SBRs and the new assault weapon ban

[steve8140]

Let the arguments begin!

Previously, we had to submit the ATF paperwork wether it be with a trust or as an individual, also need to submit a state issue firearms license. Then it was changed to no more CLEO sign off but still needed a copy of our license.

We also have the arguments with no conclusive answers about if a SBR falls into the AWB ban all together.

The Feds don't give a flying **** about our state laws but they do abide by them which is why we need to send them a copy of our licenses. Now with the AGs new interpretation of our laws and the AW ban, will the ATF deny our applications stating they are not allowed? I'd be very curious to see if anyone gets approved or denied with our new found laws. And the fact that we are all felons.

If anyone has anything pending right now, please keep us posted on the status of it.
Good luck and take lots of aspirin.

 

[413dan]

What about someone who has an approved form 1 lower that never got built into an sbr so was never efa10'd? Quite the predicament we're in here in mass ehh

 

[FreeWillie]

Yes, a lot of us are in limbo because of the bimbo.

 

[steve8140]

If you EFA-10 it you admit guilt of a felony, just my two cents but **** MA! Build away.

 

[Crotchrocket]

If you EFA-10 it you admit guilt of a felony, just my two cents but **** MA! Build away.

you have 7 days to EFA-10 after build or purchase. would today be 7 or 8 days??

 

[Lowbird]

I believe what Steve was alluding to, and others here. The 7/20 date was her stompy feet tantrum declaration that if you go near fa-10'ing an "assault weapon" after that you do so past her deadline. Opening yourself up to a potential world of hurt.

Previous rules of fa-10's no longer apply. Cuz "AR".

 

[Asaltweapon]

I've been waiting this out. I've got solid proof of sending the ATF my trust and the check they cashed back in April. I'm not sweating it yet and believe that I'm likely not going to be sweating moving forward.

In a nutshell it's in the ATF's hands now as I see it.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

If you EFA-10 it you admit guilt of a felony, just my two cents but **** MA! Build away.

You can Form 1 an existing fully functional lower, so there is no manufacture of a new AW in the eyes of the state.

 

[massBRS]

I've been waiting this out. I've got solid proof of sending the ATF my trust and the check they cashed back in April. I'm not sweating it yet and believe that I'm likely not going to be sweating moving forward.

In a nutshell it's in the ATF's hands now as I see it.

agreed. I'm waiting on two and am optimistic.

 

[MachineHead]

Might as well change the name of Massachusetts to Mauritania after last week's decree.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mauritania?wprov=sfsi1

 

[JMC Arms]

In the past form 4s and 1s that were pending were denied based upon the AG advising that something was illegal.

A few years ago they stopped all short barrel shotguns from being approved due to our "sawed off shotgun" law. Only a shotgun that starts life as a SBS (or virgin receiver) will be approved. No making one out of a standard shotgun due to that advice from the AG.

The big test is when or if a form 1 or 4 gets rejected with the reasoning being that an AW is illegal. THEN we know she advised them. Also, would they then reject a preban (pre 94 or 98) lower being made into a SBR? How would they know that the lower is preban unless you send proof and what would be considered proof?

Messy situation.

 

[Da_lucche]

In the past form 4s and 1s that were pending were denied based upon the AG advising that something was illegal.

A few years ago they stopped all short barrel shotguns from being approved due to our "sawed off shotgun" law. Only a shotgun that starts life as a SBS (or virgin receiver) will be approved. No making one out of a standard shotgun due to that advice from the AG.

The big test is when or if a form 1 or 4 gets rejected with the reasoning being that an AW is illegal. THEN we know she advised them. Also, would they then reject a preban (pre 94 or 98) lower being made into a SBR? How would they know that the lower is preban unless you send proof and what would be considered proof?

Messy situation.

That's the situation I am in now...submitted a form 1 on a preban stripped lower on May 4...still anxiously waiting.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

 

[massBRS]

In the past form 4s and 1s that were pending were denied based upon the AG advising that something was illegal.

A few years ago they stopped all short barrel shotguns from being approved due to our "sawed off shotgun" law. Only a shotgun that starts life as a SBS (or virgin receiver) will be approved. No making one out of a standard shotgun due to that advice from the AG.

The big test is when or if a form 1 or 4 gets rejected with the reasoning being that an AW is illegal. THEN we know she advised them. Also, would they then reject a preban (pre 94 or 98) lower being made into a SBR? How would they know that the lower is preban unless you send proof and what would be considered proof?

Messy situation.

I would think anything FILED before the 20th would be good to go - The only gray area I see is filings after the 20th, as everyone before that point "believed they were in compliance" - where as afterwards you'd have to be under a rock to not know about the decree.

 

[jron]

Has anyone submitted anything after this bogus ruling? I picked up some lowers on the "last day"

 

[expedition03]

I kind of was wondering that. If you submitted before hand and paid the $200, it's not fair we should be out the money.

What about someone who has an approved form 1 lower that never got built into an sbr so was never efa10'd? Quite the predicament we're in here in mass ehh

 

[71montess]

Is an SBR a rifle in ma ?

 

[Mass-diver]

Is an SBR a rifle in ma ?

No one knows what anything is anymore. Even Pre-7/20 expert opinion varied, but these days a toaster might be an AW if the AG says so

 

[bigblue]

The ATF would refund your $200 if the stamp were denied. Let's hope it doesn't come to that.

 

[Matthewjmcbride88]

Hasn't there only been a ban proposal? Pretty sure no laws have been passes.

 

[drgrant]

My advice, sit tight. Douchebags calling the feds whining/tantruming/asking stupid questions about this AG edict are not going to be helping anyone....

 

[bigblue]

Exactly. If you ask the ATF for "clarification" then you best not show your face around here: Those kinds of questions are what get us in trouble.

Let sleeping dogs lie.

 

[crazymjb]

Had 3 receivers shipped up here last week and had all 3 transferred to me with no issues yesterday .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If by up here you mean MA and not NH, I wouldnt go posting about it online.

Mike

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

 

[bigblue]

Had 3 receivers shipped up here last week and had all 3 transferred to me with no issues yesterday .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Let's see, 1 post wonder says he has no trouble buying "receivers"... New intern in Maura's office?

 

[Asaltweapon]

My advice, sit tight. Douchebags calling the feds whining/tantruming/asking stupid questions about this AG edict are not going to be helping anyone....

Yup. That's been my behavior and plan all along.

- - - Updated - - -

Exactly. If you ask the ATF for "clarification" then you best not show your face around here: Those kinds of questions are what get us in trouble.

Let sleeping dogs lie.

Yup.

- - - Updated - - -

Let's see, 1 post wonder says he has no trouble buying "receivers"... New intern in Maura's office?

Clearly this raises questions. A one post wonder into SBR's????

 

[Lxpony]

Is an SBR a rifle in ma ?

NO, because it has a barrel shorter then 16".

 

[Shark_Cage]

My advice, sit tight. Douchebags calling the feds whining/tantruming/asking stupid questions about this AG edict are not going to be helping anyone....

This, don't be that firearms school.

 

[massBRS]

Hasn't there only been a ban proposal? Pretty sure no laws have been passes.

This is actually a very interesting point. In her own words, no law is changing here

My advice, sit tight. Douchebags calling the feds whining/tantruming/asking stupid questions about this AG edict are not going to be helping anyone....

definitely.

 

[Scarab440]

This is actually a very interesting point. In her own words, no law is changing here




definitely.

Very interesting. Makes me want to SBR everything.

 

[ChargingCharlie]

This is actually a very interesting point. In her own words, no law is changing here.

Interpretation means the definition of the law changed but it is still law until it's challenged and defeated. This is a new trend in our govt lately that is being used to change law while bypassing anyone who will challenge it.

I'm sure there are some tinfoil wearers here that thought the new drone regulations were great but, what they probably don't know, is that the FAA did this exact thing to the model aircraft world in the same way. Congress passed a law years ago which clearly stated that the FAA had no jurisdiction over mode aircraft under 55 pounds being used for recreational use by hobbiests. About 2 years ago the FAA reinterpreted their definition of a model aircraft, now requires hobbiests to register anything over half a pound, banned them from flying within 5 miles of an airport (previous restriction was no flight over 400' within 3 miles of an airport), and banned all flight in national parks. They also put a $27,500 fine in place for non-compliance. They did all this while still permitting ultra-light manned aircraft to be flown with no registration and no licensing.

Reinterpretation is the new way for government agencies to do whatever they want while bypassing due process.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Interpretation means the definition of the law changed but it is still law until it's challenged and defeated.

Unlike a court decision or legislation, an AG's opinion is not a legally binding change to the definition. It is just accepted as such because of he ability to inflict pain.

The courts could uphold the opinion (or not), however, the legal reasoning would be it's analysis of the opinion, not "the AG has the authority to determine what any law actually means."