List of FFL's doing SN engraving

[asdaven]

They could've made this easier. I already had my recievers serialized with my own serial number and my name before completing them just in case they got lost or stolen. Also because nobody will serialize it once completed and many wont work on it although I do all the work myself mostly. Was also trying to "future proof" them just in case Maryland did this. But apparently that's not good enough and has to be an FFLs number. Thought I was just able to fill out the 77R and the voluntary registration and provide the information I already have engraved on the reciever which is all setup like a manufacturer would do it but nope I need a serial number done by a FFL.

I disagree with it all. But the ban on possession is really what is going to make innocent people criminals. I strongly disagree with any new law with banning possession of anything that someone bought at the time as legal and now making it illegal. Especially with no compensation or easy way to make it compliant. These kinds of laws I feel are unconstitutional. They shouldve just made these like the magazines here. You can possess them but just can't buy or sell in the state. That's a clearer cut law that you have to knowingly buy or sell in the state to break it. This is a law on the other hand that makes you a criminal by doing nothing. It's like saying in a way well it was legal then when you bought but we re gonna change our minds about the past and say what you did was illegal.

 

[Ponder_MD]

They could've made this easier.

Inconvenience is the whole point. Make it impossible to comply. Give up.

 

[asdaven]

Inconvenience is the whole point. Make it impossible to comply. Give up.

I have my information engraved on the reciever. If I intended to use this weapon for illegal purposes like this bill is trying to target , that wouldnt be the case. It is in a way a traceable firearm.

 

[beetles]

They could've made this easier. I already had my recievers serialized with my own serial number and my name before completing them just in case they got lost or stolen. Also because nobody will serialize it once completed and many wont work on it although I do all the work myself mostly. Was also trying to "future proof" them just in case Maryland did this. But apparently that's not good enough and has to be an FFLs number. Thought I was just able to fill out the 77R and the voluntary registration and provide the information I already have engraved on the reciever which is all setup like a manufacturer would do it but nope I need a serial number done by a FFL.

I disagree with it all. But the ban on possession is really what is going to make innocent people criminals. I strongly disagree with any new law with banning possession of anything that someone bought at the time as legal and now making it illegal. Especially with no compensation or easy way to make it compliant. These kinds of laws I feel are unconstitutional. They shouldve just made these like the magazines here. You can possess them but just can't buy or sell in the state. That's a clearer cut law that you have to knowingly buy or sell in the state to break it. This is a law on the other hand that makes you a criminal by doing nothing. It's like saying in a way well it was legal then when you bought but we re gonna change our minds about the past and say what you did was illegal.

Yeah, it amounts to a constructive taking by the State of Maryland by having a law that requires a service provided by a limited number of licensed private individuals who have the right to decline to provide the service, rendering possibly the only other available option to comply with the law being destruction of the frame, and necessary loss of property and its value. The question is then whether the law as written is a violation of the Fifth Amendment protection against taking of private property for public use (here, removal of untraceable firearms from private ownership for the purpose of reducing unsolvable crimes) without just compensation. Had the state included a buyback feature to the law at fair-market value, they might have fixed that problem, but they didn't do that.

 

[Bountied]

MDS P80 burning party? Cookout, beers, and burn those darn ghost guns all at the same time!

 

[asdaven]

I could also argue that in a way your taking a prior legal action and making your action in the past illegal. But that would be more so if they made possession illegal immediately with no recourse.

Destruction might seem the easy way out. But think again? Would destroying your reciever be destroying evidence which is illegal?

Didint New Jersey have a law with possessing hi capacity magazines with no option to turn them in and made it illegal to destroy them?

 

[notional]

What if someone ordered one of these things that already had engraving on them (I think it was a Kalifornia model)? Or what if someone had it engraved with a personalized serial number a year ago when they might have built one of those things? Asking for a friend.

 

[beetles]

I could also argue that in a way your taking a prior legal action and making your action in the past illegal. But that would be more so if they made possession illegal immediately with no recourse.

Destruction might seem the easy way out. But think again? Would destroying your reciever be destroying evidence which is illegal?

Didint New Jersey have a law with possessing hi capacity magazines with no option to turn them in and made it illegal to destroy them?

The law as passed makes possession of an unserialized lower after a future date-certain an offense. It isn't retroactive (and thus not ex post facto). Destruction or compliant marking are the apparent choices.

 

[teratos]

MDS P80 burning party? Cookout, beers, and burn those darn ghost guns all at the same time!

I can't make it.

 

[GuitarmanNick]

MDS P80 burning party? Cookout, beers, and burn those darn ghost guns all at the same time!

Would be more fun if it was a "shoot 'em 'till they melt" party.

 

[asdaven]

Would be more fun if it was a "shoot 'em 'till they melt" party.

I would rather not have to destroy something I put hard work into.

 

[gtodave]

So roughly 9 months left to serialize (if you're inclined to), and still not one place that can do it? Sounds like grounds for a lawsuit if this keeps up.

 

[trickg]

So roughly 9 months left to serialize (if you're inclined to), and still not one place that can do it? Sounds like grounds for a lawsuit if this keeps up.

I think it's crappy that the only apparent and viable solution to keep from being in violation of the law is to destroy or get rid of anything non-serialized. I'm trying to figure out who can and will serialize the stuff I don't want to lose, but so far I've come up empty.

 

[cantstop]

I've been thinking about the previously serialized issue. I could easily move the gun(s) into a family trust that is setup by my brother who actually lives in a Free State. As a trustee I would have joint ownership, yet the trust would only need to abide by his Constitutionally structured state laws. Seems like a no-brainer. Or not.

 

[asdaven]

I think it's crappy that the only apparent and viable solution to keep from being in violation of the law is to destroy or get rid of anything non-serialized. I'm trying to figure out who can and will serialize the stuff I don't want to lose, but so far I've come up empty.

Even California's law is better. You can at least apply to build a firearm they give you a serial number and you can get it serialized there before completing it. Places will do that. Once you mill it out, nobody wants to touch it. I serialized mine with my own number and it's engraved in a format like a manufacturer would put it on. But apparently that's not good enough, I can't just register it under my own serial number with me as the manufacturer. It has to be an FFL serial number. Maybe places locally would be more inclined to serialize it before its milled. But once completed , nobody wants to touch it or be involved.

This law is kindve retroactive because possession is not an action in and of itself. You bought this legally. Yes possession of things like drugs is illegal but you bought them or sold them illegally. This is different. Laws on possession of anything firearm related is a direct violation of the 2nd amendment. The right to keep and bear arms. I think there's a lot of prior court cases that could make this law unconstitutional . The DC handgun ban for example which basically came out that the government cant regulate what kind of firearms you can possess. Yes there was SB 281 in our state. But that regulates sales, you could keep what you had and aquired before that law. That law just regulates the means. If you aquire a firearm that is banned you committed an action to break the law. This law makes inaction and just having something illegal. They could just regulate the means like saying no more sales of 80% frames or recievers. But banning possession of something that was obtained initially legally is stepping over the line.

 

[beetles]

Even California's law is better. You can at least apply to build a firearm they give you a serial number and you can get it serialized there before completing it. Places will do that. Once you mill it out, nobody wants to touch it. I serialized mine with my own number and it's engraved in a format like a manufacturer would put it on. But apparently that's not good enough, I can't just register it under my own serial number with me as the manufacturer. It has to be an FFL serial number. Maybe places locally would be more inclined to serialize it before its milled. But once completed , nobody wants to touch it or be involved.

This law is kindve retroactive because possession is not an action in and of itself. You bought this legally. Yes possession of things like drugs is illegal but you bought them or sold them illegally. This is different. Laws on possession of anything firearm related is a direct violation of the 2nd amendment. The right to keep and bear arms. I think there's a lot of prior court cases that could make this law unconstitutional . The DC handgun ban for example which basically came out that the government cant regulate what kind of firearms you can possess. Yes there was SB 281 in our state. But that regulates sales, you could keep what you had and aquired before that law. That law just regulates the means. If you aquire a firearm that is banned you committed an action to break the law. This law makes inaction and just having something illegal. They could just regulate the means like saying no more sales of 80% frames or recievers. But banning possession of something that was obtained initially legally is stepping over the line.

You are arguing for grandfathering those frames built before the law was passed. (I'm sympathetic with your wish, here, but that is exactly what the elected representatives who voted for this law didn't want. They wanted to either have marked and recorded all unmarked frames or have them destroyed, regardless when bought, built, finished or unfinished. The ATF and federal rule will supposedly catch any unmarked frames moved out of state.) The state will likely argue they have neither an obligation nor a purpose in exempting any unmarked frame, even if they defer regulating unmarked vintage firearms.

The state can make possession unlawful. That could apply to all kinds of property. But if they regulate in such a way as to make it impossible to do anything except destroy property thus reducing its value to nothing, that is effectively the same as taking it away from you without just compensation. Other remedies could be allowed under the law, fair market value buyback, state-provided marking and recording services, exchange for like items that are serialized, permitting any provider of marking services, not just an FFL, to mark the firearm. They didn't do any of that.

 

[asdaven]

You are arguing for grandfathering those frames built before the law was passed. (I'm sympathetic with your wish, here, but that is exactly what the elected representatives who voted for this law didn't want. They wanted to either have marked and recorded all unmarked frames or have them destroyed, regardless when bought, built, finished or unfinished. The ATF and federal rule will supposedly catch any unmarked frames moved out of state.) The state will likely argue they have neither an obligation nor a purpose in exempting any unmarked frame, even if they defer regulating unmarked vintage firearms.

The state can make possession unlawful. That could apply to all kinds of property. But if they regulate in such a way as to make it impossible to do anything except destroy property thus reducing its value to nothing, that is effectively the same as taking it away from you without just compensation. Other remedies could be allowed under the law, fair market value buyback, state-provided marking and recording services, exchange for like items that are serialized, permitting any provider of marking services, not just an FFL, to mark the firearm. They didn't do any of that.

Yeah but there are some prior court cases that the government can't regulate what kinds of firearms you can have. DC had a flat out handgun ban and the court struck it down. Any new law should grandfather whatever happened before the law. My point is most things that somebody might possess that are illegal are almost always acquired illegally which is criminal intent and action. This is taking something that was aquired legally and now making it illegal . Simply possessing something is not criminal intent or action. Simply by doing nothing you break the law.

 

[RRomig]

When you find an FFL (or if you are the FFL) that does serial number engraving on home made/80% firearms in order for them to be in compliance with MD's new law, please post in here with the business name and location so's people can find them quickly.

The other thread has so many posts/pages that info easily gets lost there. Hoping to keep this one concise.

Nice try.
People can’t help themselves.
Now pointing out the problem I’ve become part of the problem.
I couldn’t help myself.

 

[beetles]

Yeah but there are some prior court cases that the government can't regulate what kinds of firearms you can have. DC had a flat out handgun ban and the court struck it down. Any new law should grandfather whatever happened before the law. My point is most things that somebody might possess that are illegal are almost always acquired illegally which is criminal intent and action. This is taking something that was aquired legally and now making it illegal . Simply possessing something is not criminal intent or action. Simply by doing nothing you break the law.

Well, yes, it does seem unfair for the state to make you into a criminal for having purchased something that at the time you bought it was legal to buy and have. They are allowed to do things like that, and it extends to many kinds of products, not just firearms, but things in common trade, like gold. What you miss in your example is that while buying and possessing the unmarked firearm was legal, continuing to possess it after a fixed date is illegal unless you bring it into compliance by means the law prescribes. Of course if the prescribed means are unavailable except to destroy the firearm and forfeit its value, the state has effectively taken it from you without just compensation.

To the other poster lamenting the fact that this thread is not confined to a list of FFLs providing marking services, I can say that some of us posting are actively exploring constructive options to accomplish just that, and that as soon as more progress is made, information will be shared here.

 

[RRomig]

Shared here after wading through all the carbon copy complaints that have been said over and over on the original thread as to why this thread was started in the first place.
I couldn’t help myself.