an SBR can be "unSBRed", if this were to happen, you would just have to remove and separate the barrel. On most of these builds, being ARs... its as simple as taking off an upper and maybe taking it over a friends house if need be. Until they do this, if they ever do this, you have a legal firearm and have followed every legal requirement stay to legal IMO.

You know I once was told the paperwork "trail" on one of my MGs going back to 1941 when it was registered. There were form 3s, 4s, 5s and no form 1s or 2s. This is not legally possible as you must form 1 or 2 any form 5 gun before you can form 3 or 4 it. It was a complete mess and they did not even know if my firearm was a form 4 or a form 5 (dewat) currently. They had been messing up their paperwork for 50 years or more.

So I would not be losing sleep over it. If you are, call the ATF and ask the person who examined you form if there is any issue with it. You could find yourself opening a can of worms, however if you are not building them anyway... what do you have to lose?

Pinecone · Sep 10, 2014

IMBLITZVT said:
I was not talking about denied form 1s. I am talking about approved ones. If you have one thats approved, you are good. There is no legal requirement to get onto MDshooters and get scared about building a gun that the ATF have approved and MSP may have signed off on. ATF is not going back and pulling form 1s by all accounts. MSP does not know what the law says as we have seen them say everything from all SBRs are banned to banning AR15 receiver sales... just to back out of it later. It says right on the form that they will not approve it if it violates any state laws. So if you have an approved Form 1, you are good to go!

On another note, I don't see everyone going back and un-SBRing all the SBRs they bought that are not on the Roster list! No one is freaking out about that and MSP is not going back and going after people who bought them without being on the Roster list. Why, because they had Government approval to have that firearm.

There is long standing history, that if the Government approves you for a firearm, that you have a legal right to it. Want another example. Many MGs where taken as war trophies in WWII. Some had legal military paperwork allowing them to bring them back into the US. In 1968, all these guns were required to be registered. However some were not. Today if you find one of these guns its normally required to be demilled. However if you can produce paperwork that the military allowed you to bring it home than they are forced to allow you to register it into the system and you can keep the MG.

The worst case.... the worst case... would be that the ATF would go back and pull these form 1s. If this happened you would have to un-SBR the firearm or turn it in. You are not going to get arrested or in trouble. They just had an example like this where they deemed certain "80%" receivers to be firearms and went and made people turn them in. They did not arrest them or anything else. Since an SBR can be "unSBRed", if this were to happen, you would just have to remove and separate the barrel. On most of these builds, being ARs... its as simple as taking off an upper and maybe taking it over a friends house if need be. Until they do this, if they ever do this, you have a legal firearm and have followed every legal requirement stay to legal IMO.

You know I once was told the paperwork "trail" on one of my MGs going back to 1941 when it was registered. There were form 3s, 4s, 5s and no form 1s or 2s. This is not legally possible as you must form 1 or 2 any form 5 gun before you can form 3 or 4 it. It was a complete mess and they did not even know if my firearm was a form 4 or a form 5 (dewat) currently. They had been messing up their paperwork for 50 years or more.

So I would not be losing sleep over it. If you are, call the ATF and ask the person who examined you form if there is any issue with it. You could find yourself opening a can of worms, however if you are not building them anyway... what do you have to lose?

I never said to UN-SBR an approved one. I agree, if it was approved by them, it is fine.

I only said that CURRENTLY, BATFE will not approve an under 29" on a lower, no matter when the lower was purchased.

I also said that YES, at one point BATFE WAS approving less than 29" SBRs on lowers purchased prior to Cot 1, 2013. But NO LONGER.

IMBLITZVT · Sep 11, 2014

Pinecone said:
The point is, for SBRs they are taking the date of completion as whether FSA 2013 applies.

That implies that the date of completion also applies to a rifle build. So, IMO, building a banned configuration NOW, even on a lower purchased pre-Oct 1, 2103, would NOT be legal.

This was what I was talking about. If you have an ATF approved Form 1, you are fine. Of course if you don't its a no-go. I think very soon we will see all SBRs being approved again as MSPs rulings fail to hold water. However if you got a form 1 approved back post Oct, you are good, build it!

dgtaurus · Sep 12, 2014

i just dropped off my Form 1 at MDSP for a post Oct. 1 30.5 inch AR, as soon as it gets back im going to send it to the ATF. Do you think the new attorney general or MDSP will change their minds about SBR's and not allow post Oct. 1 to be made into SBR's in the future? Obviously this is a difficult question to answer considering how unpredictable our state is but im trying to weigh out my options. Id like to start building the upper and ordering parts etc.. but im worried things will drop out from under us and Ill be left with parts I cant use. Do you think its possible we'll lose lowers again as well?

swinokur · Sep 12, 2014

What law would you be violating if your rifle IS NOT a copycat? Just as legal as any other non prohibited firearm.

MSP admits a lower by itself is not illegal as long as it's made into a still allowed configuration.

IANAL

jkeys · Sep 12, 2014

erwos said:
A form 1 is NOT a purchase order. It has nothing whatsoever to do with purchasing. A form 4 will cover you.

$100 in fees for fingerprints, passport photos, etc + another $200 tax to the ATF is definitely a purchase order. Any court that would find otherwise is out of their minds.

Pinecone · Sep 13, 2014

jkeys said:
$100 in fees for fingerprints, passport photos, etc + another $200 tax to the ATF is definitely a purchase order. Any court that would find otherwise is out of their minds.

Are you a lawyer?

A purchase order is an agreement to sell/purchase.

A Form 1 is permission to BUILD.

How are they the same????

SBR with post Oct 1st lower?

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

The Hebrew Hammer

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

In a State of Bliss

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics