SBRs and the new assault weapon ban

[spt_1955]

Coworker got this email from "ask the experts"

And what is "ask the experts"?

 

[Knicks]

And what is "ask the experts"?

It's a button on the eforms site used to send emails

 

[bigblue]

IMHO, even according to her illegal "reinterpretation", a form 1 is by definition owned prior and a form 4 would be screwed. But who the hell knows at this point, this is all conjecture.

 

[headednorth]

Maybe! Who knows?!

I looked into this briefly a couple of years ago. Below is a drgrant post...

The problem is you'd have to get a PISTOL lower transferred into
MA, which may be next to impossible. According to BATFE regs, you
cannot use a rifle lower to build a pistol.

If you can't get an FFL to import an AR pistol lower, you could probably
fabricate one out of an 80% blank if you're that industrious. (BATFE
exempts people building stuff from scratch as long as you never sell
the gun to anyone else, and as long as the builder is not a prohibited
person).

Regardless of what route you choose, when the gun is done it will
have to be registered on an FA-10 here in MA. You would need
an LTC-A to posess it, as well. (I believe an AR pistol would easily
meet the definition of a large capacity handgun).

Aside from that, however, you are right. It'd have to be a postie
style setup. The biggest downer is the fact that I don't think "ban restricted"
AR pistols can have a barrel shroud or handguard up front around
the barrel. At least that's the way it was during the fed AWB.... if you
take a look, note the difference between Bushmasters "ban" pistols and
the ones they started selling after the ban. You'll note that the neutered
ones didn't really have a handguard; you had to hold onto the magwell
in front.

ex: http://www.gunblast.com/Bushmaster-Pistol.htm

Thread here...

http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/threads/13632-AR15-pistol-in-Mass

 

[MGnoob]

Coworker got this email from "ask the experts"

So it sounds to me the issue isnt the sbr its that you cant own a receiever under ma law because healey says a receiver is an AW..
So no form 1s at this time for ARs atleast.....so it looks like you just have to buy an ar15 sbr on a form 4 instead.....which leads to the ongoing arguments are SBR exempt for AWB because they are not a pistol rifle or shotgun as defined by state law.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

IMHO, even according to her illegal "reinterpretation", a form 1 is by definition owned prior and a form 4 would be screwed. But who the hell knows at this point, this is all conjecture.

A form 1 could also be someone manufacturing from a block of metal or an 80% lower.

So it sounds to me the issue isnt the sbr its that you cant own a receiever under ma law because healey says a receiver is an AW..

You mean "cannot buy post HeliBan" rather than "can't own" don't you?

 

[drgrant]

It would have been very easy for the ATF to simply reject and refund all MA forms. The fact that they haven't tells me they don't quite know what to make of Healey's shenanigans.

It's not easy at all because the ATF has no idea what the thing is unless it says AR15 or something right on the app, or its some other common name associated with AR or AK receivers etc.

For example if I submit a Form 1 for a Jablome 1000 chambered in .223, how does the ATF know whether or not it's an "assault weapon" or I am creating a single shot break open .223 rifle? It doesn't.

-Mike

 

[Rob Boudrie]

For example if I submit a Form 1 for a Jablome 1000 chambered

Those are made by Heywood, right?

 

[Mass-diver]

So no new SBRs in MA

 

[fmyspray]

ATF has all NFA transfers to Mass on hold now until they get further clarification from the AG.

 

[jron]

ATF has all NFA transfers to Mass on hold now until they get further clarification from the AG.

Have be you spoken with them?

 

[fmyspray]

Yes indeed. I have 15 plus form 3's and 4's in transit and they are all on hold until ATF's legal council gets a definition from the AG's office to what a "Assault Rifle" is.

 

[Mass-diver]

Yes indeed. I have 15 plus form 3's and 4's in transit and they are all on hold until ATF's legal council gets a definition from the AG's office to what a "Assault Rifle" is.

Yup, she's going to make sure no one gets a stamp and she's now going to claim SBRs fall under rifles - just another brutal hit for us.

She can do whatever she wants.....

 

[spt_1955]

It's a button on the eforms site used to send emails

From what I can gather this is a site for members of the firearms industry that requires registration and is not generally available to the general public (or 95% of the people on this thread)?

 

[Royal]

It's not easy at all because the ATF has no idea what the thing is unless it says AR15 or something right on the app, or its some other common name associated with AR or AK receivers etc.

For example if I submit a Form 1 for a Jablome 1000 chambered in .223, how does the ATF know whether or not it's an "assault weapon" or I am creating a single shot break open .223 rifle? It doesn't.

-Mike

Fair point but the examiner can do a few simple Google searches to determine whether it meets Healey's "copycat" designation and/or if a receiver can be easily built into one. It sounds to me like the ATF is simply needing definition from the AG to better assist in denying which applications.

...and since mine are all for bolt guns and muzzleloaders I'm all set.

 

[Mass-diver]

It's not easy at all because the ATF has no idea what the thing is unless it says AR15 or something right on the app, or its some other common name associated with AR or AK receivers etc.

For example if I submit a Form 1 for a Jablome 1000 chambered in .223, how does the ATF know whether or not it's an "assault weapon" or I am creating a single shot break open .223 rifle? It doesn't.

-Mike

They will just reject everything

 

[browncoat]

Fair point but the examiner can do a few simple Google searches to determine whether it meets Healey's "copycat" designation and/or if a receiver can be easily built into one. It sounds to me like the ATF is simply needing definition from the AG to better assist in denying which applications.

...and since mine are all for bolt guns and muzzleloaders I'm all set.

I thought muzzleloaders were exempt from the nfa?

 

[LuvDog]

Crap is what this is. I could be applying for a stamp to build a SBR bolt action. They make bolt action uppers for AR lowers.

 

[exo]

Look at Vermont. It's a civil fine (IIRC $25) if you have a suppressor and because of that the ATF will not transfer them in Vermont.

This information is out of date. Suppressors were legalized in VT, with the caveat that they can only be used on "sport shooting ranges"... which is defined broadly so even a backyard range would meet the definition.

But yes, prior to the legalization the fine was there and that did cause the ATF to deny applications.

 

[exo]

Yes indeed. I have 15 plus form 3's and 4's in transit and they are all on hold until ATF's legal council gets a definition from the AG's office to what a "Assault Rifle" is.

Please stop using "assault rifle" interchangeably with "assault weapon". The former refers to machine guns, the latter is a term of art created by politicians and the media to describe semi-automatic rifles with cosmetic features that make anti-freedom people wet their pants.

 

[exo]

I looked into this briefly a couple of years ago. Below is a drgrant post...



Thread here...

http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/threads/13632-AR15-pistol-in-Mass

I don't know that the referenced post even applies anymore, because receivers are supposed to be transferred by FFL's as "other", and "other" is subject to the same rules as "handgun" with regard to FFL transfers.

 

[fmyspray]

When I used the term "Assault Rifle" I was quoting verbatim what ATF said for the purpose of relating my conversation with them to NES members. I am completely aware of the definitions, implications and connotations. Thank you

 

[exo]

When I used the term "Assault Rifle" I was quoting verbatim what ATF said for the purpose of relating my conversation with them to NES members. I am completely aware of the definitions, implications and connotations. Thank you

Wow, that's effed up that even ATF is using them interchangeably.

 

[Lxpony]

If I get rejected for my two form 1s I'm using that $400 to buy ammo at GFA in Natick....

Sound good FMY?

 

[fmyspray]

If I get rejected for my two form 1s I'm using that $400 to buy ammo at GFA in Natick....

Sound good FMY?

Hey, I think I know that place!

 

[drgrant]

They will just reject everything

Not true, although someone might have to get an NFA lawyer involved.... the dust is still settling on this garbage, though.

-Mike

 

[Knicks]

From what I can gather this is a site for members of the firearms industry that requires registration and is not generally available to the general public (or 95% of the people on this thread)?

No, anyone can create an account. If you eformed you have an account.

 

[soam]

Yes indeed. I have 15 plus form 3's and 4's in transit and they are all on hold until ATF's legal council gets a definition from the AG's office to what a "Assault Rifle" is.

Even Form 3s? That's some Grade-A BS right there.

 

[Youradolt]

 

[Mass-diver]

^ 2 made up tests that don't exists in the law!!!