FSA2013 Compliant Rifles

[dibbleg]

So how do all these new restrictions relate to home builds?

 

[Markp]

So how do all these new restrictions relate to home builds?

Good question.

In general, you may not possess an assault weapon that you did not legally own before 1 Oct 2013 (homebuilt or otherwise).

There appear to be no other provisions in the law to restrict home built firearms that are NOT banned "assault weapons". So if you wanted to build a kalashnikov action rifle after October 1, 2013, you would immediately be in violation of the law due to illegal possession of an "assault weapon". However if you built an AK series rifle that was not semi-automatic (e.g. disabled the gas system and made it bolt actuated) that rifle would be legal.

You cannot build a semiautomatic centerfire rifle that is under 29" in overall length.
You cannot build a semiautomatic centerfire rifle that has more than one of the following features: Folding stock, Flash Suppressor, or Grenade/Flare launcher.
You cannot build a semiautomatic centerfire rifle that is specifically listed on the ban list or a copy/imitation of one.

The rules do not require marking the date of manufacture or require any serialization of the weapon.

Thats about it!

 

[TheYetti]

The Galil I know is specifically mentioned in some versions and that it's supposed to be an AK underneath but I wonder how much different the Galil and AK are from each other.

I have to say though my biggest annoyance with the list is the M1a; that SERIOUSLY needs to be removed. I haven't had the chance to own one but it's been on my list for years now.

 

[danb]

I am just getting into the M-14 style rifles.....so there are differences? I believe the current AG interprets a "copy," to mean that parts are interchangeable. Are they not completely interchangeable with the Springfield M1A?

One of the most popular type of rifles for competition, and they banned it...

I know that there are differences, but not having built one I do not know if the parts are fully interchangeable.

Does anyone know if the fulton armory semi-auto version of the m14 is fully interchangeable with the Springfield m1a?

 

[Marksman]

Good question.

In general, you may not possess an assault weapon that you did not legally own before 1 Oct 2013 (homebuilt or otherwise).

There appear to be no other provisions in the law to restrict home built firearms that are NOT banned "assault weapons". So if you wanted to build a kalashnikov action rifle after October 1, 2013, you would immediately be in violation of the law due to illegal possession of an "assault weapon". However if you built an AK series rifle that was not semi-automatic (e.g. disabled the gas system and made it bolt actuated) that rifle would be legal.

Am I correct in assuming that as long as you are in possession of a serialized reciever prior to October 1, you should be fine to build it as you wish?

There would be no way for the Fuhrer to prove that the firearm was built before or after. Unless they can prove using credit card transactions that the parts used to complete the firearm was purchased after the Night of Broken Glass (ie. October 1). Correct?

 

[Markp]

Am I correct in assuming that as long as you are in possession of a serialized reciever prior to October 1, you should be fine to build it as you wish?

There would be no way for the Fuhrer to prove that the firearm was built before or after. Unless they can prove using credit card transactions that the parts used to complete the firearm was purchased after the Night of Broken Glass (ie. October 1). Correct?

Yes and no.

Yes, as long as it is NOT an illegal assault weapon. As you note, it might be difficult to prove that you did something illegal, but that doesn't make it any less illegal.

No, for example, in this case.

For Example, Person has an unregulated Mini-14 in a fixed stock configuration in May of 2013. He purchases a folding stock on April 1, 2014. He figures he can just put the rifle he's owned for the past year into the new stock. Wrong. He has just created an illegal assault weapon and would be subject to the penalties prescribed in the law. He cannot build an illegal assault weapon and continue to possess it after 1 October 2013, UNLESS he already possessed it or a purchase order for it prior to that date.

IANAL, but this is my best guess at "common sense" interpretation of the law.

Mark

 

[erwos]

The Tavor fails the OAL test. Just sayin'.

IANAL, but this is my best guess at "common sense" interpretation of the law.

I agree with your interpretation. That said, realistically, the MSP is not going to be launching investigations to see if someone's pre-ban Mini-14 was ever put in a banned configuration before October. They're just going to see that it's pre-ban and move on with their lives.

FWIW, I still don't agree that anything but the factory folding stock model of the Mini-14 is banned. Retro-fitting an after-market stock isn't really making it into a "model". Caution is good, though.

 

[dwhaley]

Tavor with a pinned BE Meyers or AAC 51t, or any number of other muzzle devices would be legal post-ban.

Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk 2

 

[erwos]

Tavor with a pinned BE Meyers or AAC 51t, or any number of other muzzle devices would be legal post-ban.

How is your FFL going to get them in the state to pin them? What exemption are they going to use?

 

[trbon8r]

I know that there are differences, but not having built one I do not know if the parts are fully interchangeable.

Does anyone know if the fulton armory semi-auto version of the m14 is fully interchangeable with the Springfield m1a?

All USGI M14 parts are interchangeable with the Springfield M1A and the Fulton M14. The only difference between a true U.S. military M14 and a commercial copy such as the M1A or Fulton, is the lack of full auto capability.

As far as SB 281 goes, the Fulton M14 is essentially a fuctional copy of the Springfield M1A. I don't see how it could possibly escape the ban.

 

[dwhaley]

How is your FFL going to get them in the state to pin them? What exemption are they going to use?

I hear commercial flex space in Nowherenooncaresville, VA is fairly cheap...

Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk 2

 

[lonevoiceofreason]

What about the Bushmaster DCM-XR

Since it is both an HBAR and a Bushmaster semi auto rifle does that make it into some sort of banned/unbanned limbo? The Bushmaster DCM-XR is the Schrodinger's cat of the MD FSA 2013.

 

[NateIU10]

Since it is both an HBAR and a Bushmaster semi auto rifle does that make it into some sort of banned/unbanned limbo? The Bushmaster DCM-XR is the Schrodinger's cat of the MD FSA 2013.

That's not the banned bushmaster rifle.

 

[Mobile]

I saw a couple of Vz58 receivers on gunbroker just now.

Looks like it wouldn't to be too hard to mill on yourself either.

 

[Mudd-Kat]

Yes and no.

Yes, as long as it is NOT an illegal assault weapon. As you note, it might be difficult to prove that you did something illegal, but that doesn't make it any less illegal.

No, for example, in this case.

For Example, Person has an unregulated Mini-14 in a fixed stock configuration in May of 2013. He purchases a folding stock on April 1, 2014. He figures he can just put the rifle he's owned for the past year into the new stock. Wrong. He has just created an illegal assault weapon and would be subject to the penalties prescribed in the law. He cannot build an illegal assault weapon and continue to possess it after 1 October 2013, UNLESS he already possessed it or a purchase order for it prior to that date.

IANAL, but this is my best guess at "common sense" interpretation of the law.

Mark

so an ar lower that was purchased prior to oct 1 will already be registered and may get a grenade/flare launcher

 

[danb]

All USGI M14 parts are interchangeable with the Springfield M1A and the Fulton M14. The only difference between a true U.S. military M14 and a commercial copy such as the M1A or Fulton, is the lack of full auto capability.

As far as SB 281 goes, the Fulton M14 is essentially a fuctional copy of the Springfield M1A. I don't see how it could possibly escape the ban.

we need a "maryland compliant" version with screws moved.

 

[John Go]

The PTR32 is not a copy of -Heckler and Koch HK–91 A3, HK–93 A2, HK–94 A2 and A3

And should theoretically be able to be sold with the HK TELESCOPING stock.

 

[erwos]

I would agree that the PTR-32 is not an HK-91 clone. Of course, why you want a 10lb gun in 7.62x39 is anyone's guess?

 

[Vile Shadow]

As far as SB 281 goes, the Fulton M14 is essentially a fuctional copy of the Springfield M1A. I don't see how it could possibly escape the ban.

If the Fulton M14 isn't on the regulated list, then it shouldn't matter.

 

[erwos]

If the Fulton M14 isn't on the regulated list, then it shouldn't matter.

It's a copy of something on the regulated list, which is why it's banned.