SB74-Criminal Law-Bump Stock/HB29-Handgun Permit Preliminary Approval

Rack&Roll · Dec 16, 2017

Bump stocks are unserialized.

Gryphon · Dec 16, 2017

Lube will be banned

EL1227 · Dec 16, 2017

How about fingers ?

GolfR said:
Here we go again, they are defining bump stocks as anything that increases the rate of fire.

SRD · Dec 16, 2017

Bountied said:
Will they ban my finger? Because if I pull it back and forth really fast it increases the rate of fire on my AR/AK.

Jerry Miculek agrees and Bob Munden just rolled over. :sad20:

j_h_smith · Dec 16, 2017

Hakuna Matata said:
I don't understand why they just don't make them class III, easy fix.

Each would have to be serialized. How could you put a serial number on millions of objects already in the market?

Secondly, what would you classify them as? Machine guns? Then that would open up an entirely new issue. One that I wouldn't mind if I could get that lightning link and FA trigger assembly bought during the registration period.

Thirdly, how can you classify a bump stock as class 3 when it doesn't meet any classification? You're still pulling the trigger for each round being fired. It's the same as shooting a single shot shotgun. Pull the trigger and it goes bang.

I say leave it along. There is no propensity for this to be used to commit crimes. One madman, one incident and the world has to change? I don't think so. This is the Looney Left's answer to everything firearm related.

BeoBill · Dec 16, 2017

j_h_smith said:
Each would have to be serialized. How could you put a serial number on millions of objects already in the market?

Secondly, what would you classify them as? Machine guns? Then that would open up an entirely new issue. One that I wouldn't mind if I could get that lightning link and FA trigger assembly bought during the registration period.

Thirdly, how can you classify a bump stock as class 3 when it doesn't meet any classification? You're still pulling the trigger for each round being fired. It's the same as shooting a single shot shotgun. Pull the trigger and it goes bang.

I say leave it along. There is no propensity for this to be used to commit crimes. One madman, one incident and the world has to change? I don't think so. This is the Looney Left's answer to everything firearm related.

And I'd like to point out that the Feds declare an item to be Class III, not the state, so these imbeciles couldn't take credit for it even if they were to become Class III. That in itself is enough to kill the proposal.

pilotguy299 · Dec 17, 2017

bump stocks or grips that do the same kind of thing, do not increase a guns rate of fire. They just make it easier to approach the guns maximum operating rate of fire.

Rab1515 · Dec 17, 2017

Gryphon said:
Lube will be banned

Doesn't Frosh need all the lube he can get?

j_h_smith · Dec 17, 2017

Rab1515 said:
Doesn't Frosh need all the lube he can get?

I'd bet he likes it dry.

MigraineMan · Dec 18, 2017

Finally got around to reading the text of SB74. Would appear that they have cottoned-on to the "just go to an adjacent State" magazine "loophole."

4-305.1.

A PERSON MAY NOT:

(1) TRANSPORT A BUMP STOCK INTO THE STATE; OR
(2) MANUFACTURE, POSSESS, USE, SELL, OFFER TO SELL, TRANSFER, PURCHASE, OR RECEIVE A BUMP STOCK.

I'm expecting similar wording in other bills. Wouldn't want us plebes to have future opportunities for loopholing.

I'm certain someone will point out that Item (1), above, likely runs afoul of FOPA, and there will be edits that make this read like the instructions for the Holy Handgrenade of Antioch.

pbharvey · Dec 18, 2017

GolfR said:
Here we go again, they are defining bump stocks as anything that increases the rate of fire.

Ok

motorcoachdoug · Dec 18, 2017

MigraineMan said:
Finally got around to reading the text of SB74. Would appear that they have cottoned-on to the "just go to an adjacent State" magazine "loophole."

I'm expecting similar wording in other bills. Wouldn't want us plebes to have future opportunities for loopholing.

I'm certain someone will point out that Item (1), above, likely runs afoul of FOPA, and there will be edits that make this read like the instructions for the Holy Handgrenade of Antioch.

I sent the nice little senator: :sarcasm:

a e mail letting him know that his bill needed some work done to the wording of said bill because it ran against the FOPA federal bill and would leave open the county and or the state to liability issues not to mention the officer as well... i will wait and see if he sends back a reply to me...

GolfR · Dec 18, 2017

If you cannot "offer for sale" a bump stock, what will be the process for current legal owners of "bump stock" devices? If I recall correctly, CA had a little issue with this when they tried to enact a law stripping legal CA owners of standard capacity magazines. Was that law struck down or simply not put on the books?

Rab1515 · Dec 18, 2017

So bump stocks would be more regulated that transferable MG's?

MigraineMan · Dec 18, 2017

Turning-in your baby-killing bump stock to the Police constitutes a "transfer," so you can't do that. (Didn't see a Law Enforcement exception in the text.) So I guess you'll just have to volunteer to put your bump stock into the Crushinator because it's the right thing to do.

Oh, and since you're volunteering, there won't be any seized-asset comp from the State.

Thank you for your continued compliance with The Law. Have a nice day.

BeoBill · Dec 18, 2017

motorcoachdoug said:
I sent the nice little senator: a e mail letting him know that his bill needed some work done to the wording of said bill because it ran against the FOPA federal bill and would leave open the county and or the state to liability issues not to mention the officer as well... i will wait and see if he sends back a reply to me...

Since when did the threat of breaking an existing Federal law even slow down our "Hold my beer, California..." MGA? They LOVE them a good court battle using OUR $$$.

lazarus · Dec 18, 2017

motorcoachdoug said:
I sent the nice little senator: a e mail letting him know that his bill needed some work done to the wording of said bill because it ran against the FOPA federal bill and would leave open the county and or the state to liability issues not to mention the officer as well... i will wait and see if he sends back a reply to me...

Doesn’t violate FOPA. Bill says transport in to. FOPA only covers you if you are transporting THROUGH the state. They have very different legal meanings.

lazarus · Dec 18, 2017

MigraineMan said:
Turning-in your baby-killing bump stock to the Police constitutes a "transfer," so you can't do that. (Didn't see a Law Enforcement exception in the text.) So I guess you'll just have to volunteer to put your bump stock into the Crushinator because it's the right thing to do.

Oh, and since you're volunteering, there won't be any seized-asset comp from the State.

Thank you for your continued compliance with The Law. Have a nice day.

If anything like almost all other MD bills it wouldn’t end up going in to immediate effect. So you’d probably have till October to dispose of them.

Stupid damn law still.

ironpony · Dec 18, 2017

FOPA? I thought that pertained to "Firearms". ICBW again.

Schipperke · Dec 18, 2017

This will pass easily unless a legal technicality why it can't, can be exploited

SB74-Criminal Law-Bump Stock/HB29-Handgun Permit Preliminary Approval

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

R.I.P

inveniam viam aut faciam

R.I.P.

R.I.P.

Ultimate Member

Crank in the Third Row

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Defenestration Specialist

Habitual Testifier

Attachments

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Defenestration Specialist

Crank in the Third Row

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Member

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics