UZI parts kit build into AOW?

[Krysta]

Just to clarify, there's legal no way as of now to get an uzi? Even as sbr? It's one I regret not getting.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

You can get a rifle as long as it is in 45acp, MDSP did not ban the 45acp in rifle format.

 

[Krysta]

I think you mean "MDSP is considering AOWs to be pistols". Copycat is a very specific term. I would be vaguely surprised if they did this, but who knows... what's your source?

I was told this by a MD class 3 dealer who was refused a similar gun AOW, I wont name names, the word copycat was what I heard. I am sure nothing will be final until a court case makes a decision.

 

[caffeind]

If you were to form 1 a receiver. Would it have to be for an sbr?

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[Krysta]

If you were to form 1 a receiver. Would it have to be for an sbr?

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

I believe so yes.

 

[caffeind]

How would we get a receiver? I just spoke with a local ffl and he says anything "uzi" is banned

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[jjones88]

The way that I understand how SB 281 works is that a copycat firearm cannot have parts interchangeability. What defines the "parts" piece appears to be an unknown but the C308, the Zenith hk94 clones, and the Polytech M14 used clever ways to weld in denials and slot the bolts so that its not simple to interchange key functional parts. MSP is allowing those transfers to occur.

My thought is that the semi-auto Uzi uses a rear denial bar (in the receiver) with a slot in the bolt to prevent a full-auto bolt from being used. There is nothing to prevent someone from adding a 2nd denial feature such that a "off the shelf" semi-auto bolt cannot be used. Plenty of room in the receiver and extra space on the bolt.....

 

[erwos]

The way that I understand how SB 281 works is that a copycat firearm cannot have parts interchangeability.

This is an AG opinion, not part of the law. But, yes, you're right.

MSP is allowing those transfers to occur.

The MSP doesn't know anything about those transfers and isn't "allowing" anything. There's no 77r being sent to the MSP on a rifle transfer.

My thought is that the semi-auto Uzi uses a rear denial bar (in the receiver) with a slot in the bolt to prevent a full-auto bolt from being used. There is nothing to prevent someone from adding a 2nd denial feature such that a "off the shelf" semi-auto bolt cannot be used. Plenty of room in the receiver and extra space on the bolt.....

According to the existing AG opinion, yes, this would presumably work. But I personally wouldn't want to be the test case.

 

[jjones88]

This is an AG opinion, not part of the law. But, yes, you're right.


The MSP doesn't know anything about those transfers and isn't "allowing" anything. There's no 77r being sent to the MSP.


According to the existing AG opinion, yes, this would presumably work. But I personally wouldn't want to be the test case.

Wouldn't all those buying the C308 and the HK94 clones (or any of the hk91/93/94 clones) be running fine lines as well? The polytech specifically says "Not Banned" or at one point it did so I'm excluding it from this discussion.

 

[erwos]

Wouldn't all those buying the C308 and the HK94 clones (or any of the hk91/93/94 clones) be running fine lines as well?

To me, it's about what I could defend in court. And, to a jury, welding in a second blocking bar for the sole purpose of ducking parts compatibility isn't going to be the easiest sell.

The C308 has a fair few parts incompatibilities with the HK91. The MSP classifying it as banned is an open-and-shut screwup.

The HK94 clones... that's an interesting question. The MP5 and MP5k have a number of parts that don't interchange, and only the MP5 rifle (HK94) and MP5k pistol (SP-89) are banned. So if you have an MP5k-based rifle or an MP5-based pistol, I would not find anything particularly out of sorts with that. Whether the MSP and/or the handgun roster board understands this fine distinction, I don't know and don't particularly care.

 

[wbw2123]

How would we get a receiver? I just spoke with a local ffl and he says anything "uzi" is banned

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

Receivers for banned firearms can still be transferred as an other i.e. AR lowers and AK receivers. The law states that they cannot be built into a banned configuration, but that doesn't keep you from building them into a non-banned configuration.

 

[wbw2123]

To me, it's about what I could defend in court. And, to a jury, welding in a second blocking bar for the sole purpose of ducking parts compatibility isn't going to be the easiest sell.


The HK94 clones... that's an interesting question. The MP5 and MP5k have a number of parts that don't interchange, and only the MP5 rifle (HK94) and MP5k pistol (SP-89) are banned. So if you have an MP5k-based rifle or an MP5-based pistol, I would not find anything particularly out of sorts with that. Whether the MSP and/or the handgun roster board understands this fine distinction, I don't know and don't particularly care.

The Zenith 9X series is the perfect example. Instead of using the HK method of semi auto denial, they used a different method that allows for a front push pin ( a big no-no on a factory HK semi auto). By using a denial feature in the receiver, Zenith requires the sear trip to be milled off of the bolt. So a standard bolt will not fit in a Zenith gun. The different bolt is the same reason the Polytech is exempt and the same logic that JJones is applying to an UZI with a different denial feature.

Another important distinction is the MP5 vs MP5K and the assault pistol list. This is the same tact we should be taking with the UZI vs. Mini UZI vs. Micro UZI vs. Pistol vs. UZI PRO. None of these variants are 100% interchangeable, but somehow Uzi Pistol means that every variant in pistol form is banned. That broad stroke application of UZI pistol doesn't work if a MP5 pistol is exempt from the assault pistol list because it is not interchangeable with the MP5K.

 

[fred333]

How would we get a receiver? I just spoke with a local ffl and he says anything "uzi" is banned

That's been my understanding, too.
On the other hand, AKs're also banned by name, but you can still legally purchase an AK pistol and SBR it. Maryland's one of a handful of states that entrusts its firearm law to people with no knowledge of firearms. Like putting me in charge of defining the rules of grammar for Mandarin solely on the basis of my fashionable politics....and I don't speak a word of Mandarin....not that that's of any relevance..

 

[erwos]

The Zenith 9X series is the perfect example. Instead of using the HK method of semi auto denial, they used a different method that allows for a front push pin ( a big no-no on a factory HK semi auto). By using a denial feature in the receiver, Zenith requires the sear trip to be milled off of the bolt. So a standard bolt will not fit in a Zenith gun. The different bolt is the same reason the Polytech is exempt and the same logic that JJones is applying to an UZI with a different denial feature.

Let's conduct a thought experiment: as far as I'm aware, real HK9Xs don't have factory paddles. If I send off my HK94 to PCS or whomever to get one installed, is that now not an HK94 because it has parts that can't go into a factory HK94?

My point is simple: getting too caught up in the AG's opinion is probably a mistake. This isn't a case like the CETME, where it's actually a genuinely different rifle. These Zenith guns are clearly being sold as HK94 clones.

Another important distinction is the MP5 vs MP5K and the assault pistol list. This is the same tact we should be taking with the UZI vs. Mini UZI vs. Micro UZI vs. Pistol vs. UZI PRO. None of these variants are 100% interchangeable, but somehow Uzi Pistol means that every variant in pistol form is banned. That broad stroke application of UZI pistol doesn't work if a MP5 pistol is exempt from the assault pistol list because it is not interchangeable with the MP5K.

I very much agree that full-size and mini-size Uzi pistols shouldn't be banned, as they are not 100% parts compatible with the real-deal Action Arms Uzi Pistol. Don't even get me started on them trying to claim the Uzi 22lr is a copy of the Uzi.

 

[smdub]

The Zenith 9X series is the perfect example. Instead of using the HK method of semi auto denial, they used a different method that allows for a front push pin ( a big no-no on a factory HK semi auto). By using a denial feature in the receiver, Zenith requires the sear trip to be milled off of the bolt. So a standard bolt will not fit in a Zenith gun. The different bolt is the same reason the Polytech is exempt and the same logic that JJones is applying to an UZI with a different denial feature.

Not really. The ATF doesn't care about MDs firearms laws. To them the MKE/Zenith and HK are the same type of firearm. They won't allow a pushpin receiver because it would allow a drop in sear pack and bolt to create full auto. 30s of work at best. MKE/Zenith was clever in that they prevented the use of a full auto bolt - a type of blocking bar. Therefore a factory hk pushpin trigger pack will NOT go full auto. ATF is happy and they allow the receiver to have the hole. Thats all they care about. The no-hole receiver vs the bolt denial are just two different types of full-auto denial features. They don't make them different guns. Won't a hk94 bolt (which are all semi auto because they are milled clean through the sear trip) still slide into a MKE? Same w/ the trigger pack? So it passes ATFs no-full-auto muster but still has interchangeable parts using MDs laws and fails there. The ATF and MD are concerned about two TOTALLY separate things. Not a perfect example

 

[wbw2123]

Let's conduct a thought experiment: as far as I'm aware, real HK9Xs don't have factory paddles. If I send off my HK94 to PCS or whomever to get one installed, is that now not an HK94 because it has parts that can't go into a factory HK94?

My point is simple: getting too caught up in the AG's opinion is probably a mistake. This isn't a case like the CETME, where it's actually a genuinely different rifle. These Zenith guns are clearly being sold as HK94 clones.


I very much agree that full-size and mini-size Uzi pistols shouldn't be banned, as they are not 100% parts compatible with the real-deal Action Arms Uzi Pistol. Don't even get me started on them trying to claim the Uzi 22lr is a copy of the Uzi.

I agree that getting too caught up in any opinion is like trying to chase the winds of change.


Yes Zenith wanted a paddle mag, no factory HK semi guns do not have them. Could it be Zenith built their gun with limited interchangeability in mind and has an exception under other pretense. If I were Zenith, I would want people buying factory parts from me, not using surplus parts on the second hand market. As a manufacturer, aftermarket parts would be a far bigger motivator than a paddle mag release.


The fact of this discussion is, at this point in time, each gun should be evaluated for 100% interchangeability per the AG opinion.


The CETME predates the G3 so that is a whole different argument, but having kits of both, I can say that the interchangeability issue is far more subtle on those guns than many people think.


I wish more people would get on board with the UZI and start pushing these issues harder. Hopefully Kobe will moot all of this.


ETA: Ah, you deleted a sentence while I was typing.... Thanks for that.

 

[wbw2123]

Won't a hk94 bolt (which are all semi auto because they are milled clean through the sear trip) still slide into a MKE? Same w/ the trigger pack? So it passes ATFs no-full-auto muster but still has interchangeable parts using MDs laws and fails there. The ATF and MD are concerned about two TOTALLY separate things. Not a perfect example

Okay, maybe you have me there, but I was under the impression that the MP5 bolt with the sear trip in place will work in a HK94 without modification. HK may have removed the sear trip on the 94, but that doesn't mean there was an associated denial feature. An MKE will not accept any bolt with the sear trip. So yes, if a 94 bolt does not have a sear trip and has enough clearance for a MKE receiver denial, it would work fine.

 

[fred333]

Okay, maybe you have me there, but I was under the impression that the MP5 bolt with the sear trip in place will work in a HK94 without modification. HK may have removed the sear trip on the 94, but that doesn't mean there was an associated denial feature. An MKE will not accept any bolt with the sear trip. So yes, if a 94 bolt does not have a sear trip and has enough clearance for a MKE receiver denial, it would work fine.

Any bolt made for the MP5 sans the sear trip ledge will fit the MKE MP5. In lieu of the shelf, they (cleverly, in my estimation) chose, instead, to place a block in the aft lower right rear corner of the receiver that's designed to prohibit a full-auto bolt (with the trip ledge) from entering. All in all, I view it as an elegant solution since it results in the MKE MP5 looking like a standard HK MP5 and accepting all genuine HK parts....including trigger assemblies/lowers.

 

[jjones88]

To me, it's about what I could defend in court. And, to a jury, welding in a second blocking bar for the sole purpose of ducking parts compatibility isn't going to be the easiest sell.

The C308 has a fair few parts incompatibilities with the HK91. The MSP classifying it as banned is an open-and-shut screwup.

The HK94 clones... that's an interesting question. The MP5 and MP5k have a number of parts that don't interchange, and only the MP5 rifle (HK94) and MP5k pistol (SP-89) are banned. So if you have an MP5k-based rifle or an MP5-based pistol, I would not find anything particularly out of sorts with that. Whether the MSP and/or the handgun roster board understands this fine distinction, I don't know and don't particularly care.

I feel like defending this wouldn't be much different then any scary looking gun within this state. But otherwise, the uzi with a second denial feature, beyond the one within the grip, has been modified to make it even safer. Without the bolt modified the gun wouldn't fire at all.