SB0281 - Firearm Safety Act of 2013 (aka, AWB)

[pcfixer]

(II) WHILE CARRYING A COURT ORDER REQUIRING THE [FONT=Century Schoolbook,Century Schoolbook][FONT=Century Schoolbook,Century Schoolbook]20 [/FONT][/FONT]SURRENDER OF THE ASSAULT LONG GUN OR COPYCAT WEAPON, TRANSPORT [FONT=Century Schoolbook,Century Schoolbook][FONT=Century Schoolbook,Century Schoolbook]21 [/FONT][/FONT]THE ASSAULT LONG GUN OR COPYCAT WEAPON DIRECTLY TO THE LAW [FONT=Century Schoolbook,Century Schoolbook][FONT=Century Schoolbook,Century Schoolbook]22 [/FONT][/FONT]ENFORCEMENT UNIT, BARRACKS, OR STATION IF THE PERSON HAS NOTIFIED [FONT=Century Schoolbook,Century Schoolbook][FONT=Century Schoolbook,Century Schoolbook]23 [/FONT][/FONT]THE LAW ENFORCEMENT UNIT, BARRACKS, OR STATION THAT THE PERSON IS [FONT=Century Schoolbook,Century Schoolbook][FONT=Century Schoolbook,Century Schoolbook]24 [/FONT][/FONT]TRANSPORTING THE ASSAULT LONG GUN OR COPYCAT WEAPON IN ACCORDANCE [FONT=Century Schoolbook,Century Schoolbook][FONT=Century Schoolbook,Century Schoolbook]25 [/FONT][/FONT]WITH A COURT ORDER AND THE ASSAULT LONG GUN OR COPYCAT WEAPON IS [FONT=Century Schoolbook,Century Schoolbook][FONT=Century Schoolbook,Century Schoolbook]26 [/FONT][/FONT]UNLOADED.

So if we don't register the 'weapon', we wil get a court order? Or will MSP send out court orders to surrender a firearm not registered?

 

[Maverick0313]

I have been intensely studying the verbiage of the bill since it has been posted on the Maryland Legislative site. It does seem pretty clear to me that the covert main thrust of this bill (regarding "assault long guns") is to:

1. Find and force registration of "assault weapons"
2. Confiscate via court order (which will pend later) all assault weapons.

I don't know how more clearer they can be with that; even after reading through the entire bill; I do not see where transport of a Assault weapon is allowed by the owner; only possession (meaning within the confines of your property)

Believe me guys, I have been emailing and talking to other unwary gun owners since this bill has come out; and I do hope that we can get the notice out about how bad this bill is, through increasing word of mouth to all gun owners; and tell whomever you are contacting to tell others.

THis is SCARY BAD.

 

[rocksnsticks]

4th round of emails sent. Calls to be made, voices to be heard.

 

[Mark C]

Several of you are complaining about those of us asking for others' opinions on clarification of the law with the assumption that if it won't affect us, we don't care.

Consider the other side. An educated opposition is stronger than an emotional opposition. I feel specific, personal examples of how this law would affect a Senator or Representative's constituent would add weight to an argument based on statistics and constitutional law.

It also helps us explain the legislation to those on the fringe, who may be our allies of we can show them specifically how this bill would affect them. Again, I suspect it'll be easier to grow allies if we can clearly articulate what we're fighting against.

So please, be careful with the assumptions you make.

 

[erwos]

I would not freak out so much about the court order stuff. The back story is that MD law used to be such that there was no exemption for taking your now-prohibited guns to the cops, so you wound up becoming a criminal to comply with the law. That paragraph simply addresses that problem. In theory, they can already seize your stuff with a court order as it is.

on your pistol flowchart, I think I'm misreading as I don't see where a detachable magazine over 10 rounds e.g. a Glock 17 is banned.

I got that part of the chart right, IMHO. PM me if you want to know why.

 

[WeaponsCollector]

NEVER FORGET:

REGISTRATION = CONFISCATION.

 

[VTHokie7]

As some of you register Democrat just to vote against these folks in the primary, it is worth pointing out to them that the 2014 election is not a presidential election. So the turnout for the primary will be limited and every vote will matter to them that much more.

 

[kalister1]

Laws only tell you what you can't do. If they don't say you can't do it, that means you can.
Where does it say you cannot transport your firearm to the rifle range?

 

[eruby]

I would not freak out so much about the court order stuff. The back story is that MD law used to be such that there was no exemption for taking your now-prohibited guns to the cops, so you wound up becoming a criminal to comply with the law. That paragraph simply addresses that problem. In theory, they can already seize your stuff with a court order as it is.


I got that part of the chart right, IMHO. PM me if you want to know why.

PM sent.

 

[terp]

I'm with those reading that page 9 indicates that after registration we will be allowed to maintain possession, but only transport under a court order on the way to confiscation.

This is the same wording as the assault pistol ban from 94 (the relevant clause appears at the top of page 9 unmodified). Does anyone who was in this game in 94 remember how this was interpreted to apply to grandfathered assault pistols?

I very much hope I am wrong in my reading of this.

 

[HoCoShooter]

I called half of the house judiciary committee this morning and left messages since the switchboard wasn't open yet. I'll call the other half at lunch. If you call, just remember to hit the pound # sign after their extension to avoid having to go through the operator.

For everyone asking how it is going to affect *you* - it's going to affect all of us. This is bigger than your one rifle you aren't sure about or how much your licensing will cost if this goes into effect. It's about stopping this bill dead in it's tracks.

 

[erwos]

I'm with those reading that page 9 indicates that after registration we will be allowed to maintain possession, but only transport under a court order on the way to confiscation.

People are reading a little too far into this. There is no law against transport of a legally possessed firearm. Section (II) gives explicit permission to transport if you have a court order for the surrender of the gun, because you are no longer allowed to possess the gun. That is why sections (I) and (II) are separated by or, not and. There are any number of reasons you might have been ordered by the court to surrender a firearm besides mass confiscation.

 

[Markp]

ASSAULT WEAPON = A SEMIAUTOMATIC CENTERFIRE RIFLE THAT HAS AN OVERALL LENGTH OF LESS THAN 30 INCHES

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

No Exceptions For Lawful NFA owners!


ALL NFA OWNERS PAY CAREFUL ATTENTION TO THIS

You can NO LONGER TRANSPORT a centerfire SBR off Maryland soil and bring it back in if this passes!!!

This is a big huge f'ing deal as Biden would say! This also outlaws NEW SBR's after it goes into effect!

Done! Gone! Along with centerfire "AOW's", because they are caught up in this mess too in the other provisions. (front handgrip, magazine outside the pistol grip, etc, etc.)

 

[Atlasarmory]

Another round of emails sent

Bump For Feb 8th Annapolis !

 

[Markp]

People are reading a little too far into this. There is no law against transport of a legally possessed firearm. Section (II) gives explicit permission to transport if you have a court order for the surrender of the gun, because you are no longer allowed to possess the gun. That is why sections (I) and (II) are separated by or, not and. There are any number of reasons you might have been ordered by the court to surrender a firearm besides mass confiscation.

Agreed, you have to read the law carefully. If it stated that you were not allowed to transport (generally, which it does not, it only restricts entry into the state not inside the state) then it would be the only time you could transport it. For every one reading, it takes a while to really "get it" when it comes to reading statutes, you have to discard everything you know and common sense!

 

[MontanaBoy]

Having been born and raised in Montana and spent most of my life enjoying the individual freedoms afforded by living out West, Maryland is the most oppressive state I've ever lived in. What the pols are trying to do is run each state like a Dictatorship, and most of the people are lying down and letting it happen. I'll help in any way I can to keep these vultures at bay and out of our homes.

I'm new to the state and to the forums, and to be honest have not taken the time to read all 27 pages of this thread, so forgive me if this was already asked.

What they're proposing is simply unconstitutional, correct? The state requirements for being granted a CCW have already been found to be unconstitutional, and this proposed legislation is just as restrictive to our 2nd Amendment rights. Would it be value added to pool our resources and hire a lawyer to fight the legislation or do we have to wait until it's passed?

Maybe we should file law suits against the state for limiting our right to the pursuit of happiness, emotional damage, and pain and suffering in relation to this legislation being proposed.

 

[6-Pack]

Having been born and raised in Montana and spent most of my life enjoying the individual freedoms afforded by living out West, Maryland is the most oppressive state I've ever lived in. What the pols are trying to do is run each state like a Dictatorship, and most of the people are lying down and letting it happen. I'll help in any way I can to keep these vultures at bay and out of our homes.

I'm new to the state and to the forums, and to be honest have not taken the time to read all 27 pages of this thread, so forgive me if this was already asked.

What they're proposing is simply unconstitutional, correct? The state requirements for being granted a CCW have already been found to be unconstitutional, and this proposed legislation is just as restrictive to our 2nd Amendment rights. Would it be value added to pool our resources and hire a lawyer to fight the legislation or do we have to wait until it's passed?

Maybe we should file law suits against the state for limiting our right to the pursuit of happiness, emotional damage, and pain and suffering in relation to this legislation being proposed.

The licensing may be unconstitutional (the government can't require you to pay for a license to exercise a right - that's why guns can't be compared to cars).

We'd have to wait until the law comes into effect before we could sue (standing and ripeness). "Pursuit of happiness" actually refers to property ownership (life, liberty and property).

 

[terp]

Agreed, you have to read the law carefully. If it stated that you were not allowed to transport (generally, which it does not, it only restricts entry into the state not inside the state) then it would be the only time you could transport it. For every one reading, it takes a while to really "get it" when it comes to reading statutes, you have to discard everything you know and common sense!

Ok. I'm convinced.

We can transport within the state, but our guns are effectively trapped in MD. If they leave the state they cannot return. So much for visiting ranges in VA, and PA.

Not as bad as my original read but still insane.

 

[Markp]

Ok. I'm convinced.

We can transport within the state, but our guns are effectively trapped in MD. If they leave the state they cannot return. So much for visiting ranges in VA, and PA.

Not as bad as my original read but still insane.

That's the way I read it, it's a one way trip for any "Assault Weapon".

 

[erwos]

That's the way I read it, it's a one way trip for any "Assault Weapon".

Correct. How enforceable it is, or whether the MSP will even care, well, that's a different story.