No more SBRs

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Butcher

    Active Member
    May 3, 2005
    356
    Owings Mills
    Fresh from the FFL dealer orientation class that MSP hosted today regarding the new law SB281: if you don't have your Form 4 or Form 1 in for your SBR by October 1st, you're SOL. MSP is telling FFLs that buyers must have completed purchase orders and submitted their papers for CLEO approval prior to the ban date. Their logic/interpretation of the law: SBRs are under the minimum required length of the new restrictions (OAL of 29" and under are prohibited). The SBR cannot merely be in dealer inventory. It must be sold to a customer.

    Straight from my coworker/FFL who attended the class today.

    I *know* the written law says "rifles" and SBRs aren't rifles, but this is what the FFLs are being told by MSP. Don't bite my head off please.

    Here's to hoping they realized they misread the law. Also how's that injunction coming along?!
     

    peace

    Ultimate Member
    Dec 15, 2011
    1,043
    AACo
    Fresh from the FFL dealer orientation class that MSP hosted today regarding the new law SB281: if you don't have your Form 4 or Form 1 in for your SBR by October 1st, you're SOL. MSP is telling FFLs that buyers must have completed purchase orders and submitted their papers for CLEO approval prior to the ban date. Their logic/interpretation of the law: SBRs are under the minimum required length of the new restrictions (OAL of 29" and under are prohibited). The SBR cannot merely be in dealer inventory. It must be sold to a customer.

    Straight from my coworker/FFL who attended the class today.

    I *know* the written law says "rifles" and SBRs aren't rifles, but this is what the FFLs are being told by MSP. Don't bite my head off please.

    Here's to hoping they realized they misread the law. Also how's that injunction coming along?!


    Wheres Flipz? You got your foot in your mouth yet?
     

    Butcher

    Active Member
    May 3, 2005
    356
    Owings Mills
    Also I should add that they said an SBR is considered a "copycat weapon" and is thusly banned. Forget about the OAL logic.

    Also: the Chief of the Baltimore Field Office for ATF was present in the class
     

    tc617

    USN Sub Vet
    Jan 12, 2012
    2,287
    Yuma, Arizona
    Also I should add that they said an SBR is considered a "copycat weapon" and is thusly banned. Forget about the OAL logic.
    Also: the Chief of the Baltimore Field Office for ATF was present in the class

    Yeah, let's just forget about logically applying the law as it was written. :sad20:
     

    TxAggie

    Ultimate Member
    Feb 25, 2012
    4,734
    Anne Arundel County, MD
    Before we all go off half-cocked:

    Wasn't there a report a couple of weeks ago that said the MSP was planning to actively LIE about the law in education classes to FFL's? It will be the AG that would have to prosecute, the MSP simply makes the arrests.

    I'm leaning more in the AG's opinion than MSP at this point.
     

    ShallNotInfringe

    Lil Firecracker
    Feb 17, 2013
    8,554
    Why can't they write this stuff down somewhere???

    Hey, I have an idea. How about if they put it in something called a COMAR and let people read it and comment/provide input based on the law. Then they can follow their own stinking laws.

    This is just so wrong!
     

    IMBLITZVT

    Ultimate Member
    Apr 20, 2009
    3,799
    Catonsville, MD
    Who knows. This is Maryland, anything is possible. Who'd have thought you could tax the rain??

    Haha... point taken. However how many times are we going to have someone post something different and we are all ready to regard it as written in stone. I am not suggesting the OP is lying but we have heard both sides several times now. It seemed pretty clear that SBRs were not covered. The logic stated above does not seem to make sense. I tend to think this is not the case...
     

    Inigoes

    Head'n for the hills
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 21, 2008
    49,365
    SoMD / West PA
    It definitely sounds like a clustered-duck up at the MSP Headquarters. They seem to not understand SB281 either.
     

    aireyc

    Ultimate Member
    Jan 14, 2013
    1,166
    SBRs aren't banned by name, so just buy an SBR with the stock removed and it becomes a "weapon made from a rifle." It's basically a pistol that's subject to NFA. Problem solved.
     

    pbharvey

    Habitual Testifier
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 27, 2012
    30,158
    Also I should add that they said an SBR is considered a "copycat weapon" and is thusly banned. Forget about the OAL logic.

    Also: the Chief of the Baltimore Field Office for ATF was present in the class

    There are SBRs that aren't really copy cats.

    A Sig 556 SBR is >29"
    If you can get on with a pinned stock I think it would be a non-copycat SBR that won't fail the feature or overall length test.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,922
    Messages
    7,259,148
    Members
    33,349
    Latest member
    christian04

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom