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 October 10th, 2018, 03:29 AM #911
adit's Avatar
adit adit is online now
ReMember
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: DE
Posts: 6,519
adit adit is online now
ReMember
adit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: DE
Posts: 6,519
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abulg1972 View Post
Gun oil is not a “device” within ANY commonly understood definition of that term. Courts don’t go out on limbs. To succeed and prevail, we can’t look lik tinfoil wearing cats.
Google definition:

a thing made or adapted for a particular purpose, especially a piece of mechanical or electronic equipment.

Courts go out on limbs all the time.
adit is online now   Reply With Quote
Old October 10th, 2018, 09:04 AM #912
Rab1515's Avatar
Rab1515 Rab1515 is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Calvert
Posts: 1,469
Rab1515 Rab1515 is online now
Senior Member
Rab1515's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Calvert
Posts: 1,469
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abulg1972 View Post
Gun oil is not a “device” within ANY commonly understood definition of that term. Courts don’t go out on limbs. To succeed and prevail, we can’t look lik tinfoil wearing cats.
The federal judge in this case disagrees, and stated that the device is so vague it could include oil.
__________________
MD, AZ CCW
Member: NRA, MSI
Designated Collector
Rab1515 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old October 10th, 2018, 09:49 AM #913
Allen65 Allen65 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Anne Arundel County
Posts: 694
Allen65 Allen65 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Anne Arundel County
Posts: 694
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abulg1972 View Post
Gun oil is not a “device” within ANY commonly understood definition of that term. Courts don’t go out on limbs. To succeed and prevail, we can’t look lik tinfoil wearing cats.
Courts may not, but prosecutors wallpaper people with stuff like this all the time to be bargained away as part of plea negotiations.

Last edited by Allen65; October 10th, 2018 at 08:19 PM.
Allen65 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 10th, 2018, 11:04 AM #914
ironpony's Avatar
ironpony ironpony is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Crofton/Davidsonville
Posts: 3,977
ironpony ironpony is offline
Senior Member
ironpony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Crofton/Davidsonville
Posts: 3,977
Have LEOs been informed as to the application to ATF grandfather period or will it just be guilty until your attorneys can prove you innocent? Possibly leading to a red flag also.

No tinfoil here, even the Federal Judge finds this law open to being applied incorrectly.
ironpony is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 10th, 2018, 11:10 AM #915
Abulg1972's Avatar
Abulg1972 Abulg1972 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Somewhere south of the Manson-Nixon Line
Posts: 4,076
Abulg1972 Abulg1972 is offline
Senior Member
Abulg1972's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Somewhere south of the Manson-Nixon Line
Posts: 4,076
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rab1515 View Post
The federal judge in this case disagrees, and stated that the device is so vague it could include oil.
He didn't say that. I was there . . .

Look, folks. I share your concern, which is why I submitted my own letter (have not heard back). But, I'm also realistic and I've been doing the law thing for 20 years. Yes, there have been instances across the country in which a wacky prosecutor did a wacky thing, but, by and large, (i) prosecutors don't bring cases that they know they won't likely win, (ii) prosecutors don't bring cases if they think the court might sanction them, and (iii) courts tend to read the law in a practical, common sense manner. Courts don't "go out on a limb all the time." Oil ain't a device. No one is going to get arrested for having a can of Rem Oil. There's too much chicken little here.
Abulg1972 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 10th, 2018, 11:10 AM #916
Abulg1972's Avatar
Abulg1972 Abulg1972 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Somewhere south of the Manson-Nixon Line
Posts: 4,076
Abulg1972 Abulg1972 is offline
Senior Member
Abulg1972's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Somewhere south of the Manson-Nixon Line
Posts: 4,076
Quote:
Originally Posted by ironpony View Post
Have LEOs been informed as to the application to ATF grandfather period or will it just be guilty until your attorneys can prove you innocent? Possibly leading to a red flag also.

No tinfoil here, even the Federal Judge finds this law open to being applied incorrectly.
He didn't say that either . . ..

If you weren't there, don't tell us what he did and didn't say. That just creates unnecessary hysteria
Abulg1972 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 10th, 2018, 11:14 AM #917
DC-W's Avatar
DC-W DC-W is offline
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 21,161
DC-W DC-W is offline
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
DC-W's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 21,161
From the day of the hearing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by esqappellate View Post
Gun Owners of Maryland: BEWARE!

Today, United States District Court Judge James K. Bredar denied Maryland Shall Issue's motion for temporary relief against the State’s ban on possession of “Rapid Fire Trigger Activators” by SB 707, signed into law by the Governor on April 24, 2018. This means the law will go into effect as passed on October 1st, 2018. That's just two weeks from now. HOWEVER, while the case is pending, the judge made it clear that he believes all that’s needed to comply with the law is for the existing owner to send a letter applying for authorization to possess the "devices" covered by SB 707 to the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) by 10/01/2018. That is the "grandfather" clause contained in SB 707 and that was the clause that the judge seized upon in holding that MSI had failed to show the "irreparable injury" necessary for preliminary relief. As he said at the hearing, all you have to do is "apply" to the ATF by October 1 for "authorization to possess" the "device" in order to avoid prosecution for a year. And to the judge, it simply did not matter that the ATF has refused to receive or process any such request for "authorization" because the statute merely required the owner to "apply," not for the ATF to actually accept the application.

But, here is the rub: The law is so vague that no one knows what it covers. Every gun owner in the state may possess "Rapid Fire Trigger Activator(s), and not even know it. Such "device[s]" includes binary trigger systems, bump stocks, burst trigger systems, a Hellfire Trigger, a trigger crank, or a burst trigger system and copies thereof. But the banned items ALSO include any "device, including a removable manual or power-driven activating device, constructed so that, when installed in or attached to a firearm: (I) the rate at which the trigger is activated increases; or (II) the rate of fire increases.” Yet, virtually anything you do to your firearm may "increase" the "rate of fire" by some minute amount, including cleaning it. There is no definition for a "device" and the statute includes ALL firearms, not merely semi-automatics. At the hearing, Judge Bredar remarked on the extreme vagueness of the State’s law as he demonstrated how GUN OIL being used to lubricate A BOLT-ACTION RIFLE to "increase" the "rate of fire" of the rifle because the action could be worked more efficiently, meaning the trigger could be manually activated faster than it could before using the GUN OIL. The judge thus warned the State that he had real problems with how vague the statute was. In short, we don't know what is covered by this language covering a "device" that increases the "rate of fire" and neither does the State, the judge or anyone else. The potential for arbitrary enforcement is quite real.

And that is a BIG problem. A conviction for the mere possession of a SB 707 "device" (whatever it means) will result in the loss of your Second Amendment rights for life. It doesn't have to be a bump stock or the other listed devices to be covered. And even you aren't convicted, you could still be arrested and jailed for such possession by an overzealous law enforcement officer. It doesn't matter when or where you bought it or whether it is installed or whether it has ever been used. It doesn't have to be a device for a semi-automatic firearm. Mere possession in Maryland is enough. Under the judge's ruling today, the only way any gun owner in this State can protect themselves from potential arbitrary arrest and/or prosecution under this law (SB 707) is to send in the attached letter to the ATF.

All you have to do is print off this form, fill in the blanks and send it in to the ATF at the address indicated. To be safe, the ideal way to send it is via US Mail, return receipt requested. But by all means, send it any way you can (and keep a copy). Regardless how you send it, it must be sent before OCTOBER 1, 2018. Sending this letter does NOT mean that you are identifying yourself as owning a bump stock or any specific device. It just means that you (like we) don't know what is covered by the SB 707 ban on a "device" that "increases" the "rate of fire." The letter merely repeats the language set out in grandfather clause of SB 707. And note, even if you apply for "authorization" with the ATF, the prohibition imposed on possession by SB 707 kicks back in on October 1, 2019, if "authorization" is not actually received by that time. We already know that the ATF will not actually entertain such "applications" because it has publicly announced that it would not consider them. But that does not and will not matter until October 1, 2019. In the meantime, all you have to do is "apply" under the judge's ruling.

The case is not over by any means. All the judge did was deny preliminary relief. He did not address the merits in his ruling (other than to warn the State that they had a problem on how vague the statute was). We are encouraged by some the judge's remarks made at the hearing. Maryland Shall Issue will continue the fight but in the meantime, it is absolutely essential that you send this letter to the ATF as soon as possible. Legally, it is the only way you can protect yourself from this vague statute under the judge's ruling today. Hopefully, the case will be over by October 1, 2019 (at least in district court), so we will know more before then.
DC-W is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 10th, 2018, 11:26 AM #918
ironpony's Avatar
ironpony ironpony is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Crofton/Davidsonville
Posts: 3,977
ironpony ironpony is offline
Senior Member
ironpony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Crofton/Davidsonville
Posts: 3,977
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abulg1972 View Post
He didn't say that either . . ..

If you weren't there, don't tell us what he did and didn't say. That just creates unnecessary hysteria

Yes, that was way out of line, my bad, good luck everyone.


.
ironpony is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 10th, 2018, 11:34 AM #919
Occam Occam is offline
Recovering Lurker
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Montgomery County
Posts: 2,067
Occam Occam is offline
Recovering Lurker
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Montgomery County
Posts: 2,067
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abulg1972 View Post
prosecutors don't bring cases that they know they won't likely win
Though it is worth reminding that we live in a state where the AG is Brian Frosh. The high priest of lefty virtue signalling court actions.
Occam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 10th, 2018, 11:41 AM #920
Abulg1972's Avatar
Abulg1972 Abulg1972 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Somewhere south of the Manson-Nixon Line
Posts: 4,076
Abulg1972 Abulg1972 is offline
Senior Member
Abulg1972's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Somewhere south of the Manson-Nixon Line
Posts: 4,076
Does anyone know the schedule for next steps? I'm sure it has been posted here but this thread is so long. Any idea when the judge will rule on the State's motion to dismiss? I have to believe that he will deny that. It seems to me that this case should be one decided on motions. Not much fact finding to do here.
Abulg1972 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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

Tags
sb707, trigger activator


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 01:48 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
© 2018, Congregate Media, LP Privacy Policy Terms of Service