Md. lawmakers look to ban untraceable guns in next session

lennyk · Mar 1, 2019

PowPow said:
If it was home-made after 1968, you may no longer possess it in the state of Maryland as of Oct 1, 2019. Period.

If they decide to go California-style with this, Maryland would need to create a whole system around applying for, recording of, granting to, and securing serial numbers for home-made firearms. It would make those who never hear about this into criminals and those who do not want to serialize w/state have to relocate or destroy their handiwork.

Tyranny in either case.

Absolutely correct.

Scenario 1 (passes as written): ALL home built firearms as of Oct 1, 2019. Are banned for possession. So move them out or destroy.

Scenario 2: Registration scheme. Apply to MSP for a serial number (they might allow a custom one), pay a fee (who knows how much), will likely be on a 77R (I think they have no other scheme). They do their checks, give you a number. That number is engraved on the receiver, firearm, etc. This would likely apply to all home builds in possession.

Problems with the above: Scenario 1 is on it's face unconstitutional (and I'm not talking tyranny, etc). You cannot order a destruction of a legally possessed firearm in the state. Be it a home built HBAR, preban AR, Colt, Glock, Ruger 10/22, and fill in any other platform you wish.

Problem with Scenario 2 is the Fiscal Note. This thing will be EXPENSIVE. LGQL business is already pegged at 3.4 million. This thing is who knows but at least as much if not much higher. There are tons of 80's in this State. Any they know it's not enforceable. Door to door is in violation of the 4th (illegal search and seizure). Crazies could care less about 3 years on top of murder. Heck they anticipate to be dead any way. The other issue is date of manufacture. All of the 80's made in this State were pre-ban (prove otherwise). How will they handle that? This thing is a nightmare.

Remember this whole thing was sparked by Del Dumas with regards to the Glock 19 by an 18 year old. This is an intelligent kid (AP classes) but with some mental issues.

Malleovic · Mar 1, 2019

lennyk said:
Problems with the above: Scenario 1 is on it's face unconstitutional (and I'm not talking tyranny, etc). You cannot order a destruction of a legally possessed firearm in the state. Be it a home built HBAR, preban AR, Colt, Glock, Ruger 10/22, and fill in any other platform you wish.

Your objection is a takings one, correct? Unfortunately, I imagine that they would rely on the delay in implementation (10/1/2019) to argue that we will have ample time to transfer the firearm, move it out of state, or destroy it.

lennyk said:
The other issue is date of manufacture. All of the 80's made in this State were pre-ban (prove otherwise). How will they handle that? This thing is a nightmare.

It is. There's a couple ways they could screw with us on this. First, there are those of us born after 1968. Second, there are no doubt subtleties a good prosecutor could tease out to build an argument that there's no way a given unserialized lower could be manufactured before 1968.

I imagine this is also a situation where the state will get a large part of the benefit of the doubt in any real-life courtroom.

lennyk · Mar 1, 2019

Malleovic said:
Your objection is a takings one, correct? Unfortunately, I imagine that they would rely on the delay in implementation (10/1/2019) to argue that we will have ample time to transfer the firearm, move it out of state, or destroy it.

It is. There's a couple ways they could screw with us on this. First, there are those of us born after 1968. Second, there are no doubt subtleties a good prosecutor could tease out to build an argument that there's no way a given unserialized lower could be manufactured before 1968.

I imagine this is also a situation where the state will get a large part of the benefit of the doubt in any real-life courtroom.

I actually meant prior to 2013.

With regards to takings clause...I am not so sure. The firearm is otherwise legal except with no serial number. A Colt 1911 can be home built. A Glock 19 or 17 could be homebuilt. A Ruger 10/22 can be homebuilt. They are all currently legal, albeit with a serial number. So I am not sure the takings clause applies.

PowPow · Mar 1, 2019

lennyk said:
I actually meant prior to 2013.

With regards to takings clause...I am not so sure. The firearm is otherwise legal except with no serial number. A Colt 1911 can be home built. A Glock 19 or 17 could be homebuilt. A Ruger 10/22 can be homebuilt. They are all currently legal, albeit with a serial number. So I am not sure the takings clause applies.

SB-882 would require that the serial number have been issued by a federally-licensed firearms manufacturer or importer. This pretty well means that anything home-made after 1968 would no longer be able to possessed in the State of Maryland.

So let's not forget, it's not about serial numbers. It's about home-made. They don't like that which they cannot control.

lennyk · Mar 1, 2019

Sorry for not including previously...but for takings clause to apply it would have to be a mandatory buy back at "just compensation." I am not sure they're interested in that. The reason being the specific firearm is presently legal otherwise. It would be a 2A violation, as defined by Heller.

lennyk · Mar 1, 2019

PowPow said:
SB-882 would require that the serial number have been issued by a federally-licensed firearms manufacturer or importer. This pretty well means that anything home-made after 1968 would no longer be able to possessed in the State of Maryland.

So let's not forget, it's not about serial numbers. It's about home-made. They don't like that which they cannot control.

Completely concur....the problem is as written, the proposed serialization scheme is undoable, therefore, impossible to comply.

Like building a bicycle, putting a motor in it, and asking Harley Davidson for a VIN number.

That's why the bill is illegal. You cannot comply with it (other than destruction). Forced exile....well you can even get the ACLU to support you on that one.

Malleovic · Mar 1, 2019

lennyk said:
Completely concur....the problem is as written, the proposed serialization scheme is undoable, therefore, impossible to comply.

Like building a bicycle, putting a motor in it, and asking Harley Davidson for a VIN number.

That's why the bill is illegal. You cannot comply with it (other than destruction). Forced exile....well you can even get the ACLU to support you on that one.

I voiced the same concerns that you did:

https://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=232561&page=5

But apparently we would still have the ability to

a) move it out of state

or

b) serialize it and sell it

PowPow · Mar 1, 2019

Malleovic said:
I voiced the same concerns that you did:

https://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=232561&page=5

But apparently we would still have the ability to

a) move it out of state

or

b) serialize it and sell it

You mean, The King demands that you get rid of it or let him put a serial number on it. No thank you.

benton0311 · Mar 1, 2019

Malleovic said:
I voiced the same concerns that you did:

https://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=232561&page=5

But apparently we would still have the ability to

a) move it out of state

or

b) serialize it and sell it

I think you might have an argument against the "serialize it and sell it out of state" route under the takings clause. I suspect the argument would be very strong that a homemade firearm, with a personally issued serial number, would still be an essentially unsellable firearm or would have to be sold for pennies on the dollar. With a $500 P80 build, you might convince someone out of state to give you $100 for it and that's assuming you'd find an FFL who would want to perform the transfer. So it's technically sellable across state lines but not even remotely practical.

I believe California's defense (someone with legal background please correct this) in the case against their 10-round magazine statute not violating the takings clause, since the market for the magazines was essentially destroyed, was that the original owners were allowed to keep them provided the magazines were plugged to limit capacity to 10 rounds. This was of course 9th Circuit and the court said "seems fair, you get to keep them, no selling or taking involved at all, just bring them into compliance. The law stands." This was the same thing the 3rd Circuit again said regarding the challenge to NJ's magazine ban - "bring them into compliance and keep them, thus no takings."

California also seems to have tacitly acknowledged this issue on their homemade firearms law to register already existing homemade firearms and implement a restriction scheme after the enactment date of the law.

Just referencing what's already happened in CA with homemade firearms along with the 9th and 3rd circuits response to two different but similar magazine laws.

lennyk · Mar 1, 2019

PowPow said:
You mean, The King demands that you get rid of it or let him put a serial number on it. No thank you.

The words of a free citizen. Sir, trust me, you are not alone.

lennyk · Mar 1, 2019

benton0311 said:
I think you might have an argument against the "serialize it and sell it out of state" route under the takings clause. The argument would be very strong that a homemade firearm, with a personally issued serial number, would still be an essentially unsellable firearm or would have to be sold for pennies on the dollar. With a $500 P80 build, you might convince someone out of state to give you $100 for it and that's assuming you'd find an FFL who would want to perform the transfer. So it's technically sellable across state lines but not even remotely practical.

I believe California's defense (someone with legal background please correct this) in the case against their 10-round magazine statute not violating the takings clause, since the market for the magazines was essentially destroyed, was that the original owners were allowed to keep them provided the magazines were plugged to limit capacity to 10 rounds. This was of course 9th Circuit and they said "seems fair, you get to keep them, no selling or taking involved at all, just bring them into compliance. The law stands." This was the same thing the 3rd Circuit again said regarding the challenge to NJ's magazine ban - "bring them into compliance and keep them, thus no takings."

California also seems to have tacitly acknowledged this issue on their homemade firearms law to register already existing homemade firearms and implement a restriction scheme after the enactment date of the law.

EXACTLY right logic! Though I was not familiar with the rulings, even California and NJ did not force destruction, sale, or an exile. That's why the bill as written cannot be legally complied with. The proposed serialization scheme by FFL 7 or 8 is impossible. In chess, it's when you box a king without a checkmate.

lennyk · Mar 1, 2019

AND remember, when you sell a homebuilt, with a serial number (and though this is legal in limited scope), you have become the 1st point of sale. You will need to put your name and address on the firearm and keep a record of sale. I know this might be debated but otherwise there is no point to serialization at all if the number is meaningless. It has to come back to someone.

lennyk · Mar 1, 2019

AND no out of state FFL will touch this. It's impossible to sell out of state without personally being an FFL 7. I am certain California thought all this out. I am of firm belief that if they could have truly banned it, they would.

PowPow · Mar 1, 2019

Can the state government force a citizen to alter or deface their private property?

Let's say I have a coffee table in my living room. Can the State of Maryland force me to put a serial number on it? They say there is a band of thieves stealing residents' coffee tables across the state, and they have so many in their warehouse that they cannot return. The stockpile of coffee tables in the government's warehouse are taking up valuable space that would be better used to store toilet seat replacements. Given the cost, the General Assembly passes a bill to mandate that all coffee tables must have a serial number, or relocated out of the state as there is no more room in the warehouse.

PowPow · Mar 1, 2019

Also, if it matters, the coffee table may have come from a store, or from grandma, or was made by father and son as a project. The State has a compelling interest in putting the serial number on so they can reduce cost associated with maintaining unclaimed property.

Malleovic · Mar 1, 2019

lennyk said:
AND no out of state FFL will touch this. It's impossible to sell out of state without personally being an FFL 7. I am certain California thought all this out. I am of firm belief that if they could have truly banned it, they would.

Hey man, I'm completely with you. I think they're going to throw juuust enough wiggle room into this that it doesn't legally amount to a taking even though practically it will be.

lennyk · Mar 1, 2019

Yep, and that's where the whole California registration scheme gets entertained. That's the only method of compliance. The next question is when the firearm was produced, and I mean pre 2013. Now all of a sudden the MSP will be registering a whole bunch of AR15's that were not previously on the books, could you imagine the press? Plus the Fiscal Note for all of this? Something tells me they will think very carefully about this.

PowPow · Mar 1, 2019

Suppose that some ingredients in paint have been identified as leading causes of ABC and XYZ public health issues. To prepare for the next finding of toxicity in paint, the State in the name of public health needs to be able to track where the paintings go in order to provide direct notification to existing and new owners of the risk to their health.

Can the State force someone to put a serial number on all paintings they've made and identify the colors, brands, and lot numbers of paint they used?

fabsroman · Mar 1, 2019

Malleovic said:
Your objection is a takings one, correct? Unfortunately, I imagine that they would rely on the delay in implementation (10/1/2019) to argue that we will have ample time to transfer the firearm, move it out of state, or destroy it.

It is. There's a couple ways they could screw with us on this. First, there are those of us born after 1968. Second, there are no doubt subtleties a good prosecutor could tease out to build an argument that there's no way a given unserialized lower could be manufactured before 1968.

I imagine this is also a situation where the state will get a large part of the benefit of the doubt in any real-life courtroom.

The Takings Clause argument was just litigated in the Rapid Fire Trigger Device litigation and it is being appealed to the US Circuit Court for the 4th Circuit. The US District Court ruled that making it illegal to posses a Rapid Fire Trigger Device was NOT a violation of the Takings Clause. We shall see what the 4th Circuit says, but I am not holding my breath on that one. My guess is that SCOTUS will not grant cert on this case either, but that is just my guess.

fabsroman · Mar 1, 2019

lennyk said:
Absolutely correct.

Scenario 1 (passes as written): ALL home built firearms as of Oct 1, 2019. Are banned for possession. So move them out or destroy.

Scenario 2: Registration scheme. Apply to MSP for a serial number (they might allow a custom one), pay a fee (who knows how much), will likely be on a 77R (I think they have no other scheme). They do their checks, give you a number. That number is engraved on the receiver, firearm, etc. This would likely apply to all home builds in possession.

Problems with the above: Scenario 1 is on it's face unconstitutional (and I'm not talking tyranny, etc). You cannot order a destruction of a legally possessed firearm in the state. Be it a home built HBAR, preban AR, Colt, Glock, Ruger 10/22, and fill in any other platform you wish.

Problem with Scenario 2 is the Fiscal Note. This thing will be EXPENSIVE. LGQL business is already pegged at 3.4 million. This thing is who knows but at least as much if not much higher. There are tons of 80's in this State. Any they know it's not enforceable. Door to door is in violation of the 4th (illegal search and seizure). Crazies could care less about 3 years on top of murder. Heck they anticipate to be dead any way. The other issue is date of manufacture. All of the 80's made in this State were pre-ban (prove otherwise). How will they handle that? This thing is a nightmare.

Remember this whole thing was sparked by Del Dumas with regards to the Glock 19 by an 18 year old. This is an intelligent kid (AP classes) but with some mental issues.

Yeah, a lot of wrong in all of that, but I am not going to get into it.

Md. lawmakers look to ban untraceable guns in next session

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Where's the beef?

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Where's the beef?

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Where's the beef?

Where's the beef?

Active Member

Active Member

Where's the beef?

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics