Delegate Dumais working on bill to ban 80% firearms

Rack&Roll said:

I will never understand the Loony Left's obsession with "Freshness dates"....

Gun best if purchased before 10/1/13

Click to expand...

Really, you do not understand it? There is a lot you do not understand, so I am not surprised that you do not understand the "freshness date" that the liberals put on these firearms. It is there to make the old people happy, to win the battle today, and to win the war down the road.

They are putting it out there so that 100 years from now, those that were made before 10/1/2013 that have been broken, turned in, chopped up by Benchmade, etc. will not be able to be replaced in Maryland. It is called a war of attrition.

Of course, they could always go the Rapid Fire Trigger Device route, as your wonderful court case has provided the support for it.

Best not to look a gift horse in the mouth sometimes. Also best to understand the potential ramification of litigation and how to pick the correct case to spend money on and attempt to take all the way to SCOTUS. Best to do a great job and spend a ton of money on a really promising case, than to spend a little here and there on everything 2A related while praying that there is funding and that something will stick.

fabsroman said:

It is there to make the old people happy, to win the battle today, and to win the war down the road.

They are putting it out there so that 100 years from now, those that were made before 10/1/2013 that have been broken, turned in, chopped up by Benchmade, etc. will not be able to be replaced in Maryland. It is called a war of attrition.

Of course, they could always go the Rapid Fire Trigger Device route, as your wonderful court case has provided the support for it.

Best not to look a gift horse in the mouth sometimes. Also best to understand the potential ramification of litigation and how to pick the correct case to spend money on and attempt to take all the way to SCOTUS. Best to do a great job and spend a ton of money on a really promising case, than to spend a little here and there on everything 2A related while praying that there is funding and that something will stick.

Click to expand...

Why don't you edit out the prickly start to your post like I did? Cut the weary Patriot some slack...at least for today. I'm physciallly sore and emotionally exhausted from yesterday, and I'm not even battling cancer. I can't imagine how Rack feels. He doesn't need flack from us.

Art3 said:

Why don't you edit out the prickly start to your post like I did? Cut the weary Patriot some slack...at least for today. I'm physciallly sore and emotionally exhausted from yesterday, and I'm not even battling cancer. I can't imagine how Rack feels. He doesn't need flack from us.

Click to expand...

I second. Upon meeting Rack in person and seeing him and others in action. I have a great appreciation and respect for the 2A fight he is leading.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

fabsroman said:

Really, you do not understand it? There is a lot you do not understand, so I am not surprised that you do not understand the "freshness date" that the liberals put on these firearms. It is there to make the old people happy, to win the battle today, and to win the war down the road.

They are putting it out there so that 100 years from now, those that were made before 10/1/2013 that have been broken, turned in, chopped up by Benchmade, etc. will not be able to be replaced in Maryland. It is called a war of attrition.

Of course, they could always go the Rapid Fire Trigger Device route, as your wonderful court case has provided the support for it.

Best not to look a gift horse in the mouth sometimes. Also best to understand the potential ramification of litigation and how to pick the correct case to spend money on and attempt to take all the way to SCOTUS. Best to do a great job and spend a ton of money on a really promising case, than to spend a little here and there on everything 2A related while praying that there is funding and that something will stick.

Click to expand...

Dude, I have a lazy boy and a football if you want to armchair quarterback....

Rack&Roll said:

Gun best if purchased before 10/1/13

Click to expand...

Rack&Roll said:

I will never understand the Loony Left's obsession with "Freshness dates"....

Gun best if purchased before 10/1/13

Click to expand...

fabsroman said:

Really, you do not understand it? There is a lot you do not understand, so I am not surprised that you do not understand the "freshness date" that the liberals put on these firearms. It is there to make the old people happy, to win the battle today, and to win the war down the road.

They are putting it out there so that 100 years from now, those that were made before 10/1/2013 that have been broken, turned in, chopped up by Benchmade, etc. will not be able to be replaced in Maryland. It is called a war of attrition.

Of course, they could always go the Rapid Fire Trigger Device route, as your wonderful court case has provided the support for it.

Best not to look a gift horse in the mouth sometimes. Also best to understand the potential ramification of litigation and how to pick the correct case to spend money on and attempt to take all the way to SCOTUS. Best to do a great job and spend a ton of money on a really promising case, than to spend a little here and there on everything 2A related while praying that there is funding and that something will stick.

Click to expand...

Thank you, oh thank you, Word Wall Master, I am not worthy!

I beg you you, please, may I laminate your post into a placemat?

Art3 said:

Why don't you edit out the prickly start to your post like I did? Cut the weary Patriot some slack...at least for today. I'm physciallly sore and emotionally exhausted from yesterday, and I'm not even battling cancer. I can't imagine how Rack feels. He doesn't need flack from us.

Click to expand...

Hear! Hear!

Bought some "We will Not Comply" stickers yesterday. today donate to Litigation fund.

https://www.ammoland.com/2014/11/atf-answers-questions-on-80-receiver-blanks/#axzz5gkGqvvOl

Read more: https://www.ammoland.com/2014/11/atf-answers-questions-on-80-receiver-blanks/#ixzz5gkHYy0w1
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook

4. Are there restrictions on who can purchase receiver blank?
The GCA does not impose restrictions on receiver blanks that do not meet the definition of a “firearm.”
5. When does a receiver need to have markings and/or serial numbers?
Receivers that meet the definition of a “firearm” must have markings, including a serial number. See 27 CFR § 478.92 (Firearm manufacturers marking requirements).
6. Can functioning firearms made from receiver blanks be traced?
ATF successfully traces crime guns to the first retail purchaser in most instances. ATF starts with the manufacturer and goes through the entire chain of distribution to find who first bought the firearm from a licensed dealer. Because receiver blanks do not have markings or serial numbers, when firearms made from such receiver blanks are found at a crime scene, it is usually not possible to trace the firearm or determine its history, which hinders crime gun investigations jeopardizing public safety.
7. Have firearms made from unmarked receiver blanks been recovered after being used in a crime?
Yes, firearms that began as receiver blanks have been recovered after shooting incidents, from gang members and from prohibited people after they have been used to commit crimes.
8. Are some items being marketed as non-firearm “unfinished” or “80%” receivers actually considered firearms?
Yes, in some cases, items being marketed as unfinished or “80%” receivers do meet the definition of a “firearm” as defined in the GCA. Persons who are unsure about whether an item they are planning to buy or sell is considered a firearm under the GCA should contact ATF’s Firearms Technology Branch (FTB).
9. What is ATF doing in regard to people making firearms?
There are no federal restrictions on an individual making a firearm for personal use, as long as it does not violate the GCA or National Firearms Act (NFA).
10. What is the National Firearms Act (NFA)?
The NFA imposes a tax on the making, transfer or import of certain firearms recognized to present a greater risk to public safety. The law also requires the registration of all NFA firearms as defined in title 26 USC 5845(a):
(1) a shotgun having a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length;
(2) a weapon made from a shotgun if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length;
(3) a rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length;
(4) a weapon made from a rifle if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length;
(5) any other weapon, as defined in subsection (e);
(6) a machinegun;
(7) any silencer (as defined in section 921 of title 18, United States Code); and
(8) a destructive device.
(Under the NFA the term “firearm” does not include an antique firearm or any device (other than a machinegun or destructive device) which, although designed as a weapon, the [Attorney General] finds by reason of the date of its manufacture, value, design, and other characteristics is primarily a collector’s item and is not likely to be used as a weapon.

Rack&Roll said:

Thank you, oh thank you, Word Wall Master, I am not worthy!

I beg you you, please, may I laminate your post into a placemat?

Click to expand...

You can laminate it right along with the opinion in MSI/Brockman versus Hogan. Who knows, maybe it will be a winner at the 4th Circuit. Highly doubtful, but maybe.

Jefflac said:

I second. Upon meeting Rack in person and seeing him and others in action. I have a great appreciation and respect for the 2A fight he is leading.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Yeah, I had some respect once upon a time too, until he wrote, "Show the respect due." If anybody has to ask for respect, well...................

Then, along came the opinion in his clamored for MSI/Brockman v. Hogan litigation. Maybe one needs to be an attorney to understand the intricacies of why this result is so bad and why the case itself was NOT the right one to litigate. Heck, Art3, a serious PP advocate, has not even found the time to read the opinion, which came down in the middle of November 2018. Meanwhile, little old me went ahead and read it. What happens to us in Maryland IF SCOTUS does not reverse this opinion for 50+ years, or ever? Meanwhile, ATF has banned bumpstocks too across the nation. Who knows, maybe this will head right to SCOTUS after the 4th Circuit, SCOTUS will overturn it, the ATF's position will be overturned next, and I will be eating humble pie with a smile on my face. Doubtful, but possible. Kind of like how Kolbe was actually a winner at the 4th Circuit for a brief moment, and I told my wife about it with a smile on my face. Of course, her response was, "So, we didn't really have to buy all those guns in 2013?" Of course, the en banc review of Kolbe made my smile go away and justified the 2013 purchases. SCOTUS refused to grant cert on that one.

As far as MSI being a plaintiff in the Brockman matter, that was a bad move too. Absolutely no reason for it. It brought up an issue of standing for MSI and it also put a corporate entity front and center in the litigation. Read up on how Heller was conducted:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

Hear, Hear!!!!!!!

There, There!!!!!!!!!

I really hope you guys change some minds with the scofflaw shirts in Annapolis. Again, doubtful, but possible.

Can one really say in the same breath, "I am a law abiding gun owner that will not comply/abide with any more gun control laws?" Can one really say that?

fabsroman said:

Can one really say in the same breath, "I am a law abiding gun owner that will not comply/abide with any more gun control laws?" Can one really say that?

Click to expand...

Yes. That can absolutely be said. The law is unconstitutional on it's face, and I can ignore it as though it was never in existence.

teratos said:

Yes. That can absolutely be said. The law is unconstitutional on it's face, and I can ignore it as though it was never in existence.

Click to expand...

Absolutely.

I also disagree with Fabs suggestion that we pick our court battles. I’ve read the opinion and have a law degree (and law firm). Don’t be so condescending. I get your position, and if you were discussing the “pick your case” strategy from the perspective of the med mail defense bar, absolutely. The 2A community is not that homogeneous a group.

teratos said:

Yes. That can absolutely be said. The law is unconstitutional on it's face, and I can ignore it as though it was never in existence.

Click to expand...

Yeah, and I am willing to bet that an argument can be made on both sides of it. Thing is, a good test case where somebody is facing prison time, like Chow was, is a good way to litigate the Constitutionality of the law. Puts a little more umph in the case when the judges know that their decision will result in prison time for the defendant.

Granted, both the US District Court for Maryland and the US Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit both said the assault weapon ban was Constitutional in Kolbe. What makes the ban on ghost guns different? Do we have the Consitutional right to manufacture firearms, or can the manufacturing of firearms be regulated by the states?

What happens to those that do not comply if the law is held to be Constitutional? They become felons, correct? They can no longer legally own a firearm, correct?

Was the "I Will Not Comply" shirt just aimed at ghost guns, or the HBAR bill too? What makes it Unconstitutional, based upon the law currently in place, to add HBAR to the list of banned "assault weapons"? Kolbe pretty much addressed that one. IF the HBAR bill passes, we will need a test case on that one in the hope that it makes it to SCOTUS. Hard to believe 3 gun in Maryland without an AR-15.

KIBarrister said:

Absolutely.

I also disagree with Fabs suggestion that we pick our court battles. I’ve read the opinion and have a law degree (and law firm). Don’t be so condescending. I get your position, and if you were discussing the “pick your case” strategy from the perspective of the med mail defense bar, absolutely. The 2A community is not that homogeneous a group.

Click to expand...

Always attorneys on each side of almost every case, and one usually ends up losing. Question ends up being whether the loser actually thought the case was a winner and advising the client that way, or if the loser was cautioning the client against litigation and the client wanted to roll the dice anyway.

I too have had my own law practice for 16+ years. Granted, smaller than most law practices and I select most of my clients very carefully nowadays.

How much is it costing to litigate the Rapid Fire Trigger Device statute? Can you answer that for me?

fabsroman said:

Yeah, and I am willing to bet that an argument can be made on both sides of it. Thing is, a good test case where somebody is facing prison time, like Chow was, is a good way to litigate the Constitutionality of the law. Puts a little more umph in the case when the judges know that their decision will result in prison time for the defendant.

Granted, both the US District Court for Maryland and the US Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit both said the assault weapon ban was Constitutional in Kolbe. What makes the ban on ghost guns different? Do we have the Consitutional right to manufacture firearms, or can the manufacturing of firearms be regulated by the states?

What happens to those that do not comply if the law is held to be Constitutional? They become felons, correct? They can no longer legally own a firearm, correct?

Was the "I Will Not Comply" shirt just aimed at ghost guns, or the HBAR bill too? What makes it Unconstitutional, based upon the law currently in place, to add HBAR to the list of banned "assault weapons"? Kolbe pretty much addressed that one. IF the HBAR bill passes, we will need a test case on that one in the hope that it makes it to SCOTUS. Hard to believe 3 gun in Maryland without an AR-15.

Click to expand...

I don't know how the ban can be argued to be Constitutional. It fails Miller (useful for militia service) and it fails Heller (common use). It also fails the Second Amendment even WITH the militia clause intact. Prepare to be irritated. Basic Constitution stuff here. The 2A was put in place to restrain the Federal government from passing restrictions on the keeping and bearing of arms. This was incorporated against the States. The courts can be wrong. It was why the 2A was put in place in the first place! In case we need a reset.

16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256:

The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.....

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.

No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

Click to expand...

lazarus said:

The bill as written wont ban 80%.

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 .

Click to expand...

Wrong and wrong.

Im sure most 80%s are CNC to that point. Read the bill.

teratos said:

I don't know how the ban can be argued to be Constitutional. It fails Miller (useful for militia service) and it fails Heller (common use). It also fails the Second Amendment even WITH the militia clause intact. Prepare to be irritated. Basic Constitution stuff here. The 2A was put in place to restrain the Federal government from passing restrictions on the keeping and bearing of arms. This was incorporated against the States. The courts can be wrong. It was why the 2A was put in place in the first place! In case we need a reset.

Click to expand...

I am well aware of what the 2nd Amendment is there for. It is there to prevent a tyrannical government. It is there to allow us to defend ourselves from a tyrannical government.

Now, here is some reality. Until SCOTUS actually overturns some of these laws, the few states that want oppressive gun control will be able to enforce it. In fact, there will be no "reset" until the feds pass something egregious, SCOTUS upholds it, and it is enough to start a revolution/civil war.

Then, assuming the side that is revolting actually wins, do you think we just get a reset back to 1776 like this is a video game? It all depends what the side that wins decides to enforce. What if the "reset" is a military coup? What if there is a lot more to the revolution than gun rights? If the revolution is all about gun rights, then a heck of a lot more states will have to be affected by this BS other than CA, NJ, NY, MD, CT, and a couple others that slip my mind.

In the meantime, as all of that gets hashed out, those that do not comply right now end up in prison. Are you going to tell me that nobody since October 1, 2013 has been put in prison for the possession of a banned assault weapon. They were merely not complying with an unconstitutional law. Meanwhile, no revolt is coming to free them from prison. What about the man in Glen Burnie that was killed while a red flag warrant was being served on him? Any vindication for him?

Yep, it will take a lot more than this before there is a "reset", and then there is no guarantee what the "reset" is going to look like. Meanwhile, those caught not complying will be spending a lot of money in attorneys fees and probably some time in prison.

fabsroman said:

I am well aware of what the 2nd Amendment is there for. It is there to prevent a tyrannical government. It is there to allow us to defend ourselves from a tyrannical government.

Now, here is some reality. Until SCOTUS actually overturns some of these laws, the few states that want oppressive gun control will be able to enforce it. In fact, there will be no "reset" until the feds pass something egregious, SCOTUS upholds it, and it is enough to start a revolution/civil war.

Then, assuming the side that is revolting actually wins, do you think we just get a reset back to 1776 like this is a video game? It all depends what the side that wins decides to enforce. What if the "reset" is a military coup? What if there is a lot more to the revolution than gun rights? If the revolution is all about gun rights, then a heck of a lot more states will have to be affected by this BS other than CA, NJ, NY, MD, CT, and a couple others that slip my mind.

In the meantime, as all of that gets hashed out, those that do not comply right now end up in prison. Are you going to tell me that nobody since October 1, 2013 has been put in prison for the possession of a banned assault weapon. They were merely not complying with an unconstitutional law. Meanwhile, no revolt is coming to free them from prison. What about the man in Glen Burnie that was killed while a red flag warrant was being served on him? Any vindication for him?

Yep, it will take a lot more than this before there is a "reset", and then there is no guarantee what the "reset" is going to look like. Meanwhile, those caught not complying will be spending a lot of money in attorneys fees and probably some time in prison.

Click to expand...

I get what you are saying. I really do. I am very much a law abiding citizen. Frankly, at this point I don't have anything on the books that is going to trigger anyone to come to my house looking. All my AR's are pre-16. The rest we can talk about in person sometime.....

Muleskinner said:

you can also use rebar. Seen it done

Click to expand...

Why not just go to MD Metals or any number of other metal distributors and but bar stock, or even easier hollow bar? These people have no idea! For machines parts it would be hard to tell if it was done on a manual machine or on a CNC. Hell when I was working at Wichita Arms we only had on NC machine, all the rest were manuals or Automatics. We made some fine guns there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk