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

[drfroglegs]

Form 1 SBR "disapproved" because AW are illegal. Want letter from local PD!!

I submitted my form 1 SBR back in Oct 27th and logged in yesterday to check the status..

Disapproved

I called this morning to see what is going on and the lady said "the reason given is that assault weapons are illegal in MD."

Just got a response from Ted. The official ruling is :

MD STATE LAW, ASSAULT WEAPON - PROHIBITED, REFUND IN PROCESS... TEC

UPDATE: Just wanted to catch everyone up with an update on the OP. It appears the ATF is disapproving all Form 1 SBR's until further notice. No one knows why at this point, but I would save my money if you're planning on submitting one in the near future until we know more of what is going on.

UPDATE 2: ATF has requested proof that the licensing division is the legal authority on interpreting the Maryland gun laws.

Read the following post for updates, let's move all comments over here: http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=166339

UPDATE 3: The ATF and MSP has apparently cleared things up, they are now approving Form 1's again for >29" SBRs.

 

[5.56blaster]

Maryland really SUCKS!

 

[pwoolford]

If you submitted with an overall length of 29.5 I am not sure why you were denied. I'd keep calling/emailing until you get an answer. Sounds like a mistake since many of us have had form 1's approved recently.

 

[drfroglegs]

I just got an email reply from Ted. He said:

Welcome that you re-apply, be sure to provide w/ your new application the written confirmation from Maryland State to find your request in compliance to the standard (not a prohibited assault weapon) allowing for the making, registration, and eventual possession...

What? A written confirmation from Maryland State? You're the ****ing ATF.. how do you not know what is legal in my state?

Has anyone else done this? Who did you call from MD? I'm filling with a trust if that matters?

 

[SWO Daddy]

That is a bunch of bull shirt. I have a Form 1 I submitted on 11 November, so I'll soon be able to confirm if this was just a fluke, or the new reality.

Are there any formal notices from the MSP stating that a post-SB281 AR ABR is kosher with a OAL over 29"?

 

[bobthefisher]

Hearing sh!t like this makes me want to f-ing scream. I thought we were past this BS.

Here comes the sh!t storm, brace for the G's everyone!

 

[drfroglegs]

Ted replied with this:

We must verify the compliance in respect to Maryland, not to place our Applicant’s in violation of State Law, therefore the request is made to ensure verification w/ their law, to have written response from State Office would benefit most effectively…

I sent this:

I still don't fully understand your request. Are you suggesting that everyone who fills out a Form 1 should take their rifle to the local PD to get written verification that it is legal under the current law?

This is all a moot point, my lower was purchased in Dec 2012. The new law doesn't even apply to it since it's grandfathered in... I just can't get him to understand that...

 

[outrider58]

I just got an email reply from Ted. He said:




What? A written confirmation from Maryland State? You're the ****ing ATF.. how do you not know what is legal in my state?

Has anyone else done this? Who did you call from MD? I'm filling with a trust if that matters?

At least you got an email from Ted C. With an explanation. Mine gave same reason with no explanation. (First time using efile) thread. Hoping for some forum guidance here.

 

[drfroglegs]

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

(R) “Regulated firearm” means:

(2) a firearm that is any of the following specific assault weapons or their copies, regardless of which company produced and manufactured that assault weapon:

(xv) Colt AR–15, CAR–15, and all imitations except Colt AR–15 Sporter H–BAR rifle;


Been saying it since day 1. Doesn't matter if it's a pistol, SBR, rifle, or battle-ax, if it's an AR-15, it's legally defined as an "assault long gun" by definition, and thus banned.

You have been fortunate up until now that the people passing and enforcing these gun laws are either intentionally contemptful or woefully ignorant of the law the way it is written, and have allowed AR-15s to continue to be built and sold in MD so long as they were "pistol-form" (pistol lowers or SBRs). But there is nothing in the law that grants that exception. And with Frosh as AG and sponsor of FSA2013, I'd be concerned.

Yes there is. There is an explanation of what a Copycat is.

My rifle is not a colt or an "immitation" of a colt, in the sense that the sight is different, different handguard, different barrel, etc.. If anything, it would be considered a "copycat" of a colt.

http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=114585
But the definition of copycat is:

A semiautomatic centerfire rifle will be a banned "copycat" if it meets any one of these three tests:
(1) Has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds; or
(2) has an overall length of less than 29 inches; or
(3) "can accept" a "detachable magazine" and actually has at least two of the following three attributes: (i) folding stock, (ii) grenade or flare launcher, or (iii) flash suppressor. ("Flash suppressor" is defined on page 11 of the bill. The Maryland State Police have clarified that a "collapsible stock" is not a "folding stock."


My rifle does not meet any one of those definitions and thus is not a copycat of a banned "assault long gun."

It is not banned by name, and it is not banned by being a copycat.. Thus it is not banned at all.. It is 29.5" so that meets that requirement.


All of this is a moot point, my lower was registered in 2012.. It is not even covered by this stupid law and is grandfathered in as legal even if it said Colt all over it.

 

[sleev-les]

This is what I went through. It was cleared up so why are they starting this excuse up again? The determination was it had to be over 29" OAL. I would keep on them and call Cpl Edwards at the MSP to ask is they retracted their interpretation.

 

[drfroglegs]

This is what I went through. It was cleared up so why are they starting this excuse up again? The determination was it had to be over 29" OAL. I would keep on them and call Cpl Edwards at the MSP to ask is they retracted their interpretation.

So does the ATF actually call the PD to verify that the specifications are correct to be legal?

Why would it benefit me to cal Cpl Edwards at the MSP? I would say he could call the ATF to clear it up, but they clearly have phone lines with no phones attached to them that they direct all their calls to...

 

[sleev-les]

So does the ATF actually call the PD to verify that the specifications are correct to be legal?

Why would it benefit me to cal Cpl Edwards at the MSP? I would say he could call the ATF to clear it up, but they clearly have phone lines with no phones attached to them that they direct all their calls to...

They wanted direction from MSP because they couldn't understand the law.

I went back and forth between the ATF and MSP for a while. I have a thread in here somewhere about it. Cpl Edwards can tell you if MSP has taken back their initial guidance to ATF and are saying something different. He is the point at MSP that many of us have dealt with. It was eventually cleared and the determination was its okay to form 1 with OAL of 29" or greater.

 

[Wayne1one]

Seems to be just happening with ARs/AR lower???

 

[OrbitalEllipses]

Seems to be just happening with ARs/AR lower???

I'll let you know when I submit a SCAR in a few months.

 

[MACTHEGUN]

All of this is a moot point, my lower was registered in 2012.. It is not even covered by this stupid law and is grandfathered in as legal even if it said Colt all over it.

I was under the impression that there is no grandfathering of pre 10/13 receivers. For a weapon to have been grandfathered, it would of had to have been approved by ATF (complete) prior to that magic date.


It's been my experience that our beef is not with MSP (they're, just trying to do their job while attempting to make sense of this crap) it's with the lawmakers for developing such (intentionaly?) convoluted legislation.


Maryland liberal legislative strategy:

The law shall be the law (or not) until it isn't (or is) anymore.

 

[drfroglegs]

I was under the impression that there is no grandfathering of pre 10/13 receivers. For a weapon to have been grandfathered, it would of had to have been approved by ATF (complete) prior to that magic date.


It's been my experience that our beef is not with MSP (they're, just trying to do their job while attempting to make sense of this crap) it's with the lawmakers for developing such (intentionaly?) convoluted legislation.


Maryland liberal legislative strategy:

The law shall be the law (or not) until it isn't (or is) anymore.

I'm not sure what you're stating.. the law clearly says on Page 14 Lines 9-6:

A PERSON WHO LAWFULLY POSSESSED OR PLACED A VERIFIABLE PURCHASE ORDER FOR, HAS A PURCHASE ORDER FOR, OR COMPLETED AN APPLICATION TO PURCHASE AN ASSAULT LONG GUN OR A COPYCAT WEAPON BEFORE OCTOBER 1, 2013, MAY:

(I) CONTINUE TO POSSESS AND TRANSPORT THE 15 ASSAULT LONG GUN OR COPYCAT WEAPON


I think they are suggesting that my rifle is not legal to own in MD as an SBR, but since the weapon has already been lawfully possessed by me before Oct 1 there is no reason to suggest it is not lawfully owned no matter the configuration.

It doesn't say it is legal to own as long as you don't change it to an SBR, it says if it is legally possessed before Oct1/13 it is legal to continue to possess it.

How could you read into it any more than that.. It is legally possessed by me forever, so the law should not apply to it? It shouldn't matter if I put a "foldable stock" on it (which would make it illegal under current law) or put a short barrel on it, it is still legal to possess it since I owned it before the law took effect..

 

[Wayne1one]

I'm not sure what you're stating.. the law clearly says on Page 14 Lines 9-6:

A PERSON WHO LAWFULLY POSSESSED OR PLACED A VERIFIABLE PURCHASE ORDER FOR, HAS A PURCHASE ORDER FOR, OR COMPLETED AN APPLICATION TO PURCHASE AN ASSAULT LONG GUN OR A COPYCAT WEAPON BEFORE OCTOBER 1, 2013, MAY:

(I) CONTINUE TO POSSESS AND TRANSPORT THE 15 ASSAULT LONG GUN OR COPYCAT WEAPON


I think they are suggesting that my rifle is not legal to own in MD as an SBR, but since the weapon has already been lawfully possessed by me before Oct 1 there is no reason to suggest it is not lawfully owned no matter the configuration.

It doesn't say it is legal to own as long as you don't change it to an SBR, it says if it is legally possessed before Oct1/13 it is legal to continue to possess it.

How could you read into it any more than that.. It is legally possessed by me forever, so the law should not apply to it? It shouldn't matter if I put a "foldable stock" on it (which would make it illegal under current law) or put a short barrel on it, it is still legal to possess it since I owned it before the law took effect..

The problem is you are "making" your firearm post 10/13. There was a ruling by MSP that it needs to be in your possession in said "assault rifle" configuration. As it relates to NFA items you needed to apply for your form 1 pre 10/13, otherwise it needs to be in compliance. There is a pretty long thread around here that covers this.

 

[drfroglegs]

The problem is you are "making" your firearm post 10/13. There was a ruling by MSP that it needs to be in your possession in said "assault rifle" configuration or as it relates to NFA items otherwise it needs to be in compliance. There is a pretty long thread around here that covers this.

Ok.. Then according to that thread as long as it is >29" it is covered under the law since it is not a "copycat" rifle.. Either way, mine should have been approved.

I have not received any other guidance for why it was disapproved other than "assault weapons are illegal in MD."

I emailed Cpl Edwards on the issue, but have not heard back from him. I have emailed Ted Clutter multiple times with no response and he will not answer the phone (of course).

It's like they just hope you go away...

 

[Wayne1one]

Ok.. Then according to that thread as long as it is >29" it is covered under the law since it is not a "copycat" rifle.. Either way, mine should have been approved.

I have not received any other guidance for why it was disapproved other than "assault weapons are illegal in MD."

I emailed Cpl Edwards on the issue, but have not heard back from him. I have emailed Ted Clutter multiple times with no response and he will not answer the phone (of course).

It's like they just hope you go away...

It should have been approved, something is up. You are the second person to be disapproved that was SBRing an AR type rifle. Both had the same examiner! Don't know if it's just him or if something recently changed.

 

[navyis2]

This is the letter Shawn Cook sent with my stamp when it was improved. I had included proof it was pre October, but he said that doesn't matter.