Too late to make an SBR?

[erwos]

Well it's useful for a number of reasons... The first being that ANY assault long gun can at anytime be modified to have all three evil features. So if you want to put a folding stock on your AR-15 or AK-47, or your decide you want to make it shorter than 29", or even if you later decide to put a flash suppressor on it, there is NO WAY they can apply the "copy cat" standard to you.

I assumed that future configuration didn't matter from the way they aggregate all three categories into a single "assault weapon" category and then reference that for the bans, but your point is well-taken.

 

[Markp]

I assumed that future configuration didn't matter from the way they aggregate all three categories into a single "assault weapon" category and then reference that for the bans, but your point is well-taken.

So here is some fun. I modify my SKS to take detachable magazines (Tapco duckbills) by modifying the bolt. It's now a "regulated firearm" and thus became a "assault long gun", on October 2nd 2013, I swap the bolt substitute a fixed 75 round rear loading drum magazine. Is it a copycat weapon? Because it was an assault long gun firearm owned before the ban and could be again with a bolt swap.

These people ****ed themselves deep into a corner. All they did was make an unmanageable mess.

 

[IMBLITZVT]

Your SBR will NEVER be an assault long gun. If you are relying on that to save you from the copycat tests, well, I would not. Also, remember that not every SBR is going to be on the assault long gun list. If I want a 14" SCAR with a flash hider and folding stock, the outcome of the discussion is also very relevant to me.

Well the error in this logic is that a SBR is not a semi auto rifle. Its a semi auto SBR... This is the same as it not being never being an assault long gun.

 

[erwos]

Well the error in this logic is that a SBR is not a semi auto rifle. Its a semi auto SBR... This is the same as it not being never being an assault long gun.

The assault long guns list doesn't mention the word "long gun", it says "firearm". The term used in the bill that bans them is indicative, I agree, but not the same as being legally binding such that only long guns are covered.

Your logic only works if SBRs aren't treated as rifles under the tests due to them being defined as "rifles with a barrel less than 16"". That is the question that needs to be answered. You are giving me your opinion on the answer, and then telling me it's not even a question. Sorry, not convinced. So, try something else if you'd like to continue the discussion.

 

[erwos]

Definition of SBR in MD Code:

(f) Short-barreled rifle.- "Short-barreled rifle" means:

(1) a rifle that has one or more barrels less than 16 inches long; or

(2) a weapon that has an overall length of less than 26 inches and that was made from a rifle, whether by alteration, modification, or otherwise.

Again: are you so sure that a motivated AG couldn't figure out a way to cover SBRs with the copycat tests by using that first meaning? I am not, hence the desire for clarification from the AG or MSP after signing. This is not the slam-dunk some of you make it out to be.

 

[annihilation-time]

The assault long guns list doesn't mention the word "long gun", it says "firearm". The term used in the bill that bans them is indicative, I agree, but not the same as being legally binding such that only long guns are covered.

Your logic only works if SBRs aren't treated as rifles under the tests due to them being defined as "rifles with a barrel less than 16"". That is the question that needs to be answered. You are giving me your opinion on the answer, and then telling me it's not even a question. Sorry, not convinced. So, try something else if you'd like to continue the discussion.

I completely get your point. My point is that we shouldn't except the worst case scenario from the AG or MSP. If they want SBRs banned, the MGA should create another piece of legislation that specifically says so.

 

[erwos]

I completely get your point. My point is that we shouldn't except the worst case scenario from the AG or MSP. If they want SBRs banned, the MGA should create another piece of legislation that specifically says so.

Agreed. But if someone's got $1-2k riding on an SBR form 1 approval, they deserve to know the potential risks.

 

[annihilation-time]

Agreed. But if someone's got $1-2k riding on an SBR form 1 approval, they deserve to know the potential risks.

True.

 

[DimaK]

Thank you for the lively discussion. I guess the answer will come in time.
As for myself, I am still at day 35 of my wait to get the rifle in the first place. Hopefully will get it in May. I will not go the trust route and apply via individual MSP approval route. Hopefully that will go through by October. Then on to ATF. This way my investment will be limited. I will keep you all up to date of my progress and ask questions about Form 1 when I get there. Thanks you!

 

[Lex Armarum]

Can someone point to the section in the new gun control law the prohibits SBRs... I hear a lot of innuendo here but nothing concrete. Do we have a statutory section or not?

 

[erwos]

Can someone point to the section in the new gun control law the prohibits SBRs... I hear a lot of innuendo here but nothing concrete. Do we have a statutory section or not?

Nothing bans SBRs or SBSs. The debate is over whether they are subject to the copycat tests, including the OAL test. And since I don't feel like rehashing the whole damn thread and argument again, feel free to look through it and make your own call.

 

[Markp]

Can someone point to the section in the new gun control law the prohibits SBRs... I hear a lot of innuendo here but nothing concrete. Do we have a statutory section or not?

Nope, there is NO BAN on SBR's, it just isn't in there. Only if you claimed that an SBR was a rifle (which legislatively it's NOT because it's a handgun). Per MD law, Handguns include SBR's and SBS's, and are specifically NOT Rifles and Shotguns.

So if it's a handgun, it cannot possibly be a rifle or shotgun since the law says rifles and shotguns are NOT handguns. SBR's and SBS's cannot be rifles and shotguns because they ARE handguns.

 

[teratos]

Nope, there is NO BAN on SBR's, it just isn't in there. Only if you claimed that an SBR was a rifle (which legislatively it's NOT because it's a handgun). Per MD law, Handguns include SBR's and SBS's, and are specifically NOT Rifles and Shotguns.

So if it's a handgun, it cannot possibly be a rifle or shotgun since the law says rifles and shotguns are NOT handguns. SBR's and SBS's cannot be rifles and shotguns because they ARE handguns.

It's not on the roster.

 

[Lex Armarum]

If SBRs aren't banned, then I don't know what all of this discussion is about...

 

[Markp]

It's not on the roster.

Since when did that matter?

I can order a firearm (non-rifle with an OAL > 26") with an AR lower and a 16" barrel and create an SBR out of it anytime I want. Just add a form 1, a stock, and a short barrel. Not only that, I could also make it in an AOW and it's a done deal.

Finally, there is no law preventing one from changing the barrel on the example firearm above from > 16" to less than 16", creating a handgun.

This law is pointless. Is it a rifle, AOW, or a something else? BTW, the OAL is 26.5"

This would NOT be banned under the new law. It's a 5.7x28mm 11 inch barrel weapon with a bipod and 50 round detachable magazine (you would have to purchase the mag out of state or buy a 10 rounder).

 

[DarthZed]

If SBRs aren't banned, then I don't know what all of this discussion is about...

The question is whether MD will view the construction of an SBR from an existing regulated gun to be manufacturing a firearm. Which would be illegal under the new law.

We can go round and round with this and not arrive at a consensus, since we have no idea what the state's decision on this (if any) will be. We can apply all the rational, logical arguments that we like as to how things should be (MarkP and others have made very compelling arguments as to why SBRs should not be affected); but there is simply no telling what the actual interpretation of the law will we till be hear it from the legislature.

 

[Lex Armarum]

The question is whether MD will view the construction of an SBR from an existing regulated gun to be manufacturing a firearm. Which would be illegal under the new law.

We can go round and round with this and not arrive at a consensus, since we have no idea what the state's decision on this (if any) will be. We can apply all the rational, logical arguments that we like as to how things should be (MarkP and others have made very compelling arguments as to why SBRs should not be affected); but there is simply no telling what the actual interpretation of the law will we till be hear it from the legislature.

Since Maryland isn't involved with manufacture of SBRs in general and since Maryland statutes still permit possession of an SBR so long as said rifles are registered in accordance with federal law, I fail to see the problem...

Lets keep two things separate: federal law and state law.

 

[IMBLITZVT]

It's not on the roster.

... there is a real issue... I will not go into more publicly but holy crap...

 

[erwos]

... there is a real issue... I will not go into more publicly but holy crap...

Pretty sure we talked about the "if an SBR is a handgun, why doesn't the roster apply?" issue previously in the thread... not much of a secret.

Then again, the state seems to basically be making it up as they go along when it comes to that particular section of law. Seriously, read it and weep:
http://law.justia.com/codes/maryland/2010/public-safety/title-5/subtitle-4/

 

[erwos]

Since Maryland isn't involved with manufacture of SBRs in general and since Maryland statutes still permit possession of an SBR so long as said rifles are registered in accordance with federal law, I fail to see the problem...

It has nothing to do with federal law. MD law defines rifles and SBRs separately, which is why there's slight concern that a motivated AG could claim that going from rifle to SBR is manufacturing a new, post-October banned SBR (if it fails the feature or OAL tests, if those apply to SBRs).

Basically, we need someone to have the MSP confirm that the copycat tests and "assault long gun list" are not going to apply to SBRs (because they are not rifles as defined in code). The latter is basically a done deal, the former is not. You have some contacts there, so maybe inquire for us?