MD legal SBRs

[mtel]

I'm still confused. Will they approve a Form 1 on an HK94? The rifle is banned but I've had it for many years.

Best answer is to be determined...

For a brief time, MSP was stating pre-10/1 receivers/firearms could be configured anyway you want, didn't have to be copycat compliant, etc.

Suddenly that stopped and the answer of late is it's back under internal review.

 

[Wayne1one]

From the standpoint of functionality, they are the same. They're just not the same internally. Sorta like VHS and Beta. They differ internally, but do the same thing--record and play on video tape. Actually, the AK and VZ58/2008 are even more alike than VHS and Beta since they both share the same tape (i.e., round).

Well then the Sig 556R is the same too, oh and the PTR 32, can't forget those.

By the way all piston guns functions the same..............Just saying...

 

[fred333]

Pistons and other internal components aren't the point. It's all about features that make a firearm look "evil"--collapsible/folding stocks, semi-auto fire, barrel shrouds (heat shields), hand grips; and, more importantly, rifles, regardless of their innards, that look like this:

 

[TNW]

Yep



You speak truth, could be banned in the future; never know. Currently it's on pretty solid ground (for now anyway).

MSP’s 14-001 bulletin (from 7/9/14) just re-stated that to be considered a copy it has to be similar in appearance and have the same completely interchangeable internals. As you said, never know what'll happen in future GA sessions though.

Yet the MR556 is banned somehow (last time I checked)...

 

[janklow]

From the standpoint of functionality, they are the same. They're just not the same internally.

then why is the VZ58 the only non-banned rifle you're noting? it seems like there are other semi-auto rifles that are unbanned/cash-and-carry that have the same level of functionality.

 

[rico903]

Can I make my 5 year old stripped lower into a pistol legally?

 

[CrawfishStu]

Can I make my 5 year old stripped lower into a pistol legally?

This is the question that the ATF wants the state police to answer on mine. Actually, they want to know if an SBR is considered a pistol to MD, can you make a rifle into a pistol legally.

 

[mtel]

Yet the MR556 is banned somehow (last time I checked)...

Which doesn't make sense (non-interchangeable and HBAR). They (MSP) got the vz right but this one, not so much.

Some of the info on that new MSP firearm search is just inaccurate (Tavor comes to mind). Also, as far as I know, there is no MSP written position on piston ARs.

Don’t know if the outcome would be positive but I’d think there’d be some real future push to have MSP acknowledge, based on its own positions, that piston ARs aren’t ALG copies. Just the same way AK pistols were never really a strong focus until after SB281 (difference being MSP never took a position that they were banned though).

 

[swinokur]

This is the question that the ATF wants the state police to answer on mine. Actually, they want to know if an SBR is considered a pistol to MD, can you make a rifle into a pistol legally.

The BATF has already said if it ever was a rifle, it can't be made into a handgun. What do they want MSP to tell them? That if it was an SBR and is considered a handgun, that it can be made into a pistol? That kind of contradicts Federal law on SBR's doesn't it? I thoght Federal law says an SBR is a rifle, no matter what MD says.

confused.

 

[fred333]

then why is the VZ58 the only non-banned rifle you're noting? it seems like there are other semi-auto rifles that are unbanned/cash-and-carry that have the same level of functionality.

It's not the only unrelated rifle listed; just one of the few. And there doesn't seem to be any obvious rhyme or reason to those that weren't banned, which, based on my conversations with the AG's office, is why I believe these few just weren't on the legislator's radar when SB-281 was written. But I could be wrong.

 

[OrbitalEllipses]

Now that lowers are back on the market...buy yourself an Engage lower and SBR it. That seemed to be one of the few AR platform SBRs that had no issue getting approved.

 

[swinokur]

I hope MSP tells BATFE they're now legal again or others may go through the rejection crap again.

 

[OrbitalEllipses]

I hope MSP tells BATFE they're now legal again or others may go through the rejection crap again.

If it's a Form 1, why would it matter? As long as it's > 29" OAL and built off a lower on the roster (even though this TECHNICALLY isn't necessary for a Form 1), you should be fine. They have no reason to ask for a 77R IMO.

 

[swinokur]

I was under the impression that BATF was asking for proof of when the lower was purchased and rejecting Form 1's for post 10-1 lowers.

I could be mistaken.

 

[OrbitalEllipses]

I checked out of this thread when I got my Form 1, so I have no idea. I just don't see why they want it IF it's built into a legal POST 10/1 configuration (>29"). If you want it shorter than 29" and have a PRE 10/1 lower, that SHOULD be legal and they'd probably want a 77R in that case.

In any case, it's all ******** in one way or another.

 

[rico903]

Clear as mud, just as intended. No one can figure it out. A lower is just that. It SHOULD be easy to get an answer as to whether I can SBR them or make pistol.

 

[JChris]

I have a question about SBR's likely someone has covered this some where but here goes:
I read the statute & and advisory from State of MD
why are there two dimensions in the definitions ?
26" & 29"

 

[outrider58]

I have a question about SBR's likely someone has covered this some where but here goes:
I read the statute & and advisory from State of MD
why are there two dimensions in the definitions ?
26" & 29"

AFAIK, you only need to worry about the 29" Minimum length for center fire SBRs. Rimfire SBRs can be as short as you want.

I've built several since 10/1/2013

 

[JChris]

AFAIK, you only need to worry about the 29" Minimum length for center fire SBRs. Rimfire SBRs can be as short as you want.

I've built several since 10/1/2013

I have no doubt that you are right but my question was;
Why?

 

[outrider58]

I have no doubt that you are right but my question was;
Why?

I need context. What are you reading. Some of the original interpretations of FSA 2013 regarding SBRs changed after enactment.

The easy answer to "why" is because Maryland