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

gulfwarsubvet said:

Not exactly true....there is one.
The AP74 is on the banned list (by name), and has been forever as regulated.
When the original list came out we laughed at this entry out of their ignorance, because it looked evil.
Armi Jager made a .22 that looked exactly like an AR, starting in 74 and until the mid 80s.
It was an Italian Company and the rifles were imported by Mitchell Arms (an offshoot of EMF).
Many think the new .22 ARs were innovative, but they weren't the first.

Click to expand...

Good catch. How would you modify the statement to make it correct? Perhaps by adding a provision along these lines? -- "except the AP-74 'commando type semi-auto,' which was manufactured in .22LR by the now-defunct Armi Jager firm in the 1990s and which appears by name on the list."

I do want readers to grasp that a rimfire rifle will never fall under the "copycat" ban, since the "copycat" test explicitly specifies "centerfire" (for rifles, not pistols).

gulfwarsubvet said:

All of the AR 15 .22 copies are ok, except the AP74, which is on the list by its specific name.
Someone else definite answer to the other question, but I believe the .22 lowers are made so they wont work with a regular upper.

Click to expand...

Actually the point would be is an AR15 lower could be built for an AR15-22 or a normal AR15, so I would think it can't be banned since the AR15-22 isn't banned.

From what I'm reading online, and yes its been hasty reading, all point to the two platforms using the same lower, with the difference being BCG, Magazine and upper.

Just looking for clarification on this....

gulfwarsubvet said:

[Referring to Delegate Aumann's summary]All correct, except for the RED below.
The only banned SKS is one sold with a detachable magazine.
Any SKS sold in it's original configuration (with 10 rd fixed mag) is OK (not banned).
Everyone NEEDS to be REALLY careful, when selling SKS rifles after OCT.1st.
Selling with fixed 10 rounder OK.
Selling with fixed 20 rounder NOT OK.
Selling with detachable mags NOT OK.
....the penalties are even more steep now and ignorance is not an excuse for non-compliance.

Click to expand...

Actually, there are some other somewhat misleading statements in Delegate Augmann's summary, as I pointed out yesterday at post #404 above. To reiterate:

-- The summary twice states, "Active and retired law enforcement officers .. . are EXEMPT from the provisions and restrictions of this bill." It is true that active law enforcement personnel are exempt from many provisions. The exemptions for retired law enforcement officers vary from provision to provision, both in their scope and in which retirees they cover. For example, in the "assault" weapons ban, the only exemption for retirees, with respect to non-grandfathered firearms, is if a banned firearm "is sold or transferred to the person by the law enforcement agency on retirement," or "was purchased or obtained by the person for official use with the law enforcement agency before retirement." So retirees are not really exempt from the general ban -- they cannot just order whatever "assault" firearm they wish. With respect to the handgun qualification license, some retired law enforcement officers will be exempt from the requirement and some will not, by my reading.

-- The summary states that "active military personnel over age 21, are EXEMPT from the provisions and restrictions of this bill." They are exempt from the handgun qualification license requirement, but with respect to the ban on "assault" firearms, they are exempt only within the scope of their official duties. Military personnel may not own banned "assault" weapons as personal property, unless they are grandfathered firearms.

-- There are no exemptions from any of the numerous new firearms disqualifications in the bill (see paragraph no. 18 of my summary) for active military, retired or honorably discharged military, active law enforcement, or retired law enforcement.

-- erwos, above at posts 391 and 393, has explained why people may be disappointed if they think that they can place orders for about-to-be-banned firearms all the way up to October 1 and still expect to receive them.
ddeanjohnson is online now.

-- The FAQs by erwos, here, may be helpful on some of the other issues raised in the posts just above.

musketbal said:

Just spoke with Deleget Charles Otto's office. Things are not looking good. I was told there was going to be an attempt at a referendum, however if that was possible then there would be only two weeks to get enough signatures. King obama's plan is coming together quicker then even he thought possible. Oh, BTW check out the latest youtube video by nutnfancy. No ***** footing around by him. He is 100% right on.

Brent

Click to expand...

how many signatures are needed for it to go to a referendum?

56,000 I believe

Would they have to be hand written? Or can it be a online thing?

off topic

madness3120 said:

Would they have to be hand written? Or can it be a online thing?

Click to expand...

Please: We are trying to confine this thread to explanations of what is or is not contained in the bill -- what it prohibits, what it allows, etc. There are many other threads devoted to expressions of opinion on the various provisions, the wisdom (or manifest lack thereof) of forcing a referendum vote, etc. Please carry that discussion to those other threads.

Bump . . .

Bumping this to the top for new visitors trying to learn what is in the bill.

Right,
However the point is did we "lawfully" own the weapon on the banned list prior to 10-1-13 and since I changed out my stock SKS with a 20round detachable mag (not to mention the scary hand grip and muzzle brake) I made it a "regulated" assult weapon (by their terms not mine) so.....therefore, if I don't voluntarily do a MSP 77R it would NOT be lawfully owned prior to 10-1-13 and therefore I would not be in compliance. Incidentally, I have met the federal 922R regs but I don't believe that exempts me from completing the 77R? Anyone have any comments? While I still have the original stock furniture, I still want to shoot is as I built it out at the range after 10-1-13 so I believe my only option is to do a voluntary registration prior to?

I regards to the possession discussion, here is a letter from the AGs Office of Counsel to the General Assembly.

dblas said:

I regards to the possession discussion, here is a letter from the AGs Office of Counsel to the General Assembly.

Click to expand...

The gist of the letter is that this particular lawyer thinks a court "will very likely interpret" the bill's language to mean that a person who does not hold the handgun qualification license may take temporary possession of a handgun, "with the intent to return it to the owner," without violating the statutory requirement that one hold the license in order to "receive" a handgun. I'm glad to see that, since the AG's office presumably will be involved in the MSP development of regulations to implement the licensing scheme, and also may have some influence, at least at the margins, in shaping the thinking of the courts on such points.

But the heavily qualified language in the letter underscores, to my mind, how ambiguous the statutory language is on this point, and how unfortunate it is that the legislature did not clarify this matter in explicit statutory language. For discussion of the implications if the term "receive" is construed more narrowly, see paragraph no. 9 in my summary of the bill (the Original Post).

By the way, the lawyer who signed this letter, Dan Friedman, is the same lawyer who signed an earlier letter to the General Assembly, opining that every provision in the original O'Malley bill was constitutional.

Dan is the AG's point man for all requests from the General Assembly. Any and all opinions for the General Assembly, from the AG, have Dan's name on them.

dblas said:

Dan is the AG's point man for all requests from the General Assembly. Any and all opinions for the General Assembly, from the AG, have Dan's name on them.

Click to expand...

Yes, I know. I only mentioned it because some people on this forum found that earlier letter, hmmm, how to say it . . . not entirely persuasive.

ddeanjohnson said:

Yes, I know. I only mentioned it because some people on this forum found that earlier letter, hmmm, how to say it . . . not entirely persuasive.

Click to expand...

He can write double speak with the best of them.

Dean,

Many thanks for all the hard work you have done on this!!!

Josh

I just hate how people assume that

1) you can't understand the law if you are not a f**king lawyer.

and

2) that f**king lawyers understand the law.

Lawyers are not magic. Most of them are borderline imbeciles who were born with silver spoons in their mouths.

I'm not sure about the borderline part.

BondJamesBond said:

I just hate how people assume that

1) you can't understand the law if you are not a f**king lawyer.
and 2) that f**king lawyers understand the law.

Lawyers are not magic. Most of them are borderline imbeciles who were born with silver spoons in their mouths.

Click to expand...

You're painting with a pretty broad brush there, 007 . . .

is the mossberg 500 on the list just specific to that one? I have a mossberg 500 road blocker. since it has the muzzle brake and its a pistol grip does that mean as of october 1 they are banned? and how about my smith and wesson 16 round mags for my 9mm. are they banned as well?

I know i wont have to get rid of them but just was wondering if the shotgun and mag was a part of the passed bill?

jbaudia4 said:

is the mossberg 500 on the list just specific to that one? I have a mossberg 500 road blocker. since it has the muzzle brake and its a pistol grip does that mean as of october 1 they are banned? and how about my smith and wesson 16 round mags for my 9mm. are they banned as well?

I know i wont have to get rid of them but just was wondering if the shotgun and mag was a part of the passed bill?

Click to expand...

i don't think theres anything stating that a pump shotgun is banned, unless it has a folding stock, or a revolving cylinder. however, it does say about if a gun was transferred as regulated it would be banned, and i know shotguns with pistol grips are transferred as regulated. maybe someone with better understanding can clarify? the 16rnd magazine for your S&W is fine to possess, but you will no longer be able to purchase anything over 10 rnds legally in MD.