Doco Overboard
Ultimate Member
I wonder who has one for sale near BWI today?
So is it just the .308/7.62 version that is banned? I'm confused. Could you have one made in .300 Savage?
Seems to be splitting hairs if the 6.5 Creedmore is okay but not .308. But this is Maryland land of no logic.
The M1a/M14 is banned by name. All copycats are by extension banned. One in 6.5 creedmoor is not parts interchangeable. A 7.62/.308 cartridge is absolutely not going to fit in to the chamber of 6.5 creedmoor rifle.
.300 BO AR-15s are not banned.
The logic of banning anything is faulty. I am not going to complain that their language is not so comprehensive to ban every single thing on the market and frankly, stop complaining about it. Yes, they are stupid. They are politicians (sorry, that is a sincerely held belief of mine no matter what party they belong to).
How many people complain when they discover or find a (legal) tax loop hole they can use?
The AG letter states a copy is if ONE part from the rifle can be swapped between the banned and the other rifle and both rifles still function, then the other one is also banned as a copy.
Thus, the barrel can be swapped between a .308 M1A and a 6.5 CM M1A, and both rifles will still function. Some make the argument that they will not function with the original ammo, but the AG opinion doesn't say that. Same with a 5.56 and .300 BO AR. Neither are listed with caliber in the ban list. Some rifles in the list ARE listed with a caliber, which would make the same rifle in a different caliber not banned.
Also, remember the MSP web site is NOT LEGALLY BINDING, it says so right on it. So them saying its not banned does not make it not banned.
But the real test is, will any MD dealer sell you one. If so, then, you are probably OK.
The AG letter states a copy is if ONE part from the rifle can be swapped between the banned and the other rifle and both rifles still function, then the other one is also banned as a copy.
Thus, the barrel can be swapped between a .308 M1A and a 6.5 CM M1A, and both rifles will still function. Some make the argument that they will not function with the original ammo, but the AG opinion doesn't say that. Same with a 5.56 and .300 BO AR. Neither are listed with caliber in the ban list. Some rifles in the list ARE listed with a caliber, which would make the same rifle in a different caliber not banned.
Also, remember the MSP web site is NOT LEGALLY BINDING, it says so right on it. So them saying its not banned does not make it not banned.
But the real test is, will any MD dealer sell you one. If so, then, you are probably OK.
How does this align with the Polytech M14S exemption, lots of parts swap and function though most like a Cajun special with lots of duct tape and gator grease.
No, it is that ALL parts must be interchangeable. The ammunition is not interchangeable between a .223/5.56 AR-15 and one chambered in .300BO.
Not every part in the M-14S Polytech are interchangeable.
As with the .223 vs .300BO ARs, the 6.5CM M1a, the ammunition is not interchangeable with a 7.62 M1a which is banned.
If it was that one part interchanged and it still worked anything that can take an AR-15 grip would be banned.
Since when is ammunition a PART of a firearm????
The ban lists DOES NOT LIST CALIBER FOR MOST RIFLES, but it DOES so for SOME.
The PART is not banned, the RIFLE is banned, if you can take ANY one part off of one and put it in the second one. So, technically, if you made an AR-15 that all parts EXCEPT the grip were interchangeable, but the grips did not, then the new one would NOT be a copy and banned.
I think the way you are saying it is wrong. I think you mean all parts have to be interchangeable. Not that any one part can interchange.
And yes, all parts would need to and for the function to remain the same. There are any number of springs that I can fit in an 1898 Gewehr’s bolt, but many would not allow it to function correctly, but they’d fit. I could put a .30-06 bolt in one, because they’ve made .30-06 Mausers, but it wouldn’t be a Gewehr 1898 any longer as it wouldn’t properly chamber 8mm mauser.
At the time, what was marketed as an AR-15 was .223/5.56. There are many ARs and there were several at the time, but of the few chambered in not .223/5.56, almost none were marketed as AR-15.
And the provision contains exceptions for a Colt HBAR Sporter.
In this case, I don’t beleive Springfield is even marketing the 6.5CM version as M1a by name. And if you swap the barrels I can guarantee .308/7.62 will not then chamber in the rifle and the M1a is a 7.62 rifle.
I think the way you are saying it is wrong. I think you mean all parts have to be interchangeable. Not that any one part can interchange.
And yes, all parts would need to and for the function to remain the same. There are any number of springs that I can fit in an 1898 Gewehr’s bolt, but many would not allow it to function correctly, but they’d fit. I could put a .30-06 bolt in one, because they’ve made .30-06 Mausers, but it wouldn’t be a Gewehr 1898 any longer as it wouldn’t properly chamber 8mm mauser.
At the time, what was marketed as an AR-15 was .223/5.56. There are many ARs and there were several at the time, but of the few chambered in not .223/5.56, almost none were marketed as AR-15.
And the provision contains exceptions for a Colt HBAR Sporter.
In this case, I don’t beleive Springfield is even marketing the 6.5CM version as M1a by name. And if you swap the barrels I can guarantee .308/7.62 will not then chamber in the rifle and the M1a is a 7.62 rifle.
Again, if the rifle is banned without a caliber listing, how can you say that a different caliber is legal?
As for the parts thing, I think we are saying a similar thing. I am saying that you can take any part from one to interchange with the other. If you interchange ALL parts, you just moved the position of the rifle.
So part X from rifle A will interchange with part X from rifle B and both sitll function. Or part Y, or part Z, etc. But if you have to interchange two parts to make it work, X AND Y work, but only X or only Y does not work, then it is not a copy.
This is how I see the AG letter.