HB 638 Untraceable & Undetectable Firearms

Kicken Wing said:

Another part that makes no sense... Unique serial number. Unique to what? Unique to my own gun collection ONLY? How many people scrawled FYOMALLEY on their receivers after 2013? Common names in the same town? Mine is. Even if there are only 2 gun owners with the same name and town with number 0001 engraved then this exercise becomes pointless.

What about the criminal advantage to this law. Engrave a name of someone that you hate on any 80 percent, commit crime, leave gun behind with no prints, engraved persons home gets raided and they are left having to defend themselves in court.

A criminal could love this law. They can keep doing business as usual AND blame someone else.

Click to expand...

horrible law.

lazarus said:

All laws have levels of compliance. Ones that hurt people tend to have higher levels of compliance than victimless crimes and virtue signaling crimes. Ones with higher penalties the same.

I’d need to know what the penalties were, likelihood of getting caught, what I’d gain/lose by complying or not.

Has everyone here speed at least once in their life? I’d bet probably every driver has at least once. Has anyone here robbed a bank (I hope no)?

Compliance costs, risk and reward. If >10 round magazines became illegal and the punishment was a $20 fine and loss of the magazine if caught my answer might be different than if it was 10 years in prison and a $10,000 fine per magazine.

If the punishment for underage drinking was a public flogging and a year in prison, you’d probably see higher compliance rates (I am not advocating floggings and prison time for underage drinking kind you).

Crimes that hurt people have the dual penalties of both moral as well as penal risk. I have done a bad, evil thing and I go to prison if caught. Victimless crimes/virtue signaling crimes have lower/no moral penalties, but still carry penal crimes. Example, so long as someone doesn’t have a religious prohibition, are they going to feel real bad about drinking a couple of beers as a 20yr old? Probably not. But they could still face a fine, criminal record and might suffer some time in jail till bailed out and some community service.

Click to expand...

Thanks for that perspective. Much appreciated. I can't being to wrap my head around any non nefarious reason they would come up with further restrictions on people who are not committing crimes. Many of these laws they come up with make a criminal out of an American. We all know that a criminal is going to do what they do regardless of the law so why make a law that affects the non criminals. There are already enough laws on the books about using a gun in a crime. I can't get behind these infringement and I don't personally see how compliance regardless of the cost will be a benefit to the freedom of our country. This is a time where people need their guns more than they have needed them in a long time. To go back and make something that was legal illegal is exactly what this does. They say that registration is the first step in confiscation.

whistlersmother said:

renders the after 1/1/22 part of the law mute

Click to expand...

Not to derail, but MAN do I wish people would quit saying that.

MOOT! The word is MOOT!

Here we are hairsplitting over the nuances of a bill and possible law, all of which requires some acquaintance with the legal vernacular surrounding such things. So how come so many people chiming in lately on the legal twists around everything from Shampeachment 2.0 to restrictions on home brew firearms can’t seem to get that common legal term right?

I wouldn’t kvetch, but I think it’s the fourth time today just on MDS. OK, /rant. Carry on!

My contribution: yeah, the uncontemplated real life details where the proposed law meets the real world show how ill conceived and purely punitive this bill is really meant to be.

What?!

Occam said:

Not to derail, but MAN do I wish people would quit saying that.

MOOT! The word is MOOT!

Here we are hairsplitting over the nuances of a bill and possible law, all of which requires some acquaintance with the legal vernacular surrounding such things. So how come so many people chiming in lately on the legal twists around everything from Shampeachment 2.0 to restrictions on home brew firearms can’t seem to get that common legal term right?

I wouldn’t kvetch, but I think it’s the fourth time today just on MDS. OK, /rant. Carry on!

My contribution: yeah, the uncontemplated real life details where the proposed law meets the real world show how ill conceived and purely punitive this bill is really meant to be.

Click to expand...

Speak up I cannot here you. You some sort of Moot?

Occam said:

Not to derail, but MAN do I wish people would quit saying that.

MOOT! The word is MOOT!

Here we are hairsplitting over the nuances of a bill and possible law, all of which requires some acquaintance with the legal vernacular surrounding such things. So how come so many people chiming in lately on the legal twists around everything from Shampeachment 2.0 to restrictions on home brew firearms can’t seem to get that common legal term right?

I wouldn’t kvetch, but I think it’s the fourth time today just on MDS. OK, /rant. Carry on!

My contribution: yeah, the uncontemplated real life details where the proposed law meets the real world show how ill conceived and purely punitive this bill is really meant to be.

Click to expand...

Have a Snickers

lazarus said:

All good questions and should be raised in testimony. Both your very last as well as when manufactured. Must it be engraved BEFORE being manufactured? Is there leeway on time? What if moving from out of state?

For the moving or family member transfer, I’d assume no on needing to change it. It doesn’t say anything about changing the engraving later or bearing whatever the current home address is. Just when it is made, who made and and where do they live.

But a good question. Do you continue to retain the record for life if you’ve given it to a family member? What if you die? Who maintains the record then?

It is poor language about manufacture or assemble. Heck, if I own a handgun, say a Glock 17 and decide I want a .40S&stupid, I mean W, and I remove the slide and install a G22 slide on it. Well I’ve assembled the firearm. Certainly not what it was. Does it run afoul of the law?

The intent to me is clear they just want any guns you are making from 80% or from scratch to be engraved so they can identify who made it if ever lost and found or used in a crime. And the person who made it has a record so police can look at it so you aren’t cheating or something. I guess.

But the language is BAD

Click to expand...

What if your home gets broken into and it is stolen?
What if you have a fire and house and all contents are destroyed?
What if a tornado destroys your home?
The scarey thing is this could lead to the requirement of providing the info to the feds.

Now, I am just a dumb ass HS graduate, so I sure these brilliant politicians have it all figured out.

Bottom line is they are not protecting the public. They are protecting the state. Because in their eyes they exist to rule us, because we are to stupid. We should give up on the illusion that they serve us. This law is just another effort to enforce that view point. Nothing more nothing less. Moving to its end, the State is your God. You live your life at the pleasure of the state.

A small derail here but IIRC there was also an issue of when creating something it is "art" or some form of First Amendment expression? Does this place undue limits on a Constitutional Right? Now take into consideration that 20K+ laws have already infringed on the 2nd so do not answer with that one ... Moot.

Anyone see when the hearing for this bill is? We should be submitting testimonies and getting into the lotteries for the hearings.

Be careful arguing about the language. That allows them to change it and make this the law that you helped write. We should be against it 100%. There is no reason for this law. Have them explain how this will stop a crime from happening.

Registration leads to confiscation.

Wait till magazines are banned at certain capacities.
Then magazine fed guns.
Then they know where they are.

If you guys don't see the warming of the water that the frog is in then something is wrong.

At the end of the day we are not much different than canada. Don't think it won't happen here.

Leave it alone. It is a law that cannot be enforced. It should be passed as-is.

DO NOT point out the flaws, they will correct them.

teratos said:

Leave it alone. It is a law that cannot be enforced. It should be passed as-is.

DO NOT point out the flaws, they will correct them.

Click to expand...

It can be enforced. What it can't be is complied with, other than NOT building any firearms after 1/1/2022. It would be a defacto ban. You think a judge is going to strike it down just because it is a defacto ban? If so, I've got some bottom land to sell you.

randomuser said:

Thanks for that perspective. Much appreciated. I can't being to wrap my head around any non nefarious reason they would come up with further restrictions on people who are not committing crimes. Many of these laws they come up with make a criminal out of an American. We all know that a criminal is going to do what they do regardless of the law so why make a law that affects the non criminals. There are already enough laws on the books about using a gun in a crime. I can't get behind these infringement and I don't personally see how compliance regardless of the cost will be a benefit to the freedom of our country. This is a time where people need their guns more than they have needed them in a long time. To go back and make something that was legal illegal is exactly what this does. They say that registration is the first step in confiscation.

Click to expand...

A lot of them honestly think it will somehow protect people. It is a right they do not use, therefore they have little regard for it.

Some of them truly believe, "hey, if you can own a gun, your right isn't infringed". They actually believe, well if you can ONLY own a falling block Remington in only .32-20 and you need a safety class and training class, background check, mental health evaluation and 3 character references as well as your school transcripts and you can't take it outside your home except to a range or hunting really means your right to bear arms is not infringed. See, you can own guns.

Many don't see why you need a 17 round magazine for a handgun. That is possibly more victims in a shooting and any non-criminal gun owner doesn't need one. So ALLOWING them to exist and be in private hands means that criminals or potential criminals could access them.

They can't understand why a semi-automatic rifle is useful for anything other than war or mass shootings. Even if you can get them to wrap their head around uses for them that aren't either of those two, they rationalize that the benefits to the millions that own one, outweigh that a few people will use them in mass shootings every year.

We don't have mandatory speed limiters on vehicles limiting them to 85mph (highest speed limit in the country)... (though maybe I shouldn't suggest stupid things as some of them would embrace the stupid).

For a minority of them it is simply about control. But it really is a minority of them.

It is cognitive dissonance for most of them. Look, they are just trying to keep people safe. Doesn't everyone want to keep people safe? Look the rights of millions, or even if you want to stop calling it a right, the thing that tens of millions enjoy, rely on for safety, use for a living or feed their families, if even one life is saved. That is worth it. So why you so mad bro?

I sure as S*%^ disagree. Just saying that really is most of their mindset. And of course there are plenty in their party who just don't care, so they'll go along with whatever their anti-gun brethern push, because they aren't going to win any political capital by going against the grain.

Kicken Wing said:

Another part that makes no sense... Unique serial number. Unique to what? Unique to my own gun collection ONLY? How many people scrawled FYOMALLEY on their receivers after 2013? Common names in the same town? Mine is. Even if there are only 2 gun owners with the same name and town with number 0001 engraved then this exercise becomes pointless.

What about the criminal advantage to this law. Engrave a name of someone that you hate on any 80 percent, commit crime, leave gun behind with no prints, engraved persons home gets raided and they are left having to defend themselves in court.

A criminal could love this law. They can keep doing business as usual AND blame someone else.

Click to expand...

The response would be “good point, this is why we need MSP to issue numbers!”

KIBarrister said:

The response would be “good point, this is why we need MSP to issue numbers!”

Click to expand...

This is why there needs to be NO DEBATE on this bill. The only thing they can do is make it worse.

THier said:

What if your home gets broken into and it is stolen?
What if you have a fire and house and all contents are destroyed?
What if a tornado destroys your home?
The scarey thing is this could lead to the requirement of providing the info to the feds.

Now, I am just a dumb ass HS graduate, so I sure these brilliant politicians have it all figured out.

Click to expand...

Not sure what those have to do with the bill.

Police are likely going to ask for a copy of that record when you report it stolen, so if it turns up they can for sure say if a handgun turns up engraved "9x19 Jim Smith Elkridge MD MDSPFU01" that it is the Jim Smith who reported it stolen. And according to his record he said he built it back in July of 2018.

If everything is destroyed, what does an FFL do now? I don't see MSP or a prosecutor having any interest in going after someone because they had a provable house fire and records were destroyed. Legally, I don't know. Maybe you could recreate it based on memory. Again, I think the key thing is they are most interested in you keeping a record of what was engraved on the gun. If the gun is destroyed, I don't think they care if the record is destroyed also.

See above for Tornado.

On the feds, how is that suddenly a concern? I only say that because it would have to be a federal law requiring that. The state can't mandate you provide information to the feds that the feds can't legally accept. If a federal law mandates registration of guns (home made or all) then the fact that a MD law required your gun to be engraved and you keep a record doesn't change the fact that the feds are now requiring registration.

Oh no, the state didn't make me engrave the gun and keep a record. Sorry ATF, nothing to turn in.

Your last is a non-issue as it relates to this law. If the state requires this information to be provided to MSP later, that new bill could just require record creation at that point if this bill never comes to be. Mandatory registration is mandatory registration. The only time it would make a difference is if you were deciding to not comply with mandatory registration and then only if someone else was the record keeper already.

I charitably want to think MGA's reasoning (and likely some of the LEAs) is that look, legitimate owners should have no problems putting their identifying information on their gun. If they aren't doing it, well then they are the ones making guns for the criminals. If we are catching guys with guns that don't have identifying information on it, well they were obviously creating or getting someone to make guns for them with criminal intent.

For someone making guns for someone else, well ATF doesn't say it is illegal. It just can't be WHY I am making a gun. It has to be for me. But a lot of ATF regs and laws have been dodged around because they have to prove intent. Look at all of the gun sellers that are obviously making a business of it, but not doing background checks and not getting an FFL that are selling hundreds of guns a year. ATF finally goes after them and in many cases they don't even get a slap on the wrist, because ATF has to prove intent.

I am sure now some criminals are pointing their finger back at the guy making this stuff. But, I mean, the guy is just making guns for himself. But he is fickle, so selling off the ones he isn't using for him.

But if MD is going to require putting your name and home town on it. That guy making the guns and selling them to criminals now has a law he is specifically breaking that requires no need to prove intent.

No. I am not trying to say this law is good or justified. I would say this is a large part of the reason Lopez is pushing it is they think it'll be easier to prove charges on criminals carrying "ghost guns" as well as some of the guys making them for criminals (supposing it isn't just the criminal themselves).

Allen65 said:

So, it has the same compliance problem as the bill last year: a type 7 FFL (i.e. manufacturer) cannot legally issue a serial # for a firearm they did not produce themselves. To do so would be a violation of GCA '68, i.e. Federal law.

Of course, incompatibility with Federal law doesn't seem to be an issue for the MGA antis this year, ex. HB175 requiring a NICS check for ammo sales, which is also not an allowable use of NICS under Federal law.

Click to expand...

VA's anti-80% bill has the same "issued by" language, like its coming from the same source...

teratos said:

Leave it alone. It is a law that cannot be enforced. It should be passed as-is.

DO NOT point out the flaws, they will correct them.

Click to expand...

teratos said:

This is why there needs to be NO DEBATE on this bill. The only thing they can do is make it worse.

Click to expand...

Listen to Teratos on this one.

squaregrouper said:

Listen to Teratos on this one.

Click to expand...

I second that motion.

LOL... Squaregrouper, I just realized how much my new aviator looks like yours... My brother from another mother!!