View Full Version : SBR denied
Got my paperwork back and the ATF said "denied, illegal in state"
I live in MA, they are not illegal to build but must comply with all state laws.
Update 8/20
Talked to the examiner today. Very nice and was happy to tell me this; about July 1 the ATF was notified by the AG in MA that SBR's and SBS's were not legal and they should approve no more. She may have been off by a few days but told me I just missed it. She said the next step would be the Section Chief but said he would not over rule the AG in MA. She also stated she found this very odd and so did her fellow examiners.
Wish I had the time and $$ to fight city hall but ......................
What are you building?
It still must comply with the MA AWB unless it's a grandfathered pre '98 weapon.
You may want to read this.
http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=32851
I did all the research, I thought, building a 10.5 inch 25.5 OAL AR on a late model recvr.
I thought if I complied with MA law, no folder no flash hider I was GTG.
Did I miss it?
I read all the FAQ's maybe I sux?
I would contact them directly and find out what the specific hang up is. They may have misunderstood something or maybe there was a breakdown in comms.
Updated original post with bad news, thanks for looking.
freakshow10mm
08-20-09, 18:21
That sucks big time. No SBR here in MI too, even for an SOT-2 like me.
Got my paperwork back and the ATF said "denied, illegal in state"
I live in MA, they are not illegal to build but must comply with all state laws.
Update 8/20
Talked to the examiner today. Very nice and was happy to tell me this; about July 1 the ATF was notified by the AG in MA that SBR's and SBS's were not legal and they should approve no more. She may have been off by a few days but told me I just missed it. She said the next step would be the Section Chief but said he would not over rule the AG in MA. She also stated she found this very odd and so did her fellow examiners.
Wish I had the time and $$ to fight city hall but ......................
That's BS, the AG is now bypassing the legislature. There has been no change in MGL Ch 140 Section 121 that would justify her (MA AG Martha Coakley) actions. Hopefully GOAL will be all over this.
That's BS, the AG is now bypassing the legislature. There has been no change in MGL Ch 140 Section 121 that would justify her (MA AG Martha Coakley) actions. Hopefully GOAL will be all over this.
I e mailed GOAL as soon as I hung up with the ATF. As I stated elsewhere, we are fringe so I doubt this will interest them....
That's exactly what I was thinking. I would also contact the NFATCA and alert them as to the AG actions. I would also notify the NRA and other pro-2nd Amendment groups. If the AG can circumvent this, what else can he/ she bypass?
That's BS, the AG is now bypassing the legislature. There has been no change in MGL Ch 140 Section 121 that would justify her (MA AG Martha Coakley) actions. Hopefully GOAL will be all over this.
RetreatHell
08-21-09, 17:40
Is there any legal precedent that would allow the Attorney General of MA to legally do this? You'd think that the AG, or the AG's assistants, would have done some homework or looked up past cases where some other AG in MA's history has done something similar. Otherwise there wouldn't be any legal precedent for her to think she has the right to do this.
I just doubt that she would have the balls to make changes like this on her own, without any approval from her state's elected officials and actually changing the law in legislature, unless she thought she had all of her own legal bases covered.
WARNING! Rant alert!
:eek:
Regardless of whether she has any legal precedent or not, it's still BS and it still really sucks! NFA firearm owners are some of the most law-abiding citizens in this country. We are the last people in America that should have any rights taken away from us, because not only do we pass a standard background check for average non-NFA firearms, but we get double-checked by BATFE and only get approved if we are as clean as a whistle.
I mean, how many times have any of you heard on the news, "Bank of XXXX robbed today by a law-abiding patriotic man wielding an NFA registered MP5 sub-machine gun!"??:rolleyes:
It's ridiculous!
END OF RANT
Unfortunately, we have plenty of examples of people in positions of authority doing what they want with the belief that you can take them to court if you don't like it.
The media wouldn't know the difference between an SP-89, HK94 or an MP5 if it jumped up and bitch slapped them.
Is there any legal precedent that would allow the Attorney General of MA to legally do this? You'd think that the AG, or the AG's assistants, would have done some homework or looked up past cases where some other AG in MA's history has done something similar. Otherwise there wouldn't be any legal precedent for her to think she has the right to do this.
I just doubt that she would have the balls to make changes like this on her own, without any approval from her state's elected officials and actually changing the law in legislature, unless she thought she had all of her own legal bases covered.
WARNING! Rant alert!
:eek:
Regardless of whether she has any legal precedent or not, it's still BS and it still really sucks! NFA firearm owners are some of the most law-abiding citizens in this country. We are the last people in America that should have any rights taken away from us, because not only do we pass a standard background check for average non-NFA firearms, but we get double-checked by BATFE and only get approved if we are as clean as a whistle.
I mean, how many times have any of you heard on the news, "Bank of XXXX robbed today by a law-abiding patriotic man wielding an NFA registered MP5 sub-machine gun!"??:rolleyes:
It's ridiculous!
END OF RANT
AG's in Massachusetts have a long history of anti-gun ownership measures that include regulatory fraud and deception, and now circumventing the legislature:
http://www.goal.org/news/agfraud/fraudhome.html
FromMyColdDeadHand
09-06-09, 17:03
Wasn't there a case in MN(?) recently where a guy got a Suppressor approved by the ATF, but there was a local or state law against it. The guy got prosecuted for violating the state law (?) and his defense was that the AFT approved it, so it must be OK. I think the ATFs position was that they don't enforce local laws. I wonder if this will help of hurt his case.
Heard that from a buddy, not on the net.
That's a true mess. They hate guns so much they are imagining laws before they can even pass them. hahaahaha.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.