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

[Allen65]

There is a record of how you vote unless or until the ballot is destroyed.

Yes, but it is (at least in theory) anonymized upon casting the ballot.

 

[Occam]

There is a record of how you vote unless or until the ballot is destroyed.

This isn't necessarily true, and it's one of the ways that the 2020 election chaos was so widely abused. In many cases, the envelope containing a mailed-in ballot is the only thing that identifies the voter. In some of the more corrupt districts, those envelopes were separated from the ballot (and often destroyed), leaving a ballot of unknown provenance with no chain of custody or any way to establish the alleged voter's eligibility. No, I'm not trying to derail this thread, but pointing out that millions of Democrats certainly seem to be perfectly happy with the scenario I just described, as it relates to voting. They should be fine with it on gun ownership, too.

 

[Dudeman]

So if the 80% has a serial it can still ship I take it? I found a site that offers serialized AR15 lowers targeted towards California but has a drop down tab that lists all states, but then it still listed restricted shipping *shrugs*. Lets say I'm not worried about the state knowing I have an 80% lower, could I 1. Order an 80% lower as long as it has a serial number and 2. Would it still just ship to my door? The reason I'm asking is because I was for awhile before this thinking of buying a 1911 80% as I don't think they even sell completed 1911 frames. I was going to keep the frame until I decide what caliber I want a 1911 in and to save some money(38 super 1911s are pricey) then finish with the tooling. If I COULD get a serialized receiver somewhere, what would I even need to do after I get it? Would I have to call the state police and inform them, or would I have to needlessly go into an FFL and waste gas and time? Also are there any companies that even offer serialized 80% 1911 frames, or completed 1911 frames for that matter?

 

[pcfixer]

SB387/HB425 "Public Safety - Untraceable Firearms" - Ban on Private Gun Ownership

HB425/SB387 "Public Safety - Untraceable Firearms"
These bills criminalize the possession of all unserialized firearms made after 1968 and any "unfinished frames or receivers" effective 1/1/2023.
Current owners, at their own cost, would need an FFL who provides marking services (FFL 07) to serialize every affected gun by 1/1/2023 to be in compliance. The serialization is prescribed in the bill to require the FFL's first three and last five numbers then a hyphen, and then "another number." Violators face up to 3 years of imprisonment and up to a $10,000 fine and forfeit gun rights. Each violation is a separate offense and the government doesn't need to demonstrate that violators intended to break the law.

FAQs Here!
MSI's Official Testimony: https://www.marylandshallissue.org/...-and-sb387-public-safety-untraceable-firearms

House Bill 425 was heard on 2/9
Watch it here:

3/4: The Judiciary Committee has given HB425 a favorable report along party lines, 14-7.

Senate Bill 387 was heard on 2/16
Watch it here:

Seems to ME. This SB387 and any ATF Laws becomes MUTE under Bruen and
20-1530 WV v EPA
"The Agency determined that the interpretive question raised by the Clean Power Plan fell under the major questions doctrine. Under that doctrine, it determined, a clear statement is necessary for a court to conclude that Congress intended to delegate authority “of this breadth to regulate a fundamental sector of the economy.” Id., at 32529. It found none."

ATF Final Ruling 2021R-05F | Complete Breakdown

It's official, the DOJ and ATF's new rule 2021R-05 which stands to end the 80 lower industry as we know it is now in effect.

www.80percentarms.com

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_new_l537.pdf

 

[Allen65]

Seems to ME. This SB387 and any ATF Laws becomes MUTE under Bruen and
20-1530 WV v EPA
"The Agency determined that the interpretive question raised by the Clean Power Plan fell under the major questions doctrine. Under that doctrine, it determined, a clear statement is necessary for a court to conclude that Congress intended to delegate authority “of this breadth to regulate a fundamental sector of the economy.” Id., at 32529. It found none."

ATF Final Ruling 2021R-05F | Complete Breakdown

It's official, the DOJ and ATF's new rule 2021R-05 which stands to end the 80 lower industry as we know it is now in effect.

www.80percentarms.com

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_new_l537.pdf

Nothing becomes moot in practice until one of the lower courts issues a decision on a specific statute. SCOTUS issued its opinion in Bruen, and remanded it back to the 2CA to redecide based on the guidance contained in it. There's no reasonable way the lower court could uphold "substantial need" now, but how lower courts will interpret it for other issues remains to be seen. Remember how lower courts twisted Scalia's Heller dicta of "the right is not unlimited" to mean that any regulation short of an absolute ban on possession in the home was acceptable? I expect that a small number of lower courts will think they've found "loopholes" in Thomas' writings, only to ultimately get smacked back down when appeals get back to SCOTUS. But it's going to take time to set enough precedent in enough Appellate Districts to get 2A treated like 1A, or even just 4A, bastardized as that right has become. But time is ultimately on our side.

 

[dant98]

So if the 80% has a serial it can still ship I take it? I found a site that offers serialized AR15 lowers targeted towards California but has a drop down tab that lists all states, but then it still listed restricted shipping *shrugs*. Lets say I'm not worried about the state knowing I have an 80% lower, could I 1. Order an 80% lower as long as it has a serial number and 2. Would it still just ship to my door? The reason I'm asking is because I was for awhile before this thinking of buying a 1911 80% as I don't think they even sell completed 1911 frames. I was going to keep the frame until I decide what caliber I want a 1911 in and to save some money(38 super 1911s are pricey) then finish with the tooling. If I COULD get a serialized receiver somewhere, what would I even need to do after I get it? Would I have to call the state police and inform them, or would I have to needlessly go into an FFL and waste gas and time? Also are there any companies that even offer serialized 80% 1911 frames, or completed 1911 frames for that matter?

Not a lawyer, but as written I understand that once a receiver or frame has reached the stage that it can "readily be machined, converted, or completed into a functional frame/receiver", after 1 March they will require it to be serialized within 30 days of reaching that point and handled as if it were a completed frame/receiver. They mean this to include 80% lowers and 3D printed lowers. They don't qualify "readily converted" in a meaningful way I don't think.

So in short, I would imagine a serialized 80% would need to be shipped to a Maryland FFL.

 

[dant98]

So, ATF ruling went live 24 August, but I think it already has court cases going on about it.
FWIW, I wrote Gov. Hogan's office about this bill and in a letter back he shared that they very much expect Maryland court cases involving SB387 as well.

If a Supreme Court rules the ATF doesn't have the authority to deem something that isn't yet a frame/receiver as a frame/receiver, what happens in Maryland re: SB387?

Secondly, would other recommend that an individual who possessed something that might fall under SB 387 continue a wait and see approach until closer to the 1 March deadline?

 

[dannyp]

This isn't necessarily true, and it's one of the ways that the 2020 election chaos was so widely abused. In many cases, the envelope containing a mailed-in ballot is the only thing that identifies the voter. In some of the more corrupt districts, those envelopes were separated from the ballot (and often destroyed), leaving a ballot of unknown provenance with no chain of custody or any way to establish the alleged voter's eligibility. No, I'm not trying to derail this thread, but pointing out that millions of Democrats certainly seem to be perfectly happy with the scenario I just described, as it relates to voting. They should be fine with it on gun ownership, too.

too true , but you know not .

 

[dannyp]

So if the 80% has a serial it can still ship I take it? I found a site that offers serialized AR15 lowers targeted towards California but has a drop down tab that lists all states, but then it still listed restricted shipping *shrugs*. Lets say I'm not worried about the state knowing I have an 80% lower, could I 1. Order an 80% lower as long as it has a serial number and 2. Would it still just ship to my door? The reason I'm asking is because I was for awhile before this thinking of buying a 1911 80% as I don't think they even sell completed 1911 frames. I was going to keep the frame until I decide what caliber I want a 1911 in and to save some money(38 super 1911s are pricey) then finish with the tooling. If I COULD get a serialized receiver somewhere, what would I even need to do after I get it? Would I have to call the state police and inform them, or would I have to needlessly go into an FFL and waste gas and time? Also are there any companies that even offer serialized 80% 1911 frames, or completed 1911 frames for that matter?

going to go to an ffl ,. how dare you challenge the state of maryland ! LOL

 

[Doctor_M]

W... ell
W... ell
N... othing
C... omplicated.

 

[pcfixer]

Nothing becomes moot in practice until one of the lower courts issues a decision on a specific statute. SCOTUS issued its opinion in Bruen, and remanded it back to the 2CA to redecide based on the guidance contained in it. There's no reasonable way the lower court could uphold "substantial need" now, but how lower courts will interpret it for other issues remains to be seen. Remember how lower courts twisted Scalia's Heller dicta of "the right is not unlimited" to mean that any regulation short of an absolute ban on possession in the home was acceptable? I expect that a small number of lower courts will think they've found "loopholes" in Thomas' writings, only to ultimately get smacked back down when appeals get back to SCOTUS. But it's going to take time to set enough precedent in enough Appellate Districts to get 2A treated like 1A, or even just 4A, bastardized as that right has become. But time is ultimately on our side.

Soooo.. My Rights Are Not Unlimited! What the state or feds do not know!! They don't need to know.!!
NY vs Bruen. 20-843
quoted..
We declined to engage in means-end scrutiny because “[t]he very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon.” Heller, 554 U. S., at 634.

OH Yes the icing on the cake so to speak.
In sum, the Courts of Appeals’ second step is inconsistent with Heller’s historical approach and its rejection of means end scrutiny. We reiterate that the standard for applying the Second Amendment is as follows: When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only then may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command.” Konigsberg, 366 U. S., at 50, n. 10.

Unqualified command--- Shall Not Be Infringed.

 

[pcfixer]

17th-century English philosopher John Locke discussed natural rights in his work, identifying them as being
"life, liberty, and estate (property)", and argued that such fundamental rights could not be surrendered in the social contract.

It's "We The People"

 

[YeehawConspiracy]

Not a lawyer, but as written I understand that once a receiver or frame has reached the stage that it can "readily be machined, converted, or completed into a functional frame/receiver", after 1 March they will require it to be serialized within 30 days of reaching that point and handled as if it were a completed frame/receiver.

What I don't understand is that I always thought that was the standard that 80% lowers were legal under to begin with.

From the ATF's FAQ on the subject (a):

The term ‘‘receiver’’ as stated in 478.12I shall include a partially complete, disassembled, or nonfunctional frame or receiver, including a frame or receiver parts kit, that is designed to or may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to function as a frame or receiver, i.e., to house or provide a structure for the primary energized component of a handgun, breech blocking or sealing component of a projectile weapon other than a handgun, or internal sound reduction component of a firearm muffler or firearm silencer, as the case may be.

They go on to elaborate on what exactly they mean by "readily". You can read it for yourself.

So what changed? Did they change the meaning of readily?

Because otherwise, that was always the standard. Am I missing something?

 

[pcfixer]

FPC VICTORY: Federal Judge Blocks Delaware Ban on Self-Built Firearm Possession, Home Manufacturing

Racking up the wins! And yes I expect it will be appealed. https://www.firearmspolicy.org/fpc-victory-federal-judge-blocks-delaware-ban-on-self-built-firearm-possession-home-manufacturing WILMINGTON, DE (September 23, 2022) – Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced that United States...

www.mdshooters.com

 

[lennyk]

So this begs the question, are traditional aluminum 80 percent AR lowers with no markings to guide machining firearms in Maryland’s eye? The latest ATF guidance states that they are not. They are definitely not “readily convertible.” Opinions?

 

[dant98]

So this begs the question, are traditional aluminum 80 percent AR lowers with no markings to guide machining firearms in Maryland’s eye? The latest ATF guidance states that they are not. They are definitely not “readily convertible.” Opinions?

Yeah, but as it stands, it almost doesn't matter, because once your finished it, it becomes a PMF, which still needs to be serialized by an FFL according to Maryland. I guess if that 80% isn't a firearm, at least it could be shipped to your door, so there's that.

 

[Trappemann]

So how about the federal judge's recent ruling against the requirement in another state, based on the fact that serial #s did not exist at the time of the Amendment's adoption.

A federal judge in West Virginia has invalidated part of a federal law that prohibits the possession of a firearm with an "altered obliterated, or removed" serial number, citing the Supreme Court's recent decision that demands a historical review of gun laws to determine their constitutionality.

"Firearms with no serial number are just as 'bearable' as the same firearm with a serial number," Judge Joseph Goodwin said in his opinion Wednesday, though he acknowledged that guns missing serial numbers "are likely to be used in violent crime."

The court's decision is the latest to reflect how far reaching the Supreme Court has opened up new legal challenges to federal, state and local gun control laws nationwide.

What circuit is WV?

 

[Sage954]

So how about the federal judge's recent ruling against the requirement in another state, based on the fact that serial #s did not exist at the time of the Amendment's adoption.

Can’t wait to see how this plays out.

 

[dblas]

So how about the federal judge's recent ruling against the requirement in another state, based on the fact that serial #s did not exist at the time of the Amendment's adoption.

Doesn't affect Maryland, different state, it would have to go to the 4th Circuit and be upheld to affect Maryland

 

[sckno3]

following Bruen, i think we'll have legal precedent set with the recent DE case decision overturning the ban on PMF and the recent WV case ruling that the presence of a serial number is not required anywhere in the text, history, or tradition of our nation's founding documents or principles and therefore Unconstitutional.

that said, it'll still take someone pushing it to court in MD to overturn the MD rule... but it seems impossible to that it would stand scrutiny.

my $0.02 for the change jar...