New SilencerCo .300blk Subs - no shipping to MD?

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!
  • 5cary

    On the spreading edge of the butter knife.
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 30, 2007
    3,680
    Sykesville, MD
    I just received an email from Silencerco regarding a new subsonic .300blk round they are selling called
    Harvester.

    The specs look nice on the round, and I thought I might try a box. I've been having a hard time with accuracy with subs and thought these might be worth a look given the selling points. Though they are pricey at $30 a box.

    Go to the "Buy Now" page and it seems they dont' ship to MD:

    Ammunition may not be purchased online in the following areas:

    California
    Washington, D.C.
    Maryland
    Massachusetts
    Illinois
    Maryland
    Massachusetts
    New Jersey
    New York

    Was there something in SB281 I missed regarding ammo sales? I've been buy ammo online since living here.
     

    OrbitalEllipses

    Ultimate Member
    Jul 18, 2013
    4,140
    DPR of MoCo
    Montgomery County and Annapolis have ammo bans...that are still on the books, but null because they are preempted by state law. Some folks haven't bothered to amend after the preemption struck down the laws.
     

    Afrikeber

    Ultimate Member
    Jan 14, 2013
    6,739
    Urbana, Md.
    Try Lehigh Defense ammunition subs. I get excellent results with their Controlled Chaos sub sonic ammunition at the range.
     

    dblas

    Past President, MSI
    MDS Supporter
    Apr 6, 2011
    13,109
    There was nothing about ammo just magazines and limits, could be a self imposed ban.

    There was a section about ammo, and it did pass along with everything else in Chapter 427 from 2013 (FSA2013)

    Criminal Law Article: 4-110 Restricted Firearm Ammunition, During the Commission of a Crime.

    FSA2013 said:
    4–110.
    (A) IN THIS SECTION, “RESTRICTED FIREARM AMMUNITION” MEANS A CARTRIDGE, A SHELL, OR ANY OTHER DEVICE THAT:

    (1) CONTAINS EXPLOSIVE OR INCENDIARY MATERIAL DESIGNED AND INTENDED FOR USE IN A FIREARM; AND

    (2) HAS A CORE CONSTRUCTED, EXCLUDING TRACES OF OTHER SUBSTANCES, ENTIRELY FROM ONE OR A COMBINATION OF:

    (I) TUNGSTEN ALLOYS;
    (II) STEEL;
    (II) [(2)] (3)
    (III) IRON;
    (IV) BRASS;
    (V) BERYLLIUM COPPER;
    (VI) DEPLETED URANIUM; OR
    (VII) AN EQUIVALENT MATERIAL OF SIMILAR DENSITY OR
    HARDNESS.

    (B)A PERSON MAY NOT, DURING AND IN RELATION TO THE COMMISSION OF A CRIME OF VIOLENCE AS DEFINED IN § 14–101 OF THIS ARTICLE, POSSESS OR USE RESTRICTED FIREARM AMMUNITION.

    (C) A PERSON WHO VIOLATES THIS SECTION IS GUILTY OF A MISDEMEANOR AND ON CONVICTION IS SUBJECT TO IMPRISONMENT NOT EXCEEDING 5 YEARS OR A FINE NOT EXCEEDING $5,000 OR BOTH.
     

    bobthefisher

    Durka ninja
    Aug 18, 2010
    1,214
    Definitely not where you are!
    This is the type of thing we need to slam companies on. Just like people not selling ANYTHING to California, it only hurts the community and emboldens the anti-gunners. I'll be personally calling SilencerCo today and giving them a good piece of my mind. Hopefully it's just a simple mistake.
     

    5cary

    On the spreading edge of the butter knife.
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 30, 2007
    3,680
    Sykesville, MD
    This is the type of thing we need to slam companies on. Just like people not selling ANYTHING to California, it only hurts the community and emboldens the anti-gunners. I'll be personally calling SilencerCo today and giving them a good piece of my mind. Hopefully it's just a simple mistake.

    I tend to concur, and might call them directly as well.

    Having said that, it depends on the reasoning. If they just refuse to ship to private citizens, then that sucks - particularly when the law allows it.

    However, there are companies like Barrett (I believe) that have a moratorium on doing *any* business in a given state (Kalifornistan, in their case) in protest of the laws. IIRC, Barrett will not sell to private citizens OR to CA State entities (thereby applying the state's laws to the State itself). THAT approach is something I don't have a big problem with (assuming I'm correct).
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    275,556
    Messages
    7,286,253
    Members
    33,476
    Latest member
    Spb5205

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom