What Chad said is perfectly correct and sensible, and something I warned about in my FAQ for a long time. A form 1 is an application to make/manufacture, not an application to transfer like a form 4. A form 1 is NOT a purchase order, it's at best "intent to manufacture". A form 4 could be reasonably construed as a purchase order.
Further, we're all in general agreement that a rifle can't be an ALG and a copycat weapon at the same time, but the MSP has not yet clarified whether SBRs can ever be ALGs.
If they can be ALGs, Chad can either chop it to any length he wants.
If they can't be ALGs, Chad has to keep it at 29" or above, because it could be a copycat weapon.
The plus side to the logic of the second case is that SBR and handgun versions of all the banned rifles should be back on the table. But the roster board seems to be under the impression you can be a copy of a banned rifle while being a handgun. *mind blown* Might take a lawsuit to resolve that, too.
Further, we're all in general agreement that a rifle can't be an ALG and a copycat weapon at the same time, but the MSP has not yet clarified whether SBRs can ever be ALGs.
If they can be ALGs, Chad can either chop it to any length he wants.
If they can't be ALGs, Chad has to keep it at 29" or above, because it could be a copycat weapon.
The plus side to the logic of the second case is that SBR and handgun versions of all the banned rifles should be back on the table. But the roster board seems to be under the impression you can be a copy of a banned rifle while being a handgun. *mind blown* Might take a lawsuit to resolve that, too.
