Form 1 SBR "disapproved" because AW are Illegal in MD??

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • matt_yamaha_guy_450

    Active Member
    Jun 25, 2012
    313
    Glen Burnie
    Hey everyone just a heads up! I have been following this thread and I was bummed to read all of the issues since i submitted an e form-1 on 11/14/14 i wasn't sure of the outcome. I just checked my e-mail and I was approved as of yesterday!! For (2) 10.5" sbr's one 9mm and one 5.56 hope this gives you all some hope. Needless to say I am very happy!!
     

    rico903

    Ultimate Member
    May 2, 2011
    8,802
    Well this sounds like good news. Time to get my application in if I can figure out how to efile.
    Now just to muck things up bit. I was in local class 3 dealer tonite and he told me MD now accepted 28" as min length. He said they did this to accommodate Berettas 5.56 with a 8" barrel and that he has had 2 approved. Cpl Edwards is his contact point as well and told him they were god to go. ????????
     

    Wayne1one

    gun aficionado
    Feb 13, 2011
    3,131
    Bowie, MD
    Well this sounds like good news. Time to get my application in if I can figure out how to efile.
    Now just to muck things up bit. I was in local class 3 dealer tonite and he told me MD now accepted 28" as min length. He said they did this to accommodate Berettas 5.56 with a 8" barrel and that he has had 2 approved. Cpl Edwards is his contact point as well and told him they were god to go. ????????

    Yeah this doesn't sound right at all. Who is this "local class 3 dealer"? I am assuming that you are talking about the Beretta ARX100, I didn't know that they even released any optional barrels for this rifle yet. Furthermore the short barreled option for the ARX100 would be a 12" barrel similar to what ARX160 (5.56) is running over seas.
     

    SWO Daddy

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 18, 2011
    2,470
    Well this sounds like good news. Time to get my application in if I can figure out how to efile.
    Now just to muck things up bit. I was in local class 3 dealer tonite and he told me MD now accepted 28" as min length. He said they did this to accommodate Berettas 5.56 with a 8" barrel and that he has had 2 approved. Cpl Edwards is his contact point as well and told him they were god to go. ????????

    That can't be right.
     

    schnejerator

    dabbled in pacifism once
    Sep 26, 2014
    116
    haggistucky
    ^ What they said.

    When my pre ban HK94 clone was disapproved back in July, the form 1 stated: "THE DEFINITION OF THIS GCA ITEM WOULD BE CHANGED TO NFA AS A RESULT OF THIS APPLICATION AND THE INTENT TO BUILD. THE ITEM WOULD BE CLASSIFIED BY MD AS A COPY CAT WEAPON AS A RESULT OF THE OVERALL LENGTH BEING <29". SEE MD STATE CRIMINAL LAW 4-303. REFUND SENT THIS DATE. JASON DICKEN."

    But, stranger things have happened.
     
    Last edited:

    bobthefisher

    Durka ninja
    Aug 18, 2010
    1,214
    Definitely not where you are!
    He's referring to 29 inches, as it was 30 inches when it was first proposed in the legislation. He just slipped up on the length. The Beretta ARX was the reasoning for dropping it down to 29 inches from 30, as one of the ARX models was 29.5 inches. It was done to appease Beretta in order to get them to stay in MD for manufacturing. We can thank them for that extra inch, as it does make a difference.
     

    Wayne1one

    gun aficionado
    Feb 13, 2011
    3,131
    Bowie, MD
    He's referring to 29 inches, as it was 30 inches when it was first proposed in the legislation. He just slipped up on the length. The Beretta ARX was the reasoning for dropping it down to 29 inches from 30, as one of the ARX models was 29.5 inches. It was done to appease Beretta in order to get them to stay in MD for manufacturing. We can thank them for that extra inch, as it does make a difference.

    In a game of inches, every inch matters! I wish it was 28" though....
     

    rico903

    Ultimate Member
    May 2, 2011
    8,802
    He's referring to 29 inches, as it was 30 inches when it was first proposed in the legislation. He just slipped up on the length. The Beretta ARX was the reasoning for dropping it down to 29 inches from 30, as one of the ARX models was 29.5 inches. It was done to appease Beretta in order to get them to stay in MD for manufacturing. We can thank them for that extra inch, as it does make a difference.

    That was my thought as well. I think he just mixed his #s up.
     

    Abacab

    Member
    Sep 10, 2009
    2,644
    MD
    He's referring to 29 inches, as it was 30 inches when it was first proposed in the legislation. He just slipped up on the length. The Beretta ARX was the reasoning for dropping it down to 29 inches from 30, as one of the ARX models was 29.5 inches. It was done to appease Beretta in order to get them to stay in MD for manufacturing. We can thank them for that extra inch, as it does make a difference.

    Incorrect. The length change of 30" to 29" was done after Vallario was informed that Beretta's popular CX4 Storm would be banned as a result of the 30" rule. The CX4 measures at 29.7".

    The ARX already fails under the neutered rifle feature test regardless of length.
     

    bobthefisher

    Durka ninja
    Aug 18, 2010
    1,214
    Definitely not where you are!
    Incorrect. The length change of 30" to 29" was done after Vallario was informed that Beretta's popular CX4 Storm would be banned as a result of the 30" rule. The CX4 measures at 29.7".

    The ARX already fails under the neutered rifle feature test regardless of length.

    You are correct sir! I knew it was one of the Beretta guns, that's what i get for assuming.
     

    Captnstabn

    Active Member
    Apr 22, 2010
    997
    I was disapproved today by ted. Reasons below. I don't understand the part about my name, it matches exactly as on the trust down to middle initial and capitalization. The second half about md law is pretty much expected at this point, although it doesn't make much sense either.

    Does anyone have his email? I called and left a message, but getting him on the phone seems impossible, and I'd rather have a written answer.

    Submitted 12/2 with msp letter attached.

    NAME OF APPLICANT INCORRECT COMPARED TO SUPPORTING DOCUMENT IDENTIFYING TRUST AGREEMENT - ALSO SHOULD VERIFY THE REQUEST, WHERE THE STATE OF MD NOT TO CONSIDER THE MAKING OF AN ASSAULT WEAPON ? PROHIBITED, REFUND IN PROCESS...TEC
     

    schnejerator

    dabbled in pacifism once
    Sep 26, 2014
    116
    haggistucky
    I was disapproved today by ted. Reasons below. I don't understand the part about my name, it matches exactly as on the trust down to middle initial and capitalization. The second half about md law is pretty much expected at this point, although it doesn't make much sense either.

    Does anyone have his email? I called and left a message, but getting him on the phone seems impossible, and I'd rather have a written answer.

    Submitted 12/2 with msp letter attached.

    NAME OF APPLICANT INCORRECT COMPARED TO SUPPORTING DOCUMENT IDENTIFYING TRUST AGREEMENT - ALSO SHOULD VERIFY THE REQUEST, WHERE THE STATE OF MD NOT TO CONSIDER THE MAKING OF AN ASSAULT WEAPON ? PROHIBITED, REFUND IN PROCESS...TEC
    Sorry to hear this... they denied my F4 trust suppressor for similar name issues last November (dont know who it was as dealer submitted for me).

    Guess I know what to expect next week in my SBR...
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    275,585
    Messages
    7,287,484
    Members
    33,480
    Latest member
    navyfirefighter1981

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom