Gun Owners of Maryland: BEWARE!

Not_an_outlaw said:

You seem to want to justify yourself. Do you know where in FSA2013 in the HQL the requirement lies for the live fire test? It's not in the law. It was actually removed from the passed law. Just because it doesn't match what you think it says doesn't mean it's not there. As a reader of this board you should be aware of the shenanigans of Maryland and the AG. Good smart people have given you recommendations. Either "lead, follow, or get out of the way."

Click to expand...

JohnnyE said:

The mailing of a large number of letters to BATFE in and of itself helps to establish that the law is ambiguous. People are uncertain whether or not the law impacts them, so out of caution, we send in the letter. Citizens should not be uncertain regarding the boundaries of the law. Such laws are defective on their face and should be struck down.

Click to expand...

JohnnyE said:

The mailing of a large number of letters to BATFE in and of itself helps to establish that the law is ambiguous. People are uncertain whether or not the law impacts them, so out of caution, we send in the letter. Citizens should not be uncertain regarding the boundaries of the law. Such laws are defective on their face and should be struck down.

Click to expand...

TexDefender said:

I own nothing that would require me to submit such a letter. You can't submit a letter/application if you don't own what is going to be banned under this law. Let's not be divisive in our fight to over turn this law. I'm sure hoping that when the court date comes, ATF's comment (https://www.atf.gov/news/pr/maryland-law-restricting-rapid-fire-trigger-activators) will be introduced as evidence that the law is not enforceable in whole or in part; that the law in effect is ex posto de facto. Hopefully MSI will be able to use these returned receipts without action to show that such devices are common, an these returned application are but a fragment. That the judges ruling for relieve is being honored at the ATF at least. We don't need to be emotional and play this wisely.

Click to expand...

Muleskinner said:

the law is so vague no one knows what devices constitute a violation so dismissing this letter and it's intentions, regardless of how it appears right now is just plain stupid...You cannot know if you have or don't have a device that violates this "law"....

Click to expand...

CroftonBilly said:

Asking again for inputs from the legal eagle hive mind.

We may as well send a separate one on behalf of the Trust, coming from the Settlor/Grantor/Trustee on behalf of the Trust and all Trustees therein.

Click to expand...

Muleskinner said:

the law is so vague no one knows what devices constitute a violation so dismissing this letter and it's intentions, regardless of how it appears right now is just plain stupid...You cannot know if you have or don't have a device that violates this "law"....

Click to expand...

TexDefender said:

Okay, that's your opinion. Thank you. I have mine.

Click to expand...

Mark75H said:

It's generally the opinion of the judge involved as well. I side with the judge in this case.

Click to expand...

TexDefender said:

Okay, that's your opinion. Thank you. I have mine. But note, he (Judge) didn't side with the plaintiff either and I have no intention on being on ATF's radar.

Click to expand...

Mark75H said:

The judge made no such decision other than to HEAR the case in full court.

Click to expand...

pcfixer said:

Obviously, every pretended federal statute or administrative regulation which purports to regulate firearms (over the Country at large) is unconstitutional as outside the scope of powers delegated to the federal government and as in violation of the 2nd Amendment. Furthermore, any and all regulations of the BATF are also unconstitutional as in violation of Article I, Section 1, US Constitution.

Every State is prohibited by Article I, Section 8, clauses 15 & 16, US Constitution, from interfering with Congress' delegated power to "provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia" [In this regard, see Dr. Edwin Vieira's writings on the Militia and the 2nd Amendment].
Accordingly, any provision in a State Constitution or in a State statute which interferes with Congress' delegated powers over the Militia would fail under the supremacy clause of the US Constitution (Article VI, clause 2).

Filling out the form and sending it in to the BATF identifies the submitter as a gun owner.
Having a list of gun owners and what they own makes unlawful confiscation possible -- and relatively easy. It may come to that.

Click to expand...

Not_an_outlaw said:

What is your point?

Click to expand...