Laws regarding making of regulated firearms prior to Oct. 1st

[bobthefisher]

If one were to press out an AK47 flat or finish a 80% AR receiver before Oct. 1st, would that require any registration? Does it require any registration now?

 

[SRD]

No

No

 

[Skins_Brew]

what about after oct 1st?

 

[Hollowman]

what about after oct 1st?

there is no such thing as after oct 1st.

 

[dlmcbm]

http://marylandshallissue.org/share/SafetyActFAQ.pdf

 

[Markp]

If one were to press out an AK47 flat or finish a 80% AR receiver before Oct. 1st, would that require any registration? Does it require any registration now?

I think we are focusing on the wrong thing.

Receivers are NOT banned, semi-automatic centerfire rifles are.

Which means that you can build an AK or AR receiver after 1 OCT 2013 as long as you are NOT building a semi-auto assault rifle from it. As such, unless you are building a pistol, you should be able to transfer 100% receivers without a Form 77R since you cannot legally use a 100% receiver to build a semi-automatic assault rifle or transfer it as a pistol without having a shell casing. NOT REGULATED.

So that means you can build the following and NOT have to register it after 1 OCT 2013.

From an 80% receiver you can build and you can transfer a 100% receiver provided it is not for a semi-automatic rifle.

1. An AK SBR (provided you have a processed Form 1/4)
2. An AK AOW (provided you have a processed Form 1/4)
3. An AK shotgun without a folding stock
4. An AK Short Barrel shotgun (provided you have a processed Form 1/4)
5. An AK firearm with a barrel over 16" (no stock)
6. An AK Pistol with a barrel under 16" (100% completed pistol, only if it's on the HG roster with shell casing)

This leaves you with any number of AK options, and the same is true for the AR platform. There is no issue in the law regarding SB281, because these are not semi-automatic rifles.

Have fun... We shall see where the FFL's line up and how they deal with SB281.

 

[mac1_131]

As long as you made them in those oddball forms. None of which are mainstream AKs.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

 

[bobthefisher]

Have fun... We shall see where the FFL's line up and how they deal with SB281.

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[6-Pack]

Don't forget making HBAR ARs.....

 

[Kizmit99]

I would assume that non-semi-automatic rifles would also be gtg?
For example, an AK kit, built on a receiver made from a flat, with a virgin barrel without the gas port drilled. All purchased and built after Oct 1. I assume that wouldn't be a problem, but what's the current consensus?

 

[Markp]

I would assume that non-semi-automatic rifles would also be gtg?
For example, an AK kit, built on a receiver made from a flat, with a virgin barrel without the gas port drilled. All purchased and built after Oct 1. I assume that wouldn't be a problem, but what's the current consensus?

It's not semi-automatic, and thus, not banned!

 

[Kizmit99]

What is the current thinking on building a handgun post Oct?
I would assume that the status-quo would remain and that as long as you are not prohibited from owning the firearm, you would not be prohibited from manufacturing it (assuming, of course, that this was done for personal use and with no intent to sell it). But that takes me to another question... I'm under the impression that you may only sell/purchase a handgun that is on the MD handgun roster, and since all handguns are 'regulated' (ignoring C&R for this) that means no face-to-face transfers, and out of state purchases from a dealer require they conform with MD law, so effectively we are prohibited from acquiring a handgun not on the roster? Is it legal to build a handgun that is not on the MD roster (assuming there is no federal prohibition on what is being built)?

Specific case I'm thinking of is a 100% homemade, single shot, JACO style pistol. Not a copy of any particular manufacturers model, so no way to construe that it's already on the roster. Is that something that is legal to build in MD today? How about after Oct 1 (although I haven't seen anything in the bill that I would construe and changing the answer post Oct)?

 

[MotoJ]

If one were to press out an AK47 flat or finish a 80% AR receiver before Oct. 1st, would that require any registration? Does it require any registration now?

Would the rifle itself have to be completed and would you have to have proof of that, before October? Like say a time stamped photo or something? Or would it be enough to have receipts for the 80% receivers and the other parts? In other words, do the parts constitute the rifle, or would it have to be fully assembled prior to October to be legal?

 

[Markp]

What is the current thinking on building a handgun post Oct?
I would assume that the status-quo would remain and that as long as you are not prohibited from owning the firearm, you would not be prohibited from manufacturing it (assuming, of course, that this was done for personal use and with no intent to sell it). But that takes me to another question... I'm under the impression that you may only sell/purchase a handgun that is on the MD handgun roster, and since all handguns are 'regulated' (ignoring C&R for this) that means no face-to-face transfers, and out of state purchases from a dealer require they conform with MD law, so effectively we are prohibited from acquiring a handgun not on the roster? Is it legal to build a handgun that is not on the MD roster (assuming there is no federal prohibition on what is being built)?

Specific case I'm thinking of is a 100% homemade, single shot, JACO style pistol. Not a copy of any particular manufacturers model, so no way to construe that it's already on the roster. Is that something that is legal to build in MD today? How about after Oct 1 (although I haven't seen anything in the bill that I would construe and changing the answer post Oct)?

As long as it is not 11+ round fixed magazine semi-automatic and it is not a copy of or a type listed as an "assault pistol" you should be good to go.

Mark

 

[BRONZ]

Ok know Im lost. Sorry if this has been asked a 100worker times before.

If I purchase ar15 lowers, m1a receivers now with the idea of building them into rifles after Oct.1 that would be illegal.

 

[Markp]

Ok know Im lost. Sorry if this has been asked a 100worker times before.

If I purchase ar15 lowers, m1a receivers now with the idea of building them into rifles after Oct.1 that would be illegal.

Technically, if you built them into AR-15 rifles and M1A rifles, yes. However if you were to build a rifle that was not an AR-15, for instance, a piston driven AR receiver based rifle or blowback driven AR receiver based rifle, then you would only have to not create a weapon that would be classified as an assault weapon (e.g. Only one of the following features: grenade launcher, folding stock, or flash suppressor and over 29" in OAL).

That applies to the M1A as well. You can build rifles that are not banned, simply by changing the configuration substantially. For instance an M39 EMR is NOT an M1A or any of the following Springfield Armory BM-59, SAR-48, G3, SAR-3, M-21 sniper rifle.

Although it's a weapon derived from the M1 Garand platform, the M14 is not banned (it's full auto and .308). The significant difference between the M39 and all the other derivatives is the chassis and rail systems. It is unlike the others for this reason. Now there could be a determination that this is a "copy" or "imitation", but I would ask them to explain why the Mini-14 is not a copy or imitation (is it caliber?) The M1 Garand is also exempt, which means it could be as simple as a caliber change.

There is a lot of room in this law to be creative. Like creating a Bullpup Garand action rifle chambered in .308. The more you change the weapon, the better the case is for it not being a copy or imitation. I would also consider other significant departures, for instance a heavy bull barrel (threaded naturally), could be argued as a significant difference along with the Chassis. It's not just the action and the caliber.

Mark

 

[BRONZ]

Technically, if you built them into AR-15 rifles and M1A rifles, yes. However if you were to build a rifle that was not an AR-15, for instance, a piston driven AR receiver based rifle or blowback driven AR receiver based rifle, then you would only have to not create a weapon that would be classified as an assault weapon (e.g. Only one of the following features: grenade launcher, folding stock, or flash suppressor and over 29" in OAL).

That applies to the M1A as well. You can build rifles that are not banned, simply by changing the configuration substantially. For instance an M39 EMR is NOT an M1A or any of the following Springfield Armory BM-59, SAR-48, G3, SAR-3, M-21 sniper rifle.

Although it's a weapon derived from the M1 Garand platform, the M14 is not banned (it's full auto and .308). The significant difference between the M39 and all the other derivatives is the chassis and rail systems. It is unlike the others for this reason. Now there could be a determination that this is a "copy" or "imitation", but I would ask them to explain why the Mini-14 is not a copy or imitation (is it caliber?) The M1 Garand is also exempt, which means it could be as simple as a caliber change.

There is a lot of room in this law to be creative. Like creating a Bullpup Garand action rifle chambered in .308. The more you change the weapon, the better the case is for it not being a copy or imitation. I would also consider other significant departures, for instance a heavy bull barrel (threaded naturally), could be argued as a significant difference along with the Chassis. It's not just the action and the caliber.

Mark

I appreciate the response. But this conflicts with other threads I have just seen. As I know and understand the lower or receiver is the rifle. So why wouldn't a lower or receiver purchased before Oct. 1 be considered grandfathered in as any other rifle you have before Oct. 1.

 

[Markp]

I appreciate the response. But this conflicts with other threads I have just seen. As I know and understand the lower or receiver is the rifle. So why wouldn't a lower or receiver purchased before Oct. 1 be considered grandfathered in as any other rifle you have before Oct. 1.

This is really frustrating because everyone thinks that they know what a rifle is, when in fact, often they don't. The receiver is NOT a rifle.

Well then answer me this, is this a rifle, a handgun, or neither?

I will describe it for you. It is a weapon with an 11.5" barrel and an overall length of 27.0" built on a virgin receiver that had never been a rifle before this configuration. (PS - The answer will be in my next post)

Mark

 

[Markp]

So to answer the question, what is the weapon above?

Well there are two different sets of standards we have to consider. State and Federal. I will start with Federal:

For purposes of federal law, this is a firearm, but not as defined in the National Firearms Act. It is not a rifle as it does not have a buttstock, it is not a handgun because it is not concealable on a person (it's over 26" in length), it is something not defined by federal law. It is completely legal under the GCA.

Now on to state law:

This is not a rifle, the barrel is under 16" in length. Since it was not made from a rifle, it is not a short barreled rifle. In Maryland, this is a handgun, simply because it has a barrel of less than 16" in length and no buttstock.

If I put a 16" upper on this, it is neither a handgun or a rifle in MD or federally. It is simply a firearm. It is not a rifle. In either case, it is unaffected by SB281. Just because the receiver is common between these three different configurations does not make it a "rifle" receiver. It's not, it's a receiver, without the features that make it a rifle, a pistol, an AOW, an SBR, etc. It's just a firearm.

 

[Markp]

To make things a little more fun, see the weapon pictured below:

Is not a rifle. It has no buttstock and is not designed to be fired from the shoulder. It also is unaffected by SB281.