nfa items after oct1

[jpo183]

I think switching out an hbar to a nonhbar is the ticket as well. The whole "prove it was not built after oct 1" gives us a lot of leeway if you are willing.

 

[aireyc]

"All Bushmaster semiautomatic rifles" refers to a specific gun by bushmaster by name its not referring to a class of firearms ...

Yes, exactly.

 

[IMBLITZVT]

Post Oct-1 and without new legislation specifically prohibiting it, each FFL will come to their own conclusion on legality and some will choose to sell Form 4 SBRs while others won't. It will end up being such a tiny fraction of firearm sales that the politicians will still get to say they effectively banned most assault rifles from MD. The current law has so many holes in it that NFA items won't even be on their radar.

I don't think you will see much of this. FFLs and MD gun owners will demand that certain things get cleared up by MSP. MSP could only sit back and say it was up to the dealer to determine if some of these gray area guns were on the list back when they could just fill out a regulated form. Then if in doubt, fill out the form and nothing was really hurt. Now its a difference between a sale and not and breaking the law and not. Answers are going to be demanded and given or lawsuits will follow.

I know all the "experts" are saying a semi-automaic Short Barrel RIFLE is not a semi-automatic rifle. I'm still not buying it.

Today, would ANY reasonable FFL sell a AK-74 SBR as unregulated ? That would be nuts.
I don't even think MarkP would advocate for that.

-Jim

Jim, Don't worry, time will tell. When you say sell a AK74 SBR unregulated, do you mean not in the NFA or not regulated by the state of MD? Certainly no one is saying its not going to be regulated by the NFA. However right now your Mac is a MG but "could" also be a handgun by the "concealable" definition of the handgun definition. However if it were considered a pistol it would be banned under the Assault pistol Ban. Also note that while your Mac is a MG its not really a submachine gun. Its a Machine pistol, like a Skorpion...etc. So for all kinds of reasons the Mac MG "could" be banned but its not. Remember the law never says "semi auto" only in the definitions. They say semi auto. Well lots of guns can shoot semi auto or full auto. If we are reading the law in a strict sense, then any gun that is able to shoot semi auto (if it can shoot FA does not matter) could be banned. So I don't understand why everyone thinks a MG is somehow safe but the SBR is not.

Also note that in the MD law, it says that a SBR is made from a rifle. Well if it is made from a rifle, does that not mean that its no longer a rifle... actually yes it does. It would be like saying an AOW Mac made from a Mac pistol with a forward grip was still banned under the Assault pistol ban. Also this actually is much more likely since MD does not ever recognize AOWs. Or how about a SBR mac made originally from a pistol before it was brought into the state? Is it still a pistol and so banned? Since is a SBR now it is a handgun. But not a pistol still...

All these levels are different and tiered. The more I hear on it the more convinced I am and MSP is not nearly as smart to make the arguments that most of you are making. So in time, MSP will confirm it.

They often refer to SBRs as a "weapon made from a rifle." Also, remember that the regulated list says something along the lines of "All Bushmaster semiautomatic rifles," but a Bushmaster HBAR isn't regulated even though it's a semiauto rifle. ...

Yes look up pictures of Bushmaster bullpup rifles. That is what they are talking about:

 

[dblas]

They often refer to SBRs as a "weapon made from a rifle." Also, remember that the regulated list says something along the lines of "All Bushmaster semiautomatic rifles," but a Bushmaster HBAR isn't regulated even though it's a semiauto rifle. There are clear contradictions in how the law is interpreted, and sometimes the text of the law is ignored if the intent is something entirely different.

The "Bushmaster Semi-Automatic Rifle" referred to in the legislation is the name of a firearm manufactured in the early 1990s. It was not manufactured by the Bushmaster company and thus, is a completely different firearm from anything with the Bushmaster Company name on it.

 

[dblas]

"All Bushmaster semiautomatic rifles" refers to a specific gun by bushmaster by name its not referring to a class of firearms ...

Yes, exactly.

No, not exactly.

The Bushmaster Semiautomatic rifle referred to in the bull is a bullpup rifle manufactured by Armtech Ltd. in Austria.

The pictures in the above post are of that firearm. (thanks IMBLITZVT)

 

[SWO Daddy]

Silly question: If SBRs aren't considered rifles, are they run as a "Other" during a NICS check?

 

[anderson76]

I know all the "experts" are saying a semi-automaic Short Barrel RIFLE is not a semi-automatic rifle. I'm still not buying it.

Today, would ANY reasonable FFL sell a AK-74 SBR as unregulated ? That would be nuts.
I don't even think MarkP would advocate for that.

-Jim

Jim,

I think your skepticism as to the SBR workaround to the AWB for AR and AK is warrented.

The proponents of the SBR loophole (sorry if that term offends some) argue that because a short barreled ar15 it is defined as a “Short Barrel Rifle” or “handgun” it is not a copy of a Colt AR 15 which is banned as Assault Weapon.

I don’t believe that it is an either or kind of proposition. A 10” barreled AR15 can both a “short barrel rifle” and “assault weapon”. So long as it meets the definition of assault weapon it is banned irrespective of whether it also meets the definition of Short Barrel Rifle. I confess that I have giving this issue too much analysis. I would like to be proved wrong.

 

[dblas]

While I see the point, is it a copy cat, some have argued the length issue as well.

Most AR platforms are in the 35" - 36" range, that means to fall into the copy cat category based on length, it has to be under 29". That entails 10.5" barrel or shorter, and while those are out there and some folks use them, most of the SBRs I have seen and played with have had a 14.5" barrel or even a 12" barrel, both of which still leave the OAL over 29".

SBRs have always been treated differently by MSP compared to a full size (Barrel over 16", OAL over 26"). The question is, will they remain so? I honestly don't know at this time, and neither does anyone else.

I find it interesting that MD's OAL length requirement is a full 3" longer than the BATFE requirement.

 

[fabsroman]

Yes, exactly.

Not exactly. Don't think you understand which Bushmaster they are referring to. It is NOT the Bushmaster AR-15.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushmaster_M17S

It is essentially this Bushmaster bull pup that is no longer manufactured. A while ago, I thought the Bushmaster reference was to Bushmaster AR-15 type rifles, but that is not the case. That is what the Colt AR-15 reference is to, and within that very reference it provides an exception for Colt HBAR AR-15 types.

 

[erwos]

Not exactly. Don't think you understand which Bushmaster they are referring to. It is NOT the Bushmaster AR-15.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushmaster_M17S

It is essentially this Bushmaster bull pup that is no longer manufactured. A while ago, I thought the Bushmaster reference was to Bushmaster AR-15 type rifles, but that is not the case. That is what the Colt AR-15 reference is to, and within that very reference it provides an exception for Colt HBAR AR-15 types.

It is NOT the M17s. It's the Gwinn firearms gun.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 2

 

[fabsroman]

No, not exactly.

The Bushmaster Semiautomatic rifle referred to in the bull is a bullpup rifle manufactured by Armtech Ltd. in Austria.

The pictures in the above post are of that firearm. (thanks IMBLITZVT)

Ah, you covered it, and I covered it again just in case. Had not made it down to this post before I responded. lol

Due to the introduction of SB281, I now know about 10 times more about firearms law than I used to. I have no idea how the everyday Joe can keep up with all this stuff.

 

[fabsroman]

While I see the point, is it a copy cat, some have argued the length issue as well.

Most AR platforms are in the 35" - 36" range, that means to fall into the copy cat category based on length, it has to be under 29". That entails 10.5" barrel or shorter, and while those are out there and some folks use them, most of the SBRs I have seen and played with have had a 14.5" barrel or even a 12" barrel, both of which still leave the OAL over 29".

SBRs have always been treated differently by MSP compared to a full size (Barrel over 16", OAL over 26"). The question is, will they remain so? I honestly don't know at this time, and neither does anyone else.

I find it interesting that MD's OAL length requirement is a full 3" longer than the BATFE requirement.

What is so surprising that the OAL is longer than BATFE's requirement? This is Maryland. Is it surprising that "assault weapons" are not banned on a national level but they are going to be banned in Maryland. Heck, the initial length was supposed to be 30".

The issue with the SBR is that it can be considered an "assault weapon" per Maryland definition as either a Copycat Weapon because its OAL could be less than 29" or as an Assault Long Gun as a copy of the Colt AR-15.

Exactly how this shakes out is anybody's guess. Just wondering how it will work for those of us with grandfathered lowers and AR rifles. Will we be able to build/convert them into a SBR post October 1, 2013. That is the first question.

Second question is whether one can purchase a SBR after October 1, 2013 because it is categorized differently than a rifle, Copycat, or copy of the Colt AR-15.

 

[erwos]

You guys are killing me.

It is NOT the Bushmaster M17S. That gun came out after the ban, and was in fact infamous for being missed by the AWB (including MD's version). The M17S is cash and carry in Maryland.

The Bushmaster rifle being referred to in the list is the "Gwinn Firearms Bushmaster rifle". It looks a bit like a very crude AR-15. What makes this vaguely confusing is that Gwinn Firearms got bought by Bushmaster and produced it for a short while.

 

[fabsroman]

It is NOT the M17s. It's the Gwinn firearms gun.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 2

lol - and somebody else on here told me it was the M17s. This crap is ridiculous. So, according to the wording in the law:

(xi) Bushmaster semi–auto rifle;

How the heck do we know which one it is? Is there an MSP or AG opinion on this, and if so, can somebody send it to me. I have quite a nice collection of these opinions coming along. Kind of like a firearm collection. Then again, not exactly.

 

[fabsroman]

You guys are killing me.

It is NOT the Bushmaster M17S. That gun came out after the ban, and was in fact infamous for being missed by the AWB (including MD's version). The M17S is cash and carry in Maryland.

The Bushmaster rifle being referred to in the list is the "Gwinn Firearms Bushmaster rifle". It looks a bit like a very crude AR-15. What makes this vaguely confusing is that Gwinn Firearms got bought by Bushmaster and produced it for a short while.

All these firearms regulations have caused me to fill one of my kid's Pez dispensers with Advil and the other kid's Pez dispenser with Tylenol. I am eating these things like candy nowadays.

 

[dblas]

Ah, you covered it, and I covered it again just in case. Had not made it down to this post before I responded. lol

Due to the introduction of SB281, I now know about 10 times more about firearms law than I used to. I have no idea how the everyday Joe can keep up with all this stuff.

Meh, it's covered very well then...

 

[dblas]

You guys are killing me.

It is NOT the Bushmaster M17S. That gun came out after the ban, and was in fact infamous for being missed by the AWB (including MD's version). The M17S is cash and carry in Maryland.

The Bushmaster rifle being referred to in the list is the "Gwinn Firearms Bushmaster rifle". It looks a bit like a very crude AR-15. What makes this vaguely confusing is that Gwinn Firearms got bought by Bushmaster and produced it for a short while.

You are correct, my mistake, thanks for the assist.

 

[teratos]

All these firearms regulations have caused me to fill one of my kid's Pez dispensers with Advil and the other kid's Pez dispenser with Tylenol. I am eating these things like candy nowadays.

How many Advil can you get in one of those? If that is a high capacity pill magazine, it should be banned.....

 

[dblas]

What is so surprising that the OAL is longer than BATFE's requirement? This is Maryland. Is it surprising that "assault weapons" are not banned on a national level but they are going to be banned in Maryland. Heck, the initial length was supposed to be 30".

The issue with the SBR is that it can be considered an "assault weapon" per Maryland definition as either a Copycat Weapon because its OAL could be less than 29" or as an Assault Long Gun as a copy of the Colt AR-15.

Not so fast, under 5-101 see the definition of a handgun:

(n) (1) “Handgun” means a firearm with a barrel less than 16 inches in length.

(2) “Handgun” includes signal, starter, and blank pistols.

(Chapter 427 (Signed version of SB281), page 21)

So and SBR is classified a handgun according to the state of MD. Since it is classified a handgun, it IS NOT considered a centerfire long rifle and thus the long rifle copy cat rules do not apply.

Exactly how this shakes out is anybody's guess. Just wondering how it will work for those of us with grandfathered lowers and AR rifles. Will we be able to build/convert them into a SBR post October 1, 2013. That is the first question.

Second question is whether one can purchase a SBR after October 1, 2013 because it is categorized differently than a rifle, Copycat, or copy of the Colt AR-15.

For the first part, it shouldn't be an issue, you are swapping accessories, and while the BATFE considers it manufacturing, you are no manufacturing a banned centerfire long rifle per the state of MD.

As for the second part, they should be available as a regulated item, and not banned since according to MD law (that has not been changed by Chapter 427 (SB281 Signed) they are classified as a handgun.

Am I reading that section wrong and if so, how and why?

 

[fabsroman]

Not so fast, under 5-101 see the definition of a handgun:

(n) (1) “Handgun” means a firearm with a barrel less than 16 inches in length.

(2) “Handgun” includes signal, starter, and blank pistols.

(Chapter 427 (Signed version of SB281), page 21)

So and SBR is classified a handgun according to the state of MD. Since it is classified a handgun, it IS NOT considered a centerfire long rifle and thus the long rifle copy cat rules do not apply.

For the first part, it shouldn't be an issue, you are swapping accessories, and while the BATFE considers it manufacturing, you are no manufacturing a banned centerfire long rifle per the state of MD.

As for the second part, they should be available as a regulated item, and not banned since according to MD law (that has not been changed by Chapter 427 (SB281 Signed) they are classified as a handgun.

Am I reading that section wrong and if so, how and why?

The definition of "handgun" is applied only where the word "handgun" is used within the statute and what is required when the firearms being purchased has a barrel less than 16".

I really do believe that this issue is going to be another one of those gray areas that will need hours and hours of research and legal argument to figure out whether the item is banned or not.

This might be another one that can be set up between a dealer and purchaser right now where the dealer breaches the contract.

I think we can agree that a handgun is meant to be fired by using your hands, not by shouldering it. (Reaches for the Pez dispenser).

We might even be able to agree that the internal workings of the SBR are pretty much identical to those of the Colt AR-15, just with a shorter barrel.

What happens when somebody decides to convert their pre-October 1, 2013 AR-15 to a SBR? Do they then need to get a HQL? (Reaches for the other Pez dispenser).

It would be nice if MSP would come out with some regulations so we can see what is and is not covered by the regs. (Reaches for the cognac).