Probably Answered Question About SBR

[CrawfishStu]

The 29" is a hard limit. You can't buy a C&C Tavor and make it a "SBR". Why? It will be < 29". They didn't carve out an exemption for SBR's. Of course, MD considers a SBR a pistol, until it suits their needs to call it a rifle. Doesn't Engage have a lawsuit regarding this issue?

This.
They turned down the stamp on my CX4 for under 29".

 

[j_h_smith]

Okay, I see what all of you are saying. Thanks for the education.

 

[oldman12]

I really am going to do what ever I can to get the f*ck out of this state.Absolutely ridiculous.

 

[anderson76]

Deleted

 

[anderson76]

Once it is < 29" it becomes illegal as a "copycat". Even though it is neither a "copy" nor a "cat". All semi-automatic centerfire rifles < 29" are banned. Just look at the Tavor. It is C&C, yet you have to permanently attach a muzzle device to get it over 29" to sell it in MD.

Engages suite tackles this issue head-on, unfortunately. I don't think that people realize just how 2A friendly MSP's position on sbrs not being algs is.

 

[teratos]

Engages suite tackles this issue head-on, unfortunately. I don't think that people realize just how 2A friendly MSP's position on sbrs not being algs is.

They do consider a SBR an ALG when it comes to the 29" limit. Otherwise, SBR's wouldn't be limited to 29"....

 

[swinokur]

I think a copy cat is considered an Assault Weapon, not an ALG. Not a big deal since both are banned.

Nit picky I know

 

[anderson76]

They do consider a SBR an ALG when it comes to the 29" limit. Otherwise, SBR's wouldn't be limited to 29"....

Negative. Swinokur has is correct. The Code bans Assault Weapons. ALGs and Copycat Weapons are sub-species of Assault Weapons. Consequently both are banned. By definition, ALGs cannot be Copycat Weapons.

A skinny barreled 16” AR is an Assault Weapon because it is considered to be a copy of a Colt AR15. The ban on Assault Weapons is contained in the Criminal Law Article, Title 4, Subtitle 3. According to the MSP, if you SBR the above referenced AR, then that AR ceases to be an ALG because it now falls within the definition of the term “Handgun” as that term is used elsewhere in the Code (at least that is how I think they arrived at their current interpretation). Since the SBR is no longer an ALG, it is not a banned AW provided it does not have the characteristics of a Copycat Weapon (like having an OAL of < 29”). Engages takes this line of reasoning one step further. It argues that since the SBR falls within the definition of the term “Handgun” as used elsewhere in the code, it cannot be an ALG or a Copycat weapon.

The problem with MSP’s interpretation, and to an even greater extent Engage’s interpretation, is that is requires the reader to disregard the ordinary meaning of the terms used in the statute. If Engage’s suit reaches the merits, both sides (assuming MSP stick with their current position) will essentially be asking the Court to rewrite certain portions of the Code. Stated differently, they will be asking the Court to disregard the cardinal rule of statutory interpretation.

My fear is that the Court will reject both arguments and come to the following conclusion: For the Purposes of Criminal Law Article, Title 4, Subtitle 3, an SBR can be both ALG and Copycat Weapon, just not at the same time. In which case, we may see the end of the SBR exemption / loophole.

 

[swinokur]

How will the court ignore the definition of an SBR or SBS being a handgun as well?

 

[erwos]

I disagree, Anderson. How is it outside of the MSP's authority to determine what a copy of an ALG is? I don't see how the court suddenly decides that the state (MSP) no longer gets to determine what's a copy or not. Who would do it otherwise? Right now, we actually have it pretty good - the MSP is saying that SBRs/SBSs aren't ALGs. The courts didn't force them to do that.

I don't see your worst case scenario being a possible outcome.

SBRs and SBSs were specifically removed from the legislation that created the original ALG list at the MSP's behest. Someone needs to do some digging in the legislative archives and find some evidence, but I know I saw it online once upon a time. (Wish I had saved it!!!) The court does consider legislative intent when interpreting laws... and thankfully, it appears the MSP does, too.

 

[fabsroman]

Engages suite tackles this issue head-on, unfortunately. I don't think that people realize just how 2A friendly MSP's position on sbrs not being algs is.

Oh, I understand it, and that is why my SBR is going to have a .750" diameter barrel and be an HBAR. Might have to have a barrel custom made and cut for the gun, or at least a 16" HBAR cut down to 10.5". Will have to see what I can find barrel wise after I get my tax stamp.

 

[dontpanic]

Oh, I understand it, and that is why my SBR is going to have a .750" diameter barrel and be an HBAR. Might have to have a barrel custom made and cut for the gun, or at least a 16" HBAR cut down to 10.5". Will have to see what I can find barrel wise after I get my tax stamp.

There are plenty of HBAR barrels to choose from <16".

 

[anderson76]

How will the court ignore the definition of an SBR or SBS being a handgun as well?

This is what Engage argues. Engage (when is refer to Engage I am referring to the argument advanced by their counsel) essentially argues the following: That an SBR is not a “Copycat weapon” as that term is defined and used in Title 4, Subtitle 3 of the Criminal Law Article (code sections CR 4-301 through 4-306) because SBRs fall within the definition of the term “Handgun” as that term is defined in other portions of the Code. This argument is pure crap, IMO. I am in no way taking a jab at Engage’s counsel – Its just that, when you are trying to make chicken salad out of chicken shit, you sometimes end up with tossed chicken shit.

Let me advance the counter argument. For the purposes of this discussion, please note that when I use the term SBR I am referring to a hypothetical should-fired, center-fired, firearm, with a barrel length of less than 16” with an OAL under 29”. I am not referencing specific terms in the code (defined or not defined). When I refer to a defined term in the Code, it will be capitalized and in quotations – “Rifle”. When I refer to an undefined term in the Code, it will in quotations but not capitalized – “rifle”.

Lets begin by understanding how the MD Code sections are organized. You can view it here: http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/mdcode/. The Code is broken down as follows: Article, Title, Subtitle, and Section. The firearms related provisions are contained in the Criminal Law and Public Safety Articles. Go to the above link and click and expand the Criminal Law or Public Safety articles and you will see this organizational structure.

Each Subtitle is like a self-contained ecosystem with respect to criminal liability for firearms related matters. Here is what I mean by this: The heading of the Subtitle gives you a general idea of what are the restrictions contained thereunder as they pertain to firearms. The 1st numbered Section under the Subtitle is generally a definitions section containing definitions applicable to that particular Subtitle. The 1st paragraph generally reads as follows: “(a) In general. -- In this subtitle the following words have the meanings indicated.” There may be other defined terms contained in subsequent Sections of the Subtitle but the each defined term is always introduced with langue telling you exactly what portion of the Code the defined term applies to. For example, there may be language to the effect of, “within this section” or “within this paragraph” the term “firearm” shall mean blah blah blah.

The point I want to make is that when the Legislature defines a term such as “handgun” “rifle” “copycat weapon” it also tells you exactly what portion of the Code that definition applies to. Just because that term “handgun” has a particular meaning within Subtitle 1 it does not mean it has the same meaning in Subtitle 2. After the definitions section, you will find various provisions imposing prohibitions on certain actions and then imposing penalties for violating those prohibitions. This is what I mean by a self contained ecosystem. The Subtitles tells you what certain words mean within itself. Then it tells you what you can’t do. Then it tells you will happen to you if you did what is told you not to do.

The ban on “Copycat weapons” is contained in the Criminal Law Article, Title 4, Subtitle 3 (Its actually “Assault weapons” that are directly banned by Subtitle 3, but “Copycat weapons” along with “Assault long guns” fall within the definition of “Assault weapons”). Within the Criminal Law Article, Title 4, Subtitle 3, §4-301 contains the defined terms applicable to the subtitle, §4-303 contains the ban on “copycat weapons”, and §3-306 tells you how screwed you will be if you violated the provisions of the subtitle. This is what I mean by a self-contained ecosystem.

Now lets have a look at how the term “Copycat weapon” is defined in Subtitle 3 and whether our hypothetical SBR with an OAL of less than 29” falls within that definition. The definitions section for Subtitle 3 is contained in § 4-301. In pertinent part § 4-301 provides:

(1) "Copycat weapon" means:
. . .
(iii) a semiautomatic centerfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 29 inches;
. . .

The terms “semiautomatic”, “centerfire”, and “rifle” are no defined terms within Subtitle 3. Accordingly, I will use their ordinary meaning for the purposes of construing this provision. This definition appears to be pretty straight forward and unambiguous. Let me break it down even further:

(1) Is that SBR semiautomatic?
(2) Is that SBR centefired?
(3) Is that SBR a rifle?
(4) Does that SBR have an overall length of less than 29 inches?

Answer those 4 simple questions in the affirmative and yes – you have a “Copycat weapon” as that term is used within Subtitle 3. To me, this seems pretty straight forward. If I have and SBR with and OAL of less than 29” then yes – I do have a “copycat weapon”.

Engage argues that question #3 should be answered in the negative. They argue that an SBR is not a within the ordinary understanding meaning of the world “rifle”. By going to court, Engage is effectively asking a judge to change the language of the language of the Codes from:

(iii) a semiautomatic centerfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 29 inches;

To this:

(iii) a semiautomatic centerfire rifle, with a barrel length of at least 16 inches, that has an overall length of less than 29 inches;

The problem with this is that it runs counter to the cardinal rule of statutory interpretation:

The cardinal rule of statutory interpretation is to ascertain and effectuate the intent of the Legislature. Statutory construction begins with the plain language of the statute, and ordinary, popular understanding of the English language dictates interpretation of its terminology. In construing the plain language, a court may neither add nor delete language so as to reflect an intent not evidenced in the plain and unambiguous language of the statute; nor may it construe the statute with forced or subtle interpretations that limit or extend its application. Statutory text should be read so that no word, clause, sentence or phrase is rendered superfluous or nugatory. The plain language of a provision is not interpreted in isolation.   Rather, we analyze the statutory scheme as a whole and attempt to harmonize provisions dealing with the same subject so that each may be given effect. If statutory language is unambiguous when construed according to its ordinary and everyday meaning, then we give effect to the statute as it is written. If there is no ambiguity in that language, either inherently or by reference to other relevant laws or circumstances, the inquiry as to legislative intent ends;  we do not need to resort to the various, and sometimes inconsistent, external rules of construction, for the Legislature is presumed to have meant what it said and said what it meant. In some cases, the statutory text reveals ambiguity, and then the job of this Court is to resolve that ambiguity in light of the legislative intent, using all the resources and tools of statutory construction at our disposal. However, before judges may look to other sources for interpretation, first there must exist an ambiguity within the statute, i.e., two or more reasonable alternative interpretations of the statute. Where the statutory language is free from such ambiguity, courts will neither look beyond the words of the statute itself to determine legislative intent nor add to or delete words from the statute. Only when faced with ambiguity will courts consider both the literal or usual meaning of the words as well as their meaning in light of the objectives and purposes of the enactment.   As our predecessors noted, We cannot assume authority to read into the Act what the Legislature apparently deliberately left out. Judicial construction should only be resorted to when an ambiguity exists. Therefore, the strongly preferred norm of statutory interpretation is to effectuate the plain language of the statutory text.

Chow v. State, 939 Md. 431 (2006).

A court will not narrow the ordinary meaning of the term “rifle” unless there is ambiguity in that statutory provision or in the overall statutory scheme. Does anyone see any ambiguity in the way the term “Copycat weapon” is defined in Subtitle 3? Will an ambiguity arise in the overall stator scheme if the term “rifle” is afforded its ordinary meaning? The answer is no. Engage completely side-steps this issue.

 

[anderson76]

I disagree, Anderson. How is it outside of the MSP's authority to determine what a copy of an ALG is? I don't see how the court suddenly decides that the state (MSP) no longer gets to determine what's a copy or not. Who would do it otherwise? Right now, we actually have it pretty good - the MSP is saying that SBRs/SBSs aren't ALGs. The courts didn't force them to do that.

I don't see your worst case scenario being a possible outcome.

SBRs and SBSs were specifically removed from the legislation that created the original ALG list at the MSP's behest. Someone needs to do some digging in the legislative archives and find some evidence, but I know I saw it online once upon a time. (Wish I had saved it!!!) The court does consider legislative intent when interpreting laws... and thankfully, it appears the MSP does, too.

At the very least, we are in partial agreement. We may be in total agreement.

A skinny barreled AR with a barrel length > 16” is banded as an ALG because it is a copy of a Colt AR15. However, when you chop an inch from that barrel, that same AR with a barrel length < 16” is no longer banned as an ALG because the MSP no longer considers it to be a copy of a Colt AR15. How the MSP arrives at this determination of critical importance. I see 2 scenarios:

1. MSP has examined the aesthetics, design, operation, and components of the SBR AR and concluded on that basis it is not a copy of a Colt AR15. In this case the MSP has made a factual determination.

2. MSP looks at the Code and concludes that under the Code no SBR can be an ALG as a matter of law. In this case, the MSP has made a determination as to what the law says.

If Scenario #1 is correct, then the impact of Engage’s suit is likely inconsequential. The MSP is the State’s subject matter aspect with respect to firearms. If they are of the opinion that the physical characteristics of an SBR AR preclude it from being a Copy of a Colt AR15 – then who is really going to question them?

However, if Scenario #2 if correct, then I can envision how things can go bad. It is for the Courts to determine what the law says. Even if Engage’s suit resulted in no judgment, persuasive opinion, or binding precedent – it may cause the MSP to take a 2nd look at things and amended its interpretation of the code.

For the reasons set forth in the prior post I don’t think that the legislative history of any consequence. Chow instructs us that: “If there is no ambiguity in that language, either inherently or by reference to other relevant laws or circumstances, the inquiry as to legislative intent ends;  we do not need to resort to the various, and sometimes inconsistent, external rules of construction, for the Legislature is presumed to have meant what it said and said what it meant."

 

[fabsroman]

At the very least, we are in partial agreement. We may be in total agreement.

A skinny barreled AR with a barrel length > 16” is banded as an ALG because it is a copy of a Colt AR15. However, when you chop an inch from that barrel, that same AR with a barrel length < 16” is no longer banned as an ALG because the MSP no longer considers it to be a copy of a Colt AR15. How the MSP arrives at this determination of critical importance. I see 2 scenarios:

1. MSP has examined the aesthetics, design, operation, and components of the SBR AR and concluded on that basis it is not a copy of a Colt AR15. In this case the MSP has made a factual determination.

2. MSP looks at the Code and concludes that under the Code no SBR can be an ALG as a matter of law. In this case, the MSP has made a determination as to what the law says.

If Scenario #1 is correct, then the impact of Engage’s suit is likely inconsequential. The MSP is the State’s subject matter aspect with respect to firearms. If they are of the opinion that the physical characteristics of an SBR AR preclude it from being a Copy of a Colt AR15 – then who is really going to question them?

However, if Scenario #2 if correct, then I can envision how things can go bad. It is for the Courts to determine what the law says. Even if Engage’s suit resulted in no judgment, persuasive opinion, or binding precedent – it may cause the MSP to take a 2nd look at things and amended its interpretation of the code.

For the reasons set forth in the prior post I don’t think that the legislative history of any consequence. Chow instructs us that: “If there is no ambiguity in that language, either inherently or by reference to other relevant laws or circumstances, the inquiry as to legislative intent ends;  we do not need to resort to the various, and sometimes inconsistent, external rules of construction, for the Legislature is presumed to have meant what it said and said what it meant."

Yep, and hopefully having a heavy barrel (i.e., greater than or equal to .750 diameter) and a tax stamp from the ATF will insulate me from any criminal prosecution should it be determined that an SBR under the Public Safety section is still a banned ALG unless it is an HBAR. However, if MSP does not see a HBAR SBR as a copy of the Colt AR Sporter HBAR and #2 applies, JESUS!!!!!!!!!!

 

[teratos]

Negative. Swinokur has is correct. The Code bans Assault Weapons. ALGs and Copycat Weapons are sub-species of Assault Weapons. Consequently both are banned. By definition, ALGs cannot be Copycat Weapons. A skinny barreled 16” AR is an Assault Weapon because it is considered to be a copy of a Colt AR15. The ban on Assault Weapons is contained in the Criminal Law Article, Title 4, Subtitle 3. According to the MSP, if you SBR the above referenced AR, then that AR ceases to be an ALG because it now falls within the definition of the term “Handgun” as that term is used elsewhere in the Code (at least that is how I think they arrived at their current interpretation). Since the SBR is no longer an ALG, it is not a banned AW provided it does not have the characteristics of a Copycat Weapon (like having an OAL of < 29”). Engages takes this line of reasoning one step further. It argues that since the SBR falls within the definition of the term “Handgun” as used elsewhere in the code, it cannot be an ALG or a Copycat weapon. The problem with MSP’s interpretation, and to an even greater extent Engage’s interpretation, is that is requires the reader to disregard the ordinary meaning of the terms used in the statute. If Engage’s suit reaches the merits, both sides (assuming MSP stick with their current position) will essentially be asking the Court to rewrite certain portions of the Code. Stated differently, they will be asking the Court to disregard the cardinal rule of statutory interpretation. My fear is that the Court will reject both arguments and come to the following conclusion: For the Purposes of Criminal Law Article, Title 4, Subtitle 3, an SBR can be both ALG and Copycat Weapon, just not at the same time. In which case, we may see the end of the SBR exemption / loophole.

I was talking about how they are actually interpreting it, not how you believe it should be interpreted.

 

[bobthefisher]

The Engage lawsuit is also arguing that "short-barrel rifle" and "rifle" are mutually exclusive terms. These terms, in which judges like to cite the government regulatory authority, that being the ATF, have defined these firearms as two separate firearm titles. Now, MD has defined specifically in one subtitle what construes an SBR (CR §4-201), but in the very next subtitle (CR §4-301) of the same article, lumps SBR's into the "rifle" defintion. I understand they can do that, being that it's a different subtitle, but within that subtitle they use the common language definition of "rifle" which can be disingenuous, as the common language definition defined by the ATF is different for "rifles" and "short-barrel rifles". If the statute had incorporated SBR's, by citing the definition from the previous subtitle, then we wouldn't have a leg to stand on, but they didn't, so it's up to a judge to figure things out based on common language of the "Copycat weapon" clause. I'm obviously cheering for Engage, but like I've said before, it's going to be an interesting write-up either way when a judge makes a final ruling, as the law is written that poorly.

 

[1King]

I really am going to do what ever I can to get the f*ck out of this state.Absolutely ridiculous.

+1

 

[outrider58]

I really am going to do what ever I can to get the f*ck out of this state.Absolutely ridiculous.

+2

 

[smokeybear]

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