Delegate Dumais working on bill to ban 80% firearms

Lucca1 said:

But unlike a bump stock, I don't believe that a homemade firearm can be transferred or sold. How would a total ban stand without compensation?

Click to expand...

Lucca1 said:

But unlike a bump stock, I don't believe that a homemade firearm can be transferred or sold. How would a total ban stand without compensation?

Click to expand...

whistlersmother said:

This bill has a lot of co-sponsors.

I don't think 80% need serial number if sold by an individual, only a manufacturer in the business - yes/no?

Too expensive to become FFL07 which usually requires ITAR...

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

fabsroman said:

Didn't we just have a court opinion on this matter regarding the Takings Clause. Not only that, but we have the ATF changing its position on bumpstocks and making them illegal as of some date this year. People that own bumpstocks cannot sell them in the US unless they find a real moron. So, the ATF is advising them to cut them in half to render them useless.

How is the ATF compensating anybody for this? Answer: It isn't. Lots of people are going to be out a bumpstock or three without any compensation whatsoever. That, or they are going to become a criminal overnight by merely continuing to possess them after the deadline comes and goes.

I have not read the bill yet, but my guess is that there is an outright ban without any grandfathering unless the firearm was made before 1968. So, I am probably going to buy a couple of 80% frames anyway and just hold onto them in case they are really, really, really needed one day and I no longer care about the possibility of being charged with the crime.

Of course, I am hoping that this bill does not pass either. This really is just too much this session. Just too much.

Click to expand...

lazarus said:

The bill as written wont ban 80%. It will ban the Ghost Gunner machines, it’ll ban 3D printing of firearms and it’ll ban any firearm that is home manufactured using CnC machine (or anything computer aided). What to me is unclear is if at ANY point that 80% touched a CnC machine if you would be in violation of the law. Up until you start completing an 80% it isn’t a firearm under the law. Once you start to finish it, you are at THAT point, manufacturing a firearm.

I could make 80%s all day long and I am NOT a firearm manufacturer nor am I manufacturing a firearm. It takes someone taking that 80% and starting the final steps before the ATF considers it fabrication.

So likely most people with 80%s they built in to a firearm in MD are okay. The ones that used a Ghost Gunner are no go.

For example, a Glock 17 Polymer 80 AFAIK the entire frame is from a plastic mold. The end manufacturer drills what holes there are in it, not Polymer 80. None of it is machined. The locking block and for later versions of the Polymer 80, the rear rail block aren’t integral to it being considered a firearm AFAIK and I am pretty confident of that (absolutely confident enough to be sure I am not violating this new law) (and for all I know, the locking block and rear rail block aren’t finished on a CnC anyway).

I am pretty sure similar on most other 80%. They are cast or molded and most/all actual machining is by the end user. At most there MIGHT be one or two things drilled out by the 80% maker, but highly doubtful that would be CnC work.

Click to expand...

lazarus said:

The bill as written wont ban 80%. It will ban the Ghost Gunner machines, it’ll ban 3D printing of firearms and it’ll ban any firearm that is home manufactured using CnC machine (or anything computer aided). What to me is unclear is if at ANY point that 80% touched a CnC machine if you would be in violation of the law. Up until you start completing an 80% it isn’t a firearm under the law. Once you start to finish it, you are at THAT point, manufacturing a firearm.

I could make 80%s all day long and I am NOT a firearm manufacturer nor am I manufacturing a firearm. It takes someone taking that 80% and starting the final steps before the ATF considers it fabrication.

So likely most people with 80%s they built in to a firearm in MD are okay. The ones that used a Ghost Gunner are no go.

For example, a Glock 17 Polymer 80 AFAIK the entire frame is from a plastic mold. The end manufacturer drills what holes there are in it, not Polymer 80. None of it is machined. The locking block and for later versions of the Polymer 80, the rear rail block aren’t integral to it being considered a firearm AFAIK and I am pretty confident of that (absolutely confident enough to be sure I am not violating this new law) (and for all I know, the locking block and rear rail block aren’t finished on a CnC anyway).

I am pretty sure similar on most other 80%. They are cast or molded and most/all actual machining is by the end user. At most there MIGHT be one or two things drilled out by the 80% maker, but highly doubtful that would be CnC work.

Click to expand...

teratos said:

They can be transferred and sold if you put a serial number on them.

Click to expand...

fabsroman said:

Didn't we just have a court opinion on this matter regarding the Takings Clause. Not only that, but we have the ATF changing its position on bumpstocks and making them illegal as of some date this year. People that own bumpstocks cannot sell them in the US unless they find a real moron. So, the ATF is advising them to cut them in half to render them useless.

How is the ATF compensating anybody for this? Answer: It isn't. Lots of people are going to be out a bumpstock or three without any compensation whatsoever. That, or they are going to become a criminal overnight by merely continuing to possess them after the deadline comes and goes.

I have not read the bill yet, but my guess is that there is an outright ban without any grandfathering unless the firearm was made before 1968. So, I am probably going to buy a couple of 80% frames anyway and just hold onto them in case they are really, really, really needed one day and I no longer care about the possibility of being charged with the crime.

Of course, I am hoping that this bill does not pass either. This really is just too much this session. Just too much.

Click to expand...

jrumann59 said:

so how does the govt know that the gun you have was "made" by the means above or before the grandfathered period.

Click to expand...

jrumann59 said:

so how does the govt know that the gun you have was "made" by the means above or before the grandfathered period.

Click to expand...

Lucca1 said:

Ok, thanks. I missed that detail.



Understood, but that is comparing an accessory to a firearm (once completed ). Once the 80% is completed, why would it not be protected by the 2nd? Not arguing, just trying to understand.

Click to expand...

Mini14tac said:

It's about POWER!

Click to expand...

benton0311 said:

I think you're looking at the original 3D printer bill in the Senate from Sen. Benson. There is another bill in the House that isn't up for viewing yet put forth by Dumais early this morning that bans the possession of any firearm that doesn't have a serial number issued by a federally licensed manufacturer or importer. The synopsis reads "possession". We won't know what's in the bill until it is posted online to see if there's a clause that allows an ex post facto exemption.

Click to expand...

fabsroman said:

Yes, that is the difference. However, it isn't a Taking Clause argument. In other words, you cannot argue that they cannot do this because we are not being compensated for the firearms we have built with our own hands over the years. The argument is that they cannot do this because this flies in the face of the 2nd Amendment and deprives us of our 2nd Amendment Right, not that we are not being compensated for what they are making illegal and therefore what we must destroy as a result. Huge difference between winning and losing. Not sure that the 2nd Amendment argument was made in the rapid fire trigger device case, but I did not read the Complaint, Motions, briefs, discovery, etc in that case. Maybe they did make the argument that these rapid fire trigger devices were integral to the firearms themselves and banning them was essentially a direct infringement on our 2nd Amendment Right. I'll have to read the opinion again.

Just don't mix up the Takings Clause argument, which is a loser for sure at the US District Court of Maryland level, with the 2nd Amendment infringement argument.

Click to expand...

Allen65 said:

We haven't seen the text of the bill yet, so it's a stretch to even think it will have grandfathering language. And even if Dumais found a spark of warmth in her cold heart and allowed grandfathered guns, the law could put the burden of proof of date on the defendant by making grandfathering an affirmative defense against a posession charge.

Click to expand...

Lucca1 said:

Text posted.

http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2019RS/bills/hb/hb0740f.pdf

Click to expand...

Allen65 said:

No grandfathering. No surprise.

Click to expand...