HBAR vs. govt profile rules

Art3 · May 16, 2020

Sling Blade said:
I got a 37mm launcher on my banned Bushy

TRIPLE Assault Long Gun! :whoa:

That probably accepts the child-seeking projectiles, like the AS-007 :gun2:

Pinecone · May 16, 2020

rseymorejr said:
If the law does not say that it's not OK to do something then, by default, it's OK to do it

Not illegal versus legal.

Semantics. But like Not Disapproved.

Pinecone · May 16, 2020

kalister1 said:
So when I buy a Pistol the MSP states that My Purchase was NOT DISAPROVED, so it is NOT OK for me to take it home? You have a very strange way of looking at things.

It did not say either?

Not Disapproved is not the same thing a Approved.

Not illegal semantically is not exactly the same as legal.

Pinecone · May 16, 2020

RoadDawg said:
No...

I said what I meant to say.

But thanks.

So the law said it was OK to do that?

Where?

Pinecone · May 16, 2020

kalister1 said:
So go buy one today in Maryland, they are NOT banned. the word WHEN comes into play. You cannot buy one in Maryland today, But you could have bought one in Maryland prior to them being Banned for sale in Maryland.
I bolded the word NOW in your statement. So you must understand the Where and WHEN it was purchased. Is this too complicated?
If you bought it BEFORE it was illegal to buy or if you bought it AFTER it was illegal to buy = WHEN!

Dictionary
ban1
/ban/
verb
past tense: banned; past participle: banned

officially or legally prohibit.

BANNED means it is ILLEGAL.

They are NOT BANNED in Maryland. Only selling, transferring, or making.

RoadDawg · May 17, 2020

Pinecone said:
So the law said it was OK to do that?

Where?

Right on the page where it did not say you can’t.

Why make up extra regulations for this state? Don’t they have enough infringements for us as it is?

I’ll make a deal with you...

I don’t try to tell you how to fly A-10s.
And...
You don’t try to tell me how laws get enforced. :cool:

Pinecone · May 17, 2020

RoadDawg said:
Right on the page where it did not say you can’t.

Why make up extra regulations for this state? Don’t they have enough infringements for us as it is?

I’ll make a deal with you...

I don’t try to tell you how to fly A-10s.
And...
You don’t try to tell me how laws get enforced.

You mean about dead weight??????

I am not making up regulations.

Just pointing out, there is a difference in the words Not Illegal versus Legal.

randomuser · May 17, 2020

The fact that a lighter barrel vs a heavy barrel is even up for debate on the illegal vs legal spectrum shows how we have incompetent lawmakers. Maybe we can vote them out and have the next batch of turds be less bad.

Tungsten · May 17, 2020

randomuser said:
The fact that a lighter barrel vs a heavy barrel is even up for debate on the illegal vs legal spectrum shows how we have incompetent lawmakers. Maybe we can vote them out and have the next batch of turds be less bad.

Nope. We are vastly outnumbered by stupid and incompetent people. Thus we only have two options left, and voting isn't one of them.

mac1_131 · May 17, 2020

RoadDawg said:
Right on the page where it did not say you can’t.

Why make up extra regulations for this state? Don’t they have enough infringements for us as it is?

I’ll make a deal with you...

I don’t try to tell you how to fly A-10s.

And...

You don’t try to tell me how laws get enforced.

I guess if your feeling is it was a SALES requirement, not a possession oriented law (like so many other things) I can see your position. I hadn't thought of it that way.

In other words, the law was written to regulate the selling dealer, not the end user?

Mark75H · May 17, 2020

mac1_131 said:
I guess if your feeling is it was a SALES requirement, not a possession oriented law (like so many other things) I can see your position. I hadn't thought of it that way.

In other words, the law was written to regulate the selling dealer, not the end user?

Their intent was the purchaser to be affected; and they wanted a grandfather clause without saying so in writing (I suspect because they knew it was all but unenforceable except for undercover stings).

RoadDawg · May 17, 2020

Pinecone said:
You mean about dead weight??????

I am not making up regulations.

Just pointing out, there is a difference in the words Not Illegal versus Legal.

Really? Still on that topic after all this time?

Dead weight = relating to aircraft... “That which is not actively keeping your ass in the air, either by providing lift or providing propulsion. It does nothing but drag you down.”

(As explained to me by my eldest uncle... WWII AAC Pilot, ETO, Owner/Pilot Air Freight Service, Owner/Instructor Private Flying School. RIP Earl...
And also my uncle, by marriage to my aunt... WWII Flight Crew/Radio Operator Grumman TBF Avenger. PTO. 19 missions over Tokyo before his 20th birthday.
I saw him rebuild 2 TBFs and a Cessna 310 in his hangar in Fawn Grove Pa. I got to help with the projects. RIP Jack)

Don’t like their definition of the term “dead weight”?
TS.. I don’t gaf. If it’s all the same to you... I’ll take their word for it.

But I still won’t tell you how to fly A-10s.

RoadDawg · May 18, 2020

mac1_131 said:
I guess if your feeling is it was a SALES requirement, not a possession oriented law (like so many other things) I can see your position. I hadn't thought of it that way.

In other words, the law was written to regulate the selling dealer, not the end user?

Regardless of how it is written... no feelings are involved.
A LEO cannot charge anyone with an unspecified crime.

If it is not listed as a crime in the federal, state, or local laws... the LEO cannot simply make something up to charge a person with.

Therefore... if the laws do not list it as illegal. Then the courts do not accept it as illegal. It either is... or it isn’t.

Pinecone · May 18, 2020

randomuser said:
The fact that a lighter barrel vs a heavy barrel is even up for debate on the illegal vs legal spectrum shows how we have incompetent lawmakers. Maybe we can vote them out and have the next batch of turds be less bad.

It seems you do not know how this came about.

Back in about 1994, Clinton wanted his Crime Bill, which included an "assault weapon" ban. But he did not want to alienate the "sporting" shooters.

So they did not want to touch hunting and target rifles.

But, the rifle of choice for high power shooting had become the AR. And the only factory "target" AR was the Colt HBAR.

So it was exempted from the ban. As it was a "sporting" rifle.

So we get to 2013, and the MD legislature takes the regulated rifle list, which was partially based on the 94 AWB, and we end up with the Colt HBAR still exempted.

And because "copied and imitations" are also banned, copies and imitations of the Colt HBAR are exempted.

randomuser · May 18, 2020

randomuser said:
The fact that a lighter barrel vs a heavy barrel is even up for debate on the illegal vs legal spectrum shows how we have incompetent lawmakers. Maybe we can vote them out and have the next batch of turds be less bad.

Tungsten said:
Nope. We are vastly outnumbered by stupid and incompetent people. Thus we only have two options left, and voting isn't one of them.

I always talk about voting and writing letters. Tongue in cheek. It's kind of like writing letters and protesting a bully who takes your lunch money. As long as you keep giving your lunch money he will allow you to protest him and he will gladly accept your letters of dissaproval, just keep that lunch money coming. It changes nothing. Politicians....They don't get rid of bad laws. They don't cut spending. They don't actually cut taxes. And they never shrink government.
The next turd voted in always does the same as the last turd. There might be a left wing and a right wing but it's the same bird. It doesn't change direction of flight.

Pinecone said:
It seems you do not know how this came about.

Back in about 1994, Clinton wanted his Crime Bill, which included an "assault weapon" ban. But he did not want to alienate the "sporting" shooters.

So they did not want to touch hunting and target rifles.

But, the rifle of choice for high power shooting had become the AR. And the only factory "target" AR was the Colt HBAR.

So it was exempted from the ban. As it was a "sporting" rifle.

So we get to 2013, and the MD legislature takes the regulated rifle list, which was partially based on the 94 AWB, and we end up with the Colt HBAR still exempted.

And because "copied and imitations" are also banned, copies and imitations of the Colt HBAR are exempted.

I get how it came about and it absolutely shows how incompetent they are and how willing we are able to be controlled.

Combloc · May 18, 2020

They can only exert as much control as you allow.

Pinecone · May 18, 2020

randomuser said:
I get how it came about and it absolutely shows how incompetent they are and how willing we are able to be controlled.

Hmm, so they were incompetent to exempt rifles that they felt were sporting rifles????

There are many other examples of incompetence

randomuser · May 18, 2020

Pinecone said:
Hmm, so they were incompetent to exempt rifles that they felt were sporting rifles????

There are many other examples of incompetence

2a was not meant to protect sporting rifles.

They were incompetent for banning a rifle barrel based on it's weight.
Would I rather be shot by a pencil barrel or a heavy barrel? Answer: Both shooting 5.56 so it won't matter.
The fact that they think 1 is more "dangerous" than another based on a slight variation of weight and shows that they are just out to turn up the temp of the water a little bit more without having the frog jump.

They are either incompetent or very competent. I'm not sure what one is more dangerous to our freedoms.

Pre 2013 pencil barrel is ok to own. Clearly then the barrel is not dangerous or they would have had then all out banned. It's just so illogical it makes me want to vomit. And we pay them good money to make such bad choices over and over and over.

dblas · May 18, 2020

Pinecone said:
It seems you do not know how this came about.

Back in about 1994, Clinton wanted his Crime Bill, which included an "assault weapon" ban. But he did not want to alienate the "sporting" shooters.

So they did not want to touch hunting and target rifles.

But, the rifle of choice for high power shooting had become the AR. And the only factory "target" AR was the Colt HBAR.

So it was exempted from the ban. As it was a "sporting" rifle.

One minor correction to the above...Maryland wanted to follow in CA's path and basically copied their regulated rifles list back in 1989 for the first 39 rifles on the regulated list. MSRPA was successful in getting the Colt Sporter HBAR specifically exempted for competition reason, because COLT still owned the patent back in 1989 and was the only HBAR on the market at the time. Fast forward to 1992 when Bushmaster made a heavy Barrel version of their AR-15. MSP, in written correspondence, verified that the Bushmaster heavy barrel was a copy of the Colt Sporter HBAR and could be sold cash and carry. Then the other heavy barrel copies came along.

Pinecone said:
So we get to 2013, and the MD legislature takes the regulated rifle list, which was partially based on the 94 AWB, and we end up with the Colt HBAR still exempted.

And because "copied and imitations" are also banned, copies and imitations of the Colt HBAR are exempted.

The additions to the regulated list were based on this and came about in 1994 in Maryland.

Mark75H · May 18, 2020

randomuser said:
2a was not meant to protect sporting rifles.

They were incompetent for banning a rifle barrel based on it's weight.
Would I rather be shot by a pencil barrel or a heavy barrel? Answer: Both shooting 5.56 so it won't matter.
The fact that they think 1 is more "dangerous" than another based on a slight variation of weight and shows that they are just out to turn up the temp of the water a little bit more without having the frog jump.

They are either incompetent or very competent. I'm not sure what one is more dangerous to our freedoms.

Pre 2013 pencil barrel is ok to own. Clearly then the barrel is not dangerous or they would have had then all out banned. It's just so illogical it makes me want to vomit. And we pay them good money to make such bad choices over and over and over.

Had you been with us in 2013 you would understand this a little better. Trying to grasp it looking back looses a lot of the context. One of the mistakes is assuming that they think anything; they don't. Its about FEELING. They need to FEEL GOOD.

-Note: Fernando does not approve, we all know "It iz morre imporrtant to look good than to feel good and Ju look MAAAVELOUSS!" (sorry couldn't resist).

HBAR vs. govt profile rules

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Eqinsu Ocha

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Nos nostraque Deo

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

MSI Executive Member

MD Wear&Carry Instructor

Nos nostraque Deo

Nos nostraque Deo

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Stop Negassing me!!!!!

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Past President, MSI

MD Wear&Carry Instructor

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics