SB281 and Transport

[Jimbob2.0]

Help me understand this bill and transport for weopons owned before 10/1?

Gotta love the legislature

 

[Straightshooter]

Same as before.

 

[Jimbob2.0]

So what the chatter of this very astute 15 year old with regards to ranges on the fringes of Maryland.

 

[mdalbke]

Just make sure to be going to an informal shoot.

 

[mac1_131]

Just make sure to be going to an informal shoot.

nothing has changed for anything regarding transport. handguns have same restrictions as they always did. long guns, banned or not, have no restrictions.

 

[mdalbke]

nothing has changed for anything regarding transport. handguns have same restrictions as they always did. long guns, banned or not, have no restrictions.

Well then, rock on

 

[ShallNotInfringe]

So what the chatter of this very astute 15 year old with regards to ranges on the fringes of Maryland.

At the time the young lady was testifying (looks like SJC hearing on 2/6, since she was standing at a podium), the first reader did not include in the exemption for transport of previously owned firearms (and required registration). That was overhauled in the House to include transport of previously owned firearms (and purchase orders) as well as removal of registration...

The media runs so far behind on some things.

*** Feels like I'm at the MVA with number 1,852,673 and the announcer just said "Now serving number 12" ***

 

[Dogmeat]

At one point during the hearings, the bill stated that after 01 Oct 2013, it would be illegal to transport into the state ANY ASSAULT WEAPON, even if it was previously owned. That would mean, and it was confirmed in the Senate Judiciary Hearing, that if you took your legally owned AR to an out of state match, you would be in violation if you brought it back into the state after the match.

I know that they changes the wording regarding TRANSPORT in the House Hearings and that language stayed in the final bill, but there are still some questions regarding transport of firearms as I read it. I would expect that this is one of the areas where we will need clarification.

Dogmeat

 

[ShallNotInfringe]

At one point during the hearings, the bill stated that after 01 Oct 2013, it would be illegal to transport into the state ANY ASSAULT WEAPON, even if it was previously owned. That would mean, and it was confirmed in the Senate Judiciary Hearing, that if you took your legally owned AR to an out of state match, you would be in violation if you brought it back into the state after the match.

I know that they changes the wording regarding TRANSPORT in the House Hearings and that language stayed in the final bill, but there are still some questions regarding transport of firearms as I read it. I would expect that this is one of the areas where we will need clarification.

Dogmeat

What it comes down to is does "transport into the state" in section a, and the exemption allowing "transport" in section b for previously owned firearms mean the same thing....

*** Feels like I'm at the MVA with number 1,852,673 and the announcer just said "Now serving number 12" ***

 

[mac1_131]

for what it's worth, at least one delegate said he specifically talked to a MSP captain about this and they said it was OK. And he said he would go to bat if anyone got snared up in this as there was an clarifying amendment that might have passed, but they didn't proceed with it as MSP told them it was OK.

crap - there is a stink bug on my mouse. someone please left click for me

 

[7A38]

Help me understand this bill and transport for weopons owned before 10/1?

Gotta love the legislature

If you stay within Maryland when you travel, there is no issue.

But travelling into Maryland with an "assault weapon" might be problematic. So there is a possible problem when someone outside of Maryland brings an "assault weapon" into Maryland for hunting, competitions or other lawful purpose. There is also a possible problem when you leave Maryland with your "assault weapon" and then bring it back into the state.

This is probably one of those examples where no one will ever be convicted of violating this. But if you piss someone off, they'll have a way to screw you.

7A38

 

[swinokur]

for what it's worth, at least one delegate said he specifically talked to a MSP captain about this and they said it was OK. And he said he would go to bat if anyone got snared up in this as there was an clarifying amendment that might have passed, but they didn't proceed with it as MSP told them it was OK.

What happens if the MSP captain retires and the delegate doesn't get relected? Verbal promises don't help much if you're a defendant in a criminal prosecution.

 

[akrobatik]

Question. I have a Keltec RFB Rifle and KSG Shotgun which I purchased in early 2012 in Northern Virginia. According to this new bill, I will be able to keep them, but I have to register them with the state by a certain date? If so, how does the registration process work?

 

[7A38]

What happens if the MSP captain retires and the delegate doesn't get relected? Verbal promises don't help much if you're a defendant in a criminal prosecution.

You are right. This is why you should hire an attorney in that situation.

Question. I have a Keltec RFB Rifle and KSG Shotgun which I purchased in early 2012 in Northern Virginia. According to this new bill, I will be able to keep them, but I have to register them with the state by a certain date? If so, how does the registration process work?

If you are currently a Maryland resident, you don't have to register it. That part of the new law only affects people who move in from out of state from this point in time going forward.

7A38

 

[swinokur]

If you own a future banned weapon now and go out of state, you can return with no issue. It's out of state folks who will need to register if they have an allowed weapon or it was owned prior to Oct.1. If it's banned or purchased after Oct 1, they cannot.

My read anyway.