SB387 "Public Safety - Untraceable Firearms" - The Ban on Private Firearm Making

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • babalou

    Active Member
    MDS Supporter
    Aug 12, 2013
    11,445
    Monkey County
    There is no legitimate public purpose for gun control to begin with. By their very definition, criminals don’t follow laws anyway, so these laws only serve to hamper and restrict law abiding citizens. They do nothing to lower crime rates.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    /thread
     

    teratos

    My hair is amazing
    MDS Supporter
    Jan 22, 2009
    45,294
    Bel Air
    There is no legitimate public purpose for gun control to begin with. By their very definition, criminals don’t follow laws anyway, so these laws only serve to hamper and restrict law abiding citizens. They do nothing to lower crime rates.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Amen.
    Laws punish, but don’t prevent.
     

    rbird7282

    Active Member
    Dec 6, 2012
    13,714
    Senate rules for a session, including the filibuster, are adopted by simple majority vote of the Senate on the first day of a meeting of a new Congress. So the filibuster could go away in its entirety if a simple majority of senators wanted it to, next January.

    Except that it won’t. Manchin has already said he wouldn’t vote for it. People her saying the Republicans should’ve passed it are ignoring reality. If we had gone nuclear on anything we wanted to pass, the Dems would be doing the same thing now. That would be the end of this country. Imagine the economic/market swings, they would be massive.
    Having said that, I do think the Republicans should fight tooth and nail for stuff like the hearing protection act. Put it in the budget or something else that Dems really want. Keep doing it until they either vote for it or veto everything and shut the government down. Blame them. It always amazes me that Republicans NEVER have the upper hand in messaging to the public.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     

    Allen65

    Active Member
    MDS Supporter
    Jun 29, 2013
    4,212
    Anne Arundel County
    Except that it won’t. Manchin has already said he wouldn’t vote for it. People her saying the Republicans should’ve passed it are ignoring reality. If we had gone nuclear on anything we wanted to pass, the Dems would be doing the same thing now. That would be the end of this country. Imagine the economic/market swings, they would be massive.
    Next January, a new Congress will be seated after the election. And they will be the Senators voting on the new rules including the filibuster. Depending on the DEM:REP ratio in the new Senate, Manchin may no longer be relevant.
     

    KingClown

    SOmething Witty
    Jul 29, 2020
    429
    Deep Blue MD
    The ATF has already shut down %500 more gunshops this year thats not even half over than any other year. They are pulling licenses over things like spelling errors on 4473's.
    Now they are trying to hold JSD to the new law that doesnt take effect till August.
    This is Pee Pads plan. Instead of confiscation switch gears shut down the supply so people cant get more. Once thats accomplished they will move back to confiscation.
    I am with @Muleskinner its time to stand up and do something. This shit has got to be stopped.
     

    poopDOLLA

    Junior Member
    Jun 16, 2017
    8
    So what do people think will happen after march of next year when the time to voluntarily register runs out? Does the state attempt by one way or another to find list of people who bought kits or 80s who havent registered anything and come looking? Is there any precedent or reason to believe that they are capable or doing that?
     

    trickg

    Guns 'n Drums
    Jul 22, 2008
    11,790
    Glen Burnie
    So what do people think will happen after march of next year when the time to voluntarily register runs out? Does the state attempt by one way or another to find list of people who bought kits or 80s who havent registered anything and come looking? Is there any precedent or reason to believe that they are capable or doing that?
    This is similar to the magazine thing - it's a dumb law that's difficult to actually enforce. I seriously doubt there is any reliable source of information about who potentially has what, and even if the State did know who bought something before the law went into effect, there would be no legal way to go about finding out if people still had any of the things they supposedly had. Think about all of the 80 kits sold for cash at gun shows - I'd venture to guess that anyone who was really serious about keeping a gun completely off-book would have done just that.

    As I see it, the only way anyone would get caught is if they happened to have the gun with them during the commission of another crime, or if they were openly using a gun with an un-serialized frame or lower in the presence of law enforcement.
     

    rbird7282

    Active Member
    Dec 6, 2012
    13,714
    Next January, a new Congress will be seated after the election. And they will be the Senators voting on the new rules including the filibuster. Depending on the DEM:REP ratio in the new Senate, Manchin may no longer be relevant.

    Lol, the Dems aren’t going to gain Senate seats in the next election


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     

    chuck

    Member
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 1, 2016
    804
    Anne Arundel
    This is similar to the magazine thing - it's a dumb law that's difficult to actually enforce. I seriously doubt there is any reliable source of information about who potentially has what, and even if the State did know who bought something before the law went into effect, there would be no legal way to go about finding out if people still had any of the things they supposedly had. Think about all of the 80 kits sold for cash at gun shows - I'd venture to guess that anyone who was really serious about keeping a gun completely off-book would have done just that.

    As I see it, the only way anyone would get caught is if they happened to have the gun with them during the commission of another crime, or if they were openly using a gun with an un-serialized frame or lower in the presence of law enforcement.

    Will the first LEO "casual walkthrough" be at MSAR or Gilbert?
     

    KIBarrister

    Opinionated Libertarian
    MDS Supporter
    Apr 10, 2013
    3,294
    Kent Island/Centreville
    Will the first LEO "casual walkthrough" be at MSAR or Gilbert?
    Gilbert.

    To echo a few prior comments though I see this law as having a zero per cent enforcement rate. Indeed, I’ll wager the few actually even charged under it, will plead to another charge to make for no convictions of any kind.
     

    ironpony

    Member
    MDS Supporter
    Jun 8, 2013
    6,175
    Crofton/Davidsonville
    This is similar to the magazine thing - it's a dumb law that's difficult to actually enforce. I seriously doubt there is any reliable source of information about who potentially has what, and even if the State did know who bought something before the law went into effect, there would be no legal way to go about finding out if people still had any of the things they supposedly had. Think about all of the 80 kits sold for cash at gun shows - I'd venture to guess that anyone who was really serious about keeping a gun completely off-book would have done just that.

    As I see it, the only way anyone would get caught is if they happened to have the gun with them during the commission of another crime, or if they were openly using a gun with an un-serialized frame or lower in the presence of law enforcement.

    Not directly to you Trickg but,
    Wasn’t there an instance where a gun show seller purchased a handful of kits to sell and several agencies showed up to question them? Including ATF, MDSP and AACO popo IIRC. Maybe Glen Bernie. I don’t believe their cause for concern was discovered. Or maybe this was evil solvent traps.

    Full Disclosure: Not trying to instill fears nor do I put anything past these ultra-liberals…
     

    beetles

    Junior Member
    Dec 19, 2021
    18
    Let me start off: this whole thing is such a shitshow.

    I really appreciate that there's somewhere to discuss the issue with knowledgeable people, because if I was on my own, I'd be ******.

    Anyway, this is a huge thread and I would imagine there's lots of people coming here looking for answers. I've jumped around a bit and seen a lot of useful information (alongside some nonsense back-and-forth arguments, which you get in forums, fair enough), sometimes conflicting at times.

    Maybe it'd be useful to compile an FAQ and pop it into the OP at some point? With links to accompanying laws and posts explaining them? It's an idea, anyway.

    My first question coming to this thread was: I live in Maryland. I have PMFs (in fact all of mine are). What is the bare minimum I can do to keep them, short of leaving the state?

    My tenative answer: From what I've read, I can choose to have them serialized in either the Maryland format or the ATF format. (Source: from the new law, 5–703 (B)(2)(I) seems to suggest ATF format as an option, and 5–703 (B)(2)(II) suggests a MD format as an alternative.) Both options need to be done by an FFL of some kind.

    Then afterwards, those numbers are supposed to be registered with the state. (5–704.(A) says they're working on some kind of registration system, which implies self-service.)

    As @cantstop mentioned, the main downside of the MD only format is that you can't transfer your firearm with it. Transfers of even unregulated firearms in MD have to go through an FFL.

    My second question, after reading around a bit: What will the legal requirements be for the shop doing the serializing?

    The reason I'm asking this question is the idea that more stringent requirements (including needing to take possession of the firearm legally) might drive away some FFLs willing to do the deed. If they're going to be on the hook if the firearm injures someone, prices for these services will skyrocket, if they exist at all.

    My answer thus far: The MD format can be done by a "FEDERALLY LICENSED FIREARMS DEALER, FEDERAL FIREARMS MANUFACTURER, OR OTHER FEDERAL LICENSEE AUTHORIZED TO PROVIDE MARKING SERVICES" (also 5-703 (B)(2)(II)). I don't know much about the different FFL types and how common they are, but this sounds pretty generous? Am I on the mark, or...?

    One nice thing is that the MD format doesn't require the FFL's own license number, which sounds like there'll be a lot more FFLs willing to do the MD format over the ATF format.

    The law didn't specify any kind of ownership shuffle. Some people in this thread mentioned that some tasks can be done "while you wait". Does that mean anything legally?

    (I'm sorry if these are dumb questions. I've owned firearms for awhile, but I've never dealt with the ridiculous legal apparatus around them.)

    (BTW, what's BGOS mean?)
    Thank you for the helpful post. For those readers looking to find a way to bring their heretofore-legal-but-unserialized 80%/built frames into compliance with the new law, a list of 07-FFL holders who are willing to perform the required marking services as specified by the new law would be worthy of a sub-forum sticky. I have looked at the state list of "manufacturer" licensees, and as you might expect, they are not particularly numerous and some of them are industrial manufacturers who do not do retail gunsmith or marking services. Others who do have good retail establishments I have heard are not particularly interested in this kind of business, for various but (IMO) legitimate reasons, especially liability concerns.
     

    Anotherpyr

    Active Member
    Thank you for the helpful post. For those readers looking to find a way to bring their heretofore-legal-but-unserialized 80%/built frames into compliance with the new law, a list of 07-FFL holders who are willing to perform the required marking services as specified by the new law would be worthy of a sub-forum sticky. I have looked at the state list of "manufacturer" licensees, and as you might expect, they are not particularly numerous and some of them are industrial manufacturers who do not do retail gunsmith or marking services. Others who do have good retail establishments I have heard are not particularly interested in this kind of business, for various but (IMO) legitimate reasons, especially liability concerns.
    If no FFLs are willing to do this then doesn’t that create a situation where the law can be challenged since one would be unable to comply?

    I don’t doubt they’d be happy with a complete ban caused by this, but it strikes me as being wrong.
     

    beetles

    Junior Member
    Dec 19, 2021
    18
    If no FFLs are willing to do this then doesn’t that create a situation where the law can be challenged since one would be unable to comply?

    I don’t doubt they’d be happy with a complete ban caused by this, but it strikes me as being wrong.
    To require compliance under penalty of law and yet provide no viable means to comply except to destroy valuable personal property for lack of available facilities in the state to meet the marking and serializing requirement amounts to a taking. I suppose there may be an option to sue the state for injunctive relief.

    One reasonable alternative would be to permit marking by anyone anywhere as long as it meets the requirements for physical size, depth of impression or ablation, and content. The state already requires registering the "firearm" with the state police (for a fee). Unfortunately this particularly badly written law does not permit this option.
     
    Last edited:

    Bob A

    Active Member
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Nov 11, 2009
    21,612
    To require compliance under penalty of law and yet provide no viable means to comply except to destroy valuable personal property for lack of available facilities in the state to meet the marking and serializing requirement amounts to a taking. I suppose there may be an option to sue the state for injunctive relief.

    One reasonable alternative would be to permit marking by anyone anywhere as long as it meets the requirements for physical size, depth of impression or ablation, and content. The state already requires registering the "firearm" with the state police (for a fee). Unfortunately this particularly badly written law does not permit this option.
    It makes one wonder whether poorly written laws are deliberately so, to create time-wasting roadblocks to appeal/removal, or if the legislature is merely incompetent.
     

    MigraineMan

    Active Member
    Jun 9, 2011
    15,175
    Frederick County
    From the AFT's letter:
    Specifically, these kits are a weapon that may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive. These kits are, therefore, firearms under the GCA and have always been firearms pursuant to statute.

    Uh huh, just like we have always been at war with Eurussia (well before the start of the Eukrainian conflict.) Don't s'pose the AFT administrators would care to 'splain the determination letters JSD has identifying that the kits are, in fact, NOT firearms. The "structured purchasing" is a whole 'nuther can of horse-hockey.
     

    whistlersmother

    Peace through strength
    Jan 29, 2013
    7,714
    Fulton, MD
    From the AFT's letter:


    Uh huh, just like we have always been at war with Eurussia (well before the start of the Eukrainian conflict.) Don't s'pose the AFT administrators would care to 'splain the determination letters JSD has identifying that the kits are, in fact, NOT firearms. The "structured purchasing" is a whole 'nuther can of horse-hockey.

    Those letters use the "old speak" and don't apply under "new speak".
     

    beetles

    Junior Member
    Dec 19, 2021
    18
    From the AFT's letter:


    Uh huh, just like we have always been at war with Eurussia (well before the start of the Eukrainian conflict.) Don't s'pose the AFT administrators would care to 'splain the determination letters JSD has identifying that the kits are, in fact, NOT firearms. The "structured purchasing" is a whole 'nuther can of horse-hockey.
    The ATF have obviously been given their marching orders and have offered their contorted reasoning. "Constructed" purchasing is a ridiculous concept, and could be easily challenged as parts bought could be intended for any firearm, and buying a frame incomplete and a trigger doesn't prove intent to construct a working firearm with the items together, and certainly not by the seller.
     
    Top Bottom