What with the MD Assault Weapons ban do to NFA weapons?

[Markp]

...And I just got my NFA trust notarized.

Unfortunately I cannot afford to move to Virginia because I stand to lose too much on my house.

I guess it's time for a second salvo of emails, letters, and making phone calls today.

THIS BAN MUST NOT BE ALLOWED TO PASS!

Your trust doesn't cease to work if you move, so when you move later, you'll be fine. However, with the mass exodus that MD is seeking to created, you sure you don't want to sell your home now?!?

 

[aehnuke]

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

Correction: you will not be able to transport a centerfire intrastate or interstate, at all.

 

[Polecat]

Correction: you will not be able to transport a centerfire intrastate or interstate, at all.

I guess I am missing something. Where does it say that?

 

[Markp]

Everyone here should realize that under the proposed law, even if you already own an 'assault weapon,' leaving your house with it is grounds for confiscation and jail time. Please see the bolded text. 'Assault weapons' will not be able to see the light of day after the bill is passed. Your only "option" is to turn them in to the police, or keep it locked up forever.

My interpretation is that NFA weapons are NOT protected if you own them in MD and they fall under the 'assault weapon' designation.

Erwos and I have been having a very interesting discussion about this subject privately, it is more nuanced that you might think. You would be able to transport "assault weapons" intrastate, however interstate would be a one way trip.

So don't assume that your interpretation (which was my interpretation) is correct because there is some dispute about whether the language means what it appears to mean on the surface. I won't go into further detail, but it is very nuanced. When Charlie Foxtrot claims to be confused by this, you should be worried, as he is an attorney.

 

[aehnuke]

I guess I am missing something. Where does it say that?

"A law enforcement unit may seize as contraband and dispose of according to regulation an assault [pistol] WEAPON transported... or possessed in violation of this subtitle."

It's in my previous post. The law gives you two options: (I) says continue to possess it, (II) says turn it in to the police. Transporting the weapon is illegal.

 

[aehnuke]

Erwos and I have been having a very interesting discussion about this subject privately, it is more nuanced that you might think. You would be able to transport "assault weapons" intrastate, however interstate would be a one way trip.

So don't assume that your interpretation (which was my interpretation) is correct because there is some dispute about whether the language means what it appears to mean on the surface. I won't go into further detail, but it is very nuanced. When Charlie Foxtrot claims to be confused by this, you should be worried, as he is an attorney.

The language seems pretty cut and dry. Care to elaborate? Any nuance may be good news since it appears we would be totally screwed.

 

[hawxter996]

as long as you register you are fine,dont register it is marked for confiscation.
sbrs are ok as long as registered.
ar pistols are done and gone under this.
unless we could find ffl's to do fired cases for us who have them.

 

[aehnuke]

as long as you register you are fine,dont register it is marked for confiscation.
sbrs are ok as long as registered.

No, the law clearly states what a person who lawfully owned the assault long gun prior to October 1st may do: (I) continue to possess; or (II) surrender it.

It specifically states that this person MAY NOT do anything else, which would be a violation of subtitle (3).

 

[Markp]

Someone expressed concern that this thread was publically visible, and I understand that we don't want to give the gun grabbers anything to add to this bill, however in the case of NFA items generally.

They would have issued an outright ban on machine guns, save for the fact that rich well connected gun owners tend to own them. This bill is about keeping average people from having access to commonly used and popular firearms, and not about restricting those with "more access" and more money.

It's the modern equivalent to a poll tax on self defense. I would be will to bet that NFA carve outs are much easier to get added to this bill than anything else, but the fact remains... This bill must die.

 

[Markp]

No, the law clearly states what a person who lawfully owned the assault long gun prior to October 1st may do: (I) continue to possess; or (II) surrender it.

It specifically states that this person MAY NOT do anything else.

You don't read law that way... The law can only tell you what you may NOT do and then provide exceptions. You'll note that there is no prohibition on transport intrastate generally.

You have to read it all wrong, learning to read statutes is really tough, I'm not bad at it and I still mess it up all the time.

 

[aehnuke]

This bill must die.

Regardless of the language of the bill, I agree wholeheartedly.

Has everyone taken the Senate President's survey?
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?formkey=dDJYSnBJYzJPWGNfN0hZWUhMeGF6S0E6MQ#gid=0

 

[erwos]

I actually used to be in the "you can't transport it" camp, but I was convinced otherwise.

I agree with Markp. The "you can't transport it" argument doesn't make sense in the context of Maryland firearms law. There is no prohibition on you transporting a registered assault pistol inside the state, thus the police will not arrest you if you transport it as a lawful possessor. (II) is only there so you don't get busted by the police while trying to turn in a firearm to the police you can no longer possess; believe it or not, this is MD lawmakers trying to be responsible, not screw you. The big tip-off is the word "or" at the end of (I) - you can lawfully possess it or when you can't, this is how you're protected and what you should do. Believe me, if the intention was to forbid transport, it would be there in big old capital letters. We know this was discussed, and it was apparently discarded.

I am not going to publicly comment on specific flaws with the proposed legislation, and neither should anyone else. If the gun grabbers want our stuff, they can do their own dirty work. I will simply say this: some of you are reading this stuff in a vacuum, and your conclusions are flawed as a result.

 

[Gyokusai]

This is just too f'ng stupid. Anyone who goes to all the trouble, expense and general RED TAPE to get a centerfire SBR is not the type of person who is going to use it to illegally.

^ This. 110%, I cannot agree more. In fact, as we all already know, the only real effect any of this proposed legislation will have is to piss off and deny law abiding citizens their rights, having zero effect on stopping crazy people from being crazy... driving a social wedge and ignoring any solution that would really attempt to solve the matter at hand, epic fail.

 

[hawxter996]

No, the law clearly states what a person who lawfully owned the assault long gun prior to October 1st may do: (I) continue to possess; or (II) surrender it.

It specifically states that this person MAY NOT do anything else, which would be a violation of subtitle (3).

register or turn it in,are the choices.

 

[THier]

So no more taking an HBAR Match AR15 out of the state to compete?

 

[hawxter996]

(3)
A PERSON WHO LAWFULLY POSSESSED AN ASSAULT LONG
GUN OR A COPYCAT WEAPON BEFORE OCTOBER 1, 2013, AND WHO REGISTERS
THE ASSAULT LONG GUN OR COPYCAT WEAPON WITH THE SECRETARY OF
STATE POLICE BEFORE NOVEMBER 1, 2013, MAY:
18 (I)
19 CONTINUE TO POSSESS THE ASSAULT LONG GUN OR
COPYCAT WEAPON; OR
(II)
20 WHILE CARRYING A COURT ORDER REQUIRING THE
21 SURRENDER OF THE ASSAULT LONG GUN OR COPYCAT WEAPON, TRANSPORT
22 THE ASSAULT LONG GUN OR COPYCAT WEAPON DIRECTLY TO THE LAW
23 ENFORCEMENT UNIT, BARRACKS, OR STATION IF THE PERSON HAS NOTIFIED
24 THE LAW ENFORCEMENT UNIT, BARRACKS, OR STATION THAT THE PERSON IS
25 TRANSPORTING THE ASSAULT LONG GUN OR COPYCAT WEAPON IN ACCORDANCE
26 WITH A COURT ORDER AND THE ASSAULT LONG GUN OR COPYCAT WEAPON IS
27 UNLOADED.
28 4–304.
29 A law enforcement unit may seize as contraband and dispose of according to
30 regulation an assault [pistol] WEAPON transported, sold, transferred, purchased,
31 received, or possessed in violation of this subtitle.

Everyone here should realize that under the proposed law, even if you already own an 'assault weapon,' leaving your house with it is grounds for confiscation and jail time. Please see the bolded text. 'Assault weapons' will not be able to see the light of day after the bill is passed. Your only "option" is to turn them in to the police, or keep it locked up forever.

My interpretation is that NFA weapons are NOT protected if you own them in MD and they fall under the 'assault weapon' designation.

IT MEANS IF NOT REGISTERED BEFORE 11/1/2013

 

[DarthZed]

I simply do not understand the reasoning behind targeting firearms that are not generally involved in crimes. These types of weapons are responsible for less than 1%-3% of gun crime (depending on which study you are using as reference). I can at least see the logic in targeting pistols (I might disagree with it, but I can understand it), since they are responsible for over 95% of all gun crime; but ARs, AKs, and SBRs? Hopefully the bill will be considered too extreme, and will fail quickly.

 

[IMBLITZVT]

Yeah just because you are transporting it does not mean that you are not possessing it. So you can take the guns anywhere you want. That logic is messed up. Otherwise if you left your house, its not in your possession and they could take it. You are reading something thats not there...

Many if not all Belt fed Guns can be reloaded without popping the top cover like one might do in a SG43. Hell in a Maxim, popping the top cover does not even help... the feedblock is solid. So I don't think that will fly... assault rifles if they have a stock

Machine guns are not rifles... they are MGs... so I see no change in the law here. However SBRs are Rifles so they might... its really not clear about NFA...

 

[Ab_Normal]

Aren't regulated firearms all registered if they were purchased in the state of Md?

 

[ericoak]

Aren't regulated firearms all registered if they were purchased in the state of Md?

I don't know about SBR's but register MGs through a separate process.