Probably Answered Question About SBR

[outrider58]

Anyone have a link to documentation or info for the Engage lawsuit?

Try asking the source. Engage.

 

[anderson76]

Anyone have a link to documentation or info for the Engage lawsuit?

On 10/24/14 Engage filed its petition in the Circuit Court for Kent County. See In Re Andrew S. Raymond, et al. Case No.: 14C14010162. You can track its process by on the MD Judiciary Case Search:

http://casesearch.courts.state.md.us/inquiry/inquiry-index.jsp

In a letter sent to the MSP dated 08/19/14 Engage articulates its argument that a “short-barreled rifle” is not really a “rifle” because it is “handgun.” In a letter sent to Engage, dated 09/24/14 MSP, responds with its conclusion that the inclusion of “short barreled rifle” in the definitions of handgun does “does not alter the fact that a “short-barreled” rifle is still a rifle.” They posted these documents of at Post # 167 here:

http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=158562&page=9

On 11/26/14 the MSP filed a Motion to dismiss Engage’s petition argue that it was improperly filed and filed. On 12/12/14 Engage filed its Opposition to MSP’s Motion to Dismiss. The posted up both filing in the above referenced Post # 167.

On 03/12/15 the Court heard arguments on MSP’s Motion to Dismiss. At the conclusion of the hearing the Court took the matter under advisement giving the parties 5 days to supplement their initial motion and opposition.

For some reason Engage never posted up their initial Petition.

 

[smokeybear]

Thanks for the breakdown!

 

[GasTerp09]

I sent in my paperwork for an SBR w OAL 29.5" in December on a trust. Receiver was purchased pre SB281, but I'm not sure if that's even relevant. Haven't heard anything yet.

 

[swinokur]

Date of purchase of the lower is irrelevant. It's the date of manufacture or transfer that NFA Branch looks at.

 

[GasTerp09]

Date of purchase of the lower is irrelevant. It's the date of manufacture or transfer that NFA Branch looks at.

I wasn't clear. The lower was transferred to me prior to SB 281.

 

[swinokur]

Still doesn't matter. If the SBR was not possessed before 10-1-13, it's subject to the Copycat provision of OAL > 29" or greater. The date of the transfer of the lower is not relevant to BATFE or MD.

IANAL

 

[GasTerp09]

Still doesn't matter. If the SBR was not possessed before 10-1-13, it's subject to the Copycat provision of OAL > 29" or greater. The date of the transfer of the lower is not relevant to BATFE or MD. IANAL

So if I possessed a lower receiver (non SBR) prior to 10/1/13 and want to build an SBR with OAL >29" with said receiver now, does the copycat provision prevent me from doing that?

 

[Pinecone]

I think you mean <29" and the answer is YES, the copy cat provision prevents you from doing so. BATFE will not approve your tax stamp. The "logic" is, the SBR is bein manufacturered NOW, so it is not grandfathered, as it did not exist prior to 10/1/13


At least for now. Engage has a law suit against the state over this.

 

[swinokur]

So if I possessed a lower receiver (non SBR) prior to 10/1/13 and want to build an SBR with OAL >29" with said receiver now, does the copycat provision prevent me from doing that?

As Pinecone noted, if your SBR is 29" or > you are legal.

 

[GasTerp09]

Good to know, thanks for the clarification. I'll settle in for the wait of undetermined length.