md law on uppers?

[Mini14tac]

Please read MDSP advisory from 05/16/14 linked above and consider tracking down those you have misinformed.

^^^^^
This!!!!

 

[swinokur]

The only part of he advisory no longer applicable is the requirement that an SBR must be on the handgun roster.

that was eliminated by a change in the statute

 

[outrider58]

...consider tracking down those you have misinformed.

I think he got the point by now.

 

[Pinecone]

How are "they" going to enforce or even know that? Lol.

Sent from my SM-N930T using Tapatalk

When people talk about it on an open forum.

 

[Pinecone]

BTW, the advice JohnnyE gave, was based on responses from MSP.

This is the first I have seen of that advisory. I would have to look at when this was discussed, and several of us emailed MSP and got conflicting responses.

 

[DubTap21]

When people talk about it on an open forum.

Stupid is, as stupid does. Not wishing bad on anyone in our community, but if someone admits to that in an open forum, they deserve whatever they get imo.

Sent from my SM-N930T using Tapatalk

 

[Rambler]

I am just curious. Does anyone know what the rationale behind Maryland redefining the minimum overall length for an SB rifle to be 29 inches?
I realize we are talking about Maryland and it does not have to make sense. But, was there some specific rifle or rifles they had in mind that going from 26 to 29 was preventing being copied?

 

[vgplayer]

I am just curious. Does anyone know what the rationale behind Maryland redefining the minimum overall length for an SB rifle to be 29 inches?
I realize we are talking about Maryland and it does not have to make sense. But, was there some specific rifle or rifles they had in mind that going from 26 to 29 was preventing being copied?

Originally they wanted 30" (and bunch more stuff) which I believe it aligns with California. Not sure what evil black thing they were trying to ban.

Currently the MDSP and ATF are applying the copycat long gun tests to all center-fire rifles that pass the named list test.

 

[Biggfoot44]

"They" started out wanting 30in . "They" switched to 29in specifically to accommodate the Berretta CX4 carbine, in an attempt to get Berretta on board to publically support FSA 2013 . To Berretta's credit, it didn't work, they continued to oppose, and cited FSA2013 was reason for moving out of state.

 

[Pinecone]

I am just curious. Does anyone know what the rationale behind Maryland redefining the minimum overall length for an SB rifle to be 29 inches?
I realize we are talking about Maryland and it does not have to make sense. But, was there some specific rifle or rifles they had in mind that going from 26 to 29 was preventing being copied?

Law says that under 29" is a banned copy cat rifle.

Another part of the law says that SBRs are handguns.

MSP (not MD law), has decided that the 29" applies to SBRs.

No rational. Just whim.

 

[Alphabrew]

What if you owned an HBAR that was purchased cash and carry prior to 10/1/2013. Would you be able to put a non-heavy barrel on it?

 

[swinokur]

IANAL. but MSP says its a pre ban lower, so why not?

 

[Mini14tac]

What if you owned an HBAR that was purchased cash and carry prior to 10/1/2013. Would you be able to put a non-heavy barrel on it?

Good question. I would assume not being that HBAR's were cash and carry and standard profile barrel AR's were regulated and required the 77R and 8 day wait. I could be wrong though. IANAL

 

[swinokur]

true but the advisory does say lowers purchased before 10-1-13 can be built into a banned ALG. The question is would MSP consider an HBAR to also be a pre 10-1-13 lower. As you point out, since the complete rifle was not a regulated firearm. MSP probably not allow it. But parsing the language does make it a little bit of a gray area.

 

[vgplayer]

But if one were to have taken the upper off for whatever reason prior to 10/01/2013, at that moment in time it was "redesigned" as a receiver and hence a regulated item prior to 10/01/2013.

 

[Biggfoot44]

INAL , but at first glance a pre-13 HBAR would be a pre-13 Rifle, not a Lower .

 

[swinokur]

all true

trying to twist the wording probably won't end well

 

[Biggfoot44]

Lowers had different purchase procedure and age requirements than HBARs , so be a major stretch to claim they're the same thing ( in the eyes of MSP).

 

[Alphabrew]

The more I think about it, I guess it's creating a rifle in a banned configuration. Prolly a no-go. Although it might be legal if it was done prior to 10/1/13 since that configuration was not banned at that time.

 

[swinokur]

But you would have been creating a regulated firearm from a non regulated firearm even before 10-1-13. MSP would not be happy if they check the serial number and find it was originally sold without a 77r or the 7 day wait, not to mention the extra databases MSP checks for a regulated firearm as opposed to a single NICS check for a non regulated firearm.

Bigfoot pointed this out in a previous post.