SBR questions

[Rotty]

I have been reading the posts about purchasing an SBR in MA and I am very confused. I want to buy an Daniel Defense MK18. It comes from the factory as an SBR. I need to fill out the Form 1, have the Chief sign off on it, mail it in and wait. Do I need to declare what I am purchasing ahead of time? If it is approved by the Chief and I get the stamp, how do you have it sent to this state from the manufacturer? Do you need to provide them with your stamp and they send it to an FFL? Once I get it, do I then need to have it stamped with a serial number, my name and city/state?

If you are purchasing a SBR, can you have the AWB features on it? Can you purchase an SBR that has a adjustable stock and flash suppressor?

Any help anyone can give would be great. This whole NFA thing is very confusing and cumbersome.

 

[groundscrapers]

Factory SBR's would be on a form 4 so once you pay for it, have the dealer complete the paperwork except for the police sign off all in duplicate then attach a passport like photo to each, get 2 fingerprint cards, and get the LEO to sign both and then send em in with a $200 check.

 

[browncoat]

Form 1 is to build, Form 4 is to purchase. You fill out both forms for a specific firearm serial number. You transfer NFA firearms through a FFL. Whether AWB applies to SBR gets debated on here from time to time. An SBR technically doesn't meet the MA definition of a rifle, which is why some people say the AWB doesn't apply

 

[browncoat]

Addendum: Part of what is confusing you is building and sbr (form 1) vs buying an sbr (form 4). An sbr you buy will already be marked in compliance with the nfa, you wouldn't need to mark it.

 

[browncoat]

Finally, yes the NFA is cumbersome. It was stupid as written, and that certainly hasn't changed.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Form 1 is to build, Form 4 is to purchase. You fill out both forms for a specific firearm serial number. You transfer NFA firearms through a FFL. Whether AWB applies to SBR gets debated on here from time to time. An SBR technically doesn't meet the MA definition of a rifle, which is why some people say the AWB doesn't apply

I can tell you that EOPS position is that an SBR MUST comply with the AWB issues. I'm not interested in NFA stuff so have never researched this area of law and have no personal opinion about the matter.

 

[browncoat]

I can tell you that EOPS position is that an SBR MUST comply with the AWB issues. I'm not interested in NFA stuff so have never researched this area of law and have no personal opinion about the matter.

I also am more interested in non NFA firearms, but it seems to me that the EOPS must be stretching the law a bit with their interpretation. Since SBR are too small to be rifles, does the EOPS consider that the assault pistol regs apply to them? If so, semi auto SBRs would be virtually impossible to build in compliance.

 

[Len-2A Training]

I also am more interested in non NFA firearms, but it seems to me that the EOPS must be stretching the law a bit with their interpretation. Since SBR are too small to be rifles, does the EOPS consider that the assault pistol regs apply to them? If so, semi auto SBRs would be virtually impossible to build in compliance.

One of the first slides I show in my MA Gun Law Seminars is the fact that each change in Sec. of Public Safety brings with it their own legal team (EOPS lawyers) who go about "re-interpreting" MGL and CMRs to their liking. From what I understand it is NOT within their charter to do so, but they do it anyway. How much weight it carries in court? Well Glidden's book is used by many judges, so you can guess the answer to that question!

I don't know their rationale for their interpretations other than to say that they are anti-2A.

 

[soam]

I have been reading the posts about purchasing an SBR in MA and I am very confused. I want to buy an Daniel Defense MK18. It comes from the factory as an SBR. I need to fill out the Form 1, have the Chief sign off on it, mail it in and wait. Do I need to declare what I am purchasing ahead of time? If it is approved by the Chief and I get the stamp, how do you have it sent to this state from the manufacturer? Do you need to provide them with your stamp and they send it to an FFL? Once I get it, do I then need to have it stamped with a serial number, my name and city/state?

If you are purchasing a SBR, can you have the AWB features on it? Can you purchase an SBR that has a adjustable stock and flash suppressor?

Any help anyone can give would be great. This whole NFA thing is very confusing and cumbersome.

To expand on what other have said, if you want to buy a completed MK18 you will first need to get in touch with a dealer who handles transfers of NFA firearms. They will obtain the MK18 on a Form 3 (transfer between NFA dealers), and then transfer it to you on a Form 4.

If you have the transfer done to you as an individual, your chief of police will need to sign off on the Form 4, and you will need to provide photos and fingerprint cards. If you form a trust and have the transfer done to the trust, you don't need the chief sign-off or the photos/fingerprints. Just google "NFA trust" and do some reading on the benefits of having your NFA stuff on a trust.

As for the AWB stuff, the basic argument boils down to this question: Are the Federal defnitions of "rifle", "pistol" and "shotgun" incorporated into the MA AWB? Since the MA AWB basically says "Look at the Federal AWB as of X date, that's our AWB", it could be argued that the Federal definitions apply. When the Federal AWB was in effect, the interpretation was that SBRs were still considered "rifles", and therefore were still subject to the AWB.

A dealer who transferred a non-AWB legal gun to you would be committing a crime, so you may have a hard time convincing one that SBRs are not subject to the MA AWB.

 

[browncoat]

Typical bureaucracy. The ATF pulls the same sort of stunts, for example with the Akin Accelerator. The law exists only as a tool to mean whatever it is they want it to.

 

[atilla]

I can tell you that EOPS position is that an SBR MUST comply with the AWB issues. I'm not interested in NFA stuff so have never researched this area of law and have no personal opinion about the matter.

[citation needed]

please show me where they include title II firearms in the MGLs with respect to the AWB.

 

[Len-2A Training]

[citation needed]

please show me where they include title II firearms in the MGLs with respect to the AWB.

You'll have to find your own citation!

"EOPS POSITION" does not mean that it is (or is not) in MGL. It only means that a judge may use their position in making a determination of guilt/innocence . . . or s/he may ignore EOPS position as non-binding, it's a crap-shoot but in a state where most of the MA judges are gun-hating marsupials, you take a big chance.

 

[atilla]

FWIW i was going to disregard AWB with my SBR and then i did the smart thing and moved.

YMMV IANAL.

 

[drgrant]

You'll have to find your own citation!

"EOPS POSITION" does not mean that it is (or is not) in MGL. It only means that a judge may use their position in making a determination of guilt/innocence . . . or s/he may ignore EOPS position as non-binding, it's a crap-shoot but in a state where most of the MA judges are gun-hating marsupials, you take a big chance.

Len, If "EOPS position" was that good (on a lot of things) then prosecutors would use it all the time to send gun owners to jail. They don't, because it sucks, because the actual law rarely supports it. They think that they can create law just by waving a magic wand around, but things don't work like that.

-Mike

- - - Updated - - -

As for the AWB stuff, the basic argument boils down to this question: Are the Federal defnitions of "rifle", "pistol" and "shotgun" incorporated into the MA AWB? Since the MA AWB basically says "Look at the Federal AWB as of X date, that's our AWB", it could be argued that the Federal definitions apply. When the Federal AWB was in effect, the interpretation was that SBRs were still considered "rifles", and therefore were still subject to the AWB.

The problem is that MGL has legal definitions in it for these things which clearly contradict the federal ones. If we're operating in the realm of being prosecuted in an MA court, which do you think is going to take precedence?

-Mike

 

[Len-2A Training]

Len, If "EOPS position" was that good (on a lot of things) then prosecutors would use it all the time to send gun owners to jail. They don't, because it sucks, because the actual law rarely supports it. They think that they can create law just by waving a magic wand around, but things don't work like that.

The problem is that MGL has legal definitions in it for these things which clearly contradict the federal ones. If we're operating in the realm of being prosecuted in an MA court, which do you think is going to take precedence?

-Mike

My problem with these "EOPS Positions" is that they are TAUGHT to chiefs and LOs in the police academy and seminars with the FULL EXPECTATION of prosecution. It puts people in danger of an arrest record (no expungement possible) and expensive legal bills even if not convicted. I hate "made up law" and have earned the hatred and trolling by the Deputy General Counsel of EOPS for calling them out on it.

I would NEVER trust a MA prosecutor or judge with my freedom! They are almost all anti-2A to the core and will do all that they can to screw you (and a CWOF on an unjustified charge is still a screwing).

 

[KTech2316]

Do you just have to notify the chief of police or does he actually have to sign off?

 

[soam]

Do you just have to notify the chief of police or does he actually have to sign off?

For NFA Form 1 or Form 4 filed as an individual, the chief has to sign off on it. It is not like the application for a C&R, which only requires notification.

 

[atilla]

My problem with these "EOPS Positions" is that they are TAUGHT to chiefs and LOs in the police academy and seminars with the FULL EXPECTATION of prosecution. It puts people in danger of an arrest record (no expungement possible) and expensive legal bills even if not convicted. I hate "made up law" and have earned the hatred and trolling by the Deputy General Counsel of EOPS for calling them out on it.

I would NEVER trust a MA prosecutor or judge with my freedom! They are almost all anti-2A to the core and will do all that they can to screw you (and a CWOF on an unjustified charge is still a screwing).

how can they screw anyone when there is no established case law and there is no explicit wording in the MGLs stating that title II firearms must comply with the AWB?

i'm sure mr. guida would love to take a case like this if it ever went to court. opening up a whole new market, neva been dun befo, etc.

either way i think you're a bit too scared of the state. the black and white text of the law as it is written does not give any weight to the fears in which you outline above about a potential court case.

tl;dr: chill.

 

[Terminator03]

how can they screw anyone when there is no established case law and there is no explicit wording in the MGLs stating that title II firearms must comply with the AWB?

i'm sure mr. guida would love to take a case like this if it ever went to court. opening up a whole new market, neva been dun befo, etc.

either way i think you're a bit too scared of the state. the black and white text of the law as it is written does not give any weight to the fears in which you outline above about a potential court case.

tl;dr: chill.

While I agree 100% with what you are saying here, I do get what Len was pointing out as well. He is basically just airing on the side that prevents the op from being a "test case", which is great if you have the time and budget for it, but most of us don't. That being said, we all have our own tolerance for risk and should proceed accordingly. Inmo, if I am already spending the money and going through the process of being vetted federally AND locally by the CLEO, I'd not be too concerned about a killy FH, or adjustable stock at that point.

 

[Rotty]

The company said that they can only send NFA items to FFL/SOT holders.

 

[atilla]

The company said that they can only send NFA items to FFL/SOT holders.

tell them they suck at life.

components, however NFA they have the potential to be are not restricted.

take your business elsewhere and call the company a bleeding vagina, because that's what they are.

 

[browncoat]

The company said that they can only send NFA items to FFL/SOT holders.

That's federal law. The company has no choice in the matter. If they are going to sell a complete Title II weapon to you, it needs to be transferred on a Form 3 to a FFL/SOT and then a Form 4 to you. If you build one yourself, you can buy or transfer the lower through any FFL, do the Form 1 and then buy the non-regulated upper parts anywhere.

- - - Updated - - -

tell them they suck at life.

components, however NFA they have the potential to be are not restricted.

take your business elsewhere and call the company a bleeding vagina, because that's what they are.

Atilla - Rotty originally was asking about buying a complete weapon, not building from components. Any complete Title II weapon will need to go through an FFL/SOT that's federal law.

 

[atilla]

Atilla - Rotty originally was asking about buying a complete weapon, not building from components. Any complete Title II weapon will need to go through an FFL/SOT that's federal law.

we have been low on coffee with caffeine in it here this week. i'm all over the place.

that one is kind of a given--yeah OP complete NFA shit needs to go dealer to dealer on a form 3.

 

[Da_lucche]

To expand on what other have said, if you want to buy a completed MK18 you will first need to get in touch with a dealer who handles transfers of NFA firearms. They will obtain the MK18 on a Form 3 (transfer between NFA dealers), and then transfer it to you on a Form 4.

If you have the transfer done to you as an individual, your chief of police will need to sign off on the Form 4, and you will need to provide photos and fingerprint cards. If you form a trust and have the transfer done to the trust, you don't need the chief sign-off or the photos/fingerprints. Just google "NFA trust" and do some reading on the benefits of having your NFA stuff on a trust.

As for the AWB stuff, the basic argument boils down to this question: Are the Federal defnitions of "rifle", "pistol" and "shotgun" incorporated into the MA AWB? Since the MA AWB basically says "Look at the Federal AWB as of X date, that's our AWB", it could be argued that the Federal definitions apply. When the Federal AWB was in effect, the interpretation was that SBRs were still considered "rifles", and therefore were still subject to the AWB.

A dealer who transferred a non-AWB legal gun to you would be committing a crime, so you may have a hard time convincing one that SBRs are not subject to the MA AWB.

Not true at all. Contrary to popular belief, the MA AWB wasn't the FED AWB permanently signed into MA law. The MA AWB was all whole new bill written up by the pols just prior to the 2004 FED AWB expiration date. While the original draft of the MA AWB was almost word for word like the Federal AWB, it was always its own entity and in the end, it ended up being a totally bastardized version of the Fed AWB but not upheld to the FED AWB wordage or definitions.

 

[warwickben]

Not true at all. Contrary to popular belief, the MA AWB wasn't the FED AWB permanently signed into MA law. The MA AWB was all whole new bill written up by the pols just prior to the 2004 FED AWB expiration date. While the original draft of the MA AWB was almost word for word like the Federal AWB, it was always its own entity and in the end, it ended up being a totally bastardized version of the Fed AWB but not upheld to the FED AWB wordage or definitions.

Leaning more towards copy and paste .. And bad edits .

 

[Da_lucche]

Leaning more towards copy and paste .. And bad edits .

Which is why we are stuck in the land of ambiguous definitions over what is a rifle and what isn't! lol

 

[crazymjb]

I think a jury could be convinced that NFA items are exempt pretty easily. It makes sense (even if not intended) that an item that requires CLEO signoff and an ATF registration and permission slip, and by the letter of the law is not an "assault weapon," is exempt from the AWB...

Also I find the liklihood of getting wrapped up for an illegal "assault weapon" with a form 1 in hand is pretty low given the rarity of AWB prosecutions in cases of real AW violations.

The definition is not ambiguous. MA clearly defines an attribute of a rifle as a 16" or greater barrel. If it doesn't have this, it cant be a rifle. If its not a rifle per MA law it can't be subject to a ban that applies to rifles... the whole reason for the definitions is to remove ambiguity. It may not be intentional but thats the law.

Mike

Sent from my cell phone with a tiny keyboard and large thumbs...

 

[Mass-diver]

I think a jury could be convinced that NFA items are exempt pretty easily. It makes sense (even if not intended) that an item that requires CLEO signoff and an ATF registration and permission slip, and by the letter of the law is not an "assault weapon," is exempt from the AWB...

Also I find the liklihood of getting wrapped up for an illegal "assault weapon" with a form 1 in hand is pretty low given the rarity of AWB prosecutions in cases of real AW violations.

The definition is not ambiguous. MA clearly defines an attribute of a rifle as a 16" or greater barrel. If it doesn't have this, it cant be a rifle. If its not a rifle per MA law it can't be subject to a ban that applies to rifles... the whole reason for the definitions is to remove ambiguity. It may not be intentional but thats the law.

Mike

Sent from my cell phone with a tiny keyboard and large thumbs...

I agree with this, however I pussed out and used pre-Ban lowers for my SBRs.

To the OP, hang in there with all this a BS. I have a DD 10.3 mk18 upper and it runs like a dream, well worth the effort!

 

[exo]

Not true at all. Contrary to popular belief, the MA AWB wasn't the FED AWB permanently signed into MA law. The MA AWB was all whole new bill written up by the pols just prior to the 2004 FED AWB expiration date. While the original draft of the MA AWB was almost word for word like the Federal AWB, it was always its own entity and in the end, it ended up being a totally bastardized version of the Fed AWB but not upheld to the FED AWB wordage or definitions.

Umm... care to cite?

“Assault weapon”, shall have the same meaning as a semiautomatic assault weapon as defined in the federal Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. section 921(a)(30) as appearing in such section on September 13, 1994, and shall include, but not be limited to, any of the weapons, or copies or duplicates of the weapons, of any caliber, known as: (i) Avtomat Kalashnikov (AK) (all models); (ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil; (iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC-70); (iv) Colt AR-15; (v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR and FNC; (vi) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9 and M-12; (vi) Steyr AUG; (vii) INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22; and (viii) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as, or similar to, the Street Sweeper and Striker 12; provided, however, that the term assault weapon shall not include: (i) any of the weapons, or replicas or duplicates of such weapons, specified in appendix A to 18 U.S.C. section 922 as appearing in such appendix on September 13, 1994, as such weapons were manufactured on October 1, 1993; (ii) any weapon that is operated by manual bolt, pump, lever or slide action; (iii) any weapon that has been rendered permanently inoperable or otherwise rendered permanently unable to be designated a semiautomatic assault weapon; (iv) any weapon that was manufactured prior to the year 1899; (v) any weapon that is an antique or relic, theatrical prop or other weapon that is not capable of firing a projectile and which is not intended for use as a functional weapon and cannot be readily modified through a combination of available parts into an operable assault weapon; (vi) any semiautomatic rifle that cannot accept a detachable magazine that holds more than five rounds of ammunition; or (vii) any semiautomatic shotgun that cannot hold more than five rounds of ammunition in a fixed or detachable magazine.

Section 131M. No person shall sell, offer for sale, transfer or possess an assault weapon or a large capacity feeding device that was not otherwise lawfully possessed on September 13, 1994. Whoever not being licensed under the provisions of section 122 violates the provisions of this section shall be punished, for a first offense, by a fine of not less than $1,000 nor more than $10,000 or by imprisonment for not less than one year nor more than ten years, or by both such fine and imprisonment, and for a second offense, by a fine of not less than $5,000 nor more than $15,000 or by imprisonment for not less than five years nor more than 15 years, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

Seems to punt to the Federal law to me.

 

[warwickben]

You'd think if mass law points to a federal law no longer on the book mass law would be void ...... Hmmmmm