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

[swinokur]

That's my question. I served 2 years. Am I considered retired for purposes of the law? Is my DD214 considered ID?

This is why I think I still may need the license but without the training requirement.

 

[sergeant major]

That's my question. I served 2 years. Am I considered retired for purposes of the law? Is my DdD14 considered ID?

This is why I think I still may need the license but without the training requirement.

You would be considered a Veteran with two years of service, proving it with your DD214. If you were retired (20+ years of service) you would be drawing a monthly retired pay and have a DD Form 2(Retired) United States Uniformed Services Identification Card. Hope that helps....thank you for your service

 

[ddeanjohnson]

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

This is important information. There is no definition of "retired member of the armed forces" in this bill, and if it is a term of art found elsewhere in state law, I was not aware of it. Where did you find this definition of "retired"?

I've edited my earlier answer, and the OP summary, to make it clear that honorably discharged veterans with less than 20 years service or a medical discharge might need the license but are certainly exempt from the training requirement.

 

[swinokur]

You would be considered a Veteran with two years of service, proving it with your DD214. If you were retired (20+ years of service) you would be drawing a monthly retired pay and have a DD Form 2(Retired) United States Uniformed Services Identification Card. Hope that helps....thank you for your service

This is exactly what I was concerned about. If I'm not "retired" after just 2 years of service with an HD, then I still need the license but am exempt from the training requirement.

 

[foobs]

So what about the AR-10/AR-308 platform? I don't see it on the ban list, so would it be cash and carry after 1 October and just subject to the features test? I posted the same question here, but this thread may be more appropriate.

 

[foobs]

This is important information. There is no definition of "retired member of the armed forces" in this bill, and if it is a term of art found elsewhere in state law, I was not aware of it. Where did you find this definition of "retired"?

I've edited my earlier answer, and the OP summary, to make it clear that honorably discharged veterans with less than 20 years service or a medical discharge might need the license but are certainly exempt from the training requirement.

When I separated from the military, they made a clear distinction between those retiring (20+ years service) and those with less that 20 years. A lot of veteran benefits only apply to retirees. Not sure if this is defined by MD somewhere, but the fed gov does make the distinction. ie. Not all veterans are retirees.

 

[swinokur]

^^^^^^^

This

 

[ddeanjohnson]

So what about the AR-10/AR-308 platform? I don't see it on the ban list, so would it be cash and carry after 1 October and just subject to the features test? I posted the same question here, but this thread may be more appropriate.

I am not well versed on these "types" of rifles, and don't have time to educate myself on all the variants. But you can evaluate the status that any rifle will have after October 1, 2013, by going through this step-by-step process:

1. Is the rifle specifically named on the list of models in the law?

2. If it is not named on the list, could it be deemed a "copy" of a model in the law? This is trickier, because the MSP at times has shifted its interpretations on whether certain rifles are deemed to be copies, and the shifts can go in either direction. There is a 2010 memo from Attorney General Gansler here that gives some insight into the standards that they apply in determining whether a firearm is a "copy." You might also check with one or more FFLs to see if the model you're looking at is currently sold as regulated or unregulated. If it's unregulated, then it is currently not regarded as a "copy" of a listed firearm -- but they might decide tomorrow that it is.

3. If a rifle is not listed, then you move to the new so-called "copycat" tests, as follows: A semiautomatic centerfire rifle will be a banned "copycat" if it meets any one of these three tests:

(1) Has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds; or

(2) has an overall length of less than 29 inches; or

(3) has a detachable magazine and two or more of the following three attributes: (i) folding stock, (ii) grenade or flare launcher, or (iii) flash suppressor.

 

[JAY1234]

When I separated from the military, they made a clear distinction between those retiring (20+ years service) and those with less that 20 years. A lot of veteran benefits only apply to retirees. Not sure if this is defined by MD somewhere, but the fed gov does make the distinction. ie. Not all veterans are retirees.

I am a retired USN member. After 20 years in the Navy AND upon request/approval you are transferred to fleet reserve until a total of 30 years total combined active/fleet reserve service and then you are placed on the "retired" list. While in the fleet reserve you are subject to recall in the event of an emergency. After one has been classified as "retired" you are no longer subject to the recall. I have no idea if the legislators have a clue how they intended to define retired.

 

[ddeanjohnson]

I am a retired USN member. After 20 years in the Navy AND upon request/approval you are transferred to fleet reserve until a total of 30 years total combined active/fleet reserve service and then you are placed on the "retired" list. While in the fleet reserve you are subject to recall in the event of an emergency. After one has been classified as "retired" you are no longer subject to the recall. I have no idea if the legislators have a clue how they intended to define retired.

I suppose we'll have to await the MSP regulations to know for sure, but the instructive discussion above, coupled with the fact that the bill does have two exception clauses that differ, persuade me that the most likely outcome is that regular non-career, honorably discharged vets will need the handgun qualification license but will be exempt from the training requirement.

 

[swinokur]

Until it's defined better, I am going to assume if I'm not "retired", then I still need the license, albeit without the training portion.

 

[foobs]

I am not well versed on these "types" of rifles, and don't have time to educate myself on all the variants. But you can evaluate the status that any rifle will have after October 1, 2013, by going through this step-by-step process:

1. Is the rifle specifically named on the list of models in the law?

2. If it is not named on the list, could it be deemed a "copy" of a model in the law? This is trickier, because the MSP at times has shifted its interpretations on whether certain rifles are deemed to be copies, and the shifts can go in either direction. There is a 2010 memo from Attorney General Gansler here that gives some insight into the standards that they apply in determining whether a firearm is a "copy." You might also check with one or more FFLs to see if the model you're looking at is currently sold as regulated or unregulated. If it's unregulated, then it is currently not regarded as a "copy" of a listed firearm -- but they might decide tomorrow that it is.

3. If a rifle is not listed, then you move to the new so-called "copycat" tests, as follows: A semiautomatic centerfire rifle will be a banned "copycat" if it meets any one of these three tests:

(1) Has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds; or

(2) has an overall length of less than 29 inches; or

(3) has any two or more of the following three attributes: (i) folding stock, (ii) grenade or flare launcher, or (iii) flash suppressor.

Thanks. At first glance it appears obvious that it *isn't* a regulated rifle, but apparently there is already some confusion on whether or not it's regulated. It seems the MSP treats it as regulated if it doesn't have the heavy barrel, implying they're treating it as an AR-15 copy. However, some dealers will do it cash and carry. Clear as mud.

Old related threads:
http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=1029
http://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=8&f=29&t=425295

I'm just trying to put together my pre-October shopping list!

Thanks again.

 

[swinokur]

I bought a Colt LE 901 16S last December. It's a 308 but was considered cash and carry as it's not on the list even under the old law and still passes the features test of 281.

 

[foobs]

I bought a Colt LE 901 16S last December. It's a 308 but was considered cash and carry as it's not on the list even under the old law and still passes the features test of 281.

That's good to know. However, I guess some dealers are treating it as regulated and the MSP will process it as regulated if they get the paperwork. My concern of course is: if I can get it post-October, then I won't bother buying a lower now. But I'm worried they might change their interpretation post-October and then I'm stuck without a 308!

 

[swinokur]

That's why I bought it last December.I didn't plan on buying one but was afraid of what was coming.
Glad I did even if it is still legal after 1 October.

 

[swinokur]

IMO a 308 of any caliber can't be considered a copy of an AR 15 or a copycat.

But IANAL either.

 

[Greytguy]

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

The following (pp 15, 4A) appears to define what "transport" means:

"(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."

It appears to me that it means I can own a pre-ban rifle, but can't take it to the range to shoot. If I am wrong what DOES it mean???

 

[ddeanjohnson]

The following (pp 15, 4A) appears to define what "transport" means:

"(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."

It appears to me that it means I can own a pre-ban rifle, but can't take it to the range to shoot. If I am wrong what DOES it mean???

No, that is not a definition of what "transport" means. The language you are quoting allows transportation of any "assault rifle," including a brand new one made after October 1, 2013, even though generally banned in Maryland, to the facilities named in the provisions you have quoted.

That should be of no concern to you. The bill only allows you to own "grandfathered" assault firearms. The language that governs grandfathered assault firearms, which is the language that affects you, is on page 14, lines 9-16: "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;"

 

[rstickle]

You would be considered a Veteran with two years of service, proving it with your DD214. If you were retired (20+ years of service) you would be drawing a monthly retired pay and have a DD Form 2(Retired) United States Uniformed Services Identification Card.

This!!

And if you think about the pervious law that is the way it worked since the only requirement was that "safety course" the State imposed, and if you had a DD Form 2 (Retired) you could use that (which is the way I usually went). I was actually surprised to see that this clause made it into the new law, but won't complain.

 

[swinokur]

That's the way I read it. So as a HD veteran with 2 years of service, I still need the license but the training requirement is waived.