Building a SBR... Is it worth the hastle?

[ChevyGuy91]

I meant wrt the AWB.

 

[groundscrapers]

I don't care about a flash hider..I know what comp I want to use, and the way I would get an adjustable stock would be by fixing the magazine with a bullet button and thus removing one evil feature and replacing it with another.

 

[securityboy]

Several, issues, First (and more importantly):

I know it has probably been beat do death, and I've read both sides of the argument, but has there been any definitive conclusion on whether SBRs are bound by the MA AWB? Please excuse me if I missed a debate or conclusion thread somewhere along the way. From what I read, there is a pretty compelling argument that they are not, but of course, IANAL.

Mike

As far as this goes there is as far as I know NO MA case law on this...but those who suggest that going SBR will get you around the MA AW ban, is treading deeply in "grey areas" based upon "definitional" debate...if MA was "pro gun" maybe those definition arguements would work, but I wouldn't bet my legal freedom on it...(for example you can't own perfectly "legal" SBS's [and some AOW's] because MA interprets our "sawed off shotgun" laws to cover them)...

Now one of the biggest keys to this is the lack of such "no ban" SBR's during the federal AW ban. In the 10 years of the fed ban (when many doubted it would sunset) its pretty logical that if people were paying $2K for "preban guns" that companies like olympic arms (who sold forgripped stockless AR's as AOW's, to get around the weight limit on assualt pistols) would have been happy to sell SBR's with evil features during the ban if it got them around the ban, but it didn't/they didn't...

Bottomline want an SBR in MA with evil features, go spend $1K on a preban SP1, and start there...Whats a new AR cost today $800??? Is saving the $200 really worth that legal risk of playing in this "grey area"...

Now to wrap this nonsense up...

Well, my apologies to the OP then.
I, personally, wouldn't trust the ATF, especially not under an administration like we have now.

Waco. 'Nuff said.

If you are going to distrust "this administration" thats fine, but distrust for legit reasons...there have been plenty of folks who have had thier trusts "bounced" for some sort of "legal fault" found under the microscope "this administration" now puts trusts under...funny I have not heard of a single FORM5 estate transfer bounced, hell look at a (tax paid) FORM 4 it even has an area to be completed if the firearm is being transfered from a deceased person to a non-hier, it is not at all uncommon or any more difficult than anyother NFA transfer...And Waco, well you realize the NFA branch is a bunch of "paper pushers" (no offense to them) but pretty sure none of them are issued jack boots...

 

[drgrant]

Add to that unless you go the trust route (as I understand it) you had LEO sign off on that specific project...

The CLEO is NOT signing off on your gun, per se... its just numbers and letters on a piece of paper. Rather he is signing off on -YOU- and that he does not believe you are legally ineligible to possess it.

-Mike

 

[atmay]

I don't care about a flash hider..I know what comp I want to use, and the way I would get an adjustable stock would be by fixing the magazine with a bullet button and thus removing one evil feature and replacing it with another.

The "bullet button" is really only recognized by California as making a magazine fixed. There are no such provisions or case law in MA to support that a bullet-button'd rifle has a fixed magazine. FWIW, I would much rather have a truly detachable magazine than a collapsible stock.

 

[drgrant]

I don't care about a flash hider..I know what comp I want to use, and the way I would get an adjustable stock would be by fixing the magazine with a bullet button and thus removing one evil feature and replacing it with another.

A bullet button might not qualify as "not having a detachable mag". I'm not sure if it was you that brought this up earlier on the board, or someone else. A bullet button is a California-based nostrum, and I don't think it has any real application outside of their byzantine AWB which is nothing like anyone else's. I guess what I'm driving at, is there's no sense in crippling yourself if it might not be legally meaningful to use the stupid thing anyways.

-Mike

 

[seanc]

Question, can I buy an complete SBR upper (or barrel) off a website and have it shipped to me without filling out the forms and then once I fill out the forms assemble the rifle? It would be awesome to be able to buy the upper, throw it into one of those tube that you bury in the ground and when TSHTF go dig it up cause if TSHTF, no one care about the .govs BS rules anymore.

yes you can. BUT NO YOU SHOULD NOT! If you are in posession of a suitable lower AND a short upper, even if it is not put together, ATF presumes this to be an unregistered SBR.
Line up the goods, buy it if necessary and have the dealer hold it until the forms are approved.

 

[M1911]

FWIW, I would much rather have a truly detachable magazine than a collapsible stock.

Me too.

 

[securityboy]

The "bullet button" is really only recognized by California as making a magazine fixed. There are no such provisions or case law in MA to support that a bullet-button'd rifle has a fixed magazine. FWIW, I would much rather have a truly detachable magazine than a collapsible stock.

I agree, a real detachable mag will serve you much better than a collapsible stock...either use a regular stock, or find the length of the collapsible stock you like and perminently fix it at that length...

OR as I recommended above, just pay the extra $200 on a pre-ban gun as a starting point...

 

[ChevyGuy91]

The "bullet button" is really only recognized by California as making a magazine fixed. There are no such provisions or case law in MA to support that a bullet-button'd rifle has a fixed magazine. FWIW, I would much rather have a truly detachable magazine than a collapsible stock.

When I was in CA, my AR had one. I wanted to add that it was the most annoying thing I had to deal with, and while I was there, I don't think it was not actually recognized as a "legal" fix to the removable mag issue. Just kind of accepted in the gray area, sound familiar?

 

[Rob Boudrie]

New product idea:

Adjustable stocks are illegal. Replaceable ones are not.

How about a multi-stock net with a new clever quick detach mechanism so the operator (everyone likes to be called an operator these days) can quickly change between various lengths to suit their needs?

 

[Kevlar]

When I was in CA, my AR had one. I wanted to add that it was the most annoying thing I had to deal with, and while I was there, I don't think it was not actually recognized as a "legal" fix to the removable mag issue. Just kind of accepted in the gray area, sound familiar?

Not really a gray area. It's legal pursuant to Title 11, Division 5, Chapter 39, Department of Justice Regulations for Assault Weapons and Large Capacity Magazines...

ARTICLE 2. DEFINITIONS OF TERMS USED TO IDENTIFY ASSAULT WEAPONS

5469. Definitions

The following definitions apply to terms used in the identification of assault weapons pursuant to Penal Code section 12276.1:

(a)"detachable magazine" means any ammunition feeding device that can be removed readily from the firearm with neither disassembly of the firearm action nor use of a tool being required. A bullet or ammunition cartridge is considered a tool...

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/chapter39.pdf

 

[crazymjb]

Now one of the biggest keys to this is the lack of such "no ban" SBR's during the federal AW ban. In the 10 years of the fed ban (when many doubted it would sunset) its pretty logical that if people were paying $2K for "preban guns" that companies like olympic arms (who sold forgripped stockless AR's as AOW's, to get around the weight limit on assualt pistols) would have been happy to sell SBR's with evil features during the ban if it got them around the ban, but it didn't/they didn't...

The definition of a rifle used by the ATF under the Federal AWB to my knowledge did not specify as the Mass definition does that it had to have a 16 inch or greater barrel to be a rifle. Under the federal ban, an SBR would have been considered a rifle.

Mike

 

[TheRoland]

New product idea:

Adjustable stocks are illegal. Replaceable ones are now.

How about a multi-stock net with a new clever quick detach mechanism so the operator (everyone likes to be called an operator these days) can quickly change between various lengths to suit their needs?

Heh, awkward. There may be a Massachusetts company working on this (or close).

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Heh, awkward. There may be a Massachusetts company working on this (or close).

Does my post constitute prior art that must be disclosed in the patent filing, or does it serve simply to demonstrate that the concept is obvious to someone with an ordinary skill in the art? Maybe I should file - there are a bunch of patents listed on uspto.gov for boudrie, and all but 3 are mine. (It is cool, however, seeing several patents on toilet paper technology pop up when I search for the ones I filed).

 

[TheRoland]

Does my post constitute prior art that must be disclosed in the patent filing, or does it serve simply to demonstrate that the concept is obvious to someone with an ordinary skill in the art? Maybe I should file - there are a bunch of patents listed on uspto.gov for boudrie, and all but 3 are mine. (It is cool, however, seeing several patents on toilet paper technology pop up when I search for the ones I filed).

I don't think the post is specific enough to constitute either, just as my post doesn't constitute first public display. The trick isn't to have removable stocks, but how. And how to get some Chinese factory to manufacture them for beans, and how to get capital to do it, and how to sell them, etc, etc, etc.

 

[securityboy]

The definition of a rifle used by the ATF under the Federal AWB to my knowledge did not specify as the Mass definition does that it had to have a 16 inch or greater barrel to be a rifle. Under the federal ban, an SBR would have been considered a rifle.
Mike

Well here you go...if anyone wants to test the MA AW ban doesn't apply to SBR's...factory AR type SBR's $600...

http://www.sturmgewehr.com/webBBS/nfa4sale.cgi?read=135606

 

[BearArms]

Well here you go...if anyone wants to test the MA AW ban doesn't apply to SBR's...factory AR type SBR's $600...

http://www.sturmgewehr.com/webBBS/nfa4sale.cgi?read=135606

Now are they considered SBR's because the hider isn't pinned?

 

[meth0d]

Now are they considered SBR's because the hider isn't pinned?

I'd guess that 14.5" is the length with the flash hider, but that's just my opinion from reading it. I have ZERO interest in being the test case for that can of worms.

 

[cekim]

I'd guess that 14.5" is the length with the flash hider, but that's just my opinion from reading it. I have ZERO interest in being the test case for that can of worms.

If it is less than 16 in a "permanent" configuraiton, then it is an SBR.

14.5 is fine if it is pinned such that it is now 16 with the permanently affixed hider, but not a threaded 14.5 barrel with a flash hider simply screwed on.

Now, there is the issue of why a 14.5 barrel is so much more horrible than a 14.5 barrel with a flash hider, but that's a debate for another day...