Too late to make an SBR?

Flipz · Apr 17, 2013

Here's my opinion. And its based on submitting the Form1 as an Individual.

If you start a Form1 and receive MSP's CLEO signoff prior to 10/1 you should be fine. At that point MD has already given their approval that it is ok for you to manufacture an SBR. The ATF will see this and, even if after 10/1, approve your form.

In my mind the question is really about starting a Form1 on a Pre-Ban lower AFTER 10/1. Thats where I think things may get tricky. But, we'll just have to wait and see.

I may actually be a good test as my Form1 just went Pending with the ATF at the beginning of this month. By current timeframes Im looking at Sep/Oct Approval. Im hoping for September obviously, just in case.

DarthZed · Apr 17, 2013

erwos said:
Personal opinion: there is no way the BATFE is going to decide SBRs are simply banned in Maryland, because the law doesn't say that at all. The worst case scenario is that what you write in that OAL column really, really matters.

Example: Colt Commando / LE6933. Barrel is 11.5", OAL is 30.75". That's still perfectly fine post-ban. But chop that barrel to 9" so that the OAL < 29", you might have a problem. (Incidentally, a Krink with a comp should also beat the OAL test. I assume you don't need to pin the comp for OAL, just for barrel length.)

So, that's another point to consider: do you really require a super-short barrel? Outside of pistol caliber rifles, they don't make a hell of a lot of sense.

Good points on the OAL erwos.

Markp · Apr 17, 2013

Overall length does not matter for the list of currently regulated "assault long guns".

Not Applicable as an Assault Long gun cannot be a Copycat weapon, and once under 16" on the barrel, it is no longer a rifle per MD law.

Old Law:
(p)(1) “Handgun” means a firearm with a barrel less than 16 inches in length

New Law:

(n)(1) “Handgun” means a firearm with a barrel less than 16 inches in length

tc617 · Apr 17, 2013

erwos said:
Remember that a form 1 is permission to manufacture. That's not a purchase order.

I respectfully disagree with this statement. Submitting a Form 1 requests permission to manufacture a firearm, but I would argue that it also requests permission to modify and existing firearm, thus the applicant would not be manufacturing a banned firearm at all.

FORM 1, 4a. Name and Location of Original Manufacturer of Firearm (Receiver) (If prototype, furnish plans and specifications) (See Instruction 2h)

Per Form 1, 4a, if the applicant is making a NFA firearm from a lower receiver that they purchased from an Original Manufacturer they are not manufacturing. If the applicant were the Original Manufacturer, they would need to furnish plans and specifications as requested. The Form specifically gives instruction to the applicant in both cases of manufacturing a new firearm versus modifying an existing firearm.

FORM 1 INSTRUCTIONS 4h. Serial Numbers and other Markings. If an existing firearm is being modified into an NFA firearm, enter the existing serial number of the firearm into item 4g and the name and address of the original manufacturer into item 4a. Do not Alter or Modify the Existing Serial Number. If the NFA firearm is being made from parts, your name and address are to be entered into 4a and a serial number you create is to be entered into item 4g.

The instructions on Form 1 states that if the applicant is making a SBR from an existing firearm that is being modified into an NFA firearm to enter original manufacturer name in block 4a. Again, since the applicant is simply modifying and existing firearm versus manufacturing, there are two separate set of instructions.

I would argue that there is a big difference between manufacturing versus modifying. For example; if I purchased a sports car and added a spoiler and hood scoop to it, did I just manufacture an entirely new car, or did I simply modify an existing car? Likewise, I cannot see how a prosecutor could convince a jury that taking an existing pre ban AR-15 with a 16" barrel and simply hacksawing off 6" of the barrel made that person a firearms manufacturer.

So my interpretation of making an SBR from an existing pre ban firearm or even a stripped lower receiver that is purchased prior to October 1 is simple. The applicant is not manufacturing a firearm at all, they are simply modifying it into a NFA firearm. SB281 does not apply since it does not prohibit modifying an existing pre ban assault weapon.

strube · Apr 18, 2013

tc617 said:
I respectfully disagree with this statement. Submitting a Form 1 requests permission to manufacture a firearm, but I would argue that it also requests permission to modify and existing firearm, thus the applicant would not be manufacturing a banned firearm at all.

Cursory internet searches ( :blah:

) seem to indicate that this was how it works for other states' AWBs i.e. putting a pre-ban on a form 1 doesn't effect its grandfathered status. Also I would agree that the more I look into the SBR process the more evidence emerges that the ATF see's it more as configuration or assembly rather than a manufacturing per se.

erwos · Apr 18, 2013

tc617 said:
I respectfully disagree with this statement. Submitting a Form 1 requests permission to manufacture a firearm, but I would argue that it also requests permission to modify and existing firearm, thus the applicant would not be manufacturing a banned firearm at all.

I still don't agree that manufacture isn't covering your various scenarios. You had a rifle, now you have an SBR. You manufactured the SBR, whether through assembly or modification. That's why they're able to charge you the excise tax of $200.

The interaction of state laws with this is going to be on a per-state basis... I wouldn't read too much into other states. Maryland law explicitly defines SBRs as different from rifles. Going from one to the other might be considered manufacturing by the AG. I would want more guidance before saying this was OK.

tc617 · Apr 18, 2013

strube said:
Cursory internet searches ( ) seem to indicate that this was how it works for other states' AWBs i.e. putting a pre-ban on a form 1 doesn't effect its grandfathered status. Also I would agree that the more I look into the SBR process the more evidence emerges that the ATF see's it more as configuration or assembly rather than a manufacturing per se.

I agree and you must pay the $200 fee because the new configuration now meets the requirement of a NFA firearm.

erwos said:
I still don't agree that manufacture isn't covering your various scenarios. You had a rifle, now you have an SBR. You manufactured the SBR, whether through assembly or modification. That's why they're able to charge you the excise tax of $200.

The interaction of state laws with this is going to be on a per-state basis... I wouldn't read too much into other states. Maryland law explicitly defines SBRs as different from rifles. Going from one to the other might be considered manufacturing by the AG. I would want more guidance before saying this was OK.

I disagree because the $200 for the tax stamp is for registration, not for manufacturing. If the fee was for manufacturing then why is a FFL07/SOT exempt/waived when they who manufacture a SBR? The answer is that they are not registering the SBR with the BATFE; The end user pays the $200 fee when they register the NFA item on a Form 4.

Besides, Maryland has no requirement to register SBRs, but if we were to get technical about Maryland screwy gun laws, Form 4s, and SBRs:

If Maryland classifies a rifle with a barrel length less than 16" (SBR) as a handgun... And by Maryland law, any handgun not listed on the MSP handgun roster must be submitted to the handgun review board... And by Maryland law, requires all handguns to submit fired shell casings to the MSP... Then how is a Form 4 SBR even legal in for sale or transfer in Maryland if they are classified as handguns but do not follow any of the Maryland handgun laws?

annihilation-time · Apr 18, 2013

Only AR-15 long guns are banned, and they are banned by name. The law says nothing about manufacturing a SBR. Nothing.

erwos · Apr 18, 2013

tc617 said:
If Maryland classifies a rifle with a barrel length less than 16" (SBR) as a handgun... And by Maryland law, any handgun not listed on the MSP handgun roster must be submitted to the handgun review board... And by Maryland law, requires all handguns to submit fired shell casings to the MSP... Then how is a Form 4 SBR are even legal in for sale or transfer in Maryland if they are classified as handguns but do not follow any of the Maryland handgun laws?

This is a terrific question that I have never heard a good answer to. Gut feeling is that the MSP was going with "legislative intent", which was to ban Saturday Night Specials.

annihilation-time said:
Only AR-15 long guns are banned, and they are banned by name. The law says nothing about manufacturing a SBR. Nothing.

I agree. The problem is manufacturing an SBR that doesn't meet the OAL test. Again, we are back to the original question: do SBRs need to comply with the copycat tests?

annihilation-time · Apr 18, 2013

erwos said:
I agree. The problem is manufacturing an SBR that doesn't meet the OAL test. Again, we are back to the original question: do SBRs need to comply with the copycat tests?

Ask yourself: How can an AR-15 SBR be a copycat of an assault long gun?

Copycats are guns similar in features, but not technically copies of assault long guns. They are in a category of their own for a reason.

Copycat by definition is something that copies something else but isn't exactly the same. It's a close imitation or mimic.

Yes. Copies of assault long guns are banned, and copycats are banned. However, an AR-15 SBR is neither.

SBRs are clearly defined in MD code. If the state wanted to ban them, they would NOT have made the mistake. Also, if SBRs were indirectly targeted like handguns bypassing the roster via the AOW/NFA process, the AOL copycat rule would be 26 inches not 29.

I suspect the governor didn't go after NFA items because it didn't have MSP support.

erwos · Apr 18, 2013

annihilation-time said:
Ask yourself: How can an AR-15 SBR be a copycat of an assault long gun?

That's not how a copycat is defined in the bill. You are thinking of a copy of an assault long gun. A copycat weapon is something else entirely. Remember that there are three banned classes of guns:
1. Assault Pistols (named list)
2. Assault Long Guns (named list and copies)
3. Copycat weapons (rifles and shotguns that fail the tests)

The assault long guns language is completely irrelevant to the SBR discussion. Stop telling me they're not assault long guns. I agree completely. That's not the issue.

And, again, you are preaching to the choir; I am only bringing these issues up to show that it's not a foregone conclusion how the MSP might rule, and that we need to get clarification.

IMBLITZVT · Apr 18, 2013

erwos said:
The assault long guns language is completely irrelevant to the SBR discussion. Stop telling me they're not assault long guns. I agree completely. That's not the issue.

And, again, you are preaching to the choir; I am only bringing these issues up to show that it's not a foregone conclusion how the MSP might rule, and that we need to get clarification.

No, the long gun language does play a role since Copy cats can't be copies of the long guns... So no AR15 can be a copy cat gun...

Either way, I can see you are not going to let this go until O'Malley himself tells you, its ok. I think its pretty clear this is not a real issue. Who knows how they will twist the law but its pretty clear SBRs are not being banned in anyway... but I see its pointless to continue to argue why this is so...

annihilation-time · Apr 18, 2013

erwos said:
That's not how a copycat is defined in the bill. You are thinking of a copy of an assault long gun. A copycat weapon is something else entirely. Remember that there are three banned classes of guns:
1. Assault Pistols (named list)
2. Assault Long Guns (named list and copies)
3. Copycat weapons (rifles and shotguns that fail the tests)

I agree and completely understand all of what you just said.

If you read what I wrote, I refer to features, copies, and copycats. I figured there's no need to go into specifics. We've all done that over and over.

My only point is that words have meanings. Rifle means rifle... SBR means SBR... and so on.

No one claims that threaded barrels are banned. The bill specifically names flash hiders. No one claims select fire weapons are banned because they can be shot semi-automatically. Why are we pretending SBRs are going to be banned?

I know I'm preaching to the choir. My issue is most people are assuming the worst.

annihilation-time · Apr 18, 2013

IMBLITZVT said:
No, the long gun language does play a role since Copy cats can't be copies of the long guns... So no AR15 can be a copy cat gun...

Exactly.

erwos · Apr 18, 2013

IMBLITZVT said:
No, the long gun language does play a role since Copy cats can't be copies of the long guns... So no AR15 can be a copy cat gun...

First of all, that's not true. You can be both a copycat weapon and a banned assault long gun simultaneously. Example: folding stock AK rifle with a flash hider. Banned as a named assault long gun, also banned as a copycat gun for having two evil features.

annihilation-time said:
If you read what I wrote, I refer to features, copies, and copycats. I figured there's no need to go into specifics. We've all done that over and over.

So stop using the assault long gun wording when you're talking about the copycat tests. It is confusing and unhelpful.

No one claims that threaded barrels are banned. The bill specifically names flash hiders. No one claims select fire weapons are banned because they can be shot semi-automatically. Why are we pretending SBRs are going to be banned?

The definition of SBR in MD code includes the word "rifle". It would not take a super-motivated AG to claim this gave them the discretion to include SBRs under the copycat test based on "legislative intent", regardless of the truth of that.

Markp · Apr 18, 2013

They so screwed themselves on this bill.

Markp · Apr 18, 2013

erwos said:
First of all, that's not true. You can be both a copycat weapon and a banned assault long gun simultaneously. Example: folding stock AK rifle with a flash hider. Banned as a named assault long gun, also banned as a copycat gun for having two evil features.

Go read the law again.

A "Copy Cat" weapon is NOT an assault long gun or assault pistol.

(B) “ASSAULT LONG GUN” MEANS ANY ASSAULT WEAPON LISTED UNDER § 5–101(R)(2) OF THE PUBLIC SAFETY ARTICLE.

(E) (1) “COPYCAT WEAPON” MEANS:

(I) A SEMIAUTOMATIC CENTERFIRE RIFLE THAT CAN ACCEPT A DETACHABLE MAGAZINE AND HAS ANY TWO OF THE FOLLOWING:
1. A FOLDING OR TELESCOPING STOCK;
2. A GRENADE LAUNCHER OR FLARE LAUNCHER; OR
3. A FLASH SUPPRESSOR;

(II) A SEMIAUTOMATIC CENTERFIRE RIFLE THAT HAS A FIXED MAGAZINE WITH THE CAPACITY TO ACCEPT MORE THAN 10 ROUNDS;
(III) A SEMIAUTOMATIC CENTERFIRE RIFLE THAT HAS AN OVERALL LENGTH OF LESS THAN 29 INCHES;

(2) “COPYCAT WEAPON” DOES NOT INCLUDE AN ASSAULT LONG GUN OR AN ASSAULT PISTOL. <- If it's on the list, it is NOT a COPYCAT WEAPON.

annihilation-time · Apr 18, 2013

erwos said:
So stop using the assault long gun wording when you're talking about the copycat tests. It is confusing and unhelpful.

LOL. I didn't.

You're saying that the AR-15 could be interpreted to be a copycat. I'm saying the AR-15 is an assault long gun. I'm simply asking how can they be interpreted to be the same thing.

erwos · Apr 18, 2013

Markp said:
(2) “COPYCAT WEAPON” DOES NOT INCLUDE AN ASSAULT LONG GUN OR AN ASSAULT PISTOL. [/B]<- If it's on the list, it is NOT a COPYCAT WEAPON.

OK, you got me there. But see below.

You're saying that the AR-15 could be interpreted to be a copycat. I'm saying the AR-15 is an assault long gun. I'm simply asking how can they be interpreted to be the same thing.

AR-15 SBRs are not considered to be copies of the AR-15 on the named assault long gun list, or such is the current position of the MSP. That's the key point I think you're missing. Your SBR will NEVER be an assault long gun. If you are relying on that to save you from the copycat tests, well, I would not. Also, remember that not every SBR is going to be on the assault long gun list. If I want a 14" SCAR with a flash hider and folding stock, the outcome of the discussion is also very relevant to me.

Markp · Apr 18, 2013

erwos said:
OK, you got me there. How that distinction is at all useful, I don't know. SBRs are never considered assault long guns _right now_, so I still fail to see how it's relevant.

Well it's useful for a number of reasons... The first being that ANY assault long gun can at anytime be modified to have all three evil features. So if you want to put a folding stock on your AR-15 or AK-47, or your decide you want to make it shorter than 29", or even if you later decide to put a flash suppressor on it, there is NO WAY they can apply the "copy cat" standard to you.

Second, remove/block the mag release on your AK and you can buy 75 round drums for it. It's no longer subject to the copycat rule and fixed magazines > 10 rounds are only prohibited on copy cat weapons. You can have any size magazine you want fixed on your assault long gun. (Fixed Chinese 75 drum mag could be fun). MD only prohibits detachable magazines (it's the rifle that makes a magazine detachable or not, not the magazine!!!) Example, SKS 10/20 round magazines... If you modify the SKS bolt, the stock SKS mag becomes removable. If you don't, it's fixed.

Too late to make an SBR?

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

USN Sub Vet

Active Member

The Hebrew Hammer

USN Sub Vet

MOLON LABE

The Hebrew Hammer

MOLON LABE

The Hebrew Hammer

Ultimate Member

MOLON LABE

MOLON LABE

The Hebrew Hammer

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

MOLON LABE

The Hebrew Hammer

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics