Polytech M14s and H&K HK MR556 NOT banned in MD

NateIU10 · Sep 8, 2014

RRHemi said:
Since the M1A is specifically banned thus leaving the Polytech as legal I do not understand why any other "M14" would be banned. I am sure Fulton or any other mfg. did not create their gun with the intent of copying an M1A. Is the M1A really a copy of an M14? Weren't M14's select fire? Doesn't this make the M1A a copy of a gun that didn't exist? They banned the M1A specifically, they should be stuck with their ignorance. These semi-auto rifles should be subjected to feature tests, which they would pass, especially since this is the last gun someone is going to try and sneak into a mall, school, or theater. Everyone, including the MSP knows this.

The M1A is an enumerated banned Assault Long Gun. The M1A and its copies are banned. If a firearm shares all internal components and has cosmetic similarity to an enumerated firearm, it is also banned regardless of model designation. The Fulton gun is a copy of the M1A. The Chinese guns are not copies.

Abacab · Sep 8, 2014

NateIU10 said:
The M1A is an enumerated banned Assault Long Gun. The M1A and its copies are banned. If a firearm shares all internal components and has cosmetic similarity to an enumerated firearm, it is also banned regardless of model designation. The Fulton gun is a copy of the M1A. The Chinese guns are not copies.

The AG's letter on .22LR AR style rifles makes cosmetic similarity a non factor. People should stop including it in any discussion of a comparison to a formerly regulated and now banned long gun. It is irrelevant and does't enter the equation.

NateIU10 · Sep 8, 2014

Tman68 said:
Vince at Duffy's does alot for the roster and has threads on the list of guns he is submitting, taking request and working customers and Atlantic firearms to get these guns for submittal. Duffy's should get a lot of credit too!

I agree that Vince and Duffy's do a lot, but this has little to do with the roster. I'm always happy to talk, and the last thing we want to do is push MSP to change what a "copy" of a firearm is. We're going to shoot ourselves in the foot if we don't do this smartly.

NateIU10 · Sep 8, 2014

Abacab said:
The AG's letter on .22LR AR style rifles makes cosmetic similarity a non factor. People should stop including it in any discussion of a comparison to a formerly regulated and now banned long gun. It is irrelevant and does't enter the equation.

That is incorrect. First, the AG opinion has nothing to do with copies now. It is completely based on MSP bulletin 10-2. I'm on my phone, but here is a breakdown how it works from msp:

The Maryland State Police is responsible for reaching its own conclusions with respect to whether particular firearms are copies of enumerated banned firearms. In reaching those conclusions, the Maryland State Police adheres to the process articulated in the Firearms Bulletin #10-2 dated November 4, 2010 a copy of which may be found on our website. To that end, the Maryland State Police has determined that, for enforcement purposes, a firearm is considered a copy if it is both cosmetically similar to and has completely interchangeable internal components necessary for the full operation and function of one of the enumerated banned weapons. This list represents those determinations.

danb · Sep 8, 2014

crap. For one split second I thought I was mistaken and there was some remote chance the Fulton M14 was not banned and I got my hopes up. That's probably for the better. The last thing my marriage needs is another gun in the safe. At least until my wife sees something.

Tman68 · Sep 8, 2014

NateIU10 said:
I agree that Vince and Duffy's do a lot, but this has little to do with the roster. I'm always happy to talk, and the last thing we want to do is push MSP to change what a "copy" of a firearm is. We're going to shoot ourselves in the foot if we don't do this smartly.

Duffy was the first place i saw selling the VZ's among other things, they just did not recently hire a lawyer to do all the work for them in the new charge.

lee2 · Sep 8, 2014

danb said:
crap. For one split second I thought I was mistaken and there was some remote chance the Fulton M14 was not banned and I got my hopes up. That's probably for the better. The last thing my marriage needs is another gun in the safe. At least until my wife sees something.

i wouldnt buy a thing from them.
they're like the Fux guys. :sad20:

Abacab · Sep 8, 2014

For the purposes of the law, the only reference to cosmetics are the copycat feature provisions. One can argue semantics over the use of the word "copy" in the definition of assault weapon. The MSP can include any criteria they want and issue any bulletin they want, but that doesn't mean they have a legal leg to stand on in court.

Cosmetics, per the AG (which is the ultimate authority when not adjudicated by a court), are generally not considered in their opinion.

NateIU10 · Sep 8, 2014

Abacab said:
For the purposes of the law, the only reference to cosmetics are the copycat feature provisions. One can argue semantics over the use of the word "copy" in the definition of assault weapon. The MSP can include any criteria they want and issue any bulletin they want, but that doesn't mean they have a legal leg to stand on in court.

Cosmetics, per the AG (which is the ultimate authority when not adjudicated by a court), are generally not considered in their opinion.

The enforcing agency has the statutory authority to interpret the statute. The AG's guidance, which states criteria less favorable to us anyway, is moot at this point when determining what a copy is. The AG opinion states that there must be a majority of interchangeable parts and cosmetic similarity (only staying that cosmetic similarity ALONE is not enough), do we really want that as a test.

Pinecone · Sep 8, 2014

Firearms Bulletin 10-2

https://www.mdsp.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=Fy2Q8TuDX0M=&tabid=961&mid=2764

Can't copy the words, but:

States the a firearm that is only cosmetically similar is not a regulated (now banned) firearm.

But then it goes on to say that it IS regulated (now banned) if it 1) "is a reproduction or imitation of a firearm that is cosmetically similar to a specifically enumerated firearm" on the list and 2) that has "completely interchangeable internal components necessary for the full operation and function of one of the enumerated firearms"

So Fulton M14 is banned. It is cosmetically similar (which IS a requirement) and has completely interchangeable internal parts.

However an L1A1 should NOT be banned, as while it is cosmetically similar, the internal components are NOT interchangeable with full operation and function.

NateIU10 · Sep 8, 2014

Tman68 said:
Duffy was the first place i saw selling the VZ's among other things, they just did not recently hire a lawyer to do all the work for them in the new charge.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but VZs have been sold as non regulated as long as I've been purchasing firearms in this state. They were just not as desirable when you had the option of an AK.

Are you seriously complaining that Engage took money out of their pocket to pay an attorney to fight for your rights? A fight that they were in far before the FSA of 2013.

Name Taken · Sep 8, 2014

The small minority of idiotic members here never seizes to amaze me.

Tman68 · Sep 8, 2014

NateIU10 said:
I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but VZs have been sold as non regulated as long as I've been purchasing firearms in this state. They were just not as desirable when you had the option of an AK.

Are you seriously complaining that Engage took money out of their pocket to pay an attorney to fight for your rights? A fight that they were in far before the FSA of 2013.

Not complaining at all, just wish they did it sooner...

I replied to a earlier post that someone else said it seems like Engage is doing all the work, so I tried to give Duffy's some credit, nobody else was selling VZ's after Oct 13 till they stuck their neck out, along with a couple other rifles. You can also give credit to Horst and McCann, as much as their hated on this site they were the first ones to stand up and sell AR lowers after Oct 13. These people led they way at the time.

Maybe I was not clear before and I brought up Duffy's current efforts and not what was going on months ago.

The only press I've seen Engage get since Oct 13 I don't think you want brought up. But I have supported Engage before and since that.

And I believe before you worked at Engage you did a lot for us, so thanks for supporting the 2A community. There is no need to correct me for trying to give some correct credit where credit is due.

Flipz · Sep 8, 2014

Credit is due to ALL the FFL's in MD. Some have been more public in their efforts than others. But that doesn't mean that all of them haven't done their part. We owe appreciation to ALL of them. They have been on the front lines of this battle long before the FSA was passed and will be far into the future. The amount of time and money spent dealing with the aftermath of the FSA can't be calculated.

The only thing I wish could be improved upon is a more collaborative effort. Instead of saying one does more than another we really should be focused on how we work together on this matter. We would be far more powerful working together on this. I can only hope that this will be the direction we move towards in the future.

danb · Sep 8, 2014

lee2 said:
i wouldnt buy a thing from them.
they're like the Fux guys.

ok, I admit, I don't know who the fux guys are. Wen't over my head.

Wayne1one · Sep 8, 2014

OrbitalEllipses said:
Engage appears to be doing a lot of heavy lifting.

mtel said:
Absolutely.

They’re the first I’d heard of submitting a post-281 AR pistol to the roster board. Also received clarification on LDS-FRS-14-002 that SBR and pistol versions of banned firearms were still legal. Not sure but I think they had a hand in making the case that available legal configurations meant banned stripped receivers (at least ARs so far) should be allowable for sale again (hopefully C&C at some point in the future). Add piston ARs to the list.

Pending argument on why OAL (maybe more broadly, the copycat test as a whole?) shouldn't apply to SBRs.

That's what I've seen so far and I'm not even an active poster. That’s not to take away from other IPs or individuals either. I’m sure there are several working (probably together at times) behind the scenes. Bottom line, thank you.

RRHemi said:
This is really good advice. It seems that Engage is doing most of this work. Is there another group that folks should submit there requests to in order to have them properly submitted?

This is my sentiments exactly, but by saying this it doesn't mean that others aren't pulling their weight as well. I feel that if you are showering praise to someone, Engage in this situation you should make sure that the praises are direct and obvious! Thanks for all you do Engage and gang!

Tman68 said:
Vince at Duffy's does alot for the roster and has threads on the list of guns he is submitting, taking request and working customers and Atlantic firearms to get these guns for submittal. Duffy's should get a lot of credit too!

This is true, but I don't think we were on a topic that was directed at the two shops that you mentioned. I personally showered Duffys with praises for their roster board submissions and approvals. They also are a big and vocal partner in this whole SB281 debacle. :thumbsup:

Just because your shop is not mentioned does not mean people don't recognize that you have to deal with the trials and tribulations of Maryland's new laws. But if you move in silence how can you expect public praises? Every shop is not as publicly passionate as Engage and Andy, and chose not to make their legal fights public, but when you do you will receive public praise. Had a similar conversation earlier today and I think this is how I should have responded. Hope all can understand what I am trying to say.

Tman68 · Sep 8, 2014

My response was a response to rrhemi, so taking my response without what I was quoting would make it look like im just pushing my agenda.

Rrhemi asked who else is doing something so I threw in who I know is doing something, sorry to start a pissing contest..

I did try to explain myself with more context to this thread after, but I guess it's too late.

A bunch of FFLs have put in work to fix this mess, it just depends on what issue they run into with what they want to sell and how much effort they want to put into fighting with this lovely state.

Flipz · Sep 8, 2014

Wayne1one said:
This is my sentiments exactly, but by saying this it doesn't mean that others aren't pulling their weight as well. I feel that if you are showering praise to someone, Engage in this situation you should make sure that the praises are direct and obvious! Thanks for all you do Engage and gang!

Just because your shop is not mentioned does not mean people don't recognize that you have to deal with the trials and tribulations of Maryland's new laws. But if you move in silence how can you expect public praises? Every shop is not as publicly passionate as Engage and Andy, and chose not to make their legal fights public, but when you do you will receive public praise. Had a similar conversation earlier today and I think this is how I should have responded. Hope all can understand what I am trying to say.

I completely get what you're saying. The only thing about what you said before that I didn't like was the "balls" comment. That's why I commented and I think you can understand why. Since that is now cleared up I'm right there with you. Different people have different ways of doing things whether publicly or privately. As long as their end goal is the same they're good in my book.

TheDevilHimself · Sep 8, 2014

Flipz said:
Credit is due to ALL the FFL's in MD. Some have been more public in their efforts than others. But that doesn't mean that all of them haven't done their part. We owe appreciation to ALL of them. They have been on the front lines of this battle long before the FSA was passed and will be far into the future. The amount of time and money spent dealing with the aftermath of the FSA can't be calculated.

The only thing I wish could be improved upon is a more collaborative effort. Instead of saying one does more than another we really should be focused on how we work together on this matter. We would be far more powerful working together on this. I can only hope that this will be the direction we move towards in the future.

Spot on. Whenever one FFL takes on a certain issue, a positive outcome benefits not only all other MD FFLs, but the MD firearms community as a whole.

Wayne1one · Sep 8, 2014

Flipz said:
I completely get what you're saying. The only thing about what you said before that I didn't like was the "balls" comment. That's why I commented and I think you can understand why. Since that is now cleared up I'm right there with you. Different people have different ways of doing things whether publicly or privately. As long as their end goal is the same they're good in my book.

We are on the same sheet of music my friend :thumbsup:

Polytech M14s and H&K HK MR556 NOT banned in MD

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

dont be a dumbass

Active Member

Banned

Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

dont be a dumbass

gun aficionado

Active Member

Ultimate Member

, Duffy's Gun Room

gun aficionado

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics