Grandfathering for Bump Stocks or Binary Triggers

esqappellate · Apr 28, 2018

Thank you Rack!!

songlaw · Apr 28, 2018

Looks like we are all on the same page now as to interpretation of the statute.

Doctor_M · Apr 28, 2018

I wanted to publicly thank Maryland Shall Issue for all that they do. I proudly wear a blue MSI pin on my jacket and am often ask about the organization and what they do.

esqappellate · Apr 28, 2018

Doctor_M said:
I wanted to publicly thank Maryland Shall Issue for all that they do. I proudly wear a blue MSI pin on my jacket and am often ask about the organization and what they do.

Thank you!

Squaregrouper · Apr 28, 2018

fabsroman said:
Agreed, and I was about to say that most people have no idea what he looks like, but this post should serve to educate all of those that are following this thread AND that click on this particular response from you.

Both Dan and Mark have been great for MSI and the 2nd Amendment in Maryland. I finally met Mark at the More Patriots Than You Have Handcuffs demonstration and he volunteered to operate my phone to take a pic of me, my kids, and Dick Heller. I still would not have known who he is unless somebody actually mentioned to me who he is.

To Mark, Dan, Jeff, and all the others that helped with this session, no matter how big or how small, I say thank you. No way I can include everybody in my list of thanks because I don't even have a clue what everybody did or who even participated. So, a big general THANK YOU.

You're welcome. My fee is one margarita at the pig roast.
(Mark- I guess I owe you two or three margaritas for the intro)

EDIT- Mark, you +1 have pro bono pig roast admittance if you're so inclined.

fidelity · Apr 28, 2018

danb said:
This is a lose- lose strategy for a group like MSI. ...
...

I wasn't speaking for MSI. I was providing an example for 44man that said MSI was saying vote one way to argue that (1) it's not true and providing an example that (2) MSI members have a variety of view points. I wasn't speaking for the organization. This should have been simple enough to understand.

danb said:
...
I think that the hyperventilating about the red flag bill and bump atock ban is extremely misguided. ...

You quoted me in making this statement, so I will assume that it's directed at me. I generally like you, but this chiding of what we can or can't say on MDS is getting tiresome. You're not a mod, nor are you a sightseer.

Hogan is not a 2A advocate. He does the minimus in supporting 2A rights and unless you're a hunter, Hogan avoids photo ops with those that might advocate 2A rights. In the one session where his veto might have stuck, he didn't do anything for those in the 2A rights community. He has made a political calculation that he doesn't need this support. I understand arguments that Hogan is better than potential competing candidates on other issues, but I think the argument that he had anything to do with preserving any significant 2A protections this session is a stretch.

As per MSI and Mark Pennak, I'm a big fan. I think these guys and fellow travelers helped stymy the mag possession ban. Based on how Hogan acquiesced to gun control bills this last session, if a better written bill was put forward, I think we would have seen another of these ...

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

jkeys · Apr 29, 2018

esqappellate said:
I have a request. Would everyone out there with a now banned device please join MSI? $25 a year. https://www.marylandshallissue.org/jmain/join And please let me know that you have. Thanks.

Done. PM Inbound with some details on what I own, as well as how it affects my job.

sxs · Apr 29, 2018

fabsroman said:
Follow the link to the language? I posted the very language in my response.

(B) THIS SECTION DOES NOT APPLY TO THE POSSESSION OF A RAPID FIRE TRIGGER ACTIVATOR BY A PERSON WHO:
(1) POSSESSED THE RAPID FIRE TRIGGER ACTIVATOR BEFORE OCTOBER 1, 2018;
(2) APPLIED TO THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS AND EXPLOSIVES BEFORE OCTOBER 1, 2018, FOR AUTHORIZATION TO POSSESS A RAPID FIRE TRIGGER ACTIVATOR; AND
(3) IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH ALL FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR POSSESSION OF A RAPID FIRE TRIGGER ACTIVATOR.

That is the language from the bill. Show me where a person would not be in compliance with all federal requirements for possession of a rapid fire trigger activator, when there are no federal requirements? Can a person be in non-compliance when there is nothing to comply to? Now, if an executive order or some federal legislation gets passed pertaining to Rapid Fire Trigger Activators before October 1, 2018, then we can discuss compliance and non-compliance.

Do you know of any federal law or regulation that we need to comply with right now pertaining to Rapid Fire Trigger Activators?

Hmmmm....has no one considered that ATFs assertion the triggers are not covered by NFA is basically approval by ATF that, as far as they're concerned (i.e. under Federal law), that you can have the devices?

Bob A · Apr 29, 2018

sxs said:
Hmmmm....has no one considered that ATFs assertion the triggers are not covered by NFA is basically approval by ATF that, as far as they're concerned (i.e. under Federal law), that you can have the devices?

While that argument would make sense, as long as the new law can be twisted to make the State's case against you, and you are tried before a Democrat-appointed Maryland judge, the odds against a successful outcome are a bit on the long side.

teratos · Apr 29, 2018

Bob A said:
While that argument would make sense, as long as the new law can be twisted to make the State's case against you, and you are tried before a Democrat-appointed Maryland judge, the odds against a successful outcome are a bit on the long side.

These things already have an ATF determination letter. I wonder if that is sufficient......

Bob A · Apr 29, 2018

teratos said:
These things already have an ATF determination letter. I wonder if that is sufficient......

Only if a Dem-appointed prosecutor chooses to accept it. It does not follow the "letter of the law", despite the law's failure to incorporate the BATFE determination.

In other words, you're at the mercy of political actors who are fundamentally opposed to your position. Good luck with that.

teratos · Apr 29, 2018

Bob A said:
Only if a Dem-appointed prosecutor chooses to accept it. It does not follow the "letter of the law", despite the law's failure to incorporate the BATFE determination.

In other words, you're at the mercy of political actors who are fundamentally opposed to your position. Good luck with that.

I know. It's all semantics. If you have the 2 letters, one that says ATF determined they are not a machine gun and meet the definition of a semi-automatic firearm, and the other letter that says they need not be registered how can the courts deny you have "permission" from the ATF to possess it? How can a law require something that doesn't exist is another question....

iH8DemLibz · Apr 29, 2018

Beginning tomorrow morning, everyone, whether they possess a binary trigger or bump stock or not, needs to contact the ATF asking for determination letters.

teratos · Apr 29, 2018

iH8DemLibz said:
Beginning tomorrow morning, everyone, whether they possess a binary trigger or bump stock or not, needs to contact the ATF asking for determination letters.

The companies who make them already have the letters. You can find them on the interwebz.

44man · Apr 29, 2018

teratos said:
I know. It's all semantics. If you have the 2 letters, one that says ATF determined they are not a machine gun and meet the definition of a semi-automatic firearm, and the other letter that says they need not be registered how can the courts deny you have "permission" from the ATF to possess it? How can a law require something that doesn't exist is another question....

The sponsor of the bill when told there was no way to get permission said, and I am paraphrasing, “ well if they can’t get that permission then they shouldn’t be allowed to have them”

Now that’s a md rep saying he doesn’t care if they’re taking our shit nor does he care that he’s contradicting federal law and trampling on the 2a

teratos · Apr 29, 2018

44man said:
The sponsor of the bill when told there was no way to get permission said, and I am paraphrasing, “ well if they can’t get that permission then they shouldn’t be allowed to have them”

Now that’s a md rep saying he doesn’t care if they’re taking our shit nor does he care that he’s contradicting federal law and trampling on the 2a

However, in a manner of speaking the ATF has given "permission". There is a letter that made the determination that they are not machine guns and that people can possess them. That's one interpretation......

OnTarget · Apr 29, 2018

Hold em or fold em, that be the question?

Mark75H · Apr 29, 2018

Sounds like lawyer/judge/court stuff to me - no way around it 'til the dust settles, the ink dries on the paper and the electrons are suitably inconvenienced

44man · Apr 29, 2018

teratos said:
However, in a manner of speaking the ATF has given "permission". There is a letter that made the determination that they are not machine guns and that people can possess them. That's one interpretation......

I have several letters but they don’t say we the atf give you permission to have this, they basically say these parts don’t make your gun a machine gun.

I don’t consider that any sort of permission and I really don’t think the msp or the mga will either

Just my .02

eruby · Apr 29, 2018

Oh my grandfather's stock
Was declared null and void
So it sunk 90 feet in the Bay .........

:sad20:

Grandfathering for Bump Stocks or Binary Triggers

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

President, MSI

Active Member

Certified Mad Scientist

President, MSI

Kragaphile

piled higher and deeper

Active Member

Senior Member

όυ φροντισ

My hair is amazing

όυ φροντισ

My hair is amazing

When All Else Fails.

My hair is amazing

Ultimate Member

My hair is amazing

Ultimate Member

MD Wear&Carry Instructor

Ultimate Member

Confederate Jew

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics