No more SBRs

[ShallNotInfringe]

Page 11

4-302 (3) ii

This subtitle does not apply to:

(ii) acting to sell or transfer an assault [pistol] WEAPON or detachable magazine to a licensed firearm dealer in another state OR TO AN INDIVIDUAL PURCHASER IN ANOTHER STATE THROUGH A LICENSED FIREARMS DEALER; OR

Ah yes, the other section... This gives us all the ability to sell our regulated firearms to out of state purchasers. So jvegas, you would have to meld the two sections together to come to the conclusion that even though you can sell them after 10/1, only to out of state folks.

 

[jvegas]

No I think that's wrong. Gun must be paid for by customer and at least in the store by sept 30 (forget about buying out of state and waiting for a form 3 to clear in time), then you can do your form 4/1 at your leisure.

Can jvegas or someone else who's familiar with the bile that MSP spewed yesterday confirm?

MSP said that a PO is simply a receipt that the transferee (non licensee) has showing an order has been placed. Does not need to be in dealer's inventory prior to Oct

 

[ShallNotInfringe]

MSP said that a PO is simply a receipt that the transferee (non licensee) has showing an order has been placed. Does not need to be in dealer's inventory prior to Oct

That is inconsistent with how the law reads. Hey, not to rain on anyones parade here, and I am happy that they may be implementing the law in our favor, but my concern is they may come back after everyone gets comfy with it, and say oops! Sorry.

Once they put out the COMAR, the gun grabbers get to rebut also.

Ya know what really pisses me off.... They put out the election-related COMAR changes in May as a result of the last session that ended in April! And the Gaming updates in July. And the Boating updates in June...

 

[IMBLITZVT]

I may be even more pissed about this than the original ban! Frankly it really makes me even more upset we did not do referendum. Then we could have clarified these things and had time to react. Now we are screwed. I have been so pissed about it, I really just can't type it out!

This is a bunch of ********.

I really need an answer on what counts as a PO... do you have to have put money down? what if my rifle doesn't ship until December?

Yes I wrote to MSP on Jun 11th asking what was required to be in a PO for it to be recognized. No answer yet. People here keep saying Verifiable PO. I really don't understand that. No where has the word verifiable come up. Are they trying to give MSP ideas that come Oct 1 they will role out new info on what is required in a PO. Already they seem to be changing and not requiring a deposit be made??? I don't know if MSP is screwing things up but after this flip flop...

That is inconsistent with how the law reads. Hey, not to rain on anyones parade here, and I am happy that they may be implementing the law in our favor, but my concern is they may come back after everyone gets comfy with it, and say oops! Sorry.

I was not really worried about that until now... After the change with SBRs, God only knows what they will flip position on now.

Also how about the fact that none of this info is available to normal citizens directly! So pissed...

 

[ShallNotInfringe]

I may be even more pissed about this than the original ban! Frankly it really makes me even more upset we did not do referendum. Then we could have clarified these things and had time to react. Now we are screwed. I have been so pissed about it, I really just can't type it out!

Yes I wrote to MSP on Jun 11th asking what was required to be in a PO for it to be recognized. No answer yet. People here keep saying Verifiable PO. I really don't understand that. No where has the word verifiable come up. Are they trying to give MSP ideas that come Oct 1 they will role out new info on what is required in a PO. Already they seem to be changing and not requiring a deposit be made??? I don't know if MSP is screwing things up but after this flip flop...

The word "verifiable" was struck from the law and that can be seen as a removal in the chapter version.

http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2013RS/Chapters_noln/CH_427_sb0281e.pdf

Many have searched for months as to the legal definition of "purchase order"...

 

[TxAggie]

Your statement relies on two interpretations being enforced by MSP:
1. A Short Barreled Rifle is not a rifle. (This applies to the copycat provision). My personal opinion is that MD law contradicts this statement, but many smarter than me disagree.
2. A Short Barreled Rifle is not a firearm that is a copy of a firearm on the banned list. (Thus making it an assault long gun). The banned list never talks about "rifles" in regard to AR-15's, but does when calling out AK's.

If both of the above are true, then your statement is correct. If either fails to be how MSP enforces, we're screwed.

I would also ask why we believe that NFA only falls under federal law? All title one firearms are subject to both federal and state law, why the exemption for title two?


-Jim

But hasn't Holder already made it perfectly clear that states aren't allowed to make laws that encroach into federal law?

You know, like Arizona's immigration bill. Or Texas' Voter ID law.

So surely we can count on him to sue Maryland for obstructing NFA law, right?

 

[pbharvey]

I may be even more pissed about this than the original ban!

+1

This seems like it is going outside of the written law.

 

[sleev-les]

No I think that's wrong. Gun must be paid for by customer and at least in the store by sept 30 (forget about buying out of state and waiting for a form 3 to clear in time), then you can do your form 4/1 at your leisure.

Can jvegas or someone else who's familiar with the bile that MSP spewed yesterday confirm?

I'm just going off how I am reading what was presented in this thread. IF how I read it is correct, the lower I currently have and building will be an SBR once complete. I will not have the opportunity to make it an SBR if my Form 1 isn't submitted by 1 October. With a trust, I at least would have that submission in time (assuming the trust can be completed quickly). So as you stated, I already have the lower. I'm not purchasing an NFA firearm directly from the dealer. I'm taking my lower and building the SBR upper.

 

[occbrian]

MSP said that a PO is simply a receipt that the transferee (non licensee) has showing an order has been placed. Does not need to be in dealer's inventory prior to Oct

So... we should place a bunch of orders with Larue and in 2 years we'll have moar AR's?

 

[occbrian]

I'm just going off how I am reading what was presented in this thread. IF how I read it is correct, the lower I currently have and building will be an SBR once complete. I will not have the opportunity to make it an SBR if my Form 1 isn't submitted by 1 October. With a trust, I at least would have that submission in time (assuming the trust can be completed quickly). So as you stated, I already have the lower. I'm not purchasing an NFA firearm directly from the dealer. I'm taking my lower and building the SBR upper.

That's assuming that MSP doesn't send something to BAFTE telling them no more NFA and they stop processing everything on 10/1, including those already in the pile.

 

[sleev-les]

That's assuming that MSP doesn't send something to BAFTE telling them no more NFA and they stop processing everything on 10/1, including those already in the pile.

Stop trying to piss me off more We have pretty much been put on a reactive basis so i'm not assuming anymore. We can't do a damn thing other than react "when something happens".. This shit state has proven that nothing can be upfront.

I've started the trust way forward. Going to try my luck and worse case, still have my suppressors in the future.

 

[j1rubin]

That's assuming that MSP doesn't send something to BAFTE telling them no more NFA and they stop processing everything on 10/1, including those already in the pile.

Is that how it works or do they read the law and determine themselves?

 

[occbrian]

Is that how it works or do they read the law and determine themselves?

I don't know. I imagine they'll do whatever MD tells them to do.

 

[Ab_Normal]

You all are forgetting that Md classifies anything with a barrel shorter than 16" as a handgun. So by current law and the upcoming implementation of SB281 the only additional step you would need is the HQL.

 

[Ab_Normal]

Is that how it works or do they read the law and determine themselves?

They just make stuff up as they go until told otherwise.

 

[fabsroman]

You all are forgetting that Md classifies anything with a barrel shorter than 16" as a handgun. So by law the only additional step you would need is the HQL.

That is only correct when looking at Md Code Crim Law Title 4, subtitle 2 - Handguns.

There is NO definition of handgun, rifle, or SBR in Md Code Crim Law Title 4, subtitle 3 - Assault Weapons and Detachable Magazines. So, when looking at that section, it is possible for what is classified as a handgun, SBR, SBS, etc. in subtitle 2, to be classified as an Assault Weapon in subtitle 3.

 

[Auckland]

msp is out of their element

The Dude would have to agree.

 

[Ab_Normal]

That is only correct when looking at Md Code Crim Law Title 4, subtitle 2 - Handguns.

There is NO definition of handgun, rifle, or SBR in Md Code Crim Law Title 4, subtitle 3 - Assault Weapons and Detachable Magazines. So, when looking at that section, it is possible for what is classified as a handgun, SBR, SBS, etc. in subtitle 2, to be classified as an Assault Weapon in subtitle 3.

Anything is possible with these clowns but it would be a big stretch of the imagination as well as contrary to the law.

We basically have 7 classes of firearms in Md* - handguns, long guns (Title 1 rifles and shotguns), assault weapons (to include assault pistols and assault long guns after 10/1), other, machine guns, aow's, and silencers.

Since anything with a barrel under 16" is considered a handgun it cannot be considered a long gun and would not be a copy of an assault long gun. And it cannot be a copy of an assault pistol because pistols are designed, made,... to be fired from the shoulder.

*Please forgive me if I am a little off on that, I am trying to do this from memory.

 

[2AHokie]

Anything is possible with these clowns but it would be a big stretch of the imagination as well as contrary to the law.

We basically have 7 classes of firearms in Md* - handguns, long guns (Title 1 rifles and shotguns), assault weapons (to include assault pistols and assault long guns after 10/1), other, machine guns, aow's, and silencers.

Since anything with a barrel under 16" is considered a handgun it cannot be considered a long gun and would not be a copy of an assault long gun. And it cannot be a copy of an assault pistol because pistols are designed, made,... to be fired from the shoulder.

*Please forgive me if I am a little off on that, I am trying to do this from memory.

And to make it even more complicated, different sections have different definitions - just because it is defined as something in one section doesn't mean it can't also be defined as something else later.

The 16" barrel length handgun definition is in a different section (say section A b/c I don't have it in front of me) than the assault long gun OAL section (section B). So while SBRs might be treated as handguns in section A, they can also be treated as banned assault guns in section B.

Not a legal expert, but that is my understanding.

 

[fabsroman]

I may be even more pissed about this than the original ban! Frankly it really makes me even more upset we did not do referendum. Then we could have clarified these things and had time to react. Now we are screwed. I have been so pissed about it, I really just can't type it out!



Yes I wrote to MSP on Jun 11th asking what was required to be in a PO for it to be recognized. No answer yet. People here keep saying Verifiable PO. I really don't understand that. No where has the word verifiable come up. Are they trying to give MSP ideas that come Oct 1 they will role out new info on what is required in a PO. Already they seem to be changing and not requiring a deposit be made??? I don't know if MSP is screwing things up but after this flip flop...



I was not really worried about that until now... After the change with SBRs, God only knows what they will flip position on now.

Also how about the fact that none of this info is available to normal citizens directly! So pissed...

Yep, I was pushing for the referendum. It did not happen because the NRA was against it and so many people were against it because Maryland citizens would trample our rights and we did not want to wait another year to fight this in Court. So, we are stuck with this complete disaster wherein everybody is now rushing to get things done at the last second and figure out exactly what is and what is not illegal come October 1, 2013. Yep, a complete disaster.

As ShallNotInfringe already mentioned, the "verifiable" part is no longer in the law, but I think most of us are just stuck using it, including me. The question still is, what is a PO? In the business world, not every PO requires a down payment or full payment. A company merely issues a PO to a vendor when it wants to order something and then pays for it at delivery or when invoiced at net 10, net 15, net 30 or what have you. The entire PO language without any definition in the law whatsoever is also ridiculous.