20190314 - HB740 JUD Amendments

[budman93]

See post #128. The "firearm" per this bill, is defined as the frame or receiver. So the bold is correct. What happens after you have "made" the firearm, i.e. finished the receiver, is irrelevant.

Right, but a lot of people are saying since section i. Says "a weapon that expels, is designed to expel, or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; " that it includes all parts of the firearm and if an 80% has any cnc parts at all, that it is prohibited. But since it only refers to manufacturing with cnc, adding parts is irrelevant.

 

[Allen65]

See post #128. The "firearm" per this bill, is defined as the frame or receiver. So the bold is correct. What happens after you have "made" the firearm, i.e. finished the receiver, is irrelevant.

For everyone's reference, here is what ATF defines as manufacturing, especially the 1st sentence.

Manufacturing
ATF’s long-standing position is that any activities that result in the making of firearms for sale or distribution, to include installing parts in or on firearm frames and receivers, and processes that primarily enhance a firearm’s durability, constitute firearms manufacturing that may require a manufacturer’s license.In contrast, some activities are not firearms manufacturing processes, and do not require a manufacturer’s license.For example, ATF Ruling 2009-1 (approved January 12, 2009) explained that performing a cosmetic process or activity, such as camouflaging or engraving, that primarily adds to or changes the appearance or decoration of a firearm is not manufacturing.Likewise, ATF Ruling 2009-2 (approved January 12, 2009) stated that installing “drop-in” replacement parts in or on existing, fully assembled firearms does not result in any alteration to the original firearms.Persons engaged in the business of these activities that do not constitute firearms manufacturing need only obtain a dealer’s license.

This can be found in the following ATF doc:
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/ruling/2010-10-manufacturing-operations-maybe-performed-licensed-gunsmiths-under/download

I think it's safe to assume that the MDAG is familiar with this definition. While this paragraph is for people engaged in the business of manufacturing, the definition of "manufacture" would probably apply to a home manufacturer, too.

 

[Not_an_outlaw]

For everyone's reference, here is what ATF defines as manufacturing, especially the 1st sentence.

Manufacturing
ATF’s long-standing position is that any activities that result in the making of firearms for sale or distribution, to include installing parts in or on firearm frames and receivers, and processes that primarily enhance a firearm’s durability, constitute firearms manufacturing that may require a manufacturer’s license.In contrast, some activities are not firearms manufacturing processes, and do not require a manufacturer’s license.For example, ATF Ruling 2009-1 (approved January 12, 2009) explained that performing a cosmetic process or activity, such as camouflaging or engraving, that primarily adds to or changes the appearance or decoration of a firearm is not manufacturing.Likewise, ATF Ruling 2009-2 (approved January 12, 2009) stated that installing “drop-in” replacement parts in or on existing, fully assembled firearms does not result in any alteration to the original firearms.Persons engaged in the business of these activities that do not constitute firearms manufacturing need only obtain a dealer’s license.

This can be found in the following ATF doc:
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/ruling/2010-10-manufacturing-operations-maybe-performed-licensed-gunsmiths-under/download

I think it's safe to assume that the MDAG is familiar with this definition. While this paragraph is for people engaged in the business of manufacturing, the definition of "manufacture" would probably apply to a home manufacturer, too.

It says for sale or distribution.

 

[danb]

Right, but a lot of people are saying since section i. Says "a weapon that expels, is designed to expel, or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; " that it includes all parts of the firearm and if an 80% has any cnc parts at all, that it is prohibited. But since it only refers to manufacturing with cnc, adding parts is irrelevant.

Right, I noted that in #135. What happens before you make the "firearm" could plausibly be relevant (a billet 80% was made on a CNC machine), but what happens after is not.
Overall I think an 80% lower is just a paperweight until you drill some holes and file some surfaces and presto it's a firearm. If you need a jig or a tool to finish the receiver, you did not "make" it with a computer aided device.

Once you drill the holes, it's a frame/receiver. You cant install a trigger for example in your 80% paperweight. You can after drilling holes.

....

I dont see how that's relevant or on point. It discusses sale and distribution and when one needs a license. Not to mention its *never* safe to assume MD and federal law align.

 

[Kicken Wing]

Not to mention its *never* safe to assume MD and federal law align.

Precisely. Feds (BATFE) has their definition of "assault weapon". Maryland has it's own.

Until the registration scheme is decided and ruled upon, I believe that we are pissing in the wind. I did not have this much doubt the other day when I ready the bill with amendments however a lot of good points have been raised by members on this board in regards to 80 percents.

Let's talk about a "what if" scenario. I could see Maryland pulling some sh$t like this: Let's suppose that 80 percents WILL be allowed but only with a registration number. Let's also assume that that registration number has to be applied for, issued and engraved on the receiver PRIOR to creating an 80 percent into a "firearm". That F's a lot of people in the A. That means no grandfathering. It also means that there is a period of time where no 80 percents can be made until the registration scheme is in place and functioning. I know that what I just said is all speculation and may not go down this way.

This bill has gray areas just like FSA2013 did. So MGA is going to go ahead and pass it and then figure it out later with MSP. In the meantime who knows what trap they are going to set to turn a law abiding citizen into a felon.

I am tired of complying.

 

[budman93]

Right, I noted that in #135. What happens before you make the "firearm" could plausibly be relevant (a billet 80% was made on a CNC machine), but what happens after is not.
Overall I think an 80% lower is just a paperweight until you drill some holes and file some surfaces and presto it's a firearm. If you need a jig or a tool to finish the receiver, you did not "make" it with a computer aided device.

Once you drill the holes, it's a frame/receiver. You cant install a trigger for example in your 80% paperweight. You can after drilling holes.


I dont see how that's relevant or on point. It discusses sale and distribution and when one needs a license. Not to mention its *never* safe to assume MD and federal law align.

I agree

 

[whistlersmother]

I still think that isnt what it does. It prohibits possession, transfer, etc of a firearm manufactured with a computer device. What is manufacturing? Is putting a cnc trigger or barrel or whatever on a frame the manufacturing? I dont think it is. The manufacturing is the finishing of the receiver. Even if you say that the definition of a firearm is the whole thing since it says weapon that expels a projectile or the frame or receiver of such, the prohibition is manufacturing using a computer. Adding cncd parts to a completed reciever is not manufacturing.

I only mention what was discussed upthread, not that I agree or disagree with it.

I see manufacturing as an end in itself. There are various entry points into the process - 80% is just a "stop-over" in the goal of making a firearm system from dirt [firearm, ammo, propellant, etc.].

Should the interpretation include "assembling", i.e. adding parts, then simply making those parts without CNC would be enough to exclude from this bill.

This particular bill is simply unenforceable and drives "ghost gun" manufacture a further step back in the process - beyond the knowledge of existence of MSP, MGA, ATF, etc. Hell, look at what the Filipino's do - making counterfeit 1911's from scratch.

Combine that with ideas like Luty had [use of commonly sourced dual-purpose parts] and one can easily see the genie is out of the bottle - no matter how the MGA tries, it won't go back in.

 

[whistlersmother]

Precisely. Feds (BATFE) has their definition of "assault weapon". Maryland has it's own.

Until the registration scheme is decided and ruled upon, I believe that we are pissing in the wind. I did not have this much doubt the other day when I ready the bill with amendments however a lot of good points have been raised by members on this board in regards to 80 percents.

Let's talk about a "what if" scenario. I could see Maryland pulling some sh$t like this: Let's suppose that 80 percents WILL be allowed but only with a registration number. Let's also assume that that registration number has to be applied for, issued and engraved on the receiver PRIOR to creating an 80 percent into a "firearm". That F's a lot of people in the A. That means no grandfathering. It also means that there is a period of time where no 80 percents can be made until the registration scheme is in place and functioning. I know that what I just said is all speculation and may not go down this way.

This bill has gray areas just like FSA2013 did. So MGA is going to go ahead and pass it and then figure it out later with MSP. In the meantime who knows what trap they are going to set to turn a law abiding citizen into a felon.

I am tired of complying.

At one time in the past, Hawaii allowed completion of the 80%, then registration [everything has to be registered in Hawaii.] I think the state gave 3 days after completion.

California, not to be outdone, requires a serial number on the 80% when you receive it - and I believe it has to be pre-registered with the state.

Now we have Maryland that is "smarter" than the other two and outlaws CNC manufacture. What a crock.

At some point, people will simply say "f*ck it" and build whatever, include full-auto, RPG, flame throwing Frankenstein guns... We'll start seeing 3 barrelled, 6-sided dildo guns at the range...

 

[Kicken Wing]

At one time in the past, Hawaii allowed completion of the 80%, then registration [everything has to be registered in Hawaii.] I think the state gave 3 days after completion.

California, not to be outdone, requires a serial number on the 80% when you receive it - and I believe it has to be pre-registered with the state.

Now we have Maryland that is "smarter" than the other two and outlaws CNC manufacture. What a crock.

At some point, people will simply say "f*ck it" and build whatever, include full-auto, RPG, flame throwing Frankenstein guns... We'll start seeing 3 barrelled, 6-sided dildo guns at the range...

You drove the point home. Maryland, not to be outdone, could do something really ugly with a registration scheme. I appreciate the 6 sided dildo humor! lol!

 

[PowPow]

At one time in the past, Hawaii allowed completion of the 80%, then registration [everything has to be registered in Hawaii.] I think the state gave 3 days after completion.

California, not to be outdone, requires a serial number on the 80% when you receive it - and I believe it has to be pre-registered with the state.

Now we have Maryland that is "smarter" than the other two and outlaws CNC manufacture. What a crock.

At some point, people will simply say "f*ck it" and build whatever, include full-auto, RPG, flame throwing Frankenstein guns... We'll start seeing 3 barrelled, 6-sided dildo guns at the range...

I'll just leave this here. It goes well with the part of your quote that I highlighted.

 

[357Max]

So if I'm understanding this correctly (no grandfather) the law as currently written is in Direct violation of the Maryland Constitution.

Bill of rights
Art. 17. That retrospective Laws, punishing acts committed before the existence of such Laws, and by them only declared criminal are oppressive, unjust and incompatible with liberty; wherefore, no ex post facto Law ought to be made; nor any retrospective oath or restriction be imposed, or required.

I hope Hogans balls drop in time to veto this!

On the man up Mondays thread there are screen shots of the 90 delegates that voted for this & therefore LIED when they took the oath of office!

 

[whistlersmother]

It's not retrospective/ex post facto. We're not getting hit with a charge for something in the past. If we continue to possess after a certain date, then we get hit with a charge.

 

[chilipeppermaniac]

You drove the point home. Maryland... I appreciate the 6 sided dildo humor! lol!

After today's session, I think it is at least a 94 sided Dildo needed for all the Yea voters.

 

[WeaponsCollector]

Gun grabbers don't care about the US constitution, so why would they care about the state constitution? They can take their worthless gun control and shove it.

 

[Abacab]

Huh

"The governor also denounced as “silly” the legislature’s pursuit of a ban on firearms created from 3D printers, a technology not yet perfected.

“No one has ever committed a crime in the history of the state with a 3D-printed gun,” he said."

 

[K31]

Huh

"The governor also denounced as “silly” the legislature’s pursuit of a ban on firearms created from 3D printers, a technology not yet perfected.

“No one has ever committed a crime in the history of the state with a 3D-printed gun,” he said."

Since it looks like he's "exploring" a run for POTUS on The Stupid Party ticket, he may be trying to rehabilitate his image. I wouldn't have thought he's that smart, but maybe he's got handlers who aren't as stupid.

 

[Blacksmith101]

It all depends on what the definitions are and how they are applied. The list of "Fabrication devices" only includes four types of machines but does not define what these machines specifically are. I am uncertain as to what a "Cutting machine" is.

(2)“COMPUTER–AIDED FABRICATION DEVICE”INCLUDES A COMPUTER–CONTROLLED:
(I)3–DPRINTER;
(II)CUTTING MACHINE;
(III)ELECTRICAL DISCHARGEMACHINE;AND
(IV)MILLING MACHINE.

Certainly they could add to the above list at any time.

In modern manufacturing computer controls are involved in almost every manufacturing step.
Certainly the factory that produced the raw aluminum or steel used computer controlled furnaces to melt the metal.
The rolling mills that produce the bars are controlled by computers.
The machines that make individual parts of all types (mills, lathes, screw machines, punch presses, press brakes, furnaces, injection molders, spring forming machines, quality control measuring, etc.) have computers.
The finishing lines that heat treat, plate, coat, and package manufactured items have computers that meet the broad definition of computer that is in Maryland law.
Your digital caliper is a computer.
If your manual milling machine has a digital read out it has a computer.

§ 7-302.
(a) (4) (i) "Computer" means an electronic, magnetic, optical, organic, or other data processing device or system that performs logical, arithmetic, memory, or storage functions.

Basically if it has an electronic chip it is a computer and some things even without a chip (i.e. systems using ladder logic relays, etc.).

I am a Certified Manufacturing Engineer.

 

[benton0311]

So if I'm understanding this correctly (no grandfather) the law as currently written is in Direct violation of the Maryland Constitution.

Bill of rights
Art. 17. That retrospective Laws, punishing acts committed before the existence of such Laws, and by them only declared criminal are oppressive, unjust and incompatible with liberty; wherefore, no ex post facto Law ought to be made; nor any retrospective oath or restriction be imposed, or required.

I hope Hogans balls drop in time to veto this!

On the man up Mondays thread there are screen shots of the 90 delegates that voted for this & therefore LIED when they took the oath of office!

I used to think the same thing and it really comes down to the usage of a semicolon instead of a comma. However, you have to consider the historical context of where this clause came from (former Confederates and southerners being punitively barred from public positions and political offices) and it appears to be extra verbiage that further explains what ex post facto means. But when viewed in modern English without the historical context, the usage of a semicolon appears to make it it's own related yet separate clause.

It would be interesting to see if any lawyer would be willing to argue the value of a semicolon in court. I mean, technically when viewed by a modern reader, the semicolon created another clause that adds to ex post facto. The counter argument would then be "well, you need to consider the historical context" but then you'd have the counterpoint that the left doesn't consider the historical context of the Second Amendment and thus it should be interpreted the same way.

 

[PowPow]

Huh

"The governor also denounced as “silly” the legislature’s pursuit of a ban on firearms created from 3D printers, a technology not yet perfected.

“No one has ever committed a crime in the history of the state with a 3D-printed gun,” he said."

Well now, I guess it is time for some action towards the governor to assist him in taking the appropriate actions. As I see it, his words suggest that we should encourage him to:

1. Keep making public statements against the bills.
2. Talk to as many delegates and senators that would hear him
3. Have his people do the same.

We need to peel off enough support to make a veto effective, or better yet, assist in slowing the bills down enough in the Senate to achieve the death that the bills deserve.

 

[Malleovic]

We need to peel off enough support to make a veto effective, or better yet, assist in slowing the bills down enough in the Senate to achieve the death that the bills deserve.

Also, try try try to get the bill amended on the Senate side. If it were to then pass in the Senate, it would be different from the bill as passed by the House and would then need to be voted on again or sent to an additional committee for reconciliation of the two. More hurdles=good.