Grandfathering for Bump Stocks or Binary Triggers

[Squaregrouper]

I specifically asked the ATF if binary triggers would change the classification of a SBR, or if SBR's can lawfully be built with binary triggers. They responded with the generic form letter about the new law.

The day before Hogan signed this, I asked the same question and never got a response.

 

[Hawkeye]

Oh well, I guess im just gonna have to get into the full auto game to give MD the finger

You just have to do it by October 1. This is a backdoor ban on new machineguns in MD also.

 

[TapRackBang]

You just have to do it by October 1. This is a backdoor ban on new machineguns in MD also.

What? How? The ATF does authorize legal ownership of machineguns in Maryland.

 

[Hawkeye]

What? How? The ATF does authorize legal ownership of machineguns in Maryland.

Yes, but the MD law says that you must have possessed them by 10/1/18. The way I read it, anything full auto falls under the definition of a "burst trigger system" in the new law.

 

[Oldcarjunkie]

Yes, but the MD law says that you must have possessed them by 10/1/18. The way I read it, anything full auto falls under the definition of a "burst trigger system" in the new law.

If thats correct I Wonder how that goes with the Paperwork that is already in and waiting for approval. I have a line on a FA right now, im waiting for my buddy to find out how much the guy is selling it for.

 

[dblas]

Yes, but the MD law says that you must have possessed them by 10/1/18. The way I read it, anything full auto falls under the definition of a "burst trigger system" in the new law.

"3 round burst" as mentioned in the statute IS NOT the same as fully automatic.

 

[md_al]

Woke up early...so I joined MSI today.

 

[swinokur]

Excellent work sir

 

[Doctor_M]

Can we get one of our legal eagles to opine on if this law effectively bans future FA purchases? IMHO a true FA does not fall under the preview of this law which is focused on add-on devices and not a FA designed as a FA, but if I'm wrong about this, I sure want to know.

 

[jkeys]

Can we get one of our legal eagles to opine on if this law effectively bans future FA purchases? IMHO a true FA does not fall under the preview of this law which is focused on add-on devices and not a FA designed as a FA, but if I'm wrong about this, I sure want to know.

It reads like it bans certain transferrable full auto devices (trigger packs, lightning links, etc.) But I am not a lawyer.

 

[Hawkeye]

"3 round burst" as mentioned in the statute IS NOT the same as fully automatic.

I'm not talking about the "3 round burst" part.

(G) BURST TRIGGER SYSTEM” MEANS A DEVICE THAT, WHEN INSTALLED IN OR ATTACHED TO A FIREARM, ALLOWS THE FIREARM TO DISCHARGE TWO OR MORE SHOTS WITH A SINGLE PULL OF THE TRIGGER BY ALTERING THE TRIGGER RESET.

(M) (2) “RAPID FIRE TRIGGER ACTIVATOR” INCLUDES A BUMP STOCK, TRIGGER CRANK, HELLFIRE TRIGGER, BINARY TRIGGER SYSTEM, BURST TRIGGER SYSTEM, OR A COPY OR A SIMILAR DEVICE, REGARDLESS OF THE PRODUCER OR MANUFACTURER.

And then it goes on to list the restrictions on "rapid fire trigger activators" that we've all been discussing. On second reading of this, I might have been a little freaked out about it for no reason, but I'm not sure since

I *think* this *could* be read as banning auto sears and the like (since the definition says "a device that, when installed in or attached to a firearm," which would mean that things like registered receivers wouldn't be banned, but the auto trigger parts would be.

The only quibble over that is that with some registered sears, the sear itself *is* the firearm, so I don't know if that would still count as "a device" that can be "installed in or attached to a firearm."

 

[deesly1]

This is why I absolutely Hate Maryland Law. It is always written so vague. trying to teach Wear and Carry in this state is like trying to nail jello to a wall. COMAR Code contradicts itself at every turn. More proof that the law is not designed to enforce or punish criminal behavior, but rather trap the law-abiding into a corner to take away rights. The pure ambiguity of this written code on Bumpstocks and Binary triggers is a good example. Rather than expressly write in clear legal language. The use of Semi-colons and vague unenforceable condition either exhibits pure stupidity and ignorance or total disdain for Civil liberties. Either way, Maryland legislators act like 2nd graders shouting at the teacher before nap time.

 

[esqappellate]

This is why I absolutely Hate Maryland Law. It is always written so vague. trying to teach Wear and Carry in this state is like trying to nail jello to a wall. COMAR Code contradicts itself at every turn. More proof that the law is not designed to enforce or punish criminal behavior, but rather trap the law-abiding into a corner to take away rights. The pure ambiguity of this written code on Bumpstocks and Binary triggers is a good example. Rather than expressly write in clear legal language. The use of Semi-colons and vague unenforceable condition either exhibits pure stupidity and ignorance or total disdain for Civil liberties. Either way, Maryland legislators act like 2nd graders shouting at the teacher before nap time.

Ok. A request. A law is void for vagueness where it leaves the average citizen guessing as to what is legal and what is prohibited. To deesly and everyone else, here is a request: Please list every way in which this statute is vague, quoting the exact language of the statute and why that language is vague under the above definition. Please be precise. Thanks.

 

[danb]

SCOTUS today in the opinion on sports gambling had a lot of discussion on the meaning of "authorize" https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-476_dbfi.pdf (in the context of authorizing sports betting).

[petitioners]therefore contend that any state law that has the effect of permitting sports gambling, including a law totally or partially repealing a prior prohibition, amounts to an
authorization.

In our view, petitioners’ interpretation is correct: When a State completely or partially repeals old laws banning sports gambling, it “authorize” that activity.

see p 10-12 of the opinion and footnote 28.

My 0.02 is that people who think that the relevant section of the bump stock law ( requiring BATFE "authorization") is vague are simply overthinking it. "authorization" does not require affirmative action (i.e. fill out a form and get specific permission from BATFE), it simply means "to permit" or allow (against the backdrop of some other things that are restricted or prohibited). in the coming regulations, BATFE permits binary triggers, they are unrestricted (vs other NFA items) -but bump stocks will be prohibited. Today's opinion IMO validates my common sense understanding of the word "authorize." BATFE says that binary triggers (for example) are not prohibited, restricted, or regulated. They are permitted, case closed. Bump stocks, no.

But then I would say that.

 

[md_al]

(2) applied to the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and 24 Explosives before October 1, 2018, for authorization to possess a rapid fire trigger activator; 25 [and] 26
(3) RECEIVED AUTHORIZATION TO POSSESS A RAPID FIRE TRIGGER 27 ACTIVATOR FROM THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS AND 28 EXPLOSIVES BEFORE OCTOBER 1, 2019

With respect to (2) and for (3)
"Maryland residents who intend to file applications with ATF for “authorization” to possess devices covered by the referenced Maryland statute should be aware that ATF is without legal authority to accept and process such an application. Consequently, ATF respectfully requests that Maryland residents not file applications or other requests for “authorization” from ATF to possess rapid fire trigger activators as defined in the State statute. Any such applications or requests will be returned to the applicant without action. ATF regrets any confusion and inconvenience caused by the provisions of the Maryland statute that mistakenly indicate ATF has the authority to approve possession of devices covered by the statute.

Regards,

Kyle Lallensack

Chief, FIPB"

 

[iH8DemLibz]

Two weeks and no reply from the ATF.

Being a government agency, I would have expected them to at least reply.

 

[Hawkeye]

Ok. A request. A law is void for vagueness where it leaves the average citizen guessing as to what is legal and what is prohibited. To deesly and everyone else, here is a request: Please list every way in which this statute is vague, quoting the exact language of the statute and why that language is vague under the above definition. Please be precise. Thanks.

Ok, here's my first pass at this:

In 4–301 E, F, and G the statute spends a bunch of time defining "Binary Trigger System," "Bump Stock," and "Burst Trigger System." In 4-301 (K), they define "Hellfire Trigger." In 4-301 (M) (1) they define "Rapid Fire Trigger Activator" as including all of the preceding, including specifically "Binary Trigger."

Then, in 4-301 (M)(3) they specifically say:
“RAPID FIRE TRIGGER ACTIVATOR” DOES NOT INCLUDE A SEMIAUTOMATIC REPLACEMENT TRIGGER THAT IMPROVES THE PERFORMANCE AND FUNCTIONALITY OVER THE STOCK TRIGGER.

I would argue that the statute is in conflict with itself there. If you look at products like the Franklin Armory Binary trigger, or the Fostech Echo, both of those have been legally defined (by ATF, at least) as semiautomatic trigger systems, and * SPECIFICALLY NOT* as automatic ones. Both of those systems are advertised and marketed as being a "semiautomatic replacement trigger that improves the performance and functionality over the stock trigger."

I know that both of those products meet the definition of a "Binary Trigger System" in 4-301 (G), but they also appear to meet the definition in 4-301 (M)(3) which would specifically except them from control under the statute. There may be some legal process that I'm not aware of that would control how things like that are treated, but since I'm not a lawyer, that's pretty confusing to me.


Further:

4-305.1 (B) is extremely confusing to me as a lay person. Reading through it on a fascial level, it seems like it lays out the process to grant an exception for continued possession of these devices. Great! (B)(1) is clear. You have to have possessed it before 10/1/18. No problem. I'll go buy one today. But then you get to (B)(2). I have to apply to ATF for authorization to possess it, but the statute fails to lay out the process for doing so. For other such processes where you have to get permission from ATF for things, those processes are clearly laid out in statute (the National Firearms Act, for example, is very clear about how the process works for tax paid registration of similar items). Well, I guess that I'll just write them a letter asking if I can have one, then. Except we've seen already what happens when you do that. They either reply that it's none of their business, or they now don't reply at all, both of which make it impossible to comply with 4-305.1 (B) at all. Is a statute void if it lays out a process with which it is impossible to comply?

Finally, 4-305.1 (B)(4) says "is in compliance with all federal requirements for possession of a rapid fire trigger activator." What are those requirements? How am I, as a lay person, supposed to figure that out? Again, it would seem very difficult or impossible for me to comply with this, because that's a TON of Federal code I would have to go through, and if there was some section of it somewhere that I wasn't aware of, I might unintentionally violate this section.

 

[deesly1]

Ok. A request. A law is void for vagueness where it leaves the average citizen guessing as to what is legal and what is prohibited. To deesly and everyone else, here is a request: Please list every way in which this statute is vague, quoting the exact language of the statute and why that language is vague under the above definition. Please be precise. Thanks.

Okay here is my input.


Section 4-301 Sub-sect (G)After the definition of burst trigger, If I possess an NFA lower (Full Auto) The TAX stamp allows me to add a burst trigger because the unit is already a machine gun. Now by Maryland law is this prohibited?

Section 4-301 Sub-sect (M) What is the Rate of fire increases: For example, a Binary trigger can fire slower than a stock trigger. So how is the rate of fire measures when everyone pulls the trigger at a different speed?

Section 4-301 Sub-sect (M) (3) directly conflicts with the part of section (M) 1 and 2. Triggers that improves the performance/Functionality over stock. These triggers clearly fall into this category and every aftermarket trigger improves Performance and Functionality!?!?!

Section 4-305-1 (B) this section is the most confusing to me by how the conditions are listed. When you use a colon followed by semi-colons it denotes a list and implied commas link by and statements. However in the second statement the semi-colon is followed by an “And” conjunction, using Mathematical Boolean logic, is this statement (P V (Q ^ R)) “ XOR” or is the statement (P^Q^R). Meaning that all the conditions have to be satisfied or if condition P is satisfied is it enough. Or for that matter, if Q^R were satisfied would it surface. Example if I got a rapid trigger and the ATF DID FORMALLY approve it after 10/1/2018, would it still be in compliance? If this is true the statements are mutually exclusive. If not all conditions must be satisfied which would make compliance with Maryland law impossible.

I hope my explanation is not confusing.

 

[Mark75H]

Okay here is my input.


Section 4-301 Sub-sect (G)After the definition of burst trigger, If I possess an NFA lower (Full Auto) The TAX stamp allows me to add a burst trigger because the unit is already a machine gun. Now by Maryland law is this prohibited?

Section 4-301 Sub-sect (M) What is the Rate of fire increases: For example, a Binary trigger can fire slower than a stock trigger. So how is the rate of fire measures when everyone pulls the trigger at a different speed?

Section 4-301 Sub-sect (M) (3) directly conflicts with the part of section (M) 1 and 2. Triggers that improves the performance/Functionality over stock. These triggers clearly fall into this category and every aftermarket trigger improves Performance and Functionality!?!?!

Section 4-305-1 (B) this section is the most confusing to me by how the conditions are listed. When you use a colon followed by semi-colons it denotes a list and implied commas link by and statements. However in the second statement the semi-colon is followed by an “And” conjunction, using Mathematical Boolean logic, is this statement (P V (Q ^ R)) “ XOR” or is the statement (P^Q^R). Meaning that all the conditions have to be satisfied or if condition P is satisfied is it enough. Or for that matter, if Q^R were satisfied would it surface. Example if I got a rapid trigger and the ATF DID FORMALLY approve it after 10/1/2018, would it still be in compliance? If this is true the statements are mutually exclusive. If not all conditions must be satisfied which would make compliance with Maryland law impossible.

I hope my explanation is not confusing.

No, its perfect because it IS confusing. That's the point of argument agaist the law.

 

[jkeys]

What is confusing to me is that the state is pushing the burden of this law onto the ATF without the ATF's consent. Furthermore, this law is costing Maryland gun owners a lot of money by having to discard personal property that was lawfully purchased and legal up until some arbitrary date, under the false guise of public safety. Yet somehow our lawmakers don't consider this a "taking" of personal property.

I am pissed, and as already stated I am willing to act as a plaintiff. I have been in contact with MSI and hope they decide to act on this law. Am I alone in this? Should I just give in and make all of my binary triggers dissapear? I have been feeling like a battered gun owner recently and can't believe how easy it is to become a felon over night through nothing but simple inaction.