SB 39

I appreciate the updates

esqappellate said:

Not sure that would be true, although it is hard to tell for sure.

Click to expand...

With statutes and their surrounding contexts so ambiguous, how could a State's Attorney ever win a conviction? Nobody can say beyond a reasonable doubt, and maybe even to preponderance standard, what is actually illegal to possess or transfer.

Allen65 said:

With statutes and their surrounding contexts so ambiguous, how could a State's Attorney ever win a conviction? Nobody can say beyond a reasonable doubt, and maybe even to preponderance standard, what is actually illegal to possess or transfer.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, a prosecutor only needs to convince a bunch of people on a jury, and I don't know that I'd want to leave my life in the hands of a dozen low information people.

erwos said:

Unfortunately, a prosecutor only needs to convince a bunch of people on a jury, and I don't know that I'd want to leave my life in the hands of a dozen low information people.

Click to expand...

Well I am not sure any of this ever gets prosecuted even if it becomes law. It would end up being add on crimes. Like your house gets raided for drugs or something like that and then they find one. Nobody is coming to inspect our guns or anything as they would still need probable cause. The problem could come up in a self defense shooting. Some prosecutor could try and make an example. Don’t think they would win but the “defendant” would be out a ton of money and would probably lose the gun in the process.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm just not understand this, I was under the distinct impression if the firearm had a heavy barrel is was good to go. I don't get it, singling out one manufacturer over another. Is the proposed law saying if an individual purchased a Anderson Manufacturing (AM15) and a Stag 15 Retro (HBAR) a couple of years ago. Now they would be now illegal?

TexDefender said:

I'm just not understand this, I was under the distinct impression if the firearm had a heavy barrel is was good to go. I don't get it, singling out one manufacturer over another. Is the proposed law saying if an individual purchased a Anderson Manufacturing (AM15) and a Stag 15 (HBAR) a couple of years ago. Now they would be now illegal?

Click to expand...

Only the Anderson hbar in 223 and 300 would be illegal... but they are supposedly adding a grandfather clause. So it would be going forward from oct. this year if it passes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

shershot99 said:

Only the Anderson hbar in 223 and 300 would be illegal... but they are supposedly adding a grandfather clause. So it would be going forward from oct. this year if it passes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

The crap they waste time on.....

shershot99 said:

Only the Anderson hbar in 223 and 300 would be illegal... but they are supposedly adding a grandfather clause. So it would be going forward from oct. this year if it passes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Correct, an Anderson AM-15 lower with an HBAR upper might be illegal. Anderson doesn’t sell an AM-15 with a heavy barrel. The AM-15 .223 and 5.56 rifles sold by Anderson have an M4 profile barrel.

The current law doesn’t ban receivers, it bans rifles (or handguns). An Anderson lower with an HBAR upper isn’t a copy of the AM-15, even if the receiver is marked AM-15. Now if the exemption for the Colt HBAR Sporter was not in there, it sure would be banned even with an HBAR upper.

But...no clue how a DA or judge or jury might interpret the change if you had an Anderson receiver marked AM-15 and an HBAR upper on there. I’d prefer not to find out.

A grandfather clause to the date of the enactment of the proposed bill would at least put my mind at ease on what I already own. That said, I am still writing and calling my reps.

Does a receiver have to have a manufacturer as well as a serial number? I know grinding off a serial number is illegal but is grinding off the manufacturer also illegal?

Interesting question about obliterating the manufacturer.... as far as I know, there is no law against it.

That being said, it is truly difficult to really obliterate anything that has been stamped into steel or aluminum. When a number is stamped into a metal object, the metal underneath the number is compressed and hardened. Even when the number is ground off the hardened area underneath is still present. There are several methods that law enforcement agencies or forensic labs can use to "raise" the stamped information... usually it is done by acid etching the metal. You can think of this as a similar process to reading a notepad by rubbing a pencil on the sheet underneath.

I know as an individual that I wouldn't have standing. But you would think that one company would file a suit against Maryland for favoring one arms company over another.

TexDefender said:

I know as an individual that I wouldn't have standing. But you would think that one company would file a suit against Maryland for favoring one arms company over another.

Click to expand...

If you owned an AM-15 you’d have standing.

Allen65 said:

With statutes and their surrounding contexts so ambiguous, how could a State's Attorney ever win a conviction? Nobody can say beyond a reasonable doubt, and maybe even to preponderance standard, what is actually illegal to possess or transfer.

Click to expand...

There is no mens rea requirement in this statute for a conviction. MD Code, Criminal Law, § 4-306. Possession is enough. You could argue that law is too vague, under the Due Process Clause. Don't bet your life savings or your freedom on that.

I needed to look up what "mens rea" means. IANAL I found this on justia.com for those interested:

For many but not all crimes, the prosecution must prove not only that the defendant carried out certain acts but also that they had a certain mental state. This is often known as the “mens rea” (“guilty mind”) element, and it prevents people from being punished when their intentions were innocent.

Click to expand...

PowPow said:

I needed to look up what "mens rea" means. IANAL I found this on justia.com for those interested:

Click to expand...

That's pretty good. For example, a mens rea requirement might be that the person knowingly possessed the firearm while knowing it was illegal. That was the construction given "knowingly participate" in the Chow case construing MD Code Public Safety 5-144. There can be a whole gamut of scienter requirements for mens rea.

mac1_131 said:

From an IT security standpoint, this is a nightmare. Not a safe practice. No one in their right mind would do this.

Anyone that is doing this, I'd suggest bringing the smallest flash drive you can, freshly formatted, and only your testimony on it to speed up the virus scan process.

Click to expand...

Seconded! And when you're done, throw it in the trash.

esqappellate said:

Not sure that would be true, although it is hard to tell for sure. The question would be whether the ban on the Anderson Am-15 in .223 and .300blk would ban using that receiver to custom build a heavy barrel version. The Anderson AM-15 in .223 is already banned, but not the Anderson AM-15 .300blk(unless this bill passes). My understanding that those two guns are not heavy barrel firearms from the factory. For example, you can build any HBAR, including a Colt HBAR, even though any AR15 in .223 regular barrel is banned. You just cannot build a HBAR that meets the definition of a "copy cat" weapon, viz., a center fire semi auto gun with a detachable mag, and that has two of three features, a flash suppressor, a grenade launcher or a folding stock, or is less than 29 inches long. See MD Code Criminal Law 4-301(h). That is because the MSP has construed the exemption for the Colt HBAR to include HBARs of any manufacturer. See, e.g., the MSP exemption for Armalite HBARs. ON the other hand, it is perfectly possible to read the bill has imposing a complete ban on all builds from the Anderson receiver. Yet, that result is hard to square with MSP guidance. Under that guidance, it is perfectly legal to purchase the Anderson receiver itself using the 77R process, as the 5-101(r)(2) list includes only long guns, not receivers. The receiver can be legally built into a heavy barrel, a pistol for personal use (you cannot sell the Anderson .223 pistol, or build for distribution as it is not on the Roster, but you can build it for personal use) or a SBR (as long as you comply with the NFA of 1934 and the ATF requirements under that act for SBRs). Again, the 5-101(r)(2) list includes only long guns (classified as "assault long guns under MD Code Criminal Law 4-301), not receivers. See MSP ADVISORY LD-FRS-14-003 (2014). Put differently, a receiver is a "firearm" but it is not an "assault long gun." Given that advisory, it would be odd to hold that you can build a Colt receiver into a heavy barrel, but not an Anderson receiver..... YMMV. Now, I don't think you can EVER build an Anderson .223 regular barrel, as that is already banned, including its manufacture. That would include converting an Anderson Heavy Barrel into a regular barrel. This is not Legal Advice.

Click to expand...

Then how does that guidance square with MSP's complete ban on anything Bushmaster when they only call out a rifle (and not even one manufactured by the Bushmaster Company) in the statute?

TexDefender said:

I'm just not understand this, I was under the distinct impression if the firearm had a heavy barrel is was good to go. I don't get it, singling out one manufacturer over another. Is the proposed law saying if an individual purchased a Anderson Manufacturing (AM15) and a Stag 15 Retro (HBAR) a couple of years ago. Now they would be now illegal?

Click to expand...

Might I point out that MSP has BANNED everything made by Bushmaster, even though the item named in state statute is the Bushmaster Carbine, manufactured by Gwinn Arms. They made the change shortly after FSA2013 went into affect.

dblas said:

Then how does that guidance square with MSP's complete ban on anything Bushmaster when they only call out a rifle (and not even one manufactured by the Bushmaster Company) in the statute?

Click to expand...

Check the MSP website list for Bushmaster. None of the guns listed there for the Bushmaster are heavy barrels (at least I don't think so, please correct me if that is wrong). Certainly the MSP does not purport to ban Bushmaster receivers. That's not to say that there isn't uncertainty. There is plenty of uncertainty. But there is at least an argument that the Anderson receivers are NOT banned (no receivers are banned in the 101(r)(2) list) and if the receivers are legal then you *should* be able to use them to build an otherwise legal configuration, just like any other receiver.

EDIT: I was able to confirm that the MSP bans all Bushmasters, including Heavy Barrels. No mention of receivers. This is from the affidavit submitted in the Kolbe litigation:

17. MSP does not have a specific definition based on barrel diameter or weight
of when a firearm constitutes a heavy-barreled version of an AR-15 that is exempted
from the ban as a copy of a Colt AR-15 Sporter H-BAR. Instead, MSP relies on the
manufacturer’s designation of a firearm as an H-BAR or heavy-barreled version of an
AR-15 to determine whether it is exempt from the ban as a copy of a Colt AR-15 Sporter
H-BAR.

18. The one exception is Bushmaster H-BAR rifles. MSP previously
considered Bushmaster H-BAR rifles to be exempt from the ban as a copy of a Colt AR-
15 Sporter H-BAR, based on the same analysis already discussed.

19. In response to a new inquiry regarding the Bushmaster H-BAR in 2013,
MSP reviewed its conclusion regarding that firearm in light of not only the provision of
the law related to the exemption for the Colt AR-15 Sporter H-BAR, but also the
separate, more specific, prohibition of “Bushmaster semi-auto rifle” in § 5-101(r)(2)(xi)
of the Public Safety Article.

20. As a matter of statutory interpretation, MSP determined that the more
specific prohibition on all Bushmaster semiautomatic rifles governs over the more
general exemption for copies of the Colt AR-15 Sporter H-BAR. Thus, MSP concluded
that Bushmaster AR-15 H-BAR firearms are, as of October 1, 2013, banned assault long
guns that may not be transported into the State of Maryland or transferred, sold, or
received within the State of Maryland. That determination relates exclusively to the
Bushmaster H-BAR, and is based on the statute’s unique treatment of Bushmaster semiautomatic
rifles.

So applying this to the bills designation of the Anderson Manufacturing AM-15 .223 and .300blk. The Bushmaster ban is by name, not name and model number. Under the MSP's reasoning, that would distinguish the Anderson gun from the Bushmaster.

esqappellate said:

You have just illustrated the absurdity of the matter. So yes, if you build a .300blk using an Anderson lower, it would probably be banned as a "copy" under MD Code Public Safety 5-101(r)(2). So if you use a different lower it MAY be fine, as the .300blk round long gun is otherwise not on the (r)(2) list. But, it is hard to be definitive.

Click to expand...

Could this be a backhanded way to go after .300 BO?

Since with this, any AR in .300 BO would be a copy of the Anderson.