FSA2013 Compliant Rifles

[Vile Shadow]

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

Perhaps. But according to Deanjohnson's synopsis, copies are determined by official past or future determination. Where was the past determination that the Fulton M14 is a copy of the M1A?

 

[Markp]

Perhaps. But according to Deanjohnson's synopsis, copies are determined by official past or future determination. Where was the past determination that the Fulton M14 is a copy of the M1A?

I am as much as anyone to argue that something is not banned, but even in this case, I have to stand on the side of those that would claim it's banned. It's clear if you look at all the M1A variants that they banned by name, that they intended to get all the possible variants and copies. This would be one of them that is so compatible as to fail the sniff test every time.

Do as you want, but even my Polytech M14s did not escape this level of scrutiny and it's not 100% compatible with all the GI parts, where as I am pretty sure the Fulton Armory one is. You're gonna be stuck on this UNLESS you get tricky...

The CMP still has the RM1K2MOD1BR .308 barreled receiver Garands when combined with a BM59 kit from SARCO will give you an under the radar regulated firearm, but requires significant gunsmithing to accomplish. This is not for the faint of heart and NOT a trivial modification. It does however get you the equivalent of a regulated firearm with no paperwork.

You might also just build a .308 M1 Garand and call it a day.

Mark

 

[Vile Shadow]

I am as much as anyone to argue that something is not banned, but even in this case, I have to stand on the side of those that would claim it's banned. It's clear if you look at all the M1A variants that they banned by name, that they intended to get all the possible variants and copies. This would be one of them that is so compatible as to fail the sniff test every time.

But "intent" of a law and letter of a law are 2 entirely different animals. If "intent" of a law were to be called into question than they should have written it better.

Since the law allows for "future interpretation" however it can be changed on a whim anyway, depending on what side of the bed the Attorney General woke up on.

 

[erwos]

But "intent" of a law and letter of a law are 2 entirely different animals. If "intent" of a law were to be called into question than they should have written it better.

Probably. But the simple fact remains that the MSP and AG get to interpret, and this is not an area they have found unclear in the past. Same parts, same receiver, same caliber, same mags = copy. And, to be honest, that's the only reasonable interpretation of the law.

 

[Vile Shadow]

The most galling thing to me though is the thought of the bastards crying foul after the fact after someone comes up with a suitable solution. But I reckon that was addressed with "future interpretation".

 

[erwos]

The most galling thing to me though is the thought of the bastards crying foul after the fact after someone comes up with a suitable solution. But I reckon that was addressed with "future interpretation".

This is why we need formal AG opinions requested by delegates. That prevents future AGs from changing their mind. And given that Frosh is in the running for the next AG, I think we need to be careful...

 

[Bolts Rock]

An interesting idea:
If the M1 Garand is exempt I'd say an M1 Garand with a detachable 10 shot BAR mag COULD be considered legal. I remember some time ago hearing about an M1 Garand that was built and being sent to China during WW2 that had a 10 shot magazine (can't remember if it was detachable or not). They made and shipped numerous rifles and included the tooling to make more of those guns but I think the boat sank en route and only a single example exists in a museum.

That's basically the Beretta BM-59 modification.

 

[Bolts Rock]

Thanks. Edited to remove pistol grip statements.



Does that include Nation Match rifles?

Yes, even with the USGI weldment done it is still considered by ATF to be Class III.

 

[Bolts Rock]

Yes, I realize it was on the original "regulated" list. I suppose my question is how did it end up on the list in the first place? In most configurations (pre-pimp) it's a 9.5 + lb battle rifle with a wood stock... and yet the HBAR was exempted...

Because one scared Sarah Brady so bad she wet herself and it didn't apologize through good lobbyists like Colt did with the HBAR.

 

[Markp]

Because one scared Sarah Brady so bad she wet herself and it didn't apologize through good lobbyists like Colt did with the HBAR.

Yep, You gotta love the logic.

M1A in .308 = Evil and Banned
FN-49 in .308 = Happiness, Rainbows, and Lollipops

Tell me, why? Both have detachable mags, both are capable of firing the same round, both have bayonet mounts, both are battle rifles from the same era!

I'm just glad I purchased a few .308 FN49's for my collection.

 

[strider07]

I thought the SKS was exempt as long as it had the factory magazine on it?

 

[cfogle311]

will rifles with maglocks be exempt from this new law similar in cali?

 

[squirrels]

FN SCAR has a folding stock and a flash-hider/muzzle brake...that makes it a "copycat".

I supposed if you epoxied or otherwise perma-fixed the stock hingeplate so it didn't fold, it'd technically be legal. But the stock also telescopes. I'm not sure how the AG and MSP will look at telescoping/collapsible stocks...whether they will try to classify them as "folding".

 

[erwos]

FN SCAR has a folding stock and a flash-hider/muzzle brake...that makes it a "copycat".

And it's not even a flash hider according to the BATFE... but since FN advertises it as such, MD considers it one. Doh.

I supposed if you epoxied or otherwise perma-fixed the stock hingeplate so it didn't fold, it'd technically be legal. But the stock also telescopes. I'm not sure how the AG and MSP will look at telescoping/collapsible stocks...whether they will try to classify them as "folding".

It would take a lot of chutzpah to interpret "folding" to include collapsible stocks after the collapsible language was amended out. Not on my list of worries, and I have a LOT of worries.

 

[janklow]

I'm not sure how the AG and MSP will look at telescoping/collapsible stocks...whether they will try to classify them as "folding".

these were explicitly removed from the list of assault features, so it might be hard for them to argue they qualify as folding

EDIT: BEATEN, argh

 

[awptickes]

Here's a fill-able form. Adapted from MarkP's file.

If you use a trusted digital signature, in theory you don't need a notary.

(Glad to help out a fellow guild member.)

 

[erwos]

FFLs can't receive banned firearms after October 1, even if you have a purchase order. There is no exemption for that.

 

[IMBLITZVT]

FFLs can't receive banned firearms after October 1, even if you have a purchase order. There is no exemption for that.

They are not receiving it, they are transferring it. Otherwise how would anyone actually get a gun they have a purchase order for... come on man...

Oh and don't forget the semi FG42!

http://smgguns.com/?page_id=99

 

[erwos]

They are not receiving it, they are transferring it. Otherwise how would anyone actually get a gun they have a purchase order for... come on man...

You are missing my point. The text of the exemption for FFLs is not ambiguous - the exemption for transferring is only on guns in their possession pre-October. The purchase order thing is only for lay-aways. The purchase order form that was proposed a couple posts up is useless in that context.

 

[esqappellate]

You are missing my point. The text of the exemption for FFLs is not ambiguous - the exemption for transferring is only on guns in their possession pre-October. The purchase order thing is only for lay-aways. The purchase order form that was proposed a couple posts up is useless in that context.

I agree.