Fire Call!!!! Dems attempting to ram SB741/HB888...

44man · Apr 4, 2018

Hawkeye said:
Nope.

Nope.

Read the link I had in my post, particularly Section V, the "proposed rule." ATF wants to redefine what "a single function of the trigger" means in relation to machineguns.

I'll quote:

They call them "bump stock type devices" throughout the whole thing, but they don't limit themselves to just literal bumpstocks.

They would have to fix, or at least rearrange, the wording for that to “fit” binary triggers but I see they are looking at it.

But like I wrote in my write up to the nfa none of these things function as of fit the descriptions of a machine gun

But I guess soon enough my hands or at least my belt loops will be machineguns if they write the description to match my hands or beltloops

Abacab · Apr 4, 2018

Can't wait for Hogan to sign this thing and inadvertently ban registered conversion devices.

rockstarr · Apr 4, 2018

Abacab said:
Muh redistricting and something something Commienutz

This made me laugh a bit lol

sleev-les · Apr 5, 2018

Hawkeye said:
Nope.

Nope.

Read the link I had in my post, particularly Section V, the "proposed rule." ATF wants to redefine what "a single function of the trigger" means in relation to machineguns.

I'll quote:

They call them "bump stock type devices" throughout the whole thing, but they don't limit themselves to just literal bumpstocks.

Hawk,

Am I reading this right?

Finally, the Department proposes to clarify that the definition of a “machinegun” includes a device that allows semiautomatic firearms to shoot more than one shot with a single pull of the trigger by harnessing the recoil energy of the semiautomatic firearm to which it is affixed so that the trigger resets and continues firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter (commonly known as bump-stock-type devices).

By the way I read this it states that they want the definition to include bump stocks IF the device allows MORE than one shot per trigger pull, which puts us right back to where we are as a machine gun is more than 1 shot per pull. If the bump stock is still 1 pull, 1 shot it wouldn't meet the definition. Thats how I'm reading your quote.... So bascially much ado about nothing since bump stocks dont make more than 1 round fire per pull.

The last part of the definition is confusing as he// though. You still physically manipulate the trigger with your finger on a bump stock. Its just in conjuntion with the forward pressure of your non dominant arm. The entire definition is crap the way I read it. They are basically saying its illegal if the gun fires by itself which no gun fires by itself.

Maybe I'm reading into it too much.

Atlasarmory · Apr 5, 2018

I was just watching the news. It looks like this turd is passed. Is that the case ? When will this pos go into effect ?

Doctor_M · Apr 5, 2018

I assume Oct 1st.

Retired Old Guy · Apr 5, 2018

So Maryland has passed a law banning belts?

Well, alrighty then.

Not_an_outlaw · Apr 5, 2018

Abacab said:
Can't wait for Hogan to sign this thing and inadvertently ban registered conversion devices.

I think the big picture here is that the banning of the bumpstock, and subsequent AFT rulings, Maryland has put in place a ban for all NFA items. They have generally left that category alone. So, someone with a machinegun (legal or not) goes and shoots up a school, you bet machines guns will be in the agenda the following year.

Doctor_M · Apr 5, 2018

Correct ... that has me very worried. Not just the liberty issue but if outright banned, we are talking about the destruction of a lot of money in personally owned property.

ar15dave · Apr 5, 2018

OK so I am a little lost on all this. I have read the bill and I see that bump fire type devices are listed as banned. Does that mean they would need to be turned in? Also, I did not see anything clearly saying anything about Binary triggers. They are one pull and one release of the trigger to fire one round at a time. Did I miss something there? I did not see anything about magazines other than the already enacted (you cant buy in the state of Maryland any magazine over 10 rnds) stuff. You can still own and use larger capacity mags, correct? Am I missing something there as well? I did not see anything that affected machine gun owners. Is that correct?

Man I wish I was fluent in leagaleez...

Thanks,

Dave

danb · Apr 5, 2018

ar15dave said:
OK so I am a little lost on all this. I have read the bill and I see that bump fire type devices are listed as banned. Does that mean they would need to be turned in? Also, I did not see anything clearly saying anything about Binary triggers. They are one pull and one release of the trigger to fire one round at a time. Did I miss something there? I did not see anything about magazines other than the already enacted (you cant buy in the state of Maryland any magazine over 10 rnds) stuff. You can still own and use larger capacity mags, correct? Am I missing something there as well? I did not see anything that affected machine gun owners. Is that correct?

Man I wish I was fluent in leagaleez...

Thanks,

Dave

The current language says that if you possess a bump stop or binary trigger before Oct 1 2018, you need to "apply" to the ATF for authorization to possess one (after that, they are banned). ATF under their proposed rules said destroy the bump stocks, but said nothing about binary triggers.

Until ATF finalizes rules, its too early to tell. But if the current ATF rules are finalized as-written, for a binary trigger (and a crank, or any other device covered by the MD law not covered by ATF rules) one would need to send the ATF a letter clarifying that binary triggers are still GTG. For bump stocks, you would have to destroy them.

Not_an_outlaw · Apr 5, 2018

It would seem to me that a good attorney could argue the whole law is invalid because the ATF provisions do not exist. So, the state would argue its not a taking because there is an avenue for "legalization." But their isn't, so maybe the entire law could be stricken. Then rinse and repeat next session.

Bountied · Apr 5, 2018

NM I read the actual law not just the synopsis. Looks like you can have them if you get ATF approval. Moon looks like a soy boy bitch

Atlasarmory · Apr 5, 2018

Bountied said:
NM I read the actual law not just the synopsis. Looks like you can have them if you get ATF approval. Moon looks like a soy boy bitch

and how does one get ATF approval ?

danb · Apr 5, 2018

Atlasarmory said:
and how does one get ATF approval ?

email: "are these legal to own without a tax stamp"
ATF: "yes, they are"

Rack&Roll · Apr 5, 2018

We love the Bay on a sunny day...

danb · Apr 5, 2018

The good news about bump stocks is that they are plastic, and salt water does not degrade them. :lol2:

Hawkeye · Apr 5, 2018

sleev-les said:
By the way I read this it states that they want the definition to include bump stocks IF the device allows MORE than one shot per trigger pull, which puts us right back to where we are as a machine gun is more than 1 shot per pull. If the bump stock is still 1 pull, 1 shot it wouldn't meet the definition. Thats how I'm reading your quote.... So bascially much ado about nothing since bump stocks dont make more than 1 round fire per pull.

The last part of the definition is confusing as he// though. You still physically manipulate the trigger with your finger on a bump stock. Its just in conjuntion with the forward pressure of your non dominant arm. The entire definition is crap the way I read it. They are basically saying its illegal if the gun fires by itself which no gun fires by itself.

Maybe I'm reading into it too much.

It's definitely confusing. They are off in the weeds talking about the definition of "single function of the trigger" vs. "single pull of the trigger" and other stuff like that.

The important thing is this: the proposed rule would redefine the term "machinegun" to include semiautomatic firearms equipped with "bumpstock type devices." Thus all bumpstock type devices produced after 1986 are now machineguns which are illegal for civilians to own.

From Section V of the NPRM:

ATF said:
Currently, the regulatory definition of “machine gun” in 27 CFR 479.11 matches the statutory definition of “machinegun” in the NFA quoted in Part I, above. The definition includes the terms “single function of the trigger” and “automatically,” but those terms are not expressly defined in the statutory text. Those terms are best interpreted, however, to encompass firearms equipped with bump-stock-type devices.....

<break>

Finally, the Department proposes to clarify that the definition of a “machinegun” includes a device that allows semiautomatic firearms to shoot more than one shot with a single pull of the trigger by harnessing the recoil energy of the semiautomatic firearm to which it is affixed so that the trigger resets and continues firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter (commonly known as bump-stock-type devices).....

<break>

The proposed rule would replace prior classifications of bump-stock-type devices, including devices that ATF previously determined were not machineguns. The rule thus would supplant any prior letter rulings with which it is inconsistent so that any bump-stock-type device described above qualifies as a machinegun. Accordingly, manufacturers, current owners, and persons wishing to purchase such devices would be subject to the restrictions imposed by the GCA and NFA.

The Department has determined that there would not be a registration period for any device that would be classified as “machinegun” as a result of this rulemaking. The NFA provides that only the manufacturer, importer, or maker of a firearm may register it. (9) Accordingly, there is no means by which the possessor may register a firearm retroactively, including a firearm that has been reclassified. Further, 18 U.S.C. 922(o) prohibits the possession of machineguns that were not lawfully possessed before the effective date of the statute. Accordingly, if the final rule is consistent with this NPRM, current possessors of bump-stock-type devices will be obligated to dispose of those devices. A final rule will provide specific information about acceptable methods of disposal, as well as the timeframe under which disposal must be accomplished to avoid violating 18 U.S.C. 922(o).

In other words, all "bumpstock type devices" would become "machineguns" and need to be destroyed or turned in.

ar15dave said:
OK so I am a little lost on all this. I have read the bill and I see that bump fire type devices are listed as banned. Does that mean they would need to be turned in?

Yes.

Also, I did not see anything clearly saying anything about Binary triggers. They are one pull and one release of the trigger to fire one round at a time. Did I miss something there?

Yes you did. There is language that specifically includes binary triggers.

I did not see anything about magazines other than the already enacted (you cant buy in the state of Maryland any magazine over 10 rnds) stuff. You can still own and use larger capacity mags, correct?

That is correct. Nothing about magazines in this one.

I did not see anything that affected machine gun owners. Is that correct?

No. This bill will actually make it illegal to buy a machinegun in Maryland after it goes in to effect. If you already own a machinegun that is properly and legally registered with the ATF, you can keep it, but no one in Maryland will be allowed to buy new machineguns after this.

danb said:
email: "are these legal to own without a tax stamp"
ATF: "yes, they are"

No. As I mentioned above, ATF wants to reclassify these as machineguns, which will mean that they all have to be destroyed.

danb · Apr 5, 2018

Hawkeye said:
No. As I mentioned above, ATF wants to reclassify these as machineguns, which will mean that they all have to be destroyed.

bump stocks: true

all other items covered by the MD legislation (like cranks): No

daggo66 · Apr 5, 2018

Hawkeye said:
In other words, all "bumpstock type devices" would become "machineguns" and need to be destroyed or turned in.

Therefore I must destroy or turn in my finger....

Fire Call!!!! Dems attempting to ram SB741/HB888...

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

Member

Major Deplorable

Gata Needs His Gat

Ultimate Member

Certified Mad Scientist

Member

Ultimate Member

Certified Mad Scientist

AR15Dave

dont be a dumbass

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

dont be a dumbass

R.I.P

Attachments

dont be a dumbass

The Leatherstocking

dont be a dumbass

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics