Long Gun Transfer Bill SB0948
- Thread starter rwbow1969
- Start date
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!
Member Benefits:
- Nov 14, 2010
- 20,274
- Jan 30, 2013
- 34,023
Not just O'Mao, who is now gone. Miller, Busch, Fr*sh, Dumais, and the entire Dem majority in MGA said that. The long term, ultimate goal is a gun-free, 2A nonexistent state, if it takes 100 years or more -- one lie, one incremental infringement at a time. That's been the plan for decades. That's been a tool of tyrants for centuries and of Marxists for the last 100 years. What's changed? Nothing.
- Nov 14, 2010
- 20,274
I'll just leave this here ...
It was a 'modest bill' back in 3013 according to Comrade Miller ... AND, "in the future shotguns and rifles are not affected" ... hmmmm ?
Looking back, it's more like incremental gun control in the works.
It was a 'modest bill' back in 3013 according to Comrade Miller ... AND, "in the future shotguns and rifles are not affected" ... hmmmm ?
Looking back, it's more like incremental gun control in the works.
2ndMDRebel
Ultimate Member
- Feb 13, 2008
- 2,466
Under this bill would it be legal to take someone shooting and let them fire my rifle while I am there with them?
Yes.
Yes, but only "at a shooting range"
No, it mentions an exception for hunting as well. But that is it. So technically if you go shooting in your backyard with a friend they might not be able to borrow your firearm. It basically says it has to be hunting, or at a recognized range or clays facility. So busting some hand thrown clays on your 40 acres using your friend's shotgun would be a crime.
My other issue here is with the wording of the law that transfers must go through an FFL. If they at least left it open to transfers being able to be conducted through your local barracks for no fee or a minimal $5 fee I'd be slightly more okay with it. I mean, the language is terrible in respect to thinks like pointed out a post up, but permenant transfers I'd have slightly less issue (I said slightly less, I didn't say I'd be ok with it).
To me it pisses me off that if I want to buy an old beater single shot shotgun now I might have to pay an FFL $50 to transfer a $100 gun is outrageous.
To me it pisses me off that if I want to buy an old beater single shot shotgun now I might have to pay an FFL $50 to transfer a $100 gun is outrageous.
- Jan 30, 2013
- 34,023
The man is a serial liar, con artist, and a co-conspirator with a power-hungry cabal that for decades has worked to implement a phased-in extermination of the 2A. Down-playing a single infringement and touting that others aren't part of the bill. Gimme a break. Can somebody please link Curran's 1990's era speech that provided part of their blueprint?
- Jan 30, 2013
- 34,023
People are supposed to be placated by "exemptions" from draconian infringements on their rights?
That's like saying the government owns all your income, except for what you can prove you need for food, clothing, and shelter. Tanks 'fer nuttin'.
(Edit: That last remark is directed at them, not you.)
They include all hunters in their numbers, not just those that hunt with rifles and shotguns, but bow hunters as well.
I would encourage every 2A patriot to visit Senator Astle's office to glimpse his trophies he displays with pride, from birds to a fox, to a few different rugs.
He is indeed a hunter and a 2A advocate, and has yet (to my knowledge) vote in favor of any anti-2A bill).
Pointing out truthful exemptions in the bill does not equate to being OK with the bill or otherwise agreeing with it -- it's no less awful.
Better to be able to fight it based on the facts within it, rather than having a snarky senator or delegate point it out.
Here's the link again for your reading displeasure
http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2017RS/bills/sb/sb0948f.pdf
Better to be able to fight it based on the facts within it, rather than having a snarky senator or delegate point it out.
Here's the link again for your reading displeasure
http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2017RS/bills/sb/sb0948f.pdf
- Nov 14, 2010
- 20,274
- Nov 14, 2010
- 20,274
Don't forget his 'Big Cat' still on display at Fegan's Taxidermy'
Attachments
Brianczaw
Member
IF you don't expect that person you are lending your gun to-to go murder someone; then I think it would be legal for him to shoot your gun. Based on this part of the bill.
THAT IS TEMPORARY, OCCURS UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH
26 THE TRANSFEROR HAS NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE TRANSFEREE INTENDS TO
27 USE THE RIFLE OR SHOTGUN IN THE COMMISSION OF A CRIME OR TO ALLOW
28 ANOTHER PERSON TO USE THE RIFLE OR SHOTGUN, AND TAKES PLACE
29 EXCLUSIVELY:"
Of course I'm no lawyer or politician(and they don't even know what they are signing into law anyway)
- Jan 30, 2013
- 34,023
That's it! Thanks, EL1227. Handguns, and now they're sighting in on long guns.
dist1646
Ultimate Member
Be careful what you agree to! If a fee is imposed, what is there to stop them from raising it at any time in the future? Absolutely nothing! Never give the enemy anything!
