Go Back   Maryland Shooters > Gun Rights and Legislation > Maryland 2A Issues
Don't Have An Account? Register Here

Join MD Shooters

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old Yesterday, 02:12 PM #51
TexDefender TexDefender is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 1,333
TexDefender TexDefender is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 1,333
I know as an individual that I wouldn't have standing. But you would think that one company would file a suit against Maryland for favoring one arms company over another.
TexDefender is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 02:16 PM #52
lazarus lazarus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 5,220
lazarus lazarus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 5,220
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexDefender View Post
I know as an individual that I wouldn't have standing. But you would think that one company would file a suit against Maryland for favoring one arms company over another.
If you owned an AM-15 you’d have standing.
lazarus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 03:04 PM #53
esqappellate's Avatar
esqappellate esqappellate is offline
President, MSI
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 6,650
esqappellate esqappellate is offline
President, MSI
esqappellate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 6,650
Quote:
Originally Posted by Allen65 View Post
With statutes and their surrounding contexts so ambiguous, how could a State's Attorney ever win a conviction? Nobody can say beyond a reasonable doubt, and maybe even to preponderance standard, what is actually illegal to possess or transfer.
There is no mens rea requirement in this statute for a conviction. MD Code, Criminal Law, § 4-306. Possession is enough. You could argue that law is too vague, under the Due Process Clause. Don't bet your life savings or your freedom on that.
__________________
This may sound like legal advice, but it isn't. Don't rely on it. Hire your own counsel.
esqappellate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 03:12 PM #54
PowPow's Avatar
PowPow PowPow is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Howard County
Posts: 2,516
PowPow PowPow is offline
Senior Member
PowPow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Howard County
Posts: 2,516
I needed to look up what "mens rea" means. IANAL I found this on justia.com for those interested:

Quote:
For many but not all crimes, the prosecution must prove not only that the defendant carried out certain acts but also that they had a certain mental state. This is often known as the “mens rea” (“guilty mind”) element, and it prevents people from being punished when their intentions were innocent.
__________________
SAF Patron (Life) | GOA (Life) | CCRKBA (Life) | NRA Benefactor (Life) | MSRPA (Life)
MSI (Executive) | Maryland Designated Collector | Utah CCW

#WeWillNotComply
PowPow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 03:19 PM #55
esqappellate's Avatar
esqappellate esqappellate is offline
President, MSI
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 6,650
esqappellate esqappellate is offline
President, MSI
esqappellate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 6,650
Quote:
Originally Posted by PowPow View Post
I needed to look up what "mens rea" means. IANAL I found this on justia.com for those interested:
That's pretty good. For example, a mens rea requirement might be that the person knowingly possessed the firearm while knowing it was illegal. That was the construction given "knowingly participate" in the Chow case construing MD Code Public Safety 5-144. There can be a whole gamut of scienter requirements for mens rea.
__________________
This may sound like legal advice, but it isn't. Don't rely on it. Hire your own counsel.
esqappellate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 04:48 PM #56
BeoBill's Avatar
BeoBill BeoBill is offline
Crank in the Third Row
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: 南馬里蘭州鮑伊
Posts: 17,234
BeoBill BeoBill is offline
Crank in the Third Row
BeoBill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: 南馬里蘭州鮑伊
Posts: 17,234
Quote:
Originally Posted by mac1_131 View Post
From an IT security standpoint, this is a nightmare. Not a safe practice. No one in their right mind would do this.

Anyone that is doing this, I'd suggest bringing the smallest flash drive you can, freshly formatted, and only your testimony on it to speed up the virus scan process.
Seconded! And when you're done, throw it in the trash.
__________________
Formerly "The Pitbull from OSD Policy." To err is human. To forgive is not SAC policy.
“Those who beat their arms into plows will plow for those who don’t.”

Dark to Light; sheep no more. WWG1WGA WWNC
#MorePatriotsThanHandcuffs
BeoBill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 09:39 PM #57
dblas dblas is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 8,554
dblas dblas is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 8,554
Quote:
Originally Posted by esqappellate View Post
Not sure that would be true, although it is hard to tell for sure. The question would be whether the ban on the Anderson Am-15 in .223 and .300blk would ban using that receiver to custom build a heavy barrel version. The Anderson AM-15 in .223 is already banned, but not the Anderson AM-15 .300blk(unless this bill passes). My understanding that those two guns are not heavy barrel firearms from the factory. For example, you can build any HBAR, including a Colt HBAR, even though any AR15 in .223 regular barrel is banned. You just cannot build a HBAR that meets the definition of a "copy cat" weapon, viz., a center fire semi auto gun with a detachable mag, and that has two of three features, a flash suppressor, a grenade launcher or a folding stock, or is less than 29 inches long. See MD Code Criminal Law 4-301(h). That is because the MSP has construed the exemption for the Colt HBAR to include HBARs of any manufacturer. See, e.g., the MSP exemption for Armalite HBARs. ON the other hand, it is perfectly possible to read the bill has imposing a complete ban on all builds from the Anderson receiver. Yet, that result is hard to square with MSP guidance. Under that guidance, it is perfectly legal to purchase the Anderson receiver itself using the 77R process, as the 5-101(r)(2) list includes only long guns, not receivers. The receiver can be legally built into a heavy barrel, a pistol for personal use (you cannot sell the Anderson .223 pistol, or build for distribution as it is not on the Roster, but you can build it for personal use) or a SBR (as long as you comply with the NFA of 1934 and the ATF requirements under that act for SBRs). Again, the 5-101(r)(2) list includes only long guns (classified as "assault long guns under MD Code Criminal Law 4-301), not receivers. See MSP ADVISORY LD-FRS-14-003 (2014). Put differently, a receiver is a "firearm" but it is not an "assault long gun." Given that advisory, it would be odd to hold that you can build a Colt receiver into a heavy barrel, but not an Anderson receiver..... YMMV. Now, I don't think you can EVER build an Anderson .223 regular barrel, as that is already banned, including its manufacture. That would include converting an Anderson Heavy Barrel into a regular barrel. This is not Legal Advice.
Then how does that guidance square with MSP's complete ban on anything Bushmaster when they only call out a rifle (and not even one manufactured by the Bushmaster Company) in the statute?
__________________
"If it pleases the crown"
dblas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 09:43 PM #58
dblas dblas is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 8,554
dblas dblas is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 8,554
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexDefender View Post
I'm just not understand this, I was under the distinct impression if the firearm had a heavy barrel is was good to go. I don't get it, singling out one manufacturer over another. Is the proposed law saying if an individual purchased a Anderson Manufacturing (AM15) and a Stag 15 Retro (HBAR) a couple of years ago. Now they would be now illegal?
Might I point out that MSP has BANNED everything made by Bushmaster, even though the item named in state statute is the Bushmaster Carbine, manufactured by Gwinn Arms. They made the change shortly after FSA2013 went into affect.
__________________
"If it pleases the crown"
dblas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 11:33 PM #59
esqappellate's Avatar
esqappellate esqappellate is offline
President, MSI
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 6,650
esqappellate esqappellate is offline
President, MSI
esqappellate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 6,650
Quote:
Originally Posted by dblas View Post
Then how does that guidance square with MSP's complete ban on anything Bushmaster when they only call out a rifle (and not even one manufactured by the Bushmaster Company) in the statute?
Check the MSP website list for Bushmaster. None of the guns listed there for the Bushmaster are heavy barrels (at least I don't think so). Certainly the MSP does not purport to ban Bushmaster receivers. That's not to say that there isn't uncertainty. There is plenty of uncertainty. But there is at least an argument that the Anderson receivers are NOT banned (no receivers are banned in the 101(r)(2) list) and if the receivers are legal then you *should* be able to use them to build an otherwise legal configuration, just like any other receiver.
__________________
This may sound like legal advice, but it isn't. Don't rely on it. Hire your own counsel.
esqappellate is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

  Home Page > Forum List > Gun Rights and Legislation > Maryland 2A Issues


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:15 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
© 2019, Congregate Media, LP Privacy Policy Terms of Service