New MSP HBAR Guidance

So, what happens if you had an HBAR a year ago that you sold FTF? It was purchase as an HBAR with standard non-regulated paperwork, and suppose it was sold FTF. What would happen to the guy that sold it? Now all of a sudden its regulated because the barrel doesn't say "HBAR?"

Load of crap.

dblas said:

Clandestine, You're the reason gun owners are continually screwed over because you can't just shut up. You have to get a ruling as if to prove something. No doubt they will go with the most strict interpretation possible in regards to HBAR. Not that I ever planned on doing business with you, but I will make sure that anyone who asks my opinion on your services doesn't go to you. You'll be solely responsible for the lousy method of defining HBAR resulting in wretched oversized heat shields.

Click to expand...

I agree with what several members have posted about this verbal "advisory" being nothing new. Maybe not in relation to prior discussions with the MSP, but with regards to how they plan to enforce 281. I was somewhat successful with completing my pre 10/1 wish list, and still have not overcome my disgust with the HQL requirement, so I think the best way to exercise my limited post 10/1 rights and send MOM a message would be to continue to buy still legal "scary" black guns. The problem comes when I discuss various manufacturers/models/operating systems with LGS's there is definitely no consensus as to what is still legal under the HBAR/copycat/features mess we currently have. I even see significant dispute here when a post appears asking about the status of a specific rifle. I want to continue to exercise my 2A rights, but since I have no dog for them to take out their frustration on, I would rather avoid a 0 dark thirty knock to discuss my purchase that they have determined doesn't meet that days undocumented "legal" criteria. I also do not want my purchase, that I have made in good faith based on my and my LGS's research, to later create problems for the LGS as I see putting them out of business as MOM's next step in an election year when the GA bills are being so closely watched.

So where does that leave me? Waiting. Waiting for some clarification so that I can make my next purchase with a reasonable comfort level that the MSP will not later challenge it. Do I think that the gray unwritten regulatory situation we are in is a deliberate attempt to discourage or make more difficult the exercising of our 2A rights? Absolutely! Therefore I understand when some members comment that asking for clarification from the MSP or AG will only bring us answers that we will not be happy with, but I still feel that it moves us closer to understanding how they already plan to enforce and regulate us. I do not think that we are bringing up any new ideas that they have not already fairly well thought out. We are just asking them to tell us what their thinking is rather then waiting for the hammer to fall and trying to defend our position based on the vague unclarified regime we are under now.

This was all a long way to go to say thank you to A1, Clandestine, Lou45, and many more members who are trying to get the clarification necessary for all of us to continue to purchase without fear of a later arbitrary determination that our firearm was not "permitted". I want my next rifle to send MOM a message that can best be described by what I read in another post here recently about how he could utilize a porcupine lubricated by something like drain cleaner or super glue. Not a loophole but legal compliance under an unconstitutional law until we can get removed!

Just the thoughts of a frustrated 13er.

iH8DemLibz said:

I know a guy who generally sticks to his guns and is not typically swayed by other people regarding what he believes to be true.

Let's assume for a moment, hypothetically speaking of course, that this guy I know is beginning to come around to the majorities' side of this topic.

If these letters are being sent to simply document the replies, then the guy I know is in agreement with your undertaking.

I have been asked to ask you this: Are the people who are writing these letters, getting responses to these letters?

LOU, SNI, MR H, and THE HAIR can PM me if they wish.

Click to expand...

Yes, they have been answering questions.

Fwiw, I have gotten responses to my emails to MSP on various subjects. That's not to say they've given me meaningful answers, but they've at least responded each time

To be fair to MSP, they've been given a really poorly drafted law to enforce.

Mike OTDP said:

To be fair to MSP, they've been given a really poorly drafted law to enforce.

Click to expand...

While it is poorly drafted, MSP has also taken portions that have been perfectly clear for 20+ years and misinterpreted them (The Bushmaster handgun and rifle, for example.)

I sincerely hope that when all is said and done, that our overseers decide that HBARs must be stamped as such by the manufacturer. It's clear that this is the only acceptable outcome for everyone concerned. Anything else will be too confusing for most here, and we can't be trusted to exercise good judgment.

Mike OTDP said:

To be fair to MSP, they've been given a really poorly drafted law to enforce.

Click to expand...

Bs. They inserted the live fire requirement after it was specifically amended out. They lost all respect and sympathy henceforth at that point.

ShallNotInfringe said:

Bs. They inserted the live fire requirement after it was specifically amended out. They lost all respect and sympathy henceforth at that point.

Click to expand...

That, and,


"We know it when we see it"

Mike OTDP said:

To be fair to MSP, they've been given a really poorly drafted law to enforce.

Click to expand...

I am more worried by the directions they are receiving from above then the BS poorly drafted law that those directions created to begin with.

honda53s said:

The reason this came about is because people kept pushing the issue... If no one talked about it, we wouldn't be forced with this guidance.

Click to expand...

Exactly right.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Mr H said:

We know that many EMs came in during the 2013 rush with no intention of contributing anything beyond money. Some misunderstood the purpose of EM (in several ways).

IMO, anyone who shares the message is more than none, and we're happy to have them aboard.

There has been a lot of misinformation running around out there... some unknowing, some accidental, and some downright malicious. By refocusing on EMs willing to pitch in on the ground, we have found that we are more cohesive and able to accomplish things we were unable to do previously.

Click to expand...

This is something I wish I was able to do. BUT I know that at this time I cannot dedicate the time needed to be an EM. At least in my opinion. I know my limitations at this point. Maybe someday I will be able to. Until then I will GLADLY work with dblas, Mr. H, SNI, Lou45 and others in Annapolis and elsewhere.

Just make EMembership by Invatation instead of nominally available on a public website. Save the troubles of either rejecting aspiring EM's , or keeping them on the books and wishing they'd been rejected.

Everyone knows that an H-Bar barrel should be at least 4.5lbs. Dont know how you guys have been getting away with it for so long.

Biggfoot44 said:

Just make EMembership by Invatation instead of nominally available on a public website. Save the troubles of either rejecting aspiring EM's , or keeping them on the books and wishing they'd been rejected.

Click to expand...

That change has [essentially] been made as of 1Jan.

GMTA, and all that

ShallNotInfringe said:

This needs to be codified in COMAR.. Anything less is not enforceable.

Setting arbitrary policy without redress is tyranny standard operating procedure for the MSP.

This advisory approach is bs for interpreting the statute and needs to stop. There is a process defined for adopting regulations, they need to follow it.

Click to expand...

FIFY

BUMP So are 6721s A3 Tactical Carbine Hbars stamped "HBAR" on the Barrel??

MDshooters said:

BUMP So are 6721s A3 Tactical Carbine Hbars stamped "HBAR" on the Barrel??

Click to expand...

The COLT AR6721 A3 Tactical Carbine IS stamped HBAR on the barrel.

ShallNotInfringe said:

This needs to be codified in COMAR.. Anything less is not enforceable.

Setting arbitrary policy without redress is tyranny.

This advisory approach is bs for interpreting the statute and needs to stop. There is a process defined for adopting regulations, they need to follow it.

Click to expand...

BUMP
Aha! So I am not alone in my acute observations. I was reportedly singled out and told numerous times that I was the only person on here that had a problem with the non-Colt HBARS.

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk

MDshooters said:

BUMP
Aha! So I am not alone in my acute observations. I was reportedly singled out and told numerous times that I was the only person on here that had a problem with the non-Colt HBARS.

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

What you quoted has NOTHING to do with non-Colt HBARs.

MSP CLEARLY allows non-Colt HBARs, and has done so since the first non-Colt HBARs became available during the Federal ban back in the 90s.