MSP now considers SBR's w/req min 29" OA length as Pistols? WTH?

swinokur · Oct 23, 2017

ironpony said:
You guys live in a screwed up state.

yes you do.

Sundazes · Oct 23, 2017

swinokur said:
How so? I bought a lower to make an SBR. Same rules apply.

Doitsouthstyle said:
Maybe he is talking about pistol caliber lowers?

I didn't think about the 77r for a stripped lower. My bad.
Aren't completed rifle lowers C&C?

swinokur · Oct 23, 2017

No it can be built into a pistol therefore regulated

jollymon · Oct 23, 2017

At one point MSP had stated that SBR's SBS's had to be on the Handgun Rooster list , Hand Roster Board challenged that and MSP backed off .
Don't think anyone up there has a clue, after all these cop's not real interested in guns just doing the job assigned to them and planning on a retirement,so don't rock the boat.

swinokur · Oct 23, 2017

The MGA removed the requirement. Had nothing to do with the roster board challenging anything.

danb · Oct 23, 2017

swinokur said:
The MGA removed the requirement. Had nothing to do with the roster board challenging anything.

What bill did this? I missed this.

swinokur · Oct 23, 2017

I can’t quote it but it excepted SBRs from the requirement because SBR’s are defined as a handgun under MD statute

It created an exemption for SBR’s it but just for the Roster. They are still defined as handguns because of barrel length

danb · Oct 23, 2017

swinokur said:
I can’t quote it but it excepted SBRs from the requirement because SBR’s are defined as a handgun under ZMD statute

It created an exemption for SBR’s it but just for the Roster. They are still defined as handguns because of barrel length

I missed which bill this was and do not recall reading it. The guidance is from 2014. I am wondering if, per the Law of Unintended Consequences, some other problem was crated (or removed) when the MGA removed the SBR requirement- and this is why we have not seen updated guidance.

swinokur · Oct 23, 2017

I bought an Engage lower to build an SBR Andy Raymond had to drive the lower over to the Roster Board to get it on the Roster. The law was changed sometime after that. I even think it was huge anti Dumais who introduced it

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

swinokur · Oct 23, 2017

Got an email in with Engage to confirm -report back as soon as I hear back

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

dblas · Oct 23, 2017

Gryphon said:
So my factory SBR isn't on the Handgun Roster either. The more I think about it Maryland's ridiculous and inconsistent registration scheme is an incentive to build a 24" ghost gun pistol and just bypass all the illogical crap!

Haven't read the rest of the thread, but that was the purpose of Del. Dumais's bill to remove SBRs from the requirement to be added to the roster. After FSA2013, every SBR had to be on the roster and the roster board got pretty wore out reviewing everyone.

As for the SBR needing an HQL, yep, been that way since Oct 1, 2013.

dblas · Oct 23, 2017

iH8DemLibz said:
I'll take "Another firearm related policy Governor Hogan won't look into" for a thousand, Alex.

Unfortunately, it's not a policy but a law.

dblas · Oct 23, 2017

danb said:
I missed which bill this was and do not recall reading it. The guidance is from 2014. I am wondering if, per the Law of Unintended Consequences, some other problem was crated (or removed) when the MGA removed the SBR requirement- and this is why we have not seen updated guidance.

HB 614 from the 2015 session.

http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frmMain.aspx?pid=billpage&tab=subject3&id=hb0614&stab=01&ys=2015RS

danb · Oct 23, 2017

thanks

DC-W · Oct 23, 2017

dblas said:
HB 614 from the 2015 session.

http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frmMain.aspx?pid=billpage&tab=subject3&id=hb0614&stab=01&ys=2015RS

I didn't realize just how far out of the way it goes to say that this pertains only to the Roster. Is this being interpreted in a way that creates one definition of a handgun for them, and another in general?

FOR the purpose of altering the definition of handgun for purposes of provisions relating to the Handgun Roster Board to exclude certain firearms from the definition; and generally relating to the Handgun Roster Board.

danb · Oct 23, 2017

Funny how they can be precise and clean up the statute with surgical precision when they want to be, but vague elsewhere. It's almost like they want to be as vague and confusing as possible.

DC-W · Oct 23, 2017

danb said:
Funny how they can be precise and clean up the statute with surgical precision when they want to be, but vague elsewhere. It's almost like they want to be as vague and confusing as possible.

No. Way.
Shut the front door.

swinokur · Oct 23, 2017

Just heard back from Engage. It is correct to say that a SBR need not be on the roster to be sold in MD.

I am glad my memory isn't failing (yet)

lazarus · Oct 23, 2017

I can understand the want if an SBR. That said, with current ATF rulings on braces, might as well go with a braced pistol. No length limitations. Sure, not as comfortable as an SBR.

Gryphon · Oct 24, 2017

d33rhunt3r said:
just for kicks, decided to check my 77r status for the SBR and it's under "Second Review", although not sure why as it's on the handgun roster and is not banned. Sheer pettiness is my guess

My best guess is someone is trying to confirm your pistol meets the minimum 29" overall length for rifles.

MSP now considers SBR's w/req min 29" OA length as Pistols? WTH?

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

In a State of Bliss

Throbbing Member

In a State of Bliss

Active Member

In a State of Bliss

dont be a dumbass

In a State of Bliss

dont be a dumbass

In a State of Bliss

In a State of Bliss

Past President, MSI

Past President, MSI

Past President, MSI

dont be a dumbass

Ultimate Member

dont be a dumbass

Ultimate Member

In a State of Bliss

Ultimate Member

inveniam viam aut faciam

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics