ATF form 4 disapproval

teratos said:

Mailed 9/3/13. They were on a trust.

Click to expand...

Good. Then by that estimate I should get something in the mail late this week or early next week.

jvegas said:

Just got a disapproval from ATF on a Form 4 of a Daniel Defense MK18, which is measured at >29". The reason stated is "Prohibited by State law--Assault Weapon"

Click to expand...

When was that Form 4 submitted / check cashed again?

I'm kinda in the same boat. My Form 4 was approved by MSP on Sept 12, but didn't get to BATF until Oct 5th. Guess we're all just waiting now.

What about form one on trust?
I was called last week asking fot more information and supporting documents, sounds like I will be doing a lot of work just to be denied....

Drew1340 said:

What about form one on trust?
I was called last week asking fot more information and supporting documents, sounds like I will be doing a lot of work just to be denied....

Click to expand...

I would wait on everything except for suppressors, until this gets hashed out. Like you said, no sense in proving a lot of stuff if MSP is saying to the ATF to deny everything.

i was told by atf to provide more information and so on... I have no choice they are sitting on it on a reviewers desk, I either show more in hopes they slip through or just say it is what it is and get denied... either way its silly to give up but silly to provide more info if I know it will be denied... I think that this is an absurd situation but what else can you do?

Drew1340 said:

i was told by atf to provide more information and so on... I have no choice they are sitting on it on a reviewers desk, I either show more in hopes they slip through or just say it is what it is and get denied... either way its silly to give up but silly to provide more info if I know it will be denied... I think that this is an absurd situation but what else can you do?

Click to expand...

Sorry, misread your post. I would say if the ATF examiner is wanting more documentation, then give them the best documentation you can. What are they asking for? Purchase order? Proof of ownership before Oct. 1st?

oal documentation and anything that shows md states measuring with stock extended and basically best proof of md law, as well they wanted pictures.... to prove oal with tape and so on... it seems like the examiner is trying to approve this which seems so weird if directed to disapprove everything why make me work for it and why do this on his end to just say no dice??

Afdiesel said:

Maybe o'Malley is right.... The "majority" of Maryland elected him, it's just his way of saying if you voted for me, you're too incompetent to own guns.

Click to expand...

I'd be OK with denying anyone who voted for O'Malley owning guns, it's proof of mental illness after all.

Disapproved - Assault Weapon

bobthefisher said:

I think that's a pretty good assumption thus far. I had two paper Form 1's submitted Sept. 19th and cashed Sept. 28th on my NFA trust. One had an OAL of less then 29 inches. I'll post when I get something back from the ATF, whether approved or disapproved.


Teratos,

When did you say you submitted those Form 1's? I'm trying to track their recent processing times.

Click to expand...

I did 2 FORM 1s. One for a Rock River AR15 (purchased before oct 1st) and one was for a Rock River AR 9mm, purchased over 2 years ago.

Oh, I submitted on eFORMS in Jan 31st.


Both denied "MD STATE LAW, ASSAULT WEAPON - PROHIBITED" God knows what will happen with the Adcor SBR in Sepember still sitting in the store

OK, so what about Machine Guns? Are they getting through? Trust or Individual?

Dave

As someone noted, MG are not mentioned in 281. Shouldn't be a problem but who knows.

281 and SBR's seem to be the problem.

i have a headache...

bobthefisher said:

I think that's a pretty good assumption thus far. I had two paper Form 1's submitted Sept. 19th and cashed Sept. 28th on my NFA trust. One had an OAL of less then 29 inches. I'll post when I get something back from the ATF, whether approved or disapproved.


Teratos,

When did you say you submitted those Form 1's? I'm trying to track their recent processing times.

Click to expand...

Sveiks said:

I did 2 FORM 1s. One for a Rock River AR15 (purchased before oct 1st) and one was for a Rock River AR 9mm, purchased over 2 years ago.

Oh, I submitted on eFORMS in Jan 31st.


Both denied "MD STATE LAW, ASSAULT WEAPON - PROHIBITED" God knows what will happen with the Adcor SBR in Sepember still sitting in the store

Click to expand...

I would LOVE to be in the position to be able to answer anything about a MG, i just don't have that kind of $$$$...

but here is what I am confused about... the AR15 lower I thought would go thru but I had a little doubt. But, as the MSP has changed their minds on how to interpret various different parts of the law SOO many times since Feb 1, (seriously think about how many DIFFERENT decisions there have been about SBRs since Feb 1st) I didn't know how the ATF would handle it. Would they 'enforce' what was 'published' at the time of submission? When they got to the form? how would the ATF know?

Secondly, I really thought the 9mm was a the easy one. 9mm ARs are not banned, its a pistol caliber, i've had it for years.... the 'It must be on the handgun roster' thing just came out a few weeks ago (unless i've really been sleeping).

i was VERY surprised at the 9mm being rejected... well, 5 months wasted.

I explained this possibility long ago when SB281/FSA2013 was being drafted, that the NFA branch will take direction from the MSP. Everyone said I didn't know what I was talking about.

This is how it is for every state, not just MD. If a State HEAD L.E. Agency says something is not allowed the NFA Branch will comply.

The orginal MSP advisory on SBR's was issued March 20 IIRC. There wa a minor update to correct a punctuation error.

teratos said:

If this happens I'm screwed.



If this happens, they will owe ME money....

Click to expand...

You understand that "redistritribution" won't work through the wang tax correct?

Sveiks said:

I did 2 FORM 1s. One for a Rock River AR15 (purchased before oct 1st) and one was for a Rock River AR 9mm, purchased over 2 years ago.

Oh, I submitted on eFORMS in Jan 31st.


Both denied "MD STATE LAW, ASSAULT WEAPON - PROHIBITED" God knows what will happen with the Adcor SBR in Sepember still sitting in the store

Click to expand...

9mm AR's should not be affected by SB281/fsa 2013. Is yours listed as under 29.5"?

An attorney offers an opinion letter on why SBR's are legal in MD, does the MDSP listen to this or would it help? and would everyone then need to purchase one.

ironpony said:

An attorney offers an opinion letter on why SBR's are legal in MD, does the MDSP listen to this or would it help? and would everyone then need to purchase one.

Click to expand...

Who knows. Would the letter regard SBRs on the whole (ie that 29" OAL should not apply) or just 29"+ OAL SBRs? I have tried to talk it out with them and offer to go up and talk, but they seem to be set in their decisions. I am trying to figure out if it is best to sue ATF or MSP to get this fixed fastest. I may just have to wait for my AR SBR Form 1 to be disapproved and sue on my own behalf if no one else wants to do it.

The Advisory they put out states that:

A short-barreled rifle or short-barreled shotgun that meets the definition of “copycat weapon” set forth in CR § 4-301(e) (for example, “a semi-automatic centerfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 29 inches” or “a semi-automatic shotgun that has a folding stock”) is an “assault weapon” and subject to the restrictions on transportation, possession, sale and receipt set forth in Title 4, Subtitle 3, of the Criminal Law Article.

The Advisory later states that:

CR § 4-201 (c) (2) defines “handgun” to include a short-barreled shotgun and a short-barreled rifle. As such, short-barreled rifles and short-barreled shotguns are subject to the same wear, carry and transport restrictions, under CR § 4-203, as pistols. Accordingly, a person may not wear, carry or transport a short-barreled rifle or short-barreled shotgun unless the person has a valid Maryland Handgun Carry Permit or one of the other exceptions set forth in CR § 4-203(b) applies.

What is interesting is that MSP cites to CR § 4-201(c)(2), but fails to address CR § 4-201(c)(3), which provides that:

“Handgun” does not include a shotgun, rifle, or antique firearm.

If we are to adopt these definitions, it would seem to be impossible for a short-barreled rifle or short-barreled shotgun to meet the definition of a “copycat weapon.” MSP has seemingly decided to use defined terms from § 4-201 in interpreting the prohibitions in § 4-301 as they apply to rifles, shotguns, and handguns. Short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun, rifle, shotgun, and handgun are not defined for purposes of § 4-301. Although the definitions contained in CR § 4-201 are applicable only in subtitle 2, there is a reasonable argument that the undefined terms in subtitle 3 may use the definitions provided in subtitle 2. In Frost v. State, the court held that:

“…[W]e do not read statutory language ‘in isolation or out of context [but construe it] in light of the legislature’s general purpose and in the context of the statute as a whole.’ Forbes v. Harleysville Mutual, 322 Md. 689, 696–97, 589 A.2d 944, 948 (1991). In GEICO v. Insurance Comm’r, 332 Md. 124, 630 A.2d 713 (1993), we explained that ‘[c]ontext may include related statutes, pertinent legislative history and ‘other material that fairly bears on the fundamental issue of legislative purpose or goal….’ ‘ 332 Md. at 132, 630 A.2d at 717 (quoting Kaczorowski v. City of Baltimore, 309 Md. 505, 515, 525 A.2d 628, 632–33 (1987)).

Frost v. State, 647 A.2d 106, 112 (Md. 1994)

It may be shown that, based on the non-definition of “rifle” for purposes of § 4 Subtitle 3, we may adopt the definitions found in § 4 Subtitle 2. If we view the statute as a whole, context may dictate that the definitions of a related statute may govern an otherwise undefined term. This would seemingly make sense for the sections of law we are discussing here, as the undefined terms are in the portion of the law passed as part of a comprehensive “assault weapons ban.” If this approach is adopted, a SBR or SBS with a barrel less than 16 inches in length is not a “rifle” or “shotgun,” they are both “handguns.” If deemed a handgun for purposes of CR § 4 Subtitle 3, no firearm meeting the CR § 4-201 definition of SBR or SBS is capable of meeting the rifle or shotgun copycat tests in CR § 4-301 (although such a handgun would be subject to the handgun copycat weapon test relating to a handgun with a fixed magazine.)

The overall length copycat test applies to a “semi-automatic centerfire rifle” (emphasis added.) An SBR, if we adopt the definition in CR § 4-201, cannot meet either definition of a copycat weapon quoted by the Maryland State Police in the Advisory. An SBR could be a copycat, but that would ONLY be “A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds.”

NateIU10 said:

The overall length copycat test applies to a “semi-automatic centerfire rifle” (emphasis added.) An SBR, if we adopt the definition in CR § 4-201, cannot meet either definition of a copycat weapon quoted by the Maryland State Police in the Advisory. An SBR could be a copycat, but that would ONLY be “A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds.”

Click to expand...

Please sue them on these grounds. I read the law in a logical firearms sense, and came to the same conclusion. However, once you lawyers schooled me on own how to "properly" read statutory law, then everything fell apart and I saw how MSP could determine that SBR's are both handguns and rifles. To have something defined in two different ways in the same article, by way of using different subtitles, can't be right. However IANAL. Did any of those previous cases have similar instances?