The final SB 281: A detailed summary for non-lawyers

DaedalEVE · Apr 6, 2013

So if I'm reading this correctly... we can still go out of state, buy 30 round magazines (or 100rd beta mags if we want), and bring them home?

All I saw was the same basic capacity limit BS we have at present, only lowered from 20 to 10. It's already been determined however that whatever you get out of state is perfectly legal to own and use in state.

Threeband · Apr 7, 2013

Yes, that's my understanding. Also our pistols will be sold with 10 round magazines, just as they have been in some other states since 1994. We'll just have to get standard mags out of state.

Also, the BFG9000 is not banned, not even a waiting period.

DaedalEVE · Apr 7, 2013

very cool

Jbbtwb · Apr 7, 2013

Thanks

Xander · Apr 7, 2013

Threeband said:
.

The Bushmaster:

http://world.guns.ru/assault/usa/bushmaster-m17s-e.html

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/fb/First_Generation_Bushmaster_Assault_Rifle.JPG

Pinecone · Apr 7, 2013

ddeanjohnson said:
Now, if a manufacturer refused to ship a certain model of handgun to Maryland except with a magazine with a capacity of more than 10 rounds, that might end up preventing you from obtaining that handgun. But it would not be because the pistol was thereby transformed into an "assault" or "copycat" firearm. It would be because the magazine purchase was prohibited.

People keep saying this, but under current law, many manufacturers ship firearms with over 20 round capacity magazines. The FFL removes them, and sells the firearm with 20 round or no magazine. I assume they then sell them out of state or to LE.

Why would this change?

Pinecone · Apr 7, 2013

Mike OTDP said:
I'd bet the way this gets enforced is purely as a sales ban. Unless they can prove by serial number that a specific firearm could not have been legally owned, I don't see how a competent defense attorney could lose - and the prosecutors (more importantly, the MSP) know this.

Unless the firearm was purchased as a FTF transfer before the requirement to register such purchases of regulated firearms, then the ARE records of the purchase. In state or out of state, the FFL has a record of the sale.

And a FTF pre-registration transfer, had to legally be completed prior to Oct 1996.

So the state CAN look up the records and determine the transfer date, and whether it is legal or not. So not a huge deal.

Or course if you claim pre-registered transfer of a firearm manufacturered post Oct 1, 2013, you may get in a bit of trouble.

Pinecone · Apr 7, 2013

iH8DemLibz said:
It just hit me.

A close-up picture of the serial number with a day/time stamp on it.

Or a picture of you and your so-called assault weapon reading the morning paper together. The newspaper would have a date on it.

I think I'm being serious about this. Not sure yet.

OK. I am.

Your s-c-a-w could be photographed posing with a pre 10-1 BGE bill.

I think I'm on to something. Or is that on something?

Scott

If you purchased it from an FFL, regulated or not, there are the records of the FFL to prove when it was purchased. No need to "document" anything.

If a personal sale or a regulated firearm, it either occured prior to Oct 1996, or the transfer was improper anyway. But in these cases, some form of proof would be good.

Pinecone · Apr 7, 2013

ddeanjohnson said:
I do not know if you will be able to find a dealer who will sell you such a semiauto pistol without a magazine for it.

Why not?

At least one IP here is selling certain firearms with a 20 round mag they provide, instead of the 30 round that was shipped with it. And selling other firearms without magazines at all.

erwos · Apr 7, 2013

ddeanjohnson said:
If there has ever been guidance issued by the Maryland State Police that such a practice is legal, I would like to see it.

The FFLs get around this by saying that any such magazine they receive is now for sale out of state. That's one of the carve-outs.

ddeanjohnson · Apr 7, 2013

erwos said:
The FFLs get around this by saying that any such magazine they receive is now for sale out of state. That's one of the carve-outs.

As you explain persuasively below, there is indeed an exemption for licensed dealers and manufacturers to sell such magazines to out-of-state buyers. I'd like to note, however, that there is no "carve out" for any non-dealer who is physically present within Maryland. It is an offense, under both the current statute and the bill, to "offer for sale" a prohibited magazine. There is no exception to this prohibition to allow a Maryland resident (other than a licensed dealer or manufacturer), while physically present in Maryland and subject to the jurisdiction of Maryland laws, to "offer for sale" a prohibited magazine to buyers in other states. I personally would not do that, because the legality is, at best, unclear. However, a Maryland citizen who lawfully owns such magazines could physically take them to another state and sell them, if such a sale is permitted under the laws of the state in which the transaction occurs.

erwos · Apr 7, 2013

ddeanjohnson said:
But the current statute, which I quoted above, appears to say that it is unlawful for the FFL to "receive" the prohibited magazine in the first place. If that is correct, it does not matter where the dealer intends to sell it, because he already committed an offense when he received it. I certainly would like to be persuaded that the practice you describe is lawful, but I would like to see a legal argument, or better yet, some document in which the MSP (or a court) has addressed the practice.

I disagree completely. You're not reading the whole law, just the magazine limit portion. If you read 4-302, there is a gigantic carve-out for purchase, sales, and transport for an FFL acting to sell or transfer a detachable magazine to another state. If their stated policy is to sell over-capacity magazines to other states, they're golden. This carve-out only gets expanded in SB281. No one in their right mind is going to argue that receiving is somehow not covered in "purchase and transport".

dblas · Apr 7, 2013

Pinecone said:
If you purchased it from an FFL, regulated or not, there are the records of the FFL to prove when it was purchased. No need to "document" anything.

If a personal sale or a regulated firearm, it either occured prior to Oct 1996, or the transfer was improper anyway. But in these cases, some form of proof would be good.

All FFL records are paper, no requirement to do digital record keeping.

Feel free to volunteer to thumb through how ever many years of records at a specific FFL to find the sale. MSP keeps a record of anything sold on a 77R, and does keep a computer DB, but I do not believe the date is in the DB.

ddeanjohnson · Apr 7, 2013

erwos said:
I disagree completely. You're not reading the whole law, just the magazine limit portion. If you read 4-302, there is a gigantic carve-out for purchase, sales, and transport for an FFL acting to sell or transfer a detachable magazine to another state. If their stated policy is to sell over-capacity magazines to other states, they're golden. This carve-out only gets expanded in SB281. No one in their right mind is going to argue that receiving is somehow not covered in "purchase and transport".

I looked at the code again, and you are absolutely correct about the licensed dealers, and I stand corrected. The exception to which you refer, for certain transactions by licensed dealers (and also licensed manufacturers), does indeed extend to all of Subtitle 3, "Assault Weapons and Detachable Magazines." This is a relief. I will modify my posts above on this point. Thank you.

ddeanjohnson · Apr 7, 2013

Pinecone said:
Why not?

At least one IP here is selling certain firearms with a 20 round mag they provide, instead of the 30 round that was shipped with it. And selling other firearms without magazines at all.

Good, I am glad to hear it.

dreadpirate · Apr 7, 2013

This is interesting.

1. So ALL AR 15 platform rifles are banned, as they are "copies" of the Colt AR15 (I would use the word "clone")
2. But ... AR 10 platform rifles are OK as long as they meet the "copycat" rules and a 10 round mag
3. And HBAR Colt AR 15 and their "copies" are OK, so long as they have a 10 round mag

For example; this Remmington AR 15 platform is banned:

http://www.remington.com/products/f...del-r-15/model-r-15-vtr-predator-carbine.aspx

This Remmington AR 10 platform rifle is not:

http://www.remington.com/en/product...nterfire-families/autoloading-model-r-25.aspx

Nor is this HBAR Windam Weaponry rifle:

http://www.windhamweaponry.com/images/rifles/VEX-SS-L.jpg

And finally, a "bullet button" cannot make an AR 15 platform into a fixed magazine rifle.

Is this correct??

dblas · Apr 7, 2013

dreadpirate said:
This is interesting.

1. So ALL AR 15 platform rifles are banned, as they are "copies" of the Colt AR15 (I would use the word "clone")
2. But ... AR 10 platform rifles are OK as long as they meet the "copycat" rules and a 10 round mag
3. And HBAR Colt AR 15 and their "copies" are OK, so long as they have a 10 round mag

For example; this Remmington AR 15 platform is banned:

http://www.remington.com/products/f...del-r-15/model-r-15-vtr-predator-carbine.aspx

This Remmington AR 10 platform rifle is not:

http://www.remington.com/en/product...nterfire-families/autoloading-model-r-25.aspx

Nor is this HBAR Windam Weaponry rifle:

http://www.windhamweaponry.com/images/rifles/VEX-SS-L.jpg

And finally, a "bullet button" cannot make an AR 15 platform into a fixed magazine rifle.

Is this correct??

erwos did a fine job of discussing this in a separate thread: http://mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=109281

esqappellate · Apr 7, 2013

ddeanjohnson said:
THIS UPDATED AND EXPANDED SUMMARY DESCRIBES KEY ELEMENTS OF S.B. 281, THE GOVERNOR'S GUN CONTROL BILL, IN THE FORM APPROVED BY THE HOUSE OF DELEGATES ON APRIL 3, 2013, AND ACCEPTED WITHOUT ANY CHANGES BY THE SENATE ON APRIL 4.

Here is a non-lawyer summary of the final version of SB 281, the O'Malley gun control bill that has passed both houses of the Maryland General Assembly. The complete, official text of the enrolled (final) bill is here. All page and line numbers below are to that enrolled bill.

9. I see nothing here to allow a person who lacks the handgun qualification license to temporarily "receive" (page 27, line 7) a handgun to shoot on the premises of a range, under the supervision of a parent or spouse, or whatever. Some people point to language in the bill dealing with the temporary possession of regulated handguns by minors, but this is merely the current language of the old regulated firearm law, which is reproduced in the bill (pages 39-40) because of the legislature's convention in showing where new provisions are being inserted. In my opinion, the old provision allowing temporary possession by a minor under certain circumstances does not clearly constitute an exception to the proposed new requirement that nobody can "receive" a handgun without first obtaining the handgun qualification license -- and a person under age 21 cannot even apply for that license. Even if I am wrong about the minors, there are no exceptions for unlicensed spouses, unlicensed guests from out of state, unlicensed people who want to try out a handgun at a rent-a-gun range, and so forth. I know that some people insist that all of that cannot be the intent. Maybe not -- but explicit language would make that clear, and the sponsors did not add any such language that I can see. While I may have misunderstood her, at one point during the House floor debate, I thought I heard Delegate Kathleen Dumais (D-Montgomery), the floor leader for the bill, dismiss such concerns on grounds that prosecutors can be relied on to exercise "discretion."
.

I am very concerned with "receive" ban in SB 281. In federal law, 18 usc 922(h), receive means merely to take knowing possession of it, however temporarily. See attached. If so, then no person without the license can take even temporary possession of a handgun, and that could include your family friends and everyone else. It's impossible to introduce people to the sport with this ban. Indeed, it is hard to see how the course could be even taught with this ban, as the course requires an "orientation component that demonstrates the person's safe operation and handling of a firearm"

dreadpirate · Apr 7, 2013

Ok - so according the thread below (which is very informative), I am correct on all of the observations I made except for the bullet button feature, which is currently unknown.

dblas said:
erwos did a fine job of discussing this in a separate thread: http://mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=109281

ddeanjohnson · Apr 7, 2013

esqappellate said:
I am very concerned with "receive" ban in SB 281. In federal law, 18 usc 922(h), receive means merely to take knowing possession of it, however temporarily. . . If so, then no person without the license can take even temporary possession of a handgun, and that could include your family friends and everyone else. It's impossible to introduce people to the sport with this ban. Indeed, it is hard to see how the course could be even taught with this ban, as the course requires an "orientation component that demonstrates the person's safe operation and handling of a firearm"

I share this concern, which I discussed in paragraph no. 9 of the Original Post. Nobody has yet come forward with a plausible legal theory on how the difficulty will be avoided, at least none that I have seen. Perhaps the instructors will only allow the students to handle dummy plastic guns and/or deactivated firearms, and answer questions on a multiple-choice test. A DNR-sponsored hunting safety class that my son attended utilized some kind of demonstrator models that seemed to have been designed for just that purpose (but there was also a live-fire test afterwards).

The final SB 281: A detailed summary for non-lawyers

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Banned

The M1 Does My Talking

Banned

Active Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

The Hebrew Hammer

autodidact

The Hebrew Hammer

Past President, MSI

autodidact

autodidact

Ultimate Member

Past President, MSI

President, MSI

Attachments

Ultimate Member

autodidact

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics