SB 35 and SB 38 ?

Biggfoot44 · Jan 10, 2020

Doing my due diligence before educating the. Public , making sure I'm not missing anything .

SB 35 - In definition of * Crime of Violence * , Distribution of CDS , and Intent thereof , would be treated the same as any other Felony While Armed , instead of having a specific carve out . Anything else I'm overlooking ? For that matter wouldn't that be a positive change ?

SB 39 - Adds Andersen Mfg AM-15 in .223 and .300 by Name to the Evil List .

Huh ? Is there somthing unique and/ or rulebending about these rifles ? Are these typical AR pattern rifles ? Is there somthing about the name Andersen that is offensive to Democrat sensibilities ?

And while I'm keeping up to date , what's the up to the minute status on the HPRB Veto Override ? Anything happen ? What does the timeclock lok like ?

PowPow · Jan 11, 2020

HPRB Veto override discussion here: https://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=234273

lazarus · Jan 11, 2020

On SB35, why would it be positive? People get charged with intent to distribute all the time when they are arrested with more than an individual serving size of drugs.

Beyond that, it isn’t a violent crime. One thing if you are arrested armed and in possession of an amount that indicates you are likely a dealer or courier or drugs. But unarmed? There are dealers who are completely non-violent and we shouldn’t be trumping up charges.

Agree or not, probably 10% of US Citizens have been marijuana dealers at some point in their life because they sold a friend $100 of pot or something.

3paul10 · Jan 11, 2020

lazarus said:
On SB35, why would it be positive? People get charged with intent to distribute all the time when they are arrested with more than an individual serving size of drugs.

Beyond that, it isn’t a violent crime. One thing if you are arrested armed and in possession of an amount that indicates you are likely a dealer or courier or drugs. But unarmed? There are dealers who are completely non-violent and we shouldn’t be trumping up charges.

Agree or not, probably 10% of US Citizens have been marijuana dealers at some point in their life because they sold a friend $100 of pot or something.

agreed.

geda · Jan 11, 2020

The anderson lowers are the cheap kind that that you can get for $30 before transfer. One local store I know had a whole shelf of them and was doing a "buy any pistol get a lower" sale so I have several. Perhaps a Democrat walked into a store, looked at the boxes, and said to themselves "that looks like a good gun to ban in order to further my career!". It probably does not help that those boxes were the only firearm in the store that you could read the name of without picking up.

GolfR · Jan 11, 2020

geda said:
The anderson lowers are the cheap kind that that you can get for $30 before transfer. One local store I know had a whole shelf of them and was doing a "buy any pistol get a lower" sale so I have several. Perhaps a Democrat walked into a store, looked at the boxes, and said to themselves "that looks like a good gun to ban in order to further my career!". It probably does not help that those boxes were the only firearm in the store that you could read the name of without picking up.

The Dayton Ohio shooter a few months back used an Anderson AR pistol. There was an article about Frosh being appalled that they weren’t banned in MD and wants them to be.

teratos · Jan 11, 2020

GolfR said:
The Dayton Ohio shooter a few months back used an Anderson AR pistol. There was an article about Frosh being appalled that they weren’t banned in MD and wants them to be.

Oh, Good Lord.

Biggfoot44 · Jan 11, 2020

As currently defined , commiting ANY Felony while armed is classified as. * Crime of Violence * , except for CDS distribution . Insider stock trading , digging a ditch 5 feet too close to wetland , etc while armed counts , and they're non violent. No reason to give drug dealers preferentially treatment ahead of every other non- violent felon .

The argument can also be made that the illegal drug trade in its entirety is inherently causing violence , and even if the particular armed drug dealer isn't doing so at the moment of arrest , they are still in support of overall violent industry .

*************************

Now , if we want to comprehensively reform this , we need to just remove the entire section dealing with " commit felony while armed " , and keep it to the enumerated specific offenses .

( And real legalization would greatly decrease the inherently violent nature , but that's a seperate hot button endless debate .)

dblas · Jan 11, 2020

GolfR said:
The Dayton Ohio shooter a few months back used an Anderson AR pistol. There was an article about Frosh being appalled that they weren’t banned in MD and wants them to be.

They are banned.

The rifle as a copy of the Colt AR-15.

The pistol by virtue of not being on the handgun roster list.

GolfR · Jan 11, 2020

dblas said:
They are banned.

The rifle as a copy of the Colt AR-15.

The pistol by virtue of not being on the handgun roster list.

It’s is on the MD handgun roster. AM-15 in 300 BLK is approved. This is what pissed Frosh off.

k9guy · Jan 11, 2020

What about all of the other AR pistols in .223 & 300 blackout that are on the roster? There are a lot of different manufacturers that already have their products approved and on the list.

esqappellate · Jan 11, 2020

GolfR said:
It’s is on the MD handgun roster. AM-15 in 300 BLK is approved. This is what pissed Frosh off.

There is a lot of ignorance in this Bill. The MSI written testimony on SB 39 is up on our site. See https://www.marylandshallissue.org/jmain/documents/summary/4-public-documents/190-sb-39

geda · Jan 12, 2020

esqappellate said:
There is a lot of ignorance in this Bill. The MSI written testimony on SB 39 is up on our site. See https://www.marylandshallissue.org/jmain/documents/summary/4-public-documents/190-sb-39

Thank You!

calicojack · Jan 13, 2020

If you already have a registered SBR with an Anderson AM-15 lower, is it effected by the (potential) new law? So in this case; started out as an AR pistol.

esqappellate · Jan 14, 2020

calicojack said:
If you already have a registered SBR with an Anderson AM-15 lower, is it effected by the (potential) new law? So in this case; started out as an AR pistol.

Hard to say. By definition, a pistol is not on the (r)(2) list. The list also doesn't include any SBRs that I can see (someone please correct me if that is wrong). So it is hard to say whether this bill would ban it in SBR configuration.

shershot99 · Jan 14, 2020

dblas said:
They are banned.

The rifle as a copy of the Colt AR-15.

The pistol by virtue of not being on the handgun roster list.

You can build an hbar rifle with an Anderson lower currently. Has to be an hbar though. This would most likely kill that.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

lazarus · Jan 14, 2020

shershot99 said:
You can build an hbar rifle with an Anderson lower currently. Has to be an hbar though. This would most likely kill that.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Totally unclear. Anderson lowers are mostly marked AM-15 Multical

The thing though is, an HBAR on an AM-15 lower isn’t actually an Anderson AM-15, which is a full rifle from Anderson. A copy of it has an M4 profile barrel as that is what the AM-15 in .223 from Anderson is.

Unless the Colt HBAR Sporter is struck from the list, banning all HBARs, an AM-15 lower with an HBAR upper is more properly a Colt HBAR clone than it is an Anderson AM-15 clone.

They are both of course parts interchangeable. But the Colt HBAR has a very specific exemption.

shershot99 · Jan 14, 2020

lazarus said:
Totally unclear. Anderson lowers are mostly marked AM-15 Multical

The thing though is, an HBAR on an AM-15 lower isn’t actually an Anderson AM-15, which is a full rifle from Anderson. A copy of it has an M4 profile barrel as that is what the AM-15 in .223 from Anderson is.

Unless the Colt HBAR Sporter is struck from the list, banning all HBARs, an AM-15 lower with an HBAR upper is more properly a Colt HBAR clone than it is an Anderson AM-15 clone.

They are both of course parts interchangeable. But the Colt HBAR has a very specific exemption.

This state makes me want to smack my head against a wall. I know dozens of people in Maryland with Anderson lowers built into various calibers (all hbar). Those are supposed to be 100% legal as they are hbars. This bill of course seems to make any Anderson in 223 and 300 illegal with no grandfather. Unreal.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

dblas · Jan 14, 2020

lazarus said:
Totally unclear. Anderson lowers are mostly marked AM-15 Multical

The thing though is, an HBAR on an AM-15 lower isn’t actually an Anderson AM-15, which is a full rifle from Anderson. A copy of it has an M4 profile barrel as that is what the AM-15 in .223 from Anderson is.

Unless the Colt HBAR Sporter is struck from the list, banning all HBARs, an AM-15 lower with an HBAR upper is more properly a Colt HBAR clone than it is an Anderson AM-15 clone.

They are both of course parts interchangeable. But the Colt HBAR has a very specific exemption.

One minor issue...

MSP currently bans anything "Bushmaster", including the lowers, so anything built on an Anderson AM-15 lower could potentially become banned, if the past is any indication.

calicojack · Jan 14, 2020

dblas said:
One minor issue...

MSP currently bans anything "Bushmaster", including the lowers, so anything built on an Anderson AM-15 lower could potentially become banned, if the past is any indication.

Bushmaster is banned by name. The Anderson lower by a specific model. I am not sure if that's the same.

SB 35 and SB 38 ?

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

Where's the beef?

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

My hair is amazing

Ultimate Member

Past President, MSI

Ultimate Member

Active Member

President, MSI

Active Member

American Sporting Rifle

President, MSI

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Past President, MSI

American Sporting Rifle

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics