Grandfathering for Bump Stocks or Binary Triggers

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!
  • Maswasnos

    Member
    Feb 24, 2018
    24
    PG County
    Perhaps the OP can screen shot the e-mail and who it's from.

    If real, it could be useful.

    Hey Guys! Sorry I haven't replied. I know you're probably skeptical since this is my first post, I can't really do anything to alleviate that. I'll try to upload a screenshot of his email with my name scratched out:

    aIZKF69.jpg


    To the person who said it was a bad idea to contact the ATF, why? Isn't that the only way to find out what their stance on this is?

    Also, I suspect that the reason the ATF guy knew I'm from MD is that the language I used in my email is very close to the language used in the bill. I asked for "authorization" to own the trigger, which probably caught their attention.

    And if someone wants to put together a legal case of some sort I would be happy to forward the whole email chain to them, just send me a private message with your email address.
     

    iH8DemLibz

    When All Else Fails.
    Apr 1, 2013
    25,396
    Libtardistan
    OP,

    Thank you for taking the time to get back to us and for providing more information.

    Much appreciated.

    If possible, please provide to the group the e-mail address you used to send your inquiry.

    I, too, plan on writing a letter.
     

    44man

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 19, 2013
    10,129
    southern md
    Looks ok to me and it’s exactly what I have said since the first day that the bumpstock bill was made public
     

    jkeys

    Active Member
    Jan 30, 2013
    665
    Guys, the law only says that you must apply to the ATF for authorization, last I checked, it doesn't actually state that you must receive such authorization...
     

    Maswasnos

    Member
    Feb 24, 2018
    24
    PG County
    Guys, the law only says that you must apply to the ATF for authorization, last I checked, it doesn't actually state that you must receive such authorization...

    Unfortunately that's only half of it. There are two sections that mention the ATF: the one that you mentioned which only requires an application (and applies on October 1 of THIS year), and the second which requires ATF authorization (and applies on October 1 of NEXT year).

    It's on page 6 of this PDF document of the bill: http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2018RS/bills/sb/sb0707t.pdf

    Yes, it's incredibly stupid. At this point I think our only recourse is a lawsuit of some sort.
     

    MJD438

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 28, 2012
    5,849
    Somewhere in MD

    TapRackBang

    Cheaper Than Diamonds
    Jan 14, 2012
    1,919
    Bel Air
    To the person who said it was a bad idea to contact the ATF, why? Isn't that the only way to find out what their stance on this is?
    Some members here have a bad case of BGOS. It's not their fault. There's a high risk of catching the disease here in Marylandistan.
     

    Doctor_M

    Certified Mad Scientist
    MDS Supporter
    Well crap, that wasn't in the original bill I read. I have $1000 to start a legal fund and try to get an injunction against this law. Has anyone started working with any lawyers yet?

    I'll crack open my wallet for a contribution too. Is MSI interested in fighting this extruded crap-cake? I'm going to document my renegade accessories in a notarized, date stamped photograph to prove ownership pre 10/18 (did the same thing with now banned semi's in 2013) and may relocate them outside of the state before October until this silliness gets its day in court. But this still leaves me :mad54: :mad54: :mad54:
     

    esqappellate

    President, MSI
    Feb 12, 2012
    7,407
    First post in this forum so please correct me if this is in the wrong spot. I'm concerned about grandfathering my Fostech Echo under this new ban.

    After reading through the bill here I figured I'd send the ATF an email at fipb@atf.gov to see if they could give me some kind of "authorization" so I don't become a felon in 2019.

    The text of my email was as follows:

    Hello,

    I recently came into possession of a Fostech brand Echo trigger for an AR-15 rifle. Given the capabilities of such a trigger, I feel the need to ask the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives if I am authorized to be in possession of and to use such a device. I am not barred from owning firearms and I have filled out two form 4473's over the past month, receiving approval from NICS to purchase both a handgun and a rifle. I was unable to find any application forms on www.ATF.gov relevant to this specific device, so directly inquiring via email seemed the best option. I am aware that the laws regarding these devices are in a constant state of change, and I would like to do everything I can to be in compliance.

    Thank you very much, [my real name]


    And the response I received shortly afterwards:

    The item listed in your question is not regulated by ATF. Your question appears to be related to the recently signed statute that restricts possession in Maryland of “rapid fire trigger activators,” defined as any device, including a bump stock, that increases a firearm’s rate of fire, or the rate at which the trigger is activated. The statute specifically prohibits any person from transporting a rapid-fire trigger activator into Maryland, or manufacturing, possessing, selling, offering to sell, transferring, purchasing, or receiving a rapid-fire trigger activator in the State. The statute also contains a provision that purports to allow Maryland residents already in possession of a device covered by the law to continue to possess that device in Maryland if they file an application for “authorization” to possess the device with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) before October 1, 2018.

    Maryland residents who intend to file applications with ATF for “authorization” to possess devices covered by the referenced Maryland statute should be aware that ATF is without legal authority to accept and process such an application. Consequently, ATF respectfully requests that Maryland residents not file applications or other requests for “authorization” from ATF to possess rapid fire trigger activators as defined in the State statute. Any such applications or requests will be returned to the applicant without action. ATF regrets any confusion and inconvenience caused by the provisions of the Maryland statute that mistakenly indicate ATF has the authority to approve possession of devices covered by the statute.

    Regards,

    Kyle Lallensack

    Chief, FIPB


    So, given this information, how should I/we proceed? Has anyone heard of any lawsuits coming against this bill?

    Maybe I should just move out of state or get a storage unit elsewhere.


    EDIT: Screenshot of email with my name scratched out:
    aIZKF69.jpg


    EDIT2: Added ATF email address: fipb@atf.gov

    This is very interesting! Would you be willing to share a unredacted copy of the email with me? If so, please send it to my MSI email address: mpennak@marylandshallissue.org. Thanks!!
     

    Mark75H

    MD Wear&Carry Instructor
    Industry Partner
    MDS Supporter
    Sep 25, 2011
    17,173
    Outside the Gates
    To our lawyer members:

    I am surprised there is no legal precident in this situation. It sets an impossible to meet standard to exercise a civil right. Not much different from requiring voters to be 200 years old or prohibiting publishers from being over 1 year old.


    One would think that a law that is impossbile to comply with would simply be null and void.


    ETA: As a side note, don't forget that this Act of the Legislature is yet to be codified and we have no idea what MSP will send back to the COMAR approval committee to be enshrined in print, as with the HQL training live fire requirement.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,921
    Messages
    7,259,041
    Members
    33,349
    Latest member
    christian04

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom