Md. lawmakers look to ban untraceable guns in next session

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • ironpony

    Member
    MDS Supporter
    Jun 8, 2013
    7,192
    Davidsonville
    How long before they start questioning people at public/private ranges? Some pink hat person can just say "I heard 80% at this range" and out of concern for public safety authorities would "have" to investigate. "See something, Say something" Times they are a changing.


    I find that a lot of people do not know about many of the old laws and less about the new laws, wait until it is made known to all how many ways they can stop "the noisy range next door" or legal hunters that many don't care for.
     
    How long before they start questioning people at public/private ranges? Some pink hat person can just say "I heard 80% at this range" and out of concern for public safety authorities would "have" to investigate. "See something, Say something" Times they are a changing.


    I find that a lot of people do not know about many of the old laws and less about the new laws, wait until it is made known to all how many ways they can stop "the noisy range next door" or legal hunters that many don't care for.

    People need to learn to say NO to the police.. as in no officer you may not look at my firearm no officer you may not look in my bag no officer you may not search my vehicle. You have rights. Stand up for them
     

    K31

    "Part of that Ultra MAGA Crowd"
    MDS Supporter
    Jan 15, 2006
    35,632
    AA county
    How long before they start questioning people at public/private ranges? Some pink hat person can just say "I heard 80% at this range" and out of concern for public safety authorities would "have" to investigate. "See something, Say something" Times they are a changing.


    I find that a lot of people do not know about many of the old laws and less about the new laws, wait until it is made known to all how many ways they can stop "the noisy range next door" or legal hunters that many don't care for.

    How long before they do a "Legalized Swatting" on someone because the bag lady said they have software for printing a gun?
     

    mawkie

    C&R Whisperer
    Sep 28, 2007
    4,338
    Catonsville
    Never really had an urge to build my own... but everytime they tell me I "can't", it makes me want to.

    On the eve of the Clinton AWB in late '93 my father, who had never purchased a firearm before, bought a Colt H-BAR. This came totally out of the blue. When I asked him why he said "Because the government doesn't want me to have one!". He has it to this day. One hell of a role model for me growing up.
     

    pcfixer

    Ultimate Member
    May 24, 2009
    5,948
    Marylandstan
    People need to learn to say NO to the police.. as in no officer you may not look at my firearm no officer you may not look in my bag no officer you may not search my vehicle. You have rights. Stand up for them

    Yes, Absolutely

    You can refuse to consent to a search of your car. This is a verbal communication type of thing.
    If the officer says he's going to search your car anyway, you can't legally physically stop him.
    The 4th Amendment prohibits unreasonable Search and Seizure. There are types of circumstances in which the courts have determined that a search is not unreasonable. If one of those circumstances exists, then the officer may search your car despite your lack of consent or the lack of a warrant.
     

    cstone

    Active Member
    Dec 12, 2018
    842
    Baltimore, MD
    There was a time when steel flats and AK kits were dirt cheap. Anyone with a press from Harbor Freight, a drill, and a rivet kit could build a rifle that would make Ivan and Olga smile. Once functional, and if you had no interest in selling said rifle, why would anyone engrave or mark the receiver in any way? Of course, those were also the times when crates of surplus 5.45 and 7.62x39 could be had for just over the cost of .22lr ammunition.

    The good ole' days. May they come again real soon.
     

    IDFInfantry

    Banned
    BANNED!!!
    Feb 21, 2013
    926
    Nomad
    People need to learn to say NO to the police.. as in no officer you may not look at my firearm no officer you may not look in my bag no officer you may not search my vehicle. You have rights. Stand up for them

    You are right but you have obviously not said "No" to too many officers.
    I've said no in the past. Officer pushed me down and entered my home anyway.
    Then he called for "Backup"
    Saying no is certainly the right thing to do but be prepared for what potentially comes next.
    Remember officers are trained to use force.
    :sad20:
     

    IDFInfantry

    Banned
    BANNED!!!
    Feb 21, 2013
    926
    Nomad
    There was a time when steel flats and AK kits were dirt cheap. Anyone with a press from Harbor Freight, a drill, and a rivet kit could build a rifle that would make Ivan and Olga smile. Once functional, and if you had no interest in selling said rifle, why would anyone engrave or mark the receiver in any way? Of course, those were also the times when crates of surplus 5.45 and 7.62x39 could be had for just over the cost of .22lr ammunition.

    The good ole' days. May they come again real soon.

    I have a hunch those days might be here real soon too! When the people's backs are broken and there is nothing left to lose what then? Our threshold for pain seems to be too high currently. I am actually surprised the back hasn't given out yet!
     
    Yes, Absolutely

    You can refuse to consent to a search of your car. This is a verbal communication type of thing.
    If the officer says he's going to search your car anyway, you can't legally physically stop him.
    The 4th Amendment prohibits unreasonable Search and Seizure. There are types of circumstances in which the courts have determined that a search is not unreasonable. If one of those circumstances exists, then the officer may search your car despite your lack of consent or the lack of a warrant.

    That's fine, anything he might find that could be deemed "illegal" would then be fruit of the poisonous tree and as such inadmissible in court...Then a law suit is filed against the Department, it's chief and the officer..
     

    East2West

    Banned
    BANNED!!!
    Jul 20, 2013
    902
    Nomalley, Nobama
    That's fine, anything he might find that could be deemed "illegal" would then be fruit of the poisonous tree and as such inadmissible in court...Then a law suit is filed against the Department, it's chief and the officer..

    If only the officers could be held personally liable I think things would change.
     

    5cary

    On the spreading edge of the butter knife.
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 30, 2007
    3,635
    Sykesville, MD
    If only the officers could be held personally liable I think things would change.

    I don't think that will ever happen..Besides, the big money is in suing the state.

    We get briefed on Section 1983 stuff all the time for personal liability. The majority of LEOs I know (admittedly anecdotal) carry personal liability insurance for this very reason. I know that civil remedies against LEOs are really hard to come by and the standards for winning a suit are pretty high, but it *is* possible under pretty well defined circumstances of constitutional violations.

    Not saying it would be easy, but officers *can* be held personally liable for constitutional violations.
     

    TheOriginalMexicanBob

    Ultimate Member
    Jul 2, 2017
    32,181
    Sun City West, AZ
    We get briefed on Section 1983 stuff all the time for personal liability. The majority of LEOs I know (admittedly anecdotal) carry personal liability insurance for this very reason. I know that civil remedies against LEOs are really hard to come by and the standards for winning a suit are pretty high, but it *is* possible under pretty well defined circumstances of constitutional violations.

    Not saying it would be easy, but officers *can* be held personally liable for constitutional violations.

    An officer has to have acted outside his agency's rules and protocols before he can be personally sued. If he acted within the scope of his agency's rules and the law the agency covers him legally. Of course most law enforcement agencies will try to show he was outside the rules to take liability off of them...that's why officers carry personal liability insurance...they know their bosses will throw them under the bus if they can.

    The liability threat is why many, if not most law enforcement agencies no longer require their officers to be armed when off-duty...they might make it ok if the officer does but not mandatory. If mandatory, the officer is covered by the agency for any law enforcement acts he performs when off-duty. If optional the officer is on his own liability-wise.
     

    Defense Rifle

    Active Member
    Jul 1, 2016
    238
    NC
    The bill has a high chance of passing. Wonder whether Gov. Hogan will sign the bill...

    Even without his signature, the Senate can pass it with 2/3rds majority.I think the earliest the law would go into effect is by April 1st 2019.

    They may also add a gun liability insurance requirement bill. Gun tax, ammo tax, you name it its being devised. Democrats love new taxes.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,943
    Messages
    7,259,752
    Members
    33,350
    Latest member
    Rotorboater

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom