Too late to make an SBR?

[erwos]

We should all just keep quiet about this as long as MSP is letting Form 1's pass.

I wouldn't read so much into the MSP "letting form 1s pass". They have no reason to deny them. It's just that you may not be able to act on them when they come back, if they take too long... and that waiting problem is not the MSP's problem.

 

[IMBLITZVT]

I think IMBLITZVT meant Frosh wasn't floating the idea of outlawing all guns, since that would be beyond his scope as AG;...

Sorry, yeah that could be taken either way. I was saying that Frosh was not floating the idea of going after guns as AG. As AG he has to put out something that is supported by law, he has to have some base for the it in the law.

... Maryland code defines rifles and SBRs separately....

AND there you have it. SBRs and Rifles are different. Since SBRs are not listed in the ban, so they are not banned. I mean you guys can run scared but really they are separate categories. Its also not going to ban select fire M16s less than 29"s even though they can be shot in semi and fit the clone part of the AR15 ban. We have been over this. Same thing under the Assault pistol ban. Mac pistol=banned, SBR Mac=ok, MG Mac=ok, Rifle Mac=ok.

If they were called Short Barrel guns not SB Rifles, no one would even think they were banned. Because they have the rifle in there, they think all rifles are the same. Think of it this way, a M16 is a true Assault RIFLE and we all agree its not banned as its considered a MG. Look up the definition of a rifle in MD law

(e) Rifle. -- "Rifle" means a weapon that is: **

(1) designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder; and **

(2) designed or redesigned, and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed metallic cartridge to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger.

Every MG, SBR, and rifle fits this. However everyone agrees a MG is not a rifle! SBRs are not either. They are defined separately and so they are not. They are a higher category of firearm...

 

[erwos]

You are preaching to the choir. I am merely presenting the paranoid view.

 

[IMBLITZVT]

You are preaching to the choir. I am merely presenting the paranoid view.

But when presenting it in that detail, people start acting like that is what is going to happen. Look at this thread... everyone worried about getting a form 1 vs a form 4... etc. when its fairly clear that SBRs will not be touched...

 

[erwos]

But when presenting it in that detail, people start acting like that is what is going to happen. Look at this thread... everyone worried about getting a form 1 vs a form 4... etc. when its fairly clear that SBRs will not be touched...

Nothing is clear until the MSP actually says "SBRs are not touched by this new bill".

 

[teratos]

You are preaching to the choir. I am merely presenting the paranoid view.

...and doing a damned good job of it.

Nothing is clear until the MSP actually says "SBRs are not touched by this new bill".

I agree. Again, I think if MSP is signing off on Form 1's and you are going through the process of having the ATF approve you for it, calling you a criminal is going to be really, really, really hard.

 

[DimaK]

So back to my clueless question - if I go via the NFA trust does MSP still have to sign off of it? I was under the impression that the trust would avoid the whole MSP process. I maybe way off here.

 

[annihilation-time]

So back to my clueless question - if I go via the NFA trust does MSP still have to sign off of it? I was under the impression that the trust would avoid the whole MSP process. I maybe way off here.

Trusts don't require the Law Enforcement sign off.

 

[DimaK]

Exactly, so in this time of legal uncertainty is it actually safer to go via MSP instead of using NFA trust? Would MSP approval actually make process smoother?

 

[erwos]

MSP approval doesn't help, because they are signing off on it right now. They are not factoring in the current ATF wait times - those could, theoretically, change any time. Not their problem.

 

[Mobile]

Doesn't ATF get a vote too? If your examiner is aware of this law he might decide that SBRs are banned in MD and your Form 1 or 4 gets sent back.

 

[erwos]

Doesn't ATF get a vote too? If your examiner is aware of this law he might decide that SBRs are banned in MD and your Form 1 or 4 gets sent back.

Personal opinion: there is no way the BATFE is going to decide SBRs are simply banned in Maryland, because the law doesn't say that at all. The worst case scenario is that what you write in that OAL column really, really matters.

Example: Colt Commando / LE6933. Barrel is 11.5", OAL is 30.75". That's still perfectly fine post-ban. But chop that barrel to 9" so that the OAL < 29", you might have a problem. (Incidentally, a Krink with a comp should also beat the OAL test. I assume you don't need to pin the comp for OAL, just for barrel length.)

So, that's another point to consider: do you really require a super-short barrel? Outside of pistol caliber rifles, they don't make a hell of a lot of sense.

 

[7A38]

If you are talking about an AR, one step that may be helpful is to get a pistol buffer tube before Oct 1. This allows you to legally have all of the SBR parts before Oct 1.

Once ATF approves your form (let's say it's after Oct 1), you won't have to "purchase" or "receive" the gun because you technically already "possessed" it.

7A38

 

[Kingjamez]

(e) Rifle. -- "Rifle" means a weapon that is: **

(1) designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder; and **

(2) designed or redesigned, and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed metallic cartridge to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger.

Every MG, SBR, and rifle fits this. However everyone agrees a MG is not a rifle! SBRs are not either. They are defined separately and so they are not. They are a higher category of firearm...

Actually, only SBR's and other semi-auto rifles fit this definition of "rifle". MG's don't meet the 2nd criteria.

Maybe I'm thick headed, but I don't see how the above definition of rifle doesn't cover SBR's.

-Jim

 

[erwos]

Once ATF approves your form (let's say it's after Oct 1), you won't have to "purchase" or "receive" the gun because you technically already "possessed" it.

The problem is manufacturing.

Actually, only SBR's and other semi-auto rifles fit this definition of "rifle". MG's don't meet the 2nd criteria.

Maybe I'm thick headed, but I don't see how the above definition of rifle doesn't cover SBR's.

SBRs get their own little section in the code that is separate from rifles. And in the definition of a handgun, it notes that "handgun does not include rifles and shotguns" but it "does include SBRs and SBSs". There are also plenty of places where restrictions go something like "handguns, shotguns, rifles, short-barreled shotguns, short-barreled rifles".

So, they're clearly two different things. I think you could make a cogent argument that the legislative intent was NOT to ban SBRs, due to a lack of restrictions on barrel length. But it all comes down to the MSP. I'm still a believer that we'll have an SBR workaround to the tests and list come October.

 

[Kingjamez]

The problem is manufacturing.


SBRs get their own little section in the code that is separate from rifles. And in the definition of a handgun, it notes that "handgun does not include rifles and shotguns" but it "does include SBRs and SBSs". There are also plenty of places where restrictions go something like "handguns, shotguns, rifles, short-barreled shotguns, short-barreled rifles".

Good point, I'd forgotten about that portion of the definition of handguns...

-Jim

 

[IMBLITZVT]

Actually, only SBR's and other semi-auto rifles fit this definition of "rifle". MG's don't meet the 2nd criteria.

Maybe I'm thick headed, but I don't see how the above definition of rifle doesn't cover SBR's.

-Jim

Sorry, I was thinking Select fire MGs as it would be designed with semi only capability... However yes, FA only MGs would not be covered. Also not included would be any Stockless MGs, as they don't fit # (1).

Also, the point is not that a SBR does not fit the definition of a rifle. The point is that their are tiers to firearms. Once you move up a tier, the restrictions on the lower tiers don't matter. For example adding a short barrel to a MG. Since the MG is a higher tier, the restrictions on the SBR do not matter. In this case the SBRs are not restricted by the ban on the lower tier assault rifles.

 

[Kingjamez]

Also, the point is not that a SBR does not fit the definition of a rifle. The point is that their are tiers to firearms. Once you move up a tier, the restrictions on the lower tiers don't matter. For example adding a short barrel to a MG. Since the MG is a higher tier, the restrictions on the SBR do not matter. In this case the SBRs are not restricted by the ban on the lower tier assault rifles.

I'm with you in priciple, perhaps we get there in different ways though. I agree with you on the AFT's tierd approach: MG >> SBR thus no need for an additional stamp for a SBR / Suppressor on a MG.

However, I don't see that same approach in MD law. In MD law, MG's aren't defined as rifles. Similarly SBR's aren't defined as rifles (handguns as erwos pointed out). It's not a tier system(as I see it), it's a careful (and accurate) application of definitions in the law.

-Jim

 

[Markp]

I'm with you in priciple, perhaps we get there in different ways though. I agree with you on the AFT's tierd approach: MG >> SBR thus no need for an additional stamp for a SBR / Suppressor on a MG.

However, I don't see that same approach in MD law. In MD law, MG's aren't defined as rifles. Similarly SBR's aren't defined as rifles (handguns as erwos pointed out). It's not a tier system(as I see it), it's a careful (and accurate) application of definitions in the law.

-Jim

Handgun I believe is defined as any firearm with a barrel shorter than 16"

 

[IMBLITZVT]

I'm with you in priciple, perhaps we get there in different ways though. I agree with you on the AFT's tierd approach: MG >> SBR thus no need for an additional stamp for a SBR / Suppressor on a MG.

However, I don't see that same approach in MD law. In MD law, MG's aren't defined as rifles. Similarly SBR's aren't defined as rifles (handguns as erwos pointed out). It's not a tier system(as I see it), it's a careful (and accurate) application of definitions in the law.

-Jim

I believe MD and MSP do follow the same type of tier system. For example. Its perfectly legal in MD for me to take the stock off my Mac registered MG. If we did not have a tier system, it would then qualify as an Assault pistol and so would be banned. If it was not for the tiers, then since my Mac is select fire, so semi or FA, then it would fall under this law banning semi auto pistols. But because of the tiers, the gun is considered a MG because it can do FA fire. The idea that can also fire semi auto no longer matters as its in a higher tier.

With the exception of "handgun", each gun is going to fit into one category of a tiered system. They basically follow ATF logic.

With Handgun, for some reason they expanded it to include other guns in an effort to ban them all from being carried. Doesn't make sense with the rest of the way the law works but whatever... Actually they have more categories than the ATF because they see pistols and revolvers as their own categories where they ATF just called both kinds handguns...

The law reads

(c) Handgun. --

(1) "Handgun" means a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed on the person.

(2) "Handgun" includes a short-barreled shotgun and a short-barreled rifle.

(3) "Handgun" does not include a shotgun, rifle, or antique firearm.