20190314 - HB740 JUD Amendments

whistlersmother · Mar 17, 2019

OMG! I'm scared shitless just being on this forum. The computers that we use to talk about guns were almost certainly made with CNC. I guess that means we can't use them to talk about making firearms.

I'll have to revert to bolting aluminum plates together to make a lower - unless the bolts were made with equipment that was created with CNC machines. Can I use my manual lathe to cut bolts even though it itself was most likely created with a CNC machine?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

fabsroman · Mar 17, 2019

whistlersmother said:
OMG! I'm scared shitless just being on this forum. The computers that we use to talk about guns were almost certainly made with CNC. I guess that means we can't use them to talk about making firearms.

I'll have to revert to bolting aluminum plates together to make a lower - unless the bolts were made with equipment that was created with CNC machines. Can I use my manual lathe to cut bolts even though it itself was most likely created with a CNC machine?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

It is all a risk/reward issue. We do it in daily life all the time. How much above the speed limit can I go before I will piss an officer off enough to earn myself a citation, what are the chances of me coming across an officer during this drive, how much can I get a citation reduced in court, and do I have the money to afford the fine and additional insurance premium? Is it worth getting there 5 minutes ahead of time?

I don't see myself needing to navigate this mess at my own risk since I already have plenty to last me my lifetime. Now, for somebody without anything in the safe and wanting certain things without an HQL, etc., then they may be willing to take on more risk than me. The analysis is personal to each of us.

teratos · Mar 17, 2019

Mark75H said:
In the hinderlands we have always seen it as a population density problem. Population density begets problems that cannot be resolved. Athens, Rome, Paris, Chicago, Baltimore ... no one has ever come up with a working solution.

chilipeppermaniac said:
Bubonic plague anyone?

Or airborne Ebola.

W2D · Mar 17, 2019

The common problem with these bills is that we become criminals anytime they want us to be criminals.
They’re just bad laws that can be arbitrarily enforced. ...And by arbitrary, I mean they can use the laws against people who oppose them.

Sent from my bunker using Tapatalk

teratos · Mar 17, 2019

W2D said:
The common problem with these bills is that we become criminals anytime they want us to be criminals.
They’re just bad laws that can be arbitrarily enforced. ...And by arbitrary, I mean they can use the laws against people who oppose them.

Sent from my bunker using Tapatalk

The more of “us” they get off the street the safer the streets of Baltimore become....

jefflac02 · Mar 17, 2019

W2D said:
The common problem with these bills is that we become criminals anytime they want us to be criminals.
They’re just bad laws that can be arbitrarily enforced. ...And by arbitrary, I mean they can use the laws against people who oppose them.

Sent from my bunker using Tapatalk

^^^^ This is exactly it. It’s not about crime. If it was about crime, they would go after the AG to enforce the penalty phase, for crimes using a gun. The mommy crowd doesn’t care about that. They want to show that they can get laws passed to do something.

Even if it only gives the criminals more laws to ignore. It just makes more criminals of those of us who live outside the I95 corridor. And that’s the intent. To make us criminals so that we fear breaking the “law”. As someone said above. When we will not comply, it doesn’t matter.

If passed. I’m still going to buy firearms from a buddy. Face to face and pay cash, screw a UBC.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ironpony · Mar 17, 2019

I can see frosh stating that the actual digging process to extract aluminum ore from the ground is the beginning of the manufacturing process. One could NOT make a 20% or 80% from aluminum without well .... aluminum ore. Manufacturing process to them would be the entire carbon footprint, test case needed.

teratos · Mar 17, 2019

Jefflac said:
^^^^ This is exactly it. It’s not about crime. If it was about crime, they would go after the AG to enforce the penalty phase, for crimes using a gun. The mommy crowd doesn’t care about that. They want to show that they can get laws passed to do something.

Even if it only gives the criminals more laws to ignore. It just makes more criminals of those of us who live outside the I95 corridor. And that’s the intent. To make us criminals so that we fear breaking the “law”. As someone said above. When we will not comply, it doesn’t matter.

If passed. I’m still going to buy firearms from a buddy. Face to face and pay cash, screw a UBC.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yep. Just on principle.

LeadSled1 · Mar 17, 2019

If it is illegal after this to have databases or files of CNC firearm machining on your PC, what happens if people from outside of Maryland start email flooding the MGA with CNC plans?

Tebonski · Mar 17, 2019

Police somehow discover a rifle with a non serialized lower. So they arrest the owner. Now to convict the prosecutor has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a computer was used to manufacture or finish the receiver. The owner remains silent when questioned. So who does the prosecutor summon to prove how the receiver was finished? Some crime lab employee? His machinist brother in law? AOC? The FBI Director?

Having spent a little time in courtrooms I don't see how any prosecutor can prove how a receiver was finished especially to a jury where reasonable doubt would probably be abundant.

teratos · Mar 17, 2019

LeadSled1 said:
If it is illegal after this to have databases or files of CNC firearm machining on your PC, what happens if people from outside of Maryland start email flooding the MGA with CNC plans?

Or if those of us in MD have them and “turn them in”...

dblas · Mar 17, 2019

budman93 said:
Are the amendments the same as the first post in this thread from 3/14 or are they different?

Yes, the amended bill is the same as came out of committee since none of the floor amendments were approved.

Allen65 · Mar 17, 2019

LeadSled1 said:
If it is illegal after this to have databases or files of CNC firearm machining on your PC, what happens if people from outside of Maryland start email flooding the MGA with CNC plans?

According to a 9th CA Appellate panel (the circuit we like to make fun of on MDS) code, or at least source code, is speech and protected under 1A.
See BERNSTEIN V. US DOJ: https://www.eff.org/press/archives/2008/04/21-29. AFAIK, 4th CA has not been asked to decide a similar issue.

Now, what you choose to do with a piece of code may be illegal (throwing an exploit onto someone else's machine, for example) but that's a different issue. With CNC G-code, the source code is executable as-is, and STL files are descriptive of the geometry of an object and aren't executable themselves. IANAL, so I don't know what effect that has on application of 9th CA's logic to CNC files for firearms.

dblas · Mar 17, 2019

budman93 said:
I disagree, the law refers to manufacturing a firearm. As sold an 80% is not a firearm so how it was made is irrelevant. An 80% is not a firearm so creating one up to 80% with cnc is not manufacturing a firearm with a computer controlled device.

Let me throw a monkey wrench into the conversation that everyone seems to be glossing over. The individual parts needed to complete any firearm (springs, trigger, hammer, pins, etc.) All of those are made using CNC machines. So even if someone makes their own receiver from start to finish (referring to an AR-15) they still have to by CNC machined parts to finish the firearm.

Allen65 · Mar 17, 2019

dblas said:
Let me throw a monkey wrench into the conversation that everyone seems to be glossing over. The individual parts needed to complete any firearm (springs, trigger, hammer, pins, etc.) All of those are made using CNC machines. So even if someone makes their own receiver from start to finish (referring to an AR-15) they still have to by CNC machined parts to finish the firearm.

That's not a monkey wrench, it's the core of the problem with this bill. It was written so expansively that it effectively bans an entire class of commonly lawfully possessed firearms. "Common possession" might be tough to document with 80%s, though. :innocent0

whistlersmother · Mar 17, 2019

dblas said:
Let me throw a monkey wrench into the conversation that everyone seems to be glossing over. The individual parts needed to complete any firearm (springs, trigger, hammer, pins, etc.) All of those are made using CNC machines. So even if someone makes their own receiver from start to finish (referring to an AR-15) they still have to by CNC machined parts to finish the firearm.

And so someone hand makes their own LPK. Some would even enjoy the challenage.

Look at CA's attempt to ban cosmetic features - a complying abomination is available the next day.

The MGA could have gone the HI or CA route and allowed any manufacture but require serial number / registration from the state. But the MGA is just so much smarter than anyone else.

Reminds of the guidance not to come up with an encryption scheme by yourself...

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

KIBarrister · Mar 17, 2019

I’m just curious which enterprising FFL will start selling exclusive rights to individual serial numbers.

If Ares still existed, that would be my first suspect.

fabsroman · Mar 17, 2019

dblas said:
Let me throw a monkey wrench into the conversation that everyone seems to be glossing over. The individual parts needed to complete any firearm (springs, trigger, hammer, pins, etc.) All of those are made using CNC machines. So even if someone makes their own receiver from start to finish (referring to an AR-15) they still have to by CNC machined parts to finish the firearm.

I had not even thought about that part of this mess. Possessing the gun is the "entire" firearm and we have just been evaluating it based upon the receiver because a firearm is defined as the receiver of the gun.

This thing is a complete mess and I will not be touching an 80% or any other non-serialized firearm if this catastrophe passes. Hopefully, they are intelligent and drop this bill this session, get more information from MSP regarding a serialization scheme, and review this mess again next session with better information. Then, they would even get a little bit of respect from me. We shall see.

fabsroman · Mar 17, 2019

Jefflac said:
^^^^ This is exactly it. It’s not about crime. If it was about crime, they would go after the AG to enforce the penalty phase, for crimes using a gun. The mommy crowd doesn’t care about that. They want to show that they can get laws passed to do something.

Even if it only gives the criminals more laws to ignore. It just makes more criminals of those of us who live outside the I95 corridor. And that’s the intent. To make us criminals so that we fear breaking the “law”. As someone said above. When we will not comply, it doesn’t matter.

If passed. I’m still going to buy firearms from a buddy. Face to face and pay cash, screw a UBC.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The AG is not usually the one prosecuting criminals. The one prosecuting criminals is usually the State's Attorney you elect in your individual county. So, if the penalty phase of statutes is not being pursued hard enough in your county, get on your State's Attorney about it. The State's Attorney decides who to charge and how hard to push a criminal case.

fabsroman · Mar 17, 2019

Tebonski said:
Police somehow discover a rifle with a non serialized lower. So they arrest the owner. Now to convict the prosecutor has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a computer was used to manufacture or finish the receiver. The owner remains silent when questioned. So who does the prosecutor summon to prove how the receiver was finished? Some crime lab employee? His machinist brother in law? AOC? The FBI Director?

Having spent a little time in courtrooms I don't see how any prosecutor can prove how a receiver was finished especially to a jury where reasonable doubt would probably be abundant.

Will the barrel have manufacturer's markings on it, or is everybody filing those off? What about the upper receiver or in the case of a handgun, the slide? Once they have a name of some manufactured part on the gun, how hard is it to subpoena a witness from that company knowledgeable about the manufacturing process and then ask said witness on the stand how the specific part was manufactured?

20190314 - HB740 JUD Amendments

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Peace through strength

Ultimate Member

My hair is amazing

Ultimate Member

My hair is amazing

Active Member

Member

My hair is amazing

Ultimate Member

Active Member

My hair is amazing

Past President, MSI

Ultimate Member

Past President, MSI

Ultimate Member

Peace through strength

Opinionated Libertarian

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics