squirrels
Who cooks for you?
- Jan 25, 2008
- 4,021
Were "pistol grip" and "thumbhole stock" removed from the evil feature list??
If so, does the "HBAR exception" survive this law for fixed-stock rifles?
The final SB 281: A detailed summary for non-lawyers
- Thread starter ddeanjohnson
- Start date
-
- Tags
- md control summary sb281
The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast
Member Benefits:
No ad networks! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Were "pistol grip" and "thumbhole stock" removed from the evil feature list??
If so, does the "HBAR exception" survive this law for fixed-stock rifles?
- Jan 31, 2009
- 3,285
I believe this is in progress. waiting to see the final printed bill
couple things wrong on the OP:
the copycat features is any TWO of the features
reporting stolen firearms applies to ALL firearms (except antiques) not just regulated firearms
- Jan 31, 2009
- 3,285
yes and yes
HBAR needs further understanding, and I don't want to go further into that until after sine die
ddeanjohnson
autodidact
- Aug 21, 2010
- 801
Yes. That's why my summary does not mention those features.
The bill does not change the list of regulated rifles or the exceptions that were part of that list. But understand this: The so-called "copycat" ban is entirely separate. A hypothetical rifle that is exempt under the list/copy provision can be banned under the "copycat"/features provision, or vice versa. They are two separate tests -- in effect, two separate bans.
paulstitz
Active Member
What about handguns that accept a magazine that is not in the hand grip?
ddeanjohnson
autodidact
- Aug 21, 2010
- 801
Nope
You are dead wrong on both points, and the OP is accurate on both points. Under the bill, a centerfire rifle is a banned copycat if it meets any one of the following three tests. The third test is indeed a two-features test -- but the rifle is banned if it is described in (1), OR in (2), OR in (3).
(1) Has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds; or
(2) has an overall length of less than 29 inches; or
(3) has two of the following attributes: (i) folding stock, (ii) grenade or flare launcher, or (iii) flash suppressor.
My summary also accurately describes the "copycat" provisions for shotguns and pistols, both of which are covered by single-feature tests.
The lost-stolen firearms provision was amended on the floor to apply to regulated firearms only.
I hope you'll fix your post to avoid engendering confusion among readers.
You are dead wrong on both points, and the OP is accurate on both points. Under the bill, a centerfire rifle is a banned copycat if it meets any one of the following three tests. The third test is indeed a two-features test -- but the rifle is banned if it is described in (1), OR in (2), OR in (3).
(1) Has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds; or
(2) has an overall length of less than 29 inches; or
(3) has two of the following attributes: (i) folding stock, (ii) grenade or flare launcher, or (iii) flash suppressor.
My summary also accurately describes the "copycat" provisions for shotguns and pistols, both of which are covered by single-feature tests.
The lost-stolen firearms provision was amended on the floor to apply to regulated firearms only.
I hope you'll fix your post to avoid engendering confusion among readers.
ddeanjohnson
autodidact
- Aug 21, 2010
- 801
A semiautomatic pistol will be a banned as an assault/copycat weapon only if it has a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds; this applies to both rimfire and centerfire. That's it. It doesn't matter where the fixed magazine is.
boss281
Ultimate Member
DELETE
Last edited:
bshedwick
Active Member
Is the 10 round mag only apply to new magazines and new guns? Or does it actually outlaw anything larger without grandfathering like NY state's new law?
daNattyFatty
Ultimate Member
How about the "purchase order" situation? Is it still vague, or will we be able to buy banned firearms prior to Oct 1 and receive them after Oct 1?
Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2
Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2
ddeanjohnson
autodidact
- Aug 21, 2010
- 801
The ban on sale and transfer applies to all detachable magazines with plus-10 capacity, whether associated with new guns, old guns, or no guns, and whether the magazines were made yesterday or 100 years ago. It is not a ban on possession.
boss281
Ultimate Member
I'm wondering if lurkers can use threads like this to find loopholes and tighten them up.
Just a thought...
Just a thought...
ddeanjohnson
autodidact
- Aug 21, 2010
- 801
If you have submitted a purchase order for an "assault"/"copycat" firearm by October 1, it is grandfathered. There is no such provision for handguns, so in my opinion, after October 1 you will need to possess the handgun qualification license to receive transfer of a handgun, with certain exceptions that are discussed in the OP summary.
ddeanjohnson
autodidact
- Aug 21, 2010
- 801
Presumably the lurkers have access to the same documents I do and can read the bill. I am simply explaining what the bill says or does not say on certain points.
gsrcrxsi
Active Member
Does this mean that if someone has a restraining order (same as protective order?) against you, for any reason, you lose all gun rights? cant own anything? is this different than current law?
- Jan 31, 2009
- 3,285
easy... lighten up!
OK - semantics on the first item. understood. copycat test is two, but the way you worded your post any one (meaning either of the two categories) makes it banned.
as for the amendment, I missed that. do you have the amendment number? I just went through all the house amendments and don't see it.
thanks.
bshedwick
Active Member
Thanks. I was concerned that MD would go all NY state and cuomo on us
Thanks for doing this for the board Dean. it looks like it took a lot of work.
ddeanjohnson
autodidact
- Aug 21, 2010
- 801
protective orders
An entire thread should probably be devoted to this subject, which received virtually no attention during the public debates in the legislature, either in committees or on the House and Senate floor. With respect to domestic-partner protective orders issued by Maryland courts, judges are already empowered by current law to remove firearms when issuing an ex parte temporary order, and firearms removal is mandatory upon issuance of a long-term order. An ex parte order is one issued without advance notice to the targeted person, and therefore, without any opportunity to contest the order or present a defense. A long-term order can be issued only after an opportunity for the targeted person to context it at an adversarial hearing.
The bill contains a new provision that imposes a complete and instant firearms disqualification when a "protective" order is issued by an out-of-state court. By my reading, because the bill ties this new provision into a definition already found in the Maryland code that is extremely expansive, it would apply to all out-of-state restraining orders, no matter who seeks them, including those issued ex parte -- which, again, means without advance notice to the targeted party -- that merely prohibit communication or contact with an annoyed person. Such orders may be sought and obtained easily in many jurisdictions, sometimes by persons who have motives that are malicious, delusional, or even criminal.
A prominent and intelligent legislator told me she thought the bill provision did not mean what I think, and that it would be limited to out-of-state domestic-partner protective orders. I do not see language in the bill to support her interpretation, but I would welcome some impartial expert on family law telling me that she was right.
Under either her interpretation or mine, the bill does not apply to temporary ex parte "peace orders" issued by Maryland magistrates or courts, which can be sought by anybody and are issued essentially on request.
An entire thread should probably be devoted to this subject, which received virtually no attention during the public debates in the legislature, either in committees or on the House and Senate floor. With respect to domestic-partner protective orders issued by Maryland courts, judges are already empowered by current law to remove firearms when issuing an ex parte temporary order, and firearms removal is mandatory upon issuance of a long-term order. An ex parte order is one issued without advance notice to the targeted person, and therefore, without any opportunity to contest the order or present a defense. A long-term order can be issued only after an opportunity for the targeted person to context it at an adversarial hearing.
The bill contains a new provision that imposes a complete and instant firearms disqualification when a "protective" order is issued by an out-of-state court. By my reading, because the bill ties this new provision into a definition already found in the Maryland code that is extremely expansive, it would apply to all out-of-state restraining orders, no matter who seeks them, including those issued ex parte -- which, again, means without advance notice to the targeted party -- that merely prohibit communication or contact with an annoyed person. Such orders may be sought and obtained easily in many jurisdictions, sometimes by persons who have motives that are malicious, delusional, or even criminal.
A prominent and intelligent legislator told me she thought the bill provision did not mean what I think, and that it would be limited to out-of-state domestic-partner protective orders. I do not see language in the bill to support her interpretation, but I would welcome some impartial expert on family law telling me that she was right.
Under either her interpretation or mine, the bill does not apply to temporary ex parte "peace orders" issued by Maryland magistrates or courts, which can be sought by anybody and are issued essentially on request.
ddeanjohnson
autodidact
- Aug 21, 2010
- 801
I don't see how my post can possibly be read that way, or how it could be expressed any more clearly (and I have not changed this language in days). Here it is again:
3. A centerfire rifle will be a banned "copycat" if it meets any one of these three tests:
(1) Has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds; or
(2) has an overall length of less than 29 inches; or
(3) has two of the following attributes: (i) folding stock, (ii) grenade or flare launcher, or (iii) flash suppressor.
(1) Has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds; or
(2) has an overall length of less than 29 inches; or
(3) has two of the following attributes: (i) folding stock, (ii) grenade or flare launcher, or (iii) flash suppressor.
I don't know what you mean when you say "either of the two categories." I wrote nothing about "two categories." I wrote that there are three "tests," and that is correct. If the rifle flunks any one of the three "tests," it is banned. The first test is a one-feature test. The second test is a one-feature test. Only the third test is a two-features test -- as I wrote, the rifle flunks the third test if it "has two of the following attributes." But the rifle has flunked either test 1 OR test 2, then the third test -- the two-feature test -- is entirely irrelevant. It is already banned.
It is the Dumais Amendment no. SB0281/563221/1, and it was discussed during the House floor debate.
Users who are viewing this thread
Latest posts
Forum statistics
Latest threads
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
‘Why is nothing being done?’: Concerns grow about drug use, fighting in Montgomery Co. school bathrooms (1 Viewer)
- Started by RFBfromDE
- Replies: 10