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

[dblas]

If anyone registers their AK let us know how it works for you

Shouldn't work out any worse than a new resident registering their AK.
Quit with the BGOS.

 

[whistlersmother]

Somewhere upthread it talked about registering PMF lowers which were assumed to be pre-2013.

Is there anyway to check the validity of them being registered as pre-ban lowers (and thus eligible for non-hbar uppers)?

If so, then an AK should be no problem because it would also be assumed to be pre-ban.

 

[jkeys]

If anyone registers their AK let us know how it works for you

I already covered this in the other thread. When you register the guns with the MD State Police there is a check box for whether they were pre-ban or post-ban in Maryland.

 

[G O B]

Send all 'contraband' to me here in Texas,and I'll hold em for ya!

 

[85MikeTPI]

Is the PMF law now challengable via the NYSRPA decision

 

[teratos]

There is a LONG tradition of home built firearms.

 

[jkeys]

Is the PMF law now challengable via the NYSRPA decision

Not based on my reading of the ruling. The state isn't interfering with your right to make firearms, they are just requiring them to be registered.

 

[teratos]

Not based on my reading of the ruling. The state isn't interfering with your right to make firearms, they are just requiring them to be registered.

Tell me how registration was a thing historically? I’ll wait.

 

[budman93]

Not based on my reading of the ruling. The state isn't interfering with your right to make firearms, they are just requiring them to be registered.

So like how the state wasn't interfering with our right to carry a firearm? They just require that we have a good reason?

Tell me how registration was a thing historically? I’ll wait.

 

[jkeys]

Sorry if you can't understand the ruling. They used the 14th ammendment (equal protection clause) to say that NY was treating some gun owners different than others by requiring a special reasoning and therefore creating two classes of people, those with some arbitrary reason and those without.

Registering PMFs applies to all people uniformly and therefore doesn't violate the 14th ammendment. Nor does it prevent or delay you from exercising your 2A right, so it doesn't fail any type of scrutiny test.

 

[teratos]

Sorry if you can't understand the ruling. They used the 14th ammendment (equal protection clause) to say that NY was treating some gun owners different than others by requiring a special reasoning and therefore creating two classes of people, those with some arbitrary reason and those without.

Registering PMFs applies to all people uniformly and therefore doesn't violate the 14th ammendment. Nor does it prevent or delay you from exercising your 2A right, so it doesn't fail any type of scrutiny test.

Registration leads to confiscation. Historically, you did NOT need to serialize or register any gun made for personal use. This law hasn’t even fully gone into effect, so historically it didn’t exist. I’m using the 2A.

Sorry you don’t understand freedom.

(You didn’t read the ruling, did you?)

 

[budman93]

Sorry if you can't understand the ruling. They used the 14th ammendment (equal protection clause) to say that NY was treating some gun owners different than others by requiring a special reasoning and therefore creating two classes of people, those with some arbitrary reason and those without.

Registering PMFs applies to all people uniformly and therefore doesn't violate the 14th ammendment. Nor does it prevent or delay you from exercising your 2A right, so it doesn't fail any type of scrutiny test.

Applying to all people equally is not the test that Thomas has now set out. The test is if it was a restriction that was accepted at the time the amendment was written. Based on that there are no grounds for registration.

"The test that the Court set forth in Heller and applies today requires courts to assess whether modern firearms regulations are consistent with the Second Amendment’s text and historical understanding."

 

[KIBarrister]

Sorry if you can't understand the ruling. They used the 14th ammendment (equal protection clause) to say that NY was treating some gun owners different than others by requiring a special reasoning and therefore creating two classes of people, those with some arbitrary reason and those without.

Registering PMFs applies to all people uniformly and therefore doesn't violate the 14th ammendment. Nor does it prevent or delay you from exercising your 2A right, so it doesn't fail any type of scrutiny test.

You are misreading the ruling. The Second Amendment was at the core of the ruling - the fourteenth is only relevant insomuch as it applies the second to the states.

But, yes, NYSRPA would provide a basis for challenge. I don't know that it would necessarily succeed, but it would not necessarily fail.

 

[pcfixer]

MSI has a new guide: https://www.marylandshallissue.org/jmain/information/privately-made-firearms-in-maryland

Seems a new look at this "Law"!
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_n758.pdf WVA vs EPA
Page #3
Quoted..."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."

Major Questions About the Major Questions Doctrine

Unless you're deeply immersed in administrative law, you may not have heard of the major questions doctrine. It's a legal theory that conservative judges have used with increasing rigor to block important regulatory initiatives. The doctrine places special obstacles on agency regulation of...

progressivereform.org

hears about this here..https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XoeJzyu6xv0 check from time 4:40 on

 

[lazarus]

Registration leads to confiscation. Historically, you did NOT need to serialize or register any gun made for personal use. This law hasn’t even fully gone into effect, so historically it didn’t exist. I’m using the 2A.

Sorry you don’t understand freedom.

(You didn’t read the ruling, did you?)

And it might fail under the stricter interpretation of the 2A. However, as much as I think registration is odious, it doesn't infringe on the right to keep or bear arms. It does REGULATE the 2nd, but it doesn't prevent anyone from keeping and bearing arms. By all means, lawsuit. But I don't think SCOTUS is going to strike it down. Just like I am very confident they are not going to strike down background checks. They probably also aren't going to strike down relatively short waiting periods (7 days is probably going to be okay. 30 is almost certainly not). I don't think SCOTUS is going to jump to "registration has been historically used in other countries to disarm the populace and then round up those disfavorable to the current regime" as a reason for striking it down.

 

[teratos]

And it might fail under the stricter interpretation of the 2A. However, as much as I think registration is odious, it doesn't infringe on the right to keep or bear arms. It does REGULATE the 2nd, but it doesn't prevent anyone from keeping and bearing arms. By all means, lawsuit. But I don't think SCOTUS is going to strike it down. Just like I am very confident they are not going to strike down background checks. They probably also aren't going to strike down relatively short waiting periods (7 days is probably going to be okay. 30 is almost certainly not). I don't think SCOTUS is going to jump to "registration has been historically used in other countries to disarm the populace and then round up those disfavorable to the current regime" as a reason for striking it down.

I think registration is repugnant to the Constitution. Arms are needed, in the extreme, for protection against tyranny. Why on earth would you register your arms with those very tyrants?

I don't need the King's permission to bear arms, and the King doesn't need to know what I have.

 

[pcfixer]

I think registration is repugnant to the Constitution. Arms are needed, in the extreme, for protection against tyranny. Why on earth would you register your arms with those very tyrants?

I don't need the King's permission to bear arms, and the King doesn't need to know what I have.

Exactly! 100% True. :flag

 

[lazarus]

I think registration is repugnant to the Constitution. Arms are needed, in the extreme, for protection against tyranny. Why on earth would you register your arms with those very tyrants?

I don't need the King's permission to bear arms, and the King doesn't need to know what I have.

How you feel and what the law says and how SCOTUS will interpret it doesn't necessarily match up. I happen to feel the same way, but I can also be realistic enough to think SCOTUS is not going to think the same way on something like registration. And the opinion rendered makes mention of the fact that not all gun laws are facially unconstitutional. The lighter the touch, the more likely it will be found constitutional even if a clear link to a historical law or tradition cannot be made. Because at some point, if it is light enough touch, it doesn't violate "shall not be infringed". Registering probably does not infringe on the right to keep or bear arms. It COULD be used to confiscate them. But a confiscation would be the thing not constitutional.

You have to register to vote...

PS Also yes, the court did just say that getting permission to keep and bear arms is probably okay (but not for sure okay); to whit. The court does not appear to be leaning towards finding that criminals can keep and bear arms, nor does it appear to be leaning towards saying it is not okay for the government to ensure first that you are not a criminal before you keep and bear arms. So background checks are likely going to be upheld. It is a question of applying it equally to everyone (14th) and ensuring it doesn't violate the 2nd...but the court has LONG held way back to the very earliest part of our history as a nation that criminals can lose some of their rights.

 

[teratos]

How you feel and what the law says and how SCOTUS will interpret it doesn't necessarily match up. I happen to feel the same way, but I can also be realistic enough to think SCOTUS is not going to think the same way on something like registration. And the opinion rendered makes mention of the fact that not all gun laws are facially unconstitutional. The lighter the touch, the more likely it will be found constitutional even if a clear link to a historical law or tradition cannot be made. Because at some point, if it is light enough touch, it doesn't violate "shall not be infringed". Registering probably does not infringe on the right to keep or bear arms. It COULD be used to confiscate them. But a confiscation would be the thing not constitutional.

You have to register to vote...

PS Also yes, the court did just say that getting permission to keep and bear arms is probably okay (but not for sure okay); to whit. The court does not appear to be leaning towards finding that criminals can keep and bear arms, nor does it appear to be leaning towards saying it is not okay for the government to ensure first that you are not a criminal before you keep and bear arms. So background checks are likely going to be upheld. It is a question of applying it equally to everyone (14th) and ensuring it doesn't violate the 2nd...but the court has LONG held way back to the very earliest part of our history as a nation that criminals can lose some of their rights.

You have to register to vote, but you don't have to register how you voted.

 

[lazarus]

You have to register to vote, but you don't have to register how you voted.

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