SBR's in MD, ATF needs your help!

[awptickes]

Form 1: 22lr SBR on ar-15 receiver
Submitted: 1/22/15
Disapproved: 2/17/2015

Reason is: "MD STATE LAW, ASSAULT WEAPON - PROHIBITED, REFUND IN PROCESS... TEC"

OAL: 24.01"
Barrel Length: 6.75"

 

[fabsroman]

Form 1: 22lr SBR on ar-15 receiver
Submitted: 1/22/15
Disapproved: 2/17/2015

Reason is: "MD STATE LAW, ASSAULT WEAPON - PROHIBITED, REFUND IN PROCESS... TEC"

Oh my, I hope this is an anomaly. Was the rifle less than 29" OAL? I know that should not be an issue for a rimfire, but I am hoping that is the reason ATF mistakenly disapproved the Form 1 versus they are putting a hold on all SBRs once again.

 

[pwoolford]

I just had a 9mm form 1 AR approved on Friday so this was due to <29" I'd bet. Mine was >29".

 

[pwoolford]

Oh my, I hope this is an anomaly. Was the rifle less than 29" OAL? I know that should not be an issue for a rimfire, but I am hoping that is the reason ATF mistakenly disapproved the Form 1 versus they are putting a hold on all SBRs once again.

Did you submit your form 1(s) yet? Seems like a perfect snow day activity!!

 

[awptickes]

Oh my, I hope this is an anomaly. Was the rifle less than 29" OAL? I know that should not be an issue for a rimfire, but I am hoping that is the reason ATF mistakenly disapproved the Form 1 versus they are putting a hold on all SBRs once again.

Updated OP.

 

[fabsroman]

Updated OP.

Phew. At least we now know what the ATF's failed reasoning was. Just point out to ATF that the greater than 29" OAL limitation ONLY applies to centerfire rifles, NOT rimfire. Hopefully, this gets it done for you.

 

[Pinecone]

Form 1: 22lr SBR on ar-15 receiver
Submitted: 1/22/15
Disapproved: 2/17/2015

Reason is: "MD STATE LAW, ASSAULT WEAPON - PROHIBITED, REFUND IN PROCESS... TEC"

OAL: 24.01"
Barrel Length: 6.75"

As per your other thread and other posting, you used a STANAG lower, which means you are not limited to .22

You would have an NFA registered lower, that with an upper swap would be a centerfire.

I BET that is what Ted tells you.

 

[bigplayer2382]

So from what Im reading, it sounds like as long as you have a 29.5" OAL then your good to go and will get approved? is that 29.5" measured from tip of the barrel to the end of the buttstock extended?

I got a 10.5" 300blk upper that im dying to throw on, will that meet the 29.5" rule?

Also do you all use trusts or just apply for each one individually? If you use a trust, who do you go through for it, or how did you go about getting yours?

Thanks!!

 

[pwoolford]

So from what Im reading, it sounds like as long as you have a 29.5" OAL then your good to go and will get approved? is that 29.5" measured from tip of the barrel to the end of the buttstock extended?

Correct...>29" has been good to go for the past month or so. You measure from the end of the stock with the stock extended, to the end of the barrel or permanently attached muzzle device. If just a thread on muzzle device you must remove it to measure. Lots of threads on how to perm attach a muzzle device to make it legal.

I got a 10.5" 300blk upper that im dying to throw on, will that meet the 29.5" rule?

That should be fine unless you go with a very short stock.

Also do you all use trusts or just apply for each one individually? If you use a trust, who do you go through for it, or how did you go about getting yours?

Thanks!!

Yes online form 1's must use a trust right now. There is a ton of good material on this site about trusts so get some popcorn and search trusts.

 

[Captnstabn]

FWIW I put 29.1" and was approved.

 

[bobthefisher]

I'm not sure why people put 29.5 inches for OAL. The law specifically states less then 29 inches. Has anyone RECENTLY been disapproved for an SBR that was exactly 29 inches? Stop thinking the "just in case" scenario, the ATF either understands MD law or they don't and get it wrong. At this point they understand the 29 inch OAL minimum.

No need for 29.whatever inches.

 

[TyFromMD]

How about putting the actual length of your gun on your form 1 from the muzzle to the most extreme rear of the firearm on a line parallel to the bore with stock fully extended and muzzle devices either removed or permanently attached.

 

[pablo]

I'm not sure why people put 29.5 inches for OAL. The law specifically states less then 29 inches. Has anyone RECENTLY been disapproved for an SBR that was exactly 29 inches? Stop thinking the "just in case" scenario, the ATF either understands MD law or they don't and get it wrong. At this point they understand the 29 inch OAL minimum.

No need for 29.whatever inches.

I have a Form 1 (paper) on a trust pending for exactly 29 inches. I also listed the caliber at 7.62X39 vice 7.62mm. Will let y'all know.

 

[Pinecone]

Why poke the bear?

29.1" is easier.

 

[marine88]

Can anyone tell me if my Form 1 has to go through MSP as the CLEO, My local county sheriff says he will sign it as the CLEO but I am not sure if having him do it would be a waste of my time. I do not want to do a gun trust at this time.

 

[Pinecone]

No, you can have your local sheriff sign it.

 

[awptickes]

22lr SBR, oal 24.01"
Approved. See the other thread for more details.

I attached a letter stating my intent to build a Rimfire SBR to comply with MD law.

 

[SWO Daddy]

Can anyone tell me if my Form 1 has to go through MSP as the CLEO, My local county sheriff says he will sign it as the CLEO but I am not sure if having him do it would be a waste of my time. I do not want to do a gun trust at this time.

You're fine, be thankful you have a sheriff who will sign.

I've even heard a story once about someone who had their fire chief sign off on a Form 1/4 which was approved.

 

[Pinecone]

I've even heard a story once about someone who had their fire chief sign off on a Form 1/4 which was approved.

You could probably sign it yourself and get it approved. HOWEVER, look out if it ever comes up.

 

[RhinoActual]

Ok. So I have been watching this thread since it started and I don't comment often, but I have decided maybe I should share my own saga with BATFE and the MSP. I filed two individual form 1s (both SBRs less than 29") with the MSP in November of 2013 for CLEO signatures. I got them back in March of 2014 signed with no mention that length was an issue at all. I immediately sent them to the BATFE. They cashed my checks on April 12, 2014. Then the customary wait. I then received a correction letter on both of the forms I submitted ( One in mid December and the other just before Christmas.) neither correction letter mentioned any issues with the overall length of the rifles. They simply asked me to print the maker name, I signed my name by mistake, and caliber specified needed to be changed from multi (I know I should have known better. But it has been a few years since I have done a form 1.). Anyway I made the necessary changes and promptly returned them both. Then I find this thread and I become a little worried about the length issue. So I called BATFE to check on them about two weeks ago and was told they had received the corrections and that they are still pending.

Any way I am still in limbo. I may give them a ring in the morning. Should I ask if I can change the overall length just to get them done? I am not married to an overall length less than 29" anyway. Then again maybe I should let it ride just to see what happens. Maybe just change one? Any input would be great.