It has nothing to do with federal law. MD law defines rifles and SBRs separately, which is why there's slight concern that a motivated AG could claim that going from rifle to SBR is manufacturing a new, post-October weapon. There is the related concern that the "rifle" language in the bill may be applied (wrongly, IMHO) to SBRs. We need MSP or AG clarification on how they're proposing to handle them post-SB281.
I agree. It's all in how they want to interpret it. Including the handgun roster issue. It has not been an issue until now. With more scrutiny on "military style weapons", and SBR's generally fall into that category, a motivated AG could make our lives more miserable.