What makes an HBAR an HBAR?

[NateIU10]

If you uncrop the sentence just in front of that one, you'll see that the definition you posted applies to regulated firearms. As we've clearly established, the Colt AR-15 Sporter H-BAR is not a regulated firearm, and as such, that definition does not apply to it.

I disagree with your interpretation, and this portion in particular.

This section is the definition of "regulated firearms." It then states that the following list is a list of "assault weapons" that constitute regulated firearms. The law exempts "a firearm that is any of the following specific assault weapons or their copies, regardless of which company produced and manufactured that assault weapon" from the list of assault weapons to be considered regulated firearms.

The Colt HBAR AR15 is an "assault weapon" within the list, therefore the "copy" language applies to it also. The Colt HBAR is NOT a regulated firearm because it is exempted, but it IS an Assault weapon that they apply the copy test to for exemption purposes.

My three years of law school tell me that words are important, and that a judge would see it my way too.

 

[NateIU10]

Uncropped.
"(2) a firearm that is any of the following specific assault weapons or 15 their copies, regardless of which company produced and manufactured that assault 16 weapon:"

Here is what I see. When it says any of the following... the HBAR is in the following... its then just given an specific exemption from the list. However it still one of the follow and so the copies part of this law still applies to it. What the law says is that the HBAR is an assault weapon and it and its clones are except from the law restricting them.

Basically, in math terms we are having an order of operations question. You say that line removes it from the list so the copies part of the law does not apply. I say the copy part is included first (and written first) and so it and all its copies are excluded from the list.

I see your point and think its not correct. I think the spirit of the law agrees with what I am saying and so does MSP. There are no hard feelings here, we are just having a friendly conversation. You have made an interesting point that I think is wrong but do think I see where you are coming from.

That is also my read on it, you just typed faster than I

 

[IMBLITZVT]

I disagree with your interpretation, and this portion in particular.

This section is the definition of "regulated firearms." It then states that the following list is a list of "assault weapons" that constitute regulated firearms. The law exempts "a firearm that is any of the following specific assault weapons or their copies, regardless of which company produced and manufactured that assault weapon" from the list of assault weapons to be considered regulated firearms.

The Colt HBAR AR15 is an "assault weapon" within the list, therefore the "copy" language applies to it also. The Colt HBAR is NOT a regulated firearm because it is exempted, but it IS an Assault weapon that they apply the copy test to for exemption purposes.

My three years of law school tell me that words are important, and that a judge would see it my way too.

Yes, you nailed it and maybe wrote it better than I did...

Well you beat me the second time!

 

[bmelton]

Uncropped."(2) a firearm that is any of the following specific assault weapons or 15 their copies, regardless of which company produced and manufactured that assault 16 weapon:"

Gah! I meant line 13, specifically.. That'll teach me to argue a document without actually looking at the document. But line 13 is "13 [(p)] (R) “Regulated firearm” means" - my point, which you've already responded to is that a Colt Sporter HBAR is not regulated. Anyway.

Basically, in math terms we are having an order of operations question. You say that line removes it from the list so the copies part of the law does not apply. I say the copy part is included first (and written first) and so it and all its copies are excluded from the list.

If law were anything remotely like Math, that would be the best thing that ever happened. Regardless, the law is not anything like math, and is governed by what's called "strict constructionism", which means, basically, to read the law by the letter, without any other 'real world' facts or inferences intruding upon it. That's the criteria against which this will be read. Either way, I've put my note out there as cautionary, and that's done.

I see your point and think its not correct. I think the spirit of the law agrees with what I am saying and so does MSP. There are no hard feelings here, we are just having a friendly conversation. You have made an interesting point that I think is wrong but do think I see where you are coming from.

Fair enough, but it's also worth noting that even MSP's interpretation doesn't count for squat in a courtroom. A cop that doesn't enforce speeding unless it is more than 5 miles over does not make speeding "up to 4 miles over" any more legal.

Obviously, if we separate enforcement from legislation, it's a big deal that MSP won't enforce it, and that *very much matters*, but on the same token, if you are hunting, and stray outside of the hunting grounds, and are picked up on something altogether different while carrying a non-Colt HBAR, the way this law is written, there is nothing to stop the judge from nailing you on possession of an assault weapon.

 

[Markp]

This is all further complicated by MSP bulletin 96-1 which has not been superseded to my knowledge. Which specifically states that ANY sporter variant of ANY rifle is NOT REGULATED (e.g. ANY means "Does not meet the definition of assault weapon per 18 USC 921 (a) (30) and may be imported for sale in the US"). Dooh!

 

[ELEMENT94]

I disagree with your interpretation, and this portion in particular.

This section is the definition of "regulated firearms." It then states that the following list is a list of "assault weapons" that constitute regulated firearms. The law exempts "a firearm that is any of the following specific assault weapons or their copies, regardless of which company produced and manufactured that assault weapon" from the list of assault weapons to be considered regulated firearms.

The Colt HBAR AR15 is an "assault weapon" within the list, therefore the "copy" language applies to it also. The Colt HBAR is NOT a regulated firearm because it is exempted, but it IS an Assault weapon that they apply the copy test to for exemption purposes.

My three years of law school tell me that words are important, and that a judge would see it my way too.

Specifically, the Colt HBAR, is NOT in the list except to EXEMPT it from regulation. So technically your statement is wrong.

 

[IMBLITZVT]

Gah! I meant line 13, specifically.. That'll teach me to argue a document without actually looking at the document. But line 13 is "13 [(p)] (R) “Regulated firearm” means" - my point, which you've already responded to is that a Colt Sporter HBAR is not regulated. Anyway.

If law were anything remotely like Math, that would be the best thing that ever happened. Regardless, the law is not anything like math, and is governed by what's called "strict constructionism", which means, basically, to read the law by the letter, without any other 'real world' facts or inferences intruding upon it. That's the criteria against which this will be read. Either way, I've put my note out there as cautionary, and that's done.
....n.

You still have not explained what the first part of the law means if we are using what you are saying... How does the first part of mean then???

Frankly, I think its just very poorly worded law...

"(xvii) Dragunov Chinese made semi–auto;"

Like this one... Dragunov is Russian... the Chinese called it the Type 79 and Type 85. Also why does it list Chinese made here? What about a Russian or Romanian copy? They already had it covered in the first part of the law but for some reason wrote that... which makes no sense...

 

[ELEMENT94]

Anyone know when the regulated firearms list came into exstence??

 

[Markp]

Anyone know when the regulated firearms list came into exstence??

1996, see the above referenced MSP 96-1 bulletin.

It's not llike I didn't already do all the research back in 2008.

 

[bmelton]

Frankly, I think its just very poorly worded law...

Completely agreed.

They already had it covered in the first part of the law but for some reason wrote that... which makes no sense...

I'm still eager to see a test on that. Like was mentioned earlier, California has Harrott v County of Kings which sets the benchmark that the state of California cannot use language like "and all imitations" because it is too ambiguous, and members of the court don't have the requisite knowledge to know whether a Bushmaster AR15 is a copy of a Colt AR15, or something altogether different.

As such, at least in California, they have to have a very long list of every gun they specifically want to ban, and if a gun isn't on that list, and doesn't match the feature test, then it's legal.

If that happened here, we could all buy Bushmasters, or DPMS, Spikes, whatever-brand AR-15s we want, until and unless it made the list. Catching every copycat manufacturer and adding them to the list is a long, slow, tedious process, so that would at least loosen things up a smidge.

Of course, like I said, that decision never left the state of CA, and doesn't apply here until and unless we get it tested in court and end up with a similar decision. My only hope is that it doesn't happen to somebody by accident.

 

[MPDickerson101]

When my LaRue Tactical OBR 5.56 was transfered, I received it as an HBAR (cash and carry).

 

[ELEMENT94]

Completely agreed.



I'm still eager to see a test on that. Like was mentioned earlier, California has Harrott v County of Kings which sets the benchmark that the state of California cannot use language like "and all imitations" because it is too ambiguous, and members of the court don't have the requisite knowledge to know whether a Bushmaster AR15 is a copy of a Colt AR15, or something altogether different.

As such, at least in California, they have to have a very long list of every gun they specifically want to ban, and if a gun isn't on that list, and doesn't match the feature test, then it's legal.

If that happened here, we could all buy Bushmasters, or DPMS, Spikes, whatever-brand AR-15s we want, until and unless it made the list. Catching every copycat manufacturer and adding them to the list is a long, slow, tedious process, so that would at least loosen things up a smidge.

Of course, like I said, that decision never left the state of CA, and doesn't apply here until and unless we get it tested in court and end up with a similar decision. My only hope is that it doesn't happen to somebody by accident.

Its been 17 years and no test. It is a poorly written law and I think they know it. Politicians dont bitch about it, MSP doesnt care, and the public doesnt know. The best part now is they are using the list to partially decide what is banned.

 

[Kingjamez]

Specifically, the Colt HBAR, is NOT in the list except to EXEMPT it from regulation. So technically your statement is wrong.

To be frank, it doesn't matter how you interpret the law, the MSP interprets it exactly how the fellows you've been arguing against do, that is: Copies of the Colt AR-15 HBAR are not regulated. FFL's in MD have been selling HBAR's from multiple manufacturers for years and as far as I am aware nothing has ever come of it.

-Jim

 

[ELEMENT94]

To be frank, it doesn't matter how you interpret the law, the MSP interprets it exactly how the fellows you've been arguing against do, that is: Copies of the Colt AR-15 HBAR are not regulated. FFL's in MD have been selling HBAR's from multiple manufacturers for years and as far as I am aware nothing has ever come of it.

-Jim

Absolutelty MSP can do what it wants, we all know. However the written law indicates the current accepted definition is incorrect. Read this post:

Originally Posted by A1Uniform
This has actually been covered many times on the forums.

The list says Colt HBAR Sporter, but MSP provided guidance to dealers after that list was compiled that says that any AR that the dealer can articulate is a heavy barreled rifle can be sold cash and carry under the CURRENT law.

It does NOT have to be stamped HBAR, and its is not only the Colt Sproter HBAR.

This makes the dealer responsible for mistakes in this regard, which is why many dealers, and wisely so, lean to the side of caution and sell guns they are not positive about as regulated.

If a gun is not actually stamped HBAR, the only way to be sure, is to pull the hand guards and ensure that the barrel has a heavy contour for its full length.

Before you ask, I don't have this info handy in writing, but I have personally spoken to supervisory folks at the Licensing Division about this on more than one occasion, and am confident its is correct. Would I risk my licence otherwise?

There could easily be a time in the future when the interpretation changes. Then what happens to all those C&C AR's and their owners???? Problems like this should have been fixed in 1996, not still floating around now.

 

[bmelton]

There could easily be a time in the future when the interpretation changes. Then what happens to all those C&C AR's and their owners???? Problems like this should have been fixed in 1996, not still floating around now.

Even scarier than that, the MSP 'interpretation' can change whether or not legislators make any changes to the laws of Maryland, because the law, as written, supports both 'interpretations'.

Not at all unfathomable is a statement that brings their interpretation 'in line' with the tenor and intent of the new assault weapons ban.

 

[Hopalong]

Lots of good discussion going on here, but what we need is concrete guidance, not a bunch of Internet law discussion. (No offense to any participants, it's just not what we need.)

This is all further complicated by MSP bulletin 96-1 which has not been superseded to my knowledge. Which specifically states that ANY sporter variant of ANY rifle is NOT REGULATED (e.g. ANY means "Does not meet the definition of assault weapon per 18 USC 921 (a) (30) and may be imported for sale in the US"). Dooh!

This would be really, really good, solid guidance, except that the listed section (18 USC 921 (a) (30)) has been repealed and is no longer listed. Would this still be valid guidance in light of that section being repealed?

 

[OldLawman]

Let me suggest one way to look at this issue:

Up to now, and until Oct.1, an HBAR, be it Colt or other, transfers simply as a rifle, with a 4473 and NICS check done by the dealer right then and there. Cash and carry (not a phrase I like, but it will do). MSP does not have any additional (or any, for that matter) knowledge or additional information on that rifle. Likewise, if you wished to sell it to a MD resident, assuming you are wise enough to obtain identification (and maybe even check them out on Maryland Judicial case search - a handy tool), you may do so. It is between you and the buyer. No other paper involved.
A Colt 6721 is such a gun, and the barrel is marked "HBAR" on every one I have seen.

After Oct. 1 - all bets are off. Go find one now, if you can. It would be my personal choice. The only difference between it and a Colt 6920 is that the 6920 has the M4 profile barrel, a meaningless difference to me. I won't be mounting a grenade launcher, and as for the slight weight increase - go do a few more pushups if it bothers you.

Note: While I am an attorney, none of the foregoing is meant to be or constitutes legal advice. There is no attorney-client privilege at work here. Strictly my personal opinion.

 

[Maryland Hunter]

I was told that my S&W M&P Sport was an H-BAR, but it was sold to me as regulated. I see nothing on the rifle itself that states "H-BAR". I'm not sure if it is or not.

MH

 

[Markp]

Lots of good discussion going on here, but what we need is concrete guidance, not a bunch of Internet law discussion. (No offense to any participants, it's just not what we need.)



This would be really, really good, solid guidance, except that the listed section (18 USC 921 (a) (30)) has been repealed and is no longer listed. Would this still be valid guidance in light of that section being repealed?

Well considering that further guidence has not been issued to the best of my knowledge, I got this from an FFL back in the day, and I will admit that it is possible that it has been superceded, but theverbage was clear, if it did not meet the federal definition of assault weapon in 18 USC 921 (a) (30) and it could be legally imported and sold, it was GTG.

Now the question, and it's a good one, is that since the assault weapons ban of 1994 was eliminated, is that still relevant guidance? I would say yes and no. I would argue, that if the weapon can be imported in it's current "sporting" configuration, then it meets the definition of "sporter variant" as lawfully enforced by the Attorney General. Others might argue that the guidance stands as is, since the legislative intent of MD's law was to regulate "assault weapons", even if the federal definition vaporized, they still have their definition and the one they chose although not enshrined in the MD state code was based off the federal regulation. I would also argue that the legislature understood that the "assault weapons" ban was only a temporary measure and that we need only consider existing MD law and current federal law as it stands today. Meaning that if we import a weapon, it has met the definition of "sporting use" and thus is a "sporting arm" and not an "assault weapon" unless specifically identified in MD code.

As 18 USC 925 (d) (3) still specifically allows the AG to permit the firearms meeting the "sporting test".

18 USC 925 (d) (3) The Attorney General shall authorize a firearm or ammunition to be imported or brought into the United States or any possession thereof if the firearm or ammunition is of a type that does not fall within the definition of a firearm as defined in section 5845(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and is generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes, excluding surplus military firearms, except in any case where the Attorney General has not authorized the importation of the firearm pursuant to this paragraph, it shall be unlawful to import any frame, receiver, or barrel of such firearm which would be prohibited if assembled.


18 USC 921 (a) (30) The term `semiautomatic assault weapon' means--

`(A) any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the firearms in any caliber, known as--

`(i) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models);
`(ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil;
`(iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC-70);
`(iv) Colt AR-15;
`(v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC;
`(vi) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12;
`(vii) Steyr AUG;
`(viii) INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22; and
`(ix) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12;

`(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--

`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
`(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
`(iii) a bayonet mount;
`(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and
`(v) a grenade launcher;

`(C) a semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--

`(i) an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip;
`(ii) a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer;
`(iii) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned;
`(iv) a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; and
`(v) a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm; and

`(D) a semiautomatic shotgun that has at least 2 of--

`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
`(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
`(iii) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds; and
`(iv) an ability to accept a detachable magazine.'.

 

[iH8DemLibz]

Actually, the "original Colt AR-15" (A-1) had a smooth receiver. No forward bolt assist. I don't suppose all other AR-15's can be measured agaisnt the original design. The A-2 design (99.99% of what's out there) has a forward bolt assist and , in my opinion, is NOT a COPY or a CLONE of the original Colt AR-15 design due to it not having a forward bolt assist.

Just my two cents.