Non Regulated Semi Autos in Maryland

ArchAngel78 · Jun 1, 2013

Markp said:
Let's take a Vz-58 receiver for shits and giggles.

Is a Vz-58 stripped receiver a handgun? NO
Is a Vz-58 stripped receiver a regulated firearm? NO

Same logic applies to an AR-15 receiver. You can complain all day that it is, and all FFL's in MD will transfer it as OTHER both on the 4473 and the 77R, however OTHER is NOT a handgun or an assault weapon.

Regulated paperwork is complete and the weapon is legally transferred by MD law without any chance of "blowback".

Mark

What could this "blowback" be? Is there any liability for the person who purchases the lower with only a 4473? If the FFL releases it is the buyer free and clear?

DaedalEVE · Jun 1, 2013

iH8DemLibz said:
When I was in Annapolis over a four day period, I carried a picture with five bullets in it.

Left to right.

255 gr lead .452

50 gr fmj .223

350 gr 20 ga copper solid

180 gr sp .308

500 gr lead .458

I was polite and spoke with several of the Anti's. I asked them which bullet went with the black, scary gun the STATE is trying to ban.

None of them picked the .223 bullet. Ever! And when I told them which bullet it was, they were very skeptical. I guess it's because gun owners are dishonest.

Completely clueless people.

I wish you had taped this.

Markp said:
How do you figure, you can go back and forth per the ATF's 2011 ruling if you purchased it as a stripped lower initially.

Because anything with a stock and a barrel shorter than 16" is an SBR. You may be able to go back and forth between a pistol or a rifle with a properly documented lower, but you better do something with that pistol upper first, because it doesn't give you carte blanche to built an SBR, and I seriously doubt it'll be enough to cover your ass from a charge based on constructive intent.

Markp said:
Wrong.

As I said, for a pistol build, receiver extension only. No Stock. If you put anything shorter than 16" on the top and a stock you've made an SBR. In which case you need to have the tax stamp and engravings or it'll be YOUR ASS in the sling if you get caught.

Markp said:
Don't take this as an insult but the amount of time you have had an interest in firearms has absolutely 0 correlation with your ability to understand the law or be correct regarding the legal status of an AR-15 receiver based pistol.

Fact is that the MD law banned very specific weapons and not "all assault pistols". Additionally, it did not ban any weapon remotely like an AR-15 receiver based pistol. I don't see why that is so hard to understand, read the law, look at the weapons available at the time they were banned, and finally look at the weapons placed on the handgun roster. What is so hard to understand?

I only mention the length of time because I became extremely interested in firearms law as a result of my interest in firearms. I THOUGHT I understood it very well until I saw this thread.

It also seems that the "Bushmaster semiautomatic pistol" is where the confusion has been on my part. It seems I and others have understood it to be an AR15 based design, and there for illegal as it would be considered a copy.

Markp said:
Once again, wrong. The fact that the receiver is made by SIG or Colt has nothing to do with the legality of an AR pistol.

I never said the manufacturer had anything to do with the legality. I assumed the Sig556 Pistol was approved because it was based on a different design than the banned assault pistols, there by making it eligible to be on the roster.

Markp said:
It would appear that you are having difficulty with understanding how to read/interpret the law. If you have this fundamental underlying problem, and refuse to consider that your reading/interpretation may be wrong, this will cause the error to propagate forward. Which naturally will lead you to not understand how others are building weapons legally and not being arrested for possession of firearms in violation of the law.

OK then... discussion ended. Don't want to take the chance I might misinterpret you.

baconsandwich · Jun 30, 2013

K31 said:
The only semi-autos approved up by MOM are called Prius.

TH-X15 · Aug 18, 2013

bobthefisher said:
No, VEPR's are not considered an assault weapon in Maryland, and hence forth will not be banned after Oct. 1st.

Every single Maryland dealer that I have spoken with or emailed considerers them, rightly or wrongly, as regulated.

I would very much like to purchase a Vepr, but I've been simply unable to find any FFL in MD who will sell them as unregulated.

bobthefisher · Aug 18, 2013

Bollinger Gunsmithing will transfer them as unregulated.

TH-X15 · Aug 18, 2013

bobthefisher said:
Bollinger Gunsmithing will transfer them as unregulated.

Many thanks!

bobthefisher · Aug 18, 2013

TH-X15 said:
Many thanks!

Remember, it must be in the original factory configuration. No Siage or VEPR conversions.

Brooklyn · Aug 19, 2013

Markp said:
Lots of people buy lots of non-regulated weapons and still fill out the regulated paperwork, why, because of one or more of the following reasons:

1. They don't know the law.
2. They trust other people who don't know the law.
3. Their FFL is covering their ass and not willing to risk being wrong.
4. They don't care about having to do the regulated firearms paperwork.

Happend to me. Rookie mistake but thanks to this forum no more. I stopped doing business with some folks as a result....
The paperwork become voluntary registration... and an extra fee or two.

Thanks markp your posts help me get smart on these issues..

fabsroman · Aug 19, 2013

Brooklyn said:
Happend to me. Rookie mistake but thanks to this forum no more. I stopped doing business with some folks as a result....
The paperwork become voluntary registration... and an extra fee or two.

Thanks markp your posts help me get smart on these issues..

Yep, Gun Connection in White Marsh made me do a Form 77r on an AR-10 back in 2009. Had no idea until this year that the AR-10 was not on the regulated list. Needless to say, I did not go back to them for this year's purchases. My current FFL knows his stuff pretty good. When I asked him about the AR-10, he said "cash and carry".

stupid · Aug 29, 2013

Is the PTR or CETME going to be banned?

Also how come VEPRs will be banned but AR-10s wont? Isn't the AR-10 very similar to an AR-15 just in .308? Isn't it sort of the same situation with the VEPR?

mtnwisdom · Aug 29, 2013

stupid said:
Is the PTR or CETME going to be banned?

Also how come VEPRs will be banned but AR-10s wont? Isn't the AR-10 very similar to an AR-15 just in .308? Isn't it sort of the same situation with the VEPR?

PTR 91 in K model is HBAR, order compensator from HK Parts and replace flash suppressor. In the K model stock configuration it is not reg and with the comp installed it is off the radar of the copycat rule.

pilotguy299 · Aug 29, 2013

Markp said:
...

Same logic applies to an AR-15 receiver. You can complain all day that it is, and all FFL's in MD will transfer it as OTHER both on the 4473 and the 77R, however OTHER is NOT a handgun or an assault weapon.

Regulated paperwork is complete and the weapon is legally transferred by MD law without any chance of "blowback".
...

Maybe not...

I just took a look at the 77r for a stripped lower I purchased last year, and it has it listed as an"X" assault weapon, and not as an "O" for other.

erwos · Aug 29, 2013

mtnwisdom said:
PTR 91 in K model is HBAR, order compensator from HK Parts and replace flash suppressor. In the K model stock configuration it is not reg and with the comp installed it is off the radar of the copycat rule.

The HBAR exemption ONLY applies to AR-15s. The PTR-91K is going to be banned as an HK-91 copy.

BradMacc82 · Aug 29, 2013

pilotguy299 said:
Maybe not...

I just took a look at the 77r for a stripped lower I purchased last year, and it has it listed as an"X" assault weapon, and not as an "O" for other.

Then your ffl erred on the side of caution.

I had one ffl list a stripped receiver as rifle, another 2 ffl's listed stripped receivers as other.

pilotguy299 · Aug 29, 2013

BradMacc82 said:
Then your ffl erred on the side of caution.

I had one ffl list a stripped receiver as rifle, another 2 ffl's listed stripped receivers as other.

"Other" I would be OK with. As a"X" assault weapon, I am now wondering if I can build it in to a pistol or not. He did write "Frame" as the barrel length though...

Ugh

stupid · Aug 29, 2013

erwos said:
The HBAR exemption ONLY applies to AR-15s. The PTR-91K is going to be banned as an HK-91 copy.

aww thats disappionting. although in the law it states

"(xxv) Heckler and Koch HK-91 A3, HK-93 A2, HK-94 A2 and A3"

are just those models banned? wouldn't they just say it like how they did AKs? or is that every type of HK-91?

what about a CETME? I don't see it on the list and it came out before the HK-91

Non Regulated Semi Autos in Maryland

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Member

Banned

master of the obvious

Active Member

Durka ninja

Active Member

Durka ninja

I stand with John Locke.

Ultimate Member

Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

The Hebrew Hammer

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics