MSP meeting

[Mark75H]

If what everyone is saying is true that lowers are copies of assault weapons and subject to the 7 day wait/background check, then having just the lower before 10/1 should constitute owning an assault weapon prior to 10/1.

They can't have their cake and eat it too.

They can't, but the scary part is they can try. Anyone they choose could be the test case ... even if you win in the end.

The end can be very far down the line, ask Mr. Woollard

 

[aquaman]

It's still in there.

Notice it says 'regulated' which means handguns. No such thing as a regulated rifle after 10/1.

 

[RRHemi]

They can't, but the scary part is they can try. Anyone they choose could be the test case ... even if you win in the end.

The end can be very far down the line, ask Mr. Woollard

This would be insanely hard to enforce. It would impose a lot of hardship on LEO's, we will still be taking our guns out after 10/1 and shoot them won't we? I know mine aren't collecting dust.

If the AG takes this position he would be subjecting the state to an awful lot of expensive court cases.

Do you think the state is willing to pay for this?

 

[Mark75H]

Do you think the state is willing to pay for this?

Yes, they have unlimited funding (from YOUR bank account)


but I am not saying that this is an active plan ... its an opportunistic possibility - in case you have not noticed, that is the way gun laws are enforced in MD, not actively but opportunistic/passively.

 

[TyFromMD]

Notice it says 'regulated' which means handguns. No such thing as a regulated rifle after 10/1.

There's nothing that says anyone has to prove it was owned before 10/1 is there?

 

[Ab_Normal]

There's nothing that says anyone has to prove it was owned before 10/1 is there?

If there is it would be unconstitutional.

 

[TyFromMD]

If there is it would be unconstitutional.

Just like the rest of it?

 

[erwos]

There's nothing that says anyone has to prove it was owned before 10/1 is there?

Nope. Burden is on the state.

 

[Ab_Normal]

Just like the rest of it?

BINGO!

 

[dblas]

How about the MSP being the POC for unregulated firearms? I don't have a copy of the law in front of me, but I believe that buried within it, they align the firearm disqualifiers for unregulated firearms with regulated firearms. Does this now mean there will be a separate form for unregulated firearms? The ATF 4473 does not cover the extra disqualifiers. Also, it appears the new 77R, which has yet to be published for notice and comment (except on Delegate Smigiel's blog), remains to be used exclusively for regulated firearms. If they are the POC for unregulated firearms, can we expect to wait +120 days for an "ND" or whatever term they would use to denote approval for a shotgun?

Not an issue in the new legislation and never was. The same federal disqualifiers apply no matter what firearm you purchase and I believe the only additional disqualifier for handguns after Oct 1 is PBJ.

 

[Mr H]

PBJ ended up being a huge bone of contention, I do remember...

But now that you mention it, even though I THOUGHT it was dropped, I can't swear to it.

Another question to add to the list.

 

[dblas]

PBJ ended up being a huge bone of contention, I do remember...

But now that you mention it, even though I THOUGHT it was dropped, I can't swear to it.

Another question to add to the list.

PBJ never got dropped, it made it into the final and signed version.

 

[clandestine]

The burden to pay a lawyer to allow the state to prove burden is on you.

 

[Second Amendment]

PBJ never got dropped, it made it into the final and signed version.

PBJ that's ongoing or expunged?

 

[Mr H]

PBJ never got dropped, it made it into the final and signed version.

OK...

Was just about to pull it up to recheck.

Thanks

 

[rwbow1969]

IIRC the state is the one with the burden of proof correct?

Yes, the burden of proof is on the state. The only record the purchaser has is the pink slips from the state form though.

 

[EHS1976]

Not an issue in the new legislation and never was. The same federal disqualifiers apply no matter what firearm you purchase and I believe the only additional disqualifier for handguns after Oct 1 is PBJ.

There is a revised 5-205 section in the final bill that specifies who cannot possess a rifle or shotgun. One of the new disqualifiers is the under 30, juvenile conviction. Even though the section is for possession, I'm not sure how you can purchase a rifle or a shotgun without taking possession. Therefore, this implies additional questions that are not on the ATF 4473 form.

 

[aquaman]

Question- What happens if someone moves into MD with a couple banned rifles, like some type of AK that they purchased after 10/1/13

Does the cutoff date apply ?

Section 5-143 is the only section that addresses new residents, and it only mentions registering 'regulated' firearms a.k.a handguns

 

[RRHemi]

The burden to pay a lawyer to allow the state to prove burden is on you.

^^This!

 

[Ab_Normal]

The burden to pay a lawyer to allow the state to prove burden is on you.

The 'good old boy network' strikes again.