No more SBRs

[Lex Armarum]

Ok.... so guys and girls, we've got a great deal of swirl here...

Truth be told, this advisory is not really inconsistent with my original understanding of the law (although, like fabrosman, I'm very puzzled about the MSP's treatment of SBRs under the PS and CR articles).

Here's my take:

1. Federal law and state law are COMPLETELY different
2. Federal law allows one to register an NFA item under the name of a trust
3. I've consistently stated that MSP has never allowed registration of a firearm in the name of a trust --- so the situation with regard to SBRs and the FED/MD divide remains the same = you can register your NFA item with the Feds in the name of a trust and register the NFA item in the name of the individual (grantor or trustee) at the State level (nothing has changed at first blush but this subject is VERY complicated and I'm still working out the kinks in my position on this issue)
4. The restrictions on transport haven't changed except that SBRs are officially considered handguns for wear/carry purposes - which means you can transport them to and from the range, premises, etc (look at 4-203) as long as the SBR is stowed appropriately
5. As for copycats and handgun registration --- the MSP states that they apply (for now)

I'm still digesting the letter and its pronouncements. If I have more thoughts, I will post them.

 

[fightinbluhen51]

You would form 1 that and no it does not need to be on the roster assuming you already own the gun NOW. The OAL needs to be 29" though so most pistols are too short.

So, buying something that's on a form 4 as an AOW, then filling out and waiting on a form 1.

I hate this state (and you really for you me damned recycling program!)

 

[rsj1231]

So if I bought a Colt HBAR tomorrow I could not put in a form 1 for it without doing all this other new crap? My plan was to do an 11.5in Commando look-alike.

 

[erwos]

FWIW, I've emailed my delegate with my thoughts on the issue, especially given my personal financial stake in it. I've asked him to clarify with the MSP on the "pre-10/1 form 4 in limbo due to roster" issue. I really doubt the MSP intended for that to happen, given their other rulings.

OTOH, I think we've basically come to the conclusion that SBRs going forward are going to be form 1 affairs, or you'll need a very sympathetic FFL.

 

[TNW]

So if I bought a Colt HBAR tomorrow I could not put in a form 1 for it without doing all this other new crap? My plan was to do an 11.5in Commando look-alike.

It would have to not be an ALG or copy, pass the copycat test, be NFA compliant, and meet OAL requirements.

The new stipulations seem like they would apply to form 4s. From what I understand... Is that right?

I have a pending form 1 on my Colt HBAR as well.

 

[anderson76]

How does that matter? It's registered to someone in the trust. There's no law anywhere that says these two things must match up. Registration does not necessarily connote a total ownership story.

Plus, if it came down to brass tacks, the MSP would need to change. Their approach is not compatible with current trust law.

Why do you believe that the MSP’s position on regulated transfers to trusts is inconsistent with MD trusts and estates law? Do you subscribe to the belief that, under MD, trusts are “distinct legal entities” as our resident gun trust guru likes to put it?

Under the NFA any “person” who wants to make an SBR must bribe the U.S. government for a tax stamp. Within the context of the NFA it is ok to think of trusts as entities because the relevant definitions section in federal regs defines the term “person” to mean “trusts” (among other things). However, I would caution against using this definition section in inform you understating of what a trust is and what a trust is not in any context other than the NFA. Here is what I mean: The BATF could have promulgated regs that defined the term “person” to also include “grapefruit”. Does this mean that a grapefruit is at all similar to a person? Of course not.

Under MD law, a trust is very much not like person, llc, corporation, or partnership. It is NOT a distinct legal entity. Under MD law a trust arises when title to property is divided into a legal interest and an equitable interest. More specifically, a trust arises when a grantor/settlor transfers property to a trustee who agrees to administer the property with due fidelity for the benefit of a beneficiary. The trustee holds legal title to the property while the beneficiaries hold a beneficial interest. The trust does not own sh!@. A trust is more akin to an estate in property or a fiduciary relationship among various parties. I am not saying that there are no parallels between a trusts and “legal entities” (for some things they are treated exactly alike) – The point I want to make is that they are very different creatures.

Why does any of this matter? Well for starters it answers the question of why the MSP won’t perform a transfer to a trust. It would be like asking them to perform a transfer to my townhome lease.

Also, as you are all aware, MD law has numerous transfer restrictions on “regulated firearms” and “assault weapons”? Recall that it is the trustee who is the legal owner of the trust property. What happens when you add or remove a trustee? Is there a transfer occurring within the meaning of MD firearms law?

Does your trust property contain an Assault Weapon? Is it important to you that your children inherit your trust property? Our legislature provided an inheritance exception to the transfer restrictions on AWs – so you are certainly GTG – right? Maybe not. The term “inheritance” as it is commonly understood involves the devolution of title to property pursuant to the rules of intestacy or pursuant to the provision of a testamentary instrument. The transfer or property in a trust, upon the death or the grantor, while it does have similarities to a testamentary transfer in that is occurs upon the death of the grantor – it is quite different from the concept of inheritance.

As you can see, trusts add an extra level of complexity when faced with the question of who owns what and what exactly do they own? We are in a state were the demographic trends are not favorable for 2A rights. I have closely followed the recent legislative enactment is NY, CT, and obviously MD. When gun grabbers draft legislation, gun trusts are not on their radar. Consequently, when new legislation comes down the pipe, my guess is that it will not dovetail nicely with the property ownership issues presented by firearms ownership via trust.

Erwos, please don’t take this post as me taking a shot at you. Your analysis of SB281 has been a great asset to the forum. I wish that the mods would make your FAQ a sticky. Is a must read for any newb.

As far as the MSP bulletin goes – it says exactly what the statute says. They dogged the real question: If you take an ALG and sbr it, do you still have an ALG?

 

[Dogabutila]

So, bottom line:

Pre 10/1 lower... Can form 1? (yes?) Can form 4? (no? unless somebody already got that approved on the handgun roster?)
Post 10/1 lower... ??????

How about complete rifles? Can you form 1 to chop them? Does it matter if it's pre or post 10/1?

I'm seriously not understanding how these can be rifles and handguns at the same time.

 

[Abacab]

HBAR or a P.O.

EDIT, I saw erwos said its a dedicated 9mm. Those are GTG and can be purchased now.

A PO lower is not a post 10/1 lower. For all intents and purposes, it is pre 10/1 as it was ostensibly paid for prior to the ban date. It simply has not been papered and deliveres. A lower, as I read it from the post, sounded to me like that - a lower AKA other firearm. If it were a HBAR, it is a rifle. Someone out there might be transferring HBAR marked lowers but I wouldn't. It is not a copy of the HBAR rifle.

 

[TNW]

So, bottom line:

Pre 10/1 lower... Can form 1? (yes?) Can form 4? (no? unless somebody already got that approved on the handgun roster?)
Post 10/1 lower... ??????

How about complete rifles? Can you form 1 to chop them? Does it matter if it's pre or post 10/1?

I'm seriously not understanding how these can be rifles and handguns at the same time.

It's my understanding that there are no post 10/1 lowers, only lowers that were part of a complete HBAR rifle, which is not an ALG.

This could be made into an SBR on a form 1, but would still be subject to OAL, copycat, copy, and NFA rules.

This is MY understanding... Not sure how accurate it is...

 

[swinokur]

So I had a Form 4 signed off by MSP on Sept 15 for a Engage lower and submitted to the NFA Branch Oct 3rd. Does this mean that when the Form 4 comes back the FFL then must submit it on a 77r? It's not on the roster either. Am I phucked? What effective date is MSP going to use? The date of the advisory?

 

[erwos]

So I had a Form 4 signed off by MSP on Sept 15 for a Engage lower and submitted to the NFA Branch Oct 3rd. Does this mean that when the Form 4 comes back the FFL then must submit it on a 77r? It's not on the roster either. Am I phucked? What effective date is MSP going to use? The date of the advisory?

You and I are potentially in a lot of trouble, yes. So are many FFLs who sold form 4 guns and would be financially destroyed if they needed to do refunds. There's going to be a lot of pushing to get an exemption for pre-10/1 transfers.

 

[CATMdude]

So I had a Form 4 signed off by MSP on Sept 15 for a Engage lower and submitted to the NFA Branch Oct 3rd. Does this mean that when the Form 4 comes back the FFL then must submit it on a 77r? It's not on the roster either. Am I phucked? What effective date is MSP going to use? The date of the advisory?

I'm in the same boat.

 

[IMBLITZVT]

Well... how about that! I was right that you guys needed to be worried about the lack of the Roster Board approval more than anything else! You like that, in one letter MSP basically turns you guys who followed MSP and bought SBRs and SBSs without Roster Board approval into potential felons! I would have to say I am in the same boat but I actually sold off my only SBR a good while ago. So I am no longer in violation. All that said, I would not worry to much. There is no way this would stand up in court. I would like to see how MSP explains that they have been signing off that by owning this firearm, you will not be breaking any local laws on every form 4 and 1 and yet now says they are all in violation of the law! MSP word against MSP new SB281 World view. What a load of crap!

As has been noted, they skipped over the ALG issue. This is extremely odd to me. I don't see how one could rule that the Copy Cat law was valid and the ALG did not apply? Just cutting down the barrel certainly did not change it enough not be considered a ALG. Otherwise we will all just cut an inch off the barrel and the ALG ban will be dead.

Frankly I think this whole letter is just crap that will come apart in time. They may start requiring SBRs and SBSs to get past the Roster board but I still don't think there is the legal standing for them to uphold this claim that SBRs and SBSs can be copy cats!

This letter was so poorly done, there is an obvious mistake:

CR § 4-201(g) defines “short-barreled shotgun” as a shotgun that has:

1. One or more barrels with one or both measuring less than 18 inches long; OR
2. Has an overall length of less than 26 inches AND was manufactured from a rifle either by alteration or modification.

Pretty sure the highlighted rifle should be "shotgun"

(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.

So if we are going off what the law says a handgun is, pretty much any gun is capable of being concealed on a person. At least a person with a trench coat. I also think its interesting that here it clearly recognizes that SBRs and SBSs are in a different category of firearms from Rifles and Shotguns... So no matter how much they want SBRs to be rifles... its just not going to work...

 

[TNW]

I hope this works out for you guys in form 4 limbo...

 

[TNW]

Well... how about that! I was right that you guys needed to be worried about the lack of the Roster Board approval more than anything else! You like that, in one letter MSP basically turns you guys who followed MSP and bought SBRs and SBSs without Roster Board approval into potential felons! I would have to say I am in the same boat but I actually sold off my only SBR a good while ago. So I am no longer in violation. All that said, I would not worry to much. There is no way this would stand up in court. I would like to see how MSP explains that they have been signing off that by owning this firearm, you will not be breaking any local laws on every form 4 and 1 and yet now says they are all in violation of the law! MSP word against MSP new SB281 World view. What a load of crap!

As has been noted, they skipped over the ALG issue. This is extremely odd to me. I don't see how one could rule that the Copy Cat law was valid and the ALG did not apply? Just cutting down the barrel certainly did not change it enough not be considered a ALG. Otherwise we will all just cut an inch off the barrel and the ALG ban will be dead.

Frankly I think this whole letter is just crap that will come apart in time. They may start requiring SBRs and SBSs to get past the Roster board but I still don't think there is the legal standing for them to uphold this claim that SBRs and SBSs can be copy cats!

This letter was so poorly done, there is an obvious mistake:


Pretty sure the highlighted rifle should be "shotgun"



So if we are going off what the law says a handgun is, pretty much any gun is capable of being concealed on a person. At least a person with a trench coat. I also think its interesting that here it clearly recognizes that SBRs and SBSs are in a different category of firearms from Rifles and Shotguns... So no matter how much they want SBRs to be rifles... its just not going to work...

I thought only the form 4 SBRs would have to be approved/on the roster?

 

[erwos]

Well... how about that! I was right that you guys needed to be worried about the lack of the Roster Board approval more than anything else!

The guy who told us how the MSP "couldn't regulate NFA weapons" really has no business doing "I told you so" dances. Just sayin'.

 

[IMBLITZVT]

I thought only the form 4 SBRs would have to be approved/on the roster?

Good point:

(a) Prohibitions. --

(1) Except as provided in § 5-402 of this subtitle, a person may not manufacture for distribution or sale a handgun that is not included on the handgun roster in the State.

(2) A person may not sell or offer for sale in the State a handgun manufactured after January 1, 1985, that is not included on the handgun roster.

So as long as you are making it for youself and don't sell it in the state, you are ok on a form 1. However all form 4 people are still screwed.

 

[erwos]

So as long as you are making it for youself and don't sell it in the state, you are ok on a form 1. However all form 4 people are still screwed.

Doesn't say anything about transfer. If it's a done deal and they manufactured and sold before this guidance came out, I don't necessarily see the problem with transferring.

 

[TNW]

Doesn't say anything about transfer. If it's a done deal and they manufactured and sold before this guidance came out, I don't necessarily see the problem with transferring.

Here comes the next bag of worms: make vs manufacture

The form 1 allows you to MAKE an SBR if I recall correctly.

 

[IMBLITZVT]

The guy who told us how the MSP "couldn't regulate NFA weapons" really has no business doing "I told you so" dances. Just sayin'.

What a load of crap... find me the post # I wrote that.

I never said that. I said SB281 did not address NFA items in SB281s AGL and CC ban. Of course MD can regulate NFA. I own a MG and register it with the state every year.

I am not happy or doing any dance. I sure wish I was wrong. I did say that the Roster board was more of a concern than... etc and that people should be more worried about that. MSP sure did turn on that issue and put a lot of people in jeopardy. I think that is crap as I stated. I know you got some joy in MSP's reversal in the SBR and SBS now being viewed as banned and it getting thrown back in our face. However I am not doing any "told you so" dance because MSP continues to screw up gun law. This is not an ego thing for me that I feel I must be right and take some kind of joy in seeing my view be correct. Its a sad day for all who love the Constitution.