The final SB 281: A detailed summary for non-lawyers

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!
  • ddeanjohnson

    autodidact
    Aug 21, 2010
    801
    One would expect MSP to choose whichever interpretation most easily enables arrests and convictions.

    I don't agree with this. I think they will try to make sense of and give effect to what the General Assembly, in its wisdom, has dumped in their laps. It is not always easy.
     

    fire_medic

    Active Member
    Nov 16, 2008
    246
    Calvert County
    IMO...Registration....was an issue that the MSP did not want to become involved in...

    Over the last several months I have sent numerous emails to them, and to my representatives, about this issue, inquiring exactly what they have on file, and just exactly how this registration thing is going to work....

    and I think that it opened up a huge can of worms...

    because they suddenly realized that this would likely go to the SCOTUS...

    and registration has been ruled illegal...

    see below

    The Firearm Owners' Protection Act (FOPA), Pub.L. 99–308, 100 Stat. 449, enacted May 19, 1986, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 921 et seq., is a United States federal law that revised many statutes in the Gun Control Act of 1968.

    The Act forbade the U.S. Government agency from keeping a registry directly linking non-National Firearms Act firearms to their owners, the specific language of this law (Federal Law 18 U.S.C. 926 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/926) being:

    No such rule or regulation prescribed [by the Attorney General] after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or disposition be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary's authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation.

    Delete asked and answered.
     

    Steviebew

    Member
    Apr 5, 2013
    19
    you need to think more creatively than that. suppose, hypothetically, i take the springfield M1a, put a different stock on it, and call it the Springfield Civilian Sportster Carbine and sell it with a 10 round mag. Its no longer a scary black rifle nor a copy cat. I can think of quite a few semi-auto rifles that are not on the scary evil black rifle list right now and are not copycats.


    Shhhhh! I dont know what you are talking about.... You cant replace stocks, every democrat knows that!:innocent0
     

    AliasNeo07

    Ultimate Member
    Feb 12, 2009
    6,547
    MD
    For the final ****ing time:
    1. Flash hiders reduce flash, as is defined right in the bill. Muzzle brakes and comps don't. If you have a combo brake/hider or comp/hider, it's a flash hider under the law. If it's just a brake or comp, it's not. Use your own judgement and common sense.
    2. Collapsing stocks are not the same as folding stocks. The legislative intent was crystal clear.

    I didn't ssee it before and there are a million of these threads...christ.

    Didn't see this before I posted the same question. On stocks, they specifically crossed out "telescoping", so obviously folding is out but collapsible may be ok.

    :thumbsup:

    Agreed. Not even remotely the worst. In fact, it puts me in the mind of Canada: they banned a bunch of stuff by name, but you should see the stuff they can grab off Marstar. They've had the Tavor since forever, for example. No Chinese import ban, either.

    The practical effect here is that it's forcing people into buying more expensive and more modern AR-10s, SCARs, ACRs, XCRs, etc. with the flash hiders swapped for comps. You'll still be able to buy your awesome MSR, but the selection is going to be not as great. I also expect a veritable flood of AK pistols in the state, perhaps sold as AOWs, now that FFLs will be cut off from AK rifles.

    Do scars acrs and xcrs all have grenade/flare launcher mounts? If not I guess they can keep the flash suppressor.
     

    Steviebew

    Member
    Apr 5, 2013
    19
    Wait, page 14 and 15 of the bill, is that saying we cant shoot a "banned" firearm at a range because we aren't allowed to transport it??? Did anybody see this???
     

    ddeanjohnson

    autodidact
    Aug 21, 2010
    801
    Wait, page 14 and 15 of the bill, is that saying we cant shoot a "banned" firearm at a range because we aren't allowed to transport it??? Did anybody see this???

    If you are a Maryland resident and you lawfully own the grandfathered gun, you can transport it. See page 14, lines 9-16.

    An out-of-state resident cannot bring in a post-ban rifle, even for a one-day shooting competition or whatever.
    http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=114585
     

    ObsceneJesster

    Ultimate Member
    Jan 31, 2011
    2,958
    Thanks for all your work, as a follow up to my other post on your previous post because I purchased a stock SKS, then afterwards added a synthetic stock with a detachable 20 rd magazine (which now makes it a regulated rifle) I spoke with someone at the MSP who advised I should bring the gun to any barrack (leave it in the car) and do a voluntary registration with a 77R as otherwise should I shoot someone in my home with it there may be issues had I not reported this change prior. SO.....after I do that it then becomes a "Lawfully owned" assult weapon and after the implementation of this new disgusting law, I will be required to do nothing and can still keep my 4 20rd mags and SKS and transport it to the range and shoot it legally without registering it.
    My question is, IF I do this voluntary registration now whats the difference? I'm still making them aware that I posses it and a few years down the road and a few more crazed killers and Md passes a law to confiscate all assult weapons (their terms not mine) then either way all they need do is knock on the door and say hand it over? Right?

    I'm in the same boat you are however I will not be registering it as an "Assault Weapon". It may have been already recommended in the thread as I have not read every post but I will be taking pictures of everything I currently own that could be considered a un-registered "Assault Weapon". After I take those pictures with time stamps, I will then upload them to multiple cloud based servers. After which, I will then mail every picture to myself through certified mail (signature required). I will not open the envelopes I mailed to myself until a point in time arises where I would need to prove to someone that I did in fact own the firearms prior to October 1st.
     

    LongTom

    Active Member
    Jan 13, 2010
    220
    Southern Maryland
    A grandfather is still a ban.

    I feel that I am still a criminal, and that I am sitting on top of a possible jail sentence. I must prove that I purchased before OCT, or I am a criminal scumbag.

    Also, it is only a matter of time before they decide to come and take them, mark my words. This kind of move does nothing but place me and my family in direct danger from Big daddy government.
     

    gmhowell

    Not Banned Yet
    Nov 28, 2011
    3,406
    Monkey County
    There is no such requirement in the bill. The only people required to register handguns are people who establish residency after October 1, 2013, within 90 days of establishing residency. "Governor Martin O'Malley welcomes you to Maryland! Where are your guns and your wallet?"

    FTFY.
     

    ddeanjohnson

    autodidact
    Aug 21, 2010
    801
    Latest tweaks to the bill summary

    I have updated the bill summary (the Original Post) to include links to additional language in the current state statutes, and to Attorney General Gansler's 2010 memo about how the state authorities determine whether a certain firearm is a "copy" of a model that is on the regulated list (which the bill will make into a banned list). I have also inserted references to provisions in the bill pertaining to a "certified handgun instructor," who is exempt from the training requirements for both the handgun qualification license and for licenses to carry (indeed, such certified instructors are among the people who will be authorized to conduct the training that others will require).
     

    swinokur

    In a State of Bliss
    Patriot Picket
    Apr 15, 2009
    55,394
    Westminster USA
    I read HD veterans as being exempt from training, not the actual license. The only exemption I see for vets from the license is active or retired with a military ID. Is a DD214 considered an ID? Otherwise I read this to mean I am exempted from training but not the license.

    Thoughts?
     

    ddeanjohnson

    autodidact
    Aug 21, 2010
    801
    I read HD veterans as being exempt from training, not the actual license. The only exemption I see for vets from the license is active or retired with a military ID. Is a DD214 considered an ID? Otherwise I read this to mean I am exempted from training but not the license. Thoughts?

    As I wrote in my summary, paragraph no. 1, an active or retired member of the armed forces or the National Guard is exempt from the handgun qualification license requirement, not merely the training component. SB 281, page 27, lines 15-18. However, the term "retired" is not defined in the bill, and some readers believe it only applies to career military who retired after at least 20 years or who were medically discharged. If so, "regular" veterans would still need the license, but any "honorably discharged member of the armed forces of the United States or the National Guard" is indeed exempt from the training requirement (page 29, lines 11-12). The fact that the bill-writers used different language in the two exemptions does suggest that they considered "retired" veterans to be more selective than the population of all honorably discharged veterans, unless it is just a drafting error.

    This license exemption applies if the retiree "possesses a valid military identification card." I think others here have information about the various types of military credentials.
     
    Last edited:

    cowboy321

    Active Member
    Apr 21, 2009
    554
    As I wrote in my summary, paragraph no. 1, an active or retired member of the armed forces or the National Guard is exempt from the handgun qualification license requirement, not merely the training component. SB 281, page 27, lines 15-18.

    This exemption applies if he or she "possesses a valid military identification card." I don't know specifically about a DD214, but I would certainly think it would suffice.

    Retired means 20 years on active duty or medically retired.
    Did they mean to exempt regular non career veterans?
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,920
    Messages
    7,258,945
    Members
    33,349
    Latest member
    christian04

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom