BUMP STOCK SUIT FILED!

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Stoveman

    TV Personality
    Patriot Picket
    Sep 2, 2013
    27,989
    Cuba on the Chesapeake
    I was surprised that there were only about 11 people at the hearing, of which 6 or so appeared to be students who were taking notes for some kind of civics class.



    Should have introduced yourself, if you're who I think you are we rode down in the elevator together. One of the attendees was also a reporter for the Daily Record.


    Stay tuned for a summary of today's proceedings from Mark P.
     

    Abulg1972

    Ultimate Member
    Should have introduced yourself, if you're who I think you are we rode down in the elevator together. One of the attendees was also a reporter for the Daily Record.





    Stay tuned for a summary of today's proceedings from Mark P.



    I was in the elevator. I introduced myself to Mark and Cary, and I met Danny outside the courthouse.

    I won’t step on Mark’s toes by posting info.
     

    esqappellate

    President, MSI
    Feb 12, 2012
    7,407
    GUN OWNERS BEWARE

    Gun Owners of Maryland: BEWARE!

    Today, United States District Court Judge James K. Bredar denied Maryland Shall Issue's motion for temporary relief against the State’s ban on possession of “Rapid Fire Trigger Activators” by SB 707, signed into law by the Governor on April 24, 2018. This means the law will go into effect as passed on October 1st, 2018. That's just two weeks from now. HOWEVER, while the case is pending, the judge made it clear that he believes all that’s needed to comply with the law is for the existing owner to send a letter applying for authorization to possess the "devices" covered by SB 707 to the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) by 10/01/2018. That is the "grandfather" clause contained in SB 707 and that was the clause that the judge seized upon in holding that MSI had failed to show the "irreparable injury" necessary for preliminary relief. As he said at the hearing, all you have to do is "apply" to the ATF by October 1 for "authorization to possess" the "device" in order to avoid prosecution for a year. And to the judge, it simply did not matter that the ATF has refused to receive or process any such request for "authorization" because the statute merely required the owner to "apply," not for the ATF to actually accept the application.

    But, here is the rub: The law is so vague that no one knows what it covers. Every gun owner in the state may possess "Rapid Fire Trigger Activator(s), and not even know it. Such "device" includes binary trigger systems, bump stocks, burst trigger systems, a Hellfire Trigger, a trigger crank, or a burst trigger system and copies thereof. But the banned items ALSO include any "device, including a removable manual or power-driven activating device, constructed so that, when installed in or attached to a firearm: (I) the rate at which the trigger is activated increases; or (II) the rate of fire increases.” Yet, virtually anything you do to your firearm may "increase" the "rate of fire" by some minute amount, including cleaning it. There is no definition for a "device" and the statute includes ALL firearms, not merely semi-automatics. At the hearing, Judge Bredar remarked on the extreme vagueness of the State’s law as he demonstrated how GUN OIL being used to lubricate A BOLT-ACTION RIFLE to "increase" the "rate of fire" of the rifle because the action could be worked more efficiently, meaning the trigger could be manually activated faster than it could before using the GUN OIL. The judge thus warned the State that he had real problems with how vague the statute was. In short, we don't know what is covered by this language covering a "device" that increases the "rate of fire" and neither does the State, the judge or anyone else. The potential for arbitrary enforcement is quite real.

    And that is a BIG problem. A conviction for the mere possession of a SB 707 "device" (whatever it means) will result in the loss of your Second Amendment rights for life. It doesn't have to be a bump stock or the other listed devices to be covered. And even you aren't convicted, you could still be arrested and jailed for such possession by an overzealous law enforcement officer. It doesn't matter when or where you bought it or whether it is installed or whether it has ever been used. It doesn't have to be a device for a semi-automatic firearm. Mere possession in Maryland is enough. Under the judge's ruling today, the only way any gun owner in this State can protect themselves from potential arbitrary arrest and/or prosecution under this law (SB 707) is to send in the attached letter to the ATF.

    All you have to do is print off this form, fill in the blanks and send it in to the ATF at the address indicated. To be safe, the ideal way to send it is via US Mail, return receipt requested. But by all means, send it any way you can (and keep a copy). Regardless how you send it, it must be sent before OCTOBER 1, 2018. Sending this letter does NOT mean that you are identifying yourself as owning a bump stock or any specific device. It just means that you (like we) don't know what is covered by the SB 707 ban on a "device" that "increases" the "rate of fire." The letter merely repeats the language set out in grandfather clause of SB 707. And note, even if you apply for "authorization" with the ATF, the prohibition imposed on possession by SB 707 kicks back in on October 1, 2019, if "authorization" is not actually received by that time. We already know that the ATF will not actually entertain such "applications" because it has publicly announced that it would not consider them. But that does not and will not matter until October 1, 2019. In the meantime, all you have to do is "apply" under the judge's ruling.

    The case is not over by any means. All the judge did was deny preliminary relief. He did not address the merits in his ruling (other than to warn the State that they had a problem on how vague the statute was). We are encouraged by some the judge's remarks made at the hearing. Maryland Shall Issue will continue the fight but in the meantime, it is absolutely essential that you send this letter to the ATF as soon as possible. Legally, it is the only way you can protect yourself from this vague statute under the judge's ruling today. Hopefully, the case will be over by October 1, 2019 (at least in district court), so we will know more before then.
     

    Attachments

    • APPLICATION FOR AUTHORIZATION.pdf
      111.1 KB · Views: 372
    Last edited:

    Qbeam

    Ultimate Member
    Apr 16, 2008
    6,074
    Georgia
    So if I send sent letter, certified or receipt confirmation. I have complied with the law regardless of ATF's response or non response?


    Q
     

    Maswasnos

    Member
    Feb 24, 2018
    24
    PG County
    Well I think that's pretty much good news. Sending in a letter for an additional year might as well be getting a preliminary injunction as far as us owners are concerned.

    I can't thank MSI enough for the job they're doing. I think I'll have to buy a license plate frame from y'all.
     

    CypherPunk

    Opinions Are My Own
    Apr 6, 2012
    3,907
    So if I send sent letter, certified or receipt confirmation. I have complied with the law regardless of ATF's response or non response?
    Q

    That would be a good question for your local attorney, who I am sure is competent and experienced with firearms laws.

    Some things are too important to solely rely on advice from an internet forum.
     

    danb

    dont be a dumbass
    Feb 24, 2013
    22,704
    google is your friend, I am not.
    Thank you very much for the update and pdf!

    I wonder how we lucked into the one judge in Annapolis who knows about firearms and that GUN OIL increases the rate of fire. Now I wonder if FP10 makes the rate of fire faster than Ballistol or Rem oil. We got extremely lucky.
     

    Qbeam

    Ultimate Member
    Apr 16, 2008
    6,074
    Georgia
    That would be a good question for your local attorney, who I am sure is competent and experienced with firearms laws.

    Some things are too important to solely rely on advice from an internet forum.

    That is what I am getting fron Esqappellatte's post. He was there with the judge, and has attached the form in PDF format. I understand the judge's logic (don't quire agree, but the law states "apply", not approval). This was a vague law that should never have been passed, but here we are. I am looking at what to do to stay legal.


    Q
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,927
    Messages
    7,259,375
    Members
    33,349
    Latest member
    christian04

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom