Long Gun Transfer Bill SB0948

[Brianczaw]

Thank you, Swami Brianczaw. I'm sure that your lawyer will showcase your mindreading ability during the trial, after which you will lose your 2A rights forever.

I said I don't agree with any additional anti 2A legislation. I also don't like misiformation spread just to get peoples panties all in a bunch. However, I get your point and someone else's point that they write these bills so hard to interpret and ambiguous-that they get us fighting amongst ourselves. Probably-that's their whole purpose; so we take our eyes off the prize.

 

[ShafTed]

Worth it?
It won't cost those entrenched in the liberal triangle a thing.
They are so distraught over Trump being in the White House that any chance to piss down the backs of people who may have supported him will be greeted with the wildest glee imaginable. We all know this bill has nothing at all to do with "for the children" or crime or anything else but screwing over gun owners.

the ultimate elimination of private firearm ownership.

Corrected for accuracy. Never forget their long term goals, because they sure as hell don't.

 

[esqappellate]

Maryland doesn't use NICS exclusively. There is about 10 different MSP databases (estimated) they have on guns purchased in the PRofMd.

Not applicable to long gun sales. Maryland is only POC for handguns. For non-regulated long guns, the FFLs only do a NICS check under federal law. The State is not involved at all.

 

[lazarus]

Not applicable to long gun sales. Maryland is only POC for handguns. For non-regulated long guns, the FFLs only do a NICS check under federal law. The State is not involved at all.

And as worded for this law, it specifically calls out the FFL doing a NICS check. That doesn't appear to be legally enforceable.

 

[esqappellate]

And as worded for this law, it specifically calls out the FFL doing a NICS check. That doesn't appear to be legally enforceable.

I quite agree. NICS checks are reserved to checks mandated by the Brady Act, 18 USC 922(t). See 26 CFR 25.6(a). That Act does not cover private sales between persons who are not in the business of selling firearms, as defined in 18 USC 921(a)(21). FFLs may not conduct NICS checks, regardless of what the State says, as the FBI runs NICS and federal regulations prohibit it.

 

[Mikebiker]

Why wouldn't the FFL log the gun in, run the nics, log it out to the new owner thus completeing the transfer. FFL will charge a fee and be happy this has passed. This is what I have heard from at least one dealer.

 

[iH8DemLibz]

Why wouldn't the FFL log the gun in, run the nics, log it out to the new owner thus completeing the transfer. FFL will charge a fee and be happy this has passed. This is what I have heard from at least one dealer.

We don't want FFLs logging anything in, or running any NICS checks, or logging anything out, or completing any transfers, or being happy that anything has passed.

We want our long guns left alone.

It's just more incremental gun grabbing.


PS: What's the name of the dealer/dealers? I'd like to confirm their joy.

 

[swinokur]

hopefully, FFL's will refuse to do this kind of backdoor infringement.

 

[BeoBill]

I said I don't agree with any additional anti 2A legislation. I also don't like misiformation spread just to get peoples panties all in a bunch. However, I get your point and someone else's point that they write these bills so hard to interpret and ambiguous-that they get us fighting amongst ourselves. Probably-that's their whole purpose; so we take our eyes off the prize.

Absolutely correct, as a secondary objective. The primary objective is to promote themselves; they're written so poorly because they are lousy law crafters. Due to alcoholism, ADHD, mental illness, etc. IMO.

 

[Mikebiker]

Don't think for a second I am in favor of this at all. I want it all to go away. This is just what I understand Delaware does and I heard a dealer talking about charging big bucks to do it. Is there a mention of a cap on the fee he can charge in the bill.

 

[Biggfoot44]

Not that I'm in favor, but from 1994-2013 MSP served as poc for Regulated Rifles, so the precedent for non-handguns is there.

 

[Abacab]

Not that I'm in favor, but from 1994-2013 MSP served as poc for Regulated Rifles, so the precedent for non-handguns is there.

1989. Precedent there, statute isn't.

 

[BeoBill]

Not that I'm in favor, but from 1994-2013 MSP served as poc for Regulated Rifles, so the precedent for non-handguns is there.

1989. Precedent there, statute isn't.

Yup. MSP is quite adept at making up their own laws to suit their purposes. After all, they're armed and they never let us forget that.

 

[TheGunnyRet]

Dupe;

The NRA has setup a Site to submit EMAILS to the Reps on (2) HBs 948 and 159.

its easy and every bit helps and it has a pass it to friend set up as well.

https://act.nraila.org/default.aspx

https://www.nraila.org/articles/2017...r-of-long-guns

https://www.nraila.org/articles/2001...mmary-of-bills

 

[EL1227]

Not applicable to long gun sales. Maryland is only POC for handguns. For non-regulated long guns, the FFLs only do a NICS check under federal law. The State is not involved at all.

YET ...

Given the dubious legality of this bill, if the nimrod who drafted it finally wises up, couldn't he attempt force fit it into the MSP handgun process ? Not that I want to give him any ideas, but this seemed like a dead end bill from the get go.

Either Barnes is trying to pull a fast one, or this is a diversionary tactic for some other action, which makes suspect MHC's blase attitude and Allan Ellis' claim to be 'working with the Dem's behind the scenes.

Or ... Barnes is an idiot.

 

[fidelity]

I think they need to be embarrassed now that this is not legal such that it gets reported in the press before there are votes. This way no politician can claim that they were unaware and we should fix this thing after it is potentially law. Kill it early. Don't let it gain legs. Starting fresh with a new MD law to treat long guns like handguns is less politically feasible for them. Politicians favor incrementalism. Take this option off the board.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

 

[basscat]

You have to pass it to see how it would work.

 

[esqappellate]

YET ...

Given the dubious legality of this bill, if the nimrod who drafted it finally wises up, couldn't he attempt force fit it into the MSP handgun process ? Not that I want to give him any ideas, but this seemed like a dead end bill from the get go.

Either Barnes is trying to pull a fast one, or this is a diversionary tactic for some other action, which makes suspect MHC's blase attitude and Allan Ellis' claim to be 'working with the Dem's behind the scenes.

Or ... Barnes is an idiot.

Barnes may be, but he isn't the sponsor on this bill. The sponsors of SB948 are:
By: Senators Smith, Madaleno, Currie, Guzzone, Kagan, King, McFadden, Nathan–Pulliam, Robinson, Rosapepe, Young, and Zucker

Note that Young is a sponsor. From Frederick County. Hello Frederick County.....

The Sponsors in the House are:

Delegates Davis, Ebersole, Gilchrist, Hixson, Kelly, Lierman, Moon, Pena–Melnyk, Platt, Robinson, Sanchez, and Waldstreicher

 

[Abacab]

Ron Young is one of the biggest liberals in the Senate and one of its worst members. Unbelievable he still has a job but that tells you how much Frederick County is now part of DC.

 

[lazarus]

Don't think for a second I am in favor of this at all. I want it all to go away. This is just what I understand Delaware does and I heard a dealer talking about charging big bucks to do it. Is there a mention of a cap on the fee he can charge in the bill.

No, it says reasonable reasonable fee. Interpret that as you will.