Firearms Ownership Verification for Banned Firearms

[Lex Armarum]

I'm sorry. I was under the impression that SB281 did not differentiate between Maryland residents, non-residents and future residents in regards to grandfathering "assault long-arms". I thought that if you owned it (or had a valid order to purchase) before 10/1/13, then it was grandfathered in and you could legally possess it in the State of Maryland, regardless of your state of residence.

Further, if you moved into the State after 10/1/13, you could register it so long as you owned it before 10/1/13.

Is my understanding of the law not correct?

From SB281

4–303.
(a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, a person may not:
(1) transport an assault WEAPON into the State;

 

[Trumpet]

FWIW, I've decided on a price for the affidavit I am offering. All other discussions about this matter will have to occur one-on-one, outside of this thread, and preferably off this forum (confidentiality reasons). E-mail me.

Email sent. Would you recommend this for handuns too?

 

[JADCecil]

Well Rusty, I have been thinking about how much I am going to charge for my services too. Wouldn't it be a hoot, if we charged nothing, but took gratuity? The state is banking on the fact most folks won't be able to afford the luxery of OUR SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS. In fact, I testified before committee that sb281 and HB-something or other, would greatly affect those who are on low income, fixed income and the such. Those, who are in areas of increased violent crime, of every ethnic group and at any given point in MD as a whole. While most of us instructors see these new regs as a boom for our industry, most of us are pissed off that the STATE will dictate who and who cannot exercise their second amendment right simply because they can't afford it. The HQL has a four hour training requirement, of which I am qualified/ certified to do, but at what price? Shove it back to Owe'Malley and charge NOTHING. Let it be known that gratuity is expected for services. But what is "fair" gratuity?

I would be interested in offering this type of service as suggested by Woodstock; no pictures though, just the affidavit with a certification related to the firearm with notary. Pictures could be taken by the owner after taking the signed Affidavit home. My office is in Cecil County.

 

[T-Man]

What exactly would this do that a picture taken pre-Oct 1 would not?

 

[Trumpet]

What exactly would this do that a picture taken pre-Oct 1 would not?

I would imagine (not that I'm a "tech" person) that a time stamped picture can easily be doctored or 'shopped. A legal affidavit seems to be a lot more legit.

 

[beafly.cakes]

How would a document with the firearms and serial numbers listed, photos included, sealed and sent via certified mail (identifies the date) to a 3rd party stand up in court?

 

[Broadside]

From SB281

4–303.
(a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, a person may not:
(1) transport an assault WEAPON into the State;

The entire text of §4–303.

(a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, a person may not:
(1) transport an assault weapon into the State; or
(2) possess, sell, offer to sell, transfer, purchase, or receive an assault weapon.
(b) (1) A person who lawfully possessed an assault pistol before June 1, 1994, and who registered the assault pistol with the Secretary of State Police before August 1, 1994, may:
(i) continue to possess and transport the assault pistol; or
(ii) while carrying a court order requiring the surrender of the assault pistol, transport the assault pistol directly to the law enforcement unit, barracks, or station if the person has notified the law enforcement unit, barracks, or station that the person is transporting the assault pistol in accordance with a court order and the assault pistol is unloaded.
(2) A licensed firearms dealer may continue to possess, sell, offer for sale, or transfer an assault long gun or a copycat weapon that the licensed firearms dealer lawfully possessed on or before October 1, 2013.
(3) A person who lawfully possessed, has a purchase order for, or completed an application to purchase an assault long gun or a copycat weapon before October 1, 2013, may:
(i) possess and transport the assault long gun or copycat weapon; or
(ii) while carrying a court order requiring the surrender of the assault long gun or copycat weapon, transport the assault long gun or copycat weapon directly to the law enforcement unit, barracks, or station if the person has notified the law enforcement unit, barracks, or station that the person is transporting the assault long gun or copycat weapon in accordance with a court order and the assault long gun or copycat weapon is unloaded.
(4) A person may transport an assault weapon to or from:
(i) an ISO 17025 accredited, National Institute of Justice–approved ballistics testing laboratory; or
(ii) a facility or entity that manufactures or provides research and development testing, analysis, or engineering for personal protective equipment or vehicle protection systems.



So what am I missing?

 

[Lex Armarum]

The entire text of §4–303.

(a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, a person may not:
(1) transport an assault weapon into the State; or
(2) possess, sell, offer to sell, transfer, purchase, or receive an assault weapon.
(b) (1) A person who lawfully possessed an assault pistol before June 1, 1994, and who registered the assault pistol with the Secretary of State Police before August 1, 1994, may:
(i) continue to possess and transport the assault pistol; or
(ii) while carrying a court order requiring the surrender of the assault pistol, transport the assault pistol directly to the law enforcement unit, barracks, or station if the person has notified the law enforcement unit, barracks, or station that the person is transporting the assault pistol in accordance with a court order and the assault pistol is unloaded.
(2) A licensed firearms dealer may continue to possess, sell, offer for sale, or transfer an assault long gun or a copycat weapon that the licensed firearms dealer lawfully possessed on or before October 1, 2013.
(3) A person who lawfully possessed, has a purchase order for, or completed an application to purchase an assault long gun or a copycat weapon before October 1, 2013, may:
(i) possess and transport the assault long gun or copycat weapon; or
(ii) while carrying a court order requiring the surrender of the assault long gun or copycat weapon, transport the assault long gun or copycat weapon directly to the law enforcement unit, barracks, or station if the person has notified the law enforcement unit, barracks, or station that the person is transporting the assault long gun or copycat weapon in accordance with a court order and the assault long gun or copycat weapon is unloaded.
(4) A person may transport an assault weapon to or from:
(i) an ISO 17025 accredited, National Institute of Justice–approved ballistics testing laboratory; or
(ii) a facility or entity that manufactures or provides research and development testing, analysis, or engineering for personal protective equipment or vehicle protection systems.



So what am I missing?

.

The part about bringing an "assault rifle" into state post Oct 1, 2013. Really?

 

[Lex Armarum]

Email sent. Would you recommend this for handuns too?

Not for handguns. Not really necessary as those handguns aren't banned.

 

[MigraineMan]

Been thinking about this a lot recently. While the burden of proof *should* lie with the State, arguments that degenerate into "he said, she said" generally play out poorly for us commoners - LEOs, opposing counsel, et al, are all officers of the court, and being part of "the system" their words carry more weight. So any "proof" would be better than just saying "nuh uh."

That said, were I opposing counsel, I would immediately attack the "proof" and attempt to have it excluded. How? Chain of custody. You can mail a signature-required certified package to yourself, and I would demonstrate how that doesn't *prove* anything. "But it's sealed and has a postmark with the date on it!" Yep, and I can CNC machine a potato and create a stamp and fake one. But, but, but ... (ob note - I'm not a lawyer, and this ain't legal advice.)

Having documents notarized and held by a lawyer might work, but there's still the question of who had access to them. Again, were I the opposition, I would attack the crap out of the chain of custody and try to have the "proof" excluded.

Registration with the MSP seems to be the only way to provide proof that is likely to survive scrutiny. However, this comes with a bunch of other unpleasant liabilities. Aside from the obvious 2A problems, you're left with a "fox guarding the henhouse" scenario where you have to trust that the MSP won't "lose" your registration. I've had a City government lose an entire building permit, to the point they claimed one had never been issued. I have no faith that the MSP, or any government agency, will operate error free.

I don't have a good solution. I wish there was one. This crap keeps me up at night.

 

[jonnyl]

That would only prove you had the gun after the date on the newspaper, not before October 1st.

Ha, yeah the newspaper strategy is much better for proving things like "see the hostage was still alive as of yesterday" Doesn't do much for proving they're still alive now though.

NOTE: I recommend against ever taking hostages.

 

[Broadside]

.

The part about bringing an "assault rifle" into state post Oct 1, 2013. Really?

Rusty,

The statute lists out exceptions in subsection b. I listed out the entire section and bolder what I thought was relevant.

The way I read the statute is that it does not apply to any firearm an individual owned before October 1, 2013.

If I am wrong in my interpretation, please explain how. What you are saying contradicts what others have said.

 

[inkd]

This is a great idea and I'd like to thank Rusty for offering it up.

 

[Antifeik]

So if you purchase your firearm before Oct 1st, Don't they have your application and the date,paperwork on where the purchase was done?

 

[c33m0n3y]

For people who are considering some kind of affidavit or alternative ownership validation for the soon-to-be banned firearms, is it because you don't have receipts or other acquisition record, like the pink copy of the 77R? I am just curious in case I'm missing something from this whole situation. I do plan to scan my receipts/77R's and back them up to the cloud just in case.

 

[Long1MD]

How about taking detailed pictures and emailing them to yourself and maybe trusted family members? Problem solved and time stamped with email date and time. Could even create a dummy email (uhhhh...for the low fee of FREE) just to document these items. Pay me $50 per and I will gladly do all of this for you

 

[Markp]

Or just do one pic per firearm

What weight does an affidavit have, I could make up all sorts of shit, swear I have it, use photos from the internet.

Then build it all later.

Mark

 

[Long1MD]

What weight does an affidavit have, I could make up all sorts of shit, swear I have it, use photos from the internet.

Then build it all later.

Mark

^^^^^^^^pretty much^^^^^^^affadavits don't mean s**t

 

[aquaman]

registration leads to confiscation ALWAYS.

just thought everyone could use a reminder

 

[Broadside]

What weight does an affidavit have, I could make up all sorts of shit, swear I have it, use photos from the internet.

Then build it all later.

Mark

As an attorney, Rusty is an officer of the court. Judges tend to place more weight on sworn statements made by officers of the court.