Not sure that would be true, although it is hard to tell for sure.
Unfortunately, a prosecutor only needs to convince a bunch of people on a jury, and I don't know that I'd want to leave my life in the hands of a dozen low information people.With statutes and their surrounding contexts so ambiguous, how could a State's Attorney ever win a conviction? Nobody can say beyond a reasonable doubt, and maybe even to preponderance standard, what is actually illegal to possess or transfer.
Unfortunately, a prosecutor only needs to convince a bunch of people on a jury, and I don't know that I'd want to leave my life in the hands of a dozen low information people.
I'm just not understand this, I was under the distinct impression if the firearm had a heavy barrel is was good to go. I don't get it, singling out one manufacturer over another. Is the proposed law saying if an individual purchased a Anderson Manufacturing (AM15) and a Stag 15 (HBAR) a couple of years ago. Now they would be now illegal?
Only the Anderson hbar in 223 and 300 would be illegal... but they are supposedly adding a grandfather clause. So it would be going forward from oct. this year if it passes.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Only the Anderson hbar in 223 and 300 would be illegal... but they are supposedly adding a grandfather clause. So it would be going forward from oct. this year if it passes.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I know as an individual that I wouldn't have standing. But you would think that one company would file a suit against Maryland for favoring one arms company over another.
With statutes and their surrounding contexts so ambiguous, how could a State's Attorney ever win a conviction? Nobody can say beyond a reasonable doubt, and maybe even to preponderance standard, what is actually illegal to possess or transfer.
For many but not all crimes, the prosecution must prove not only that the defendant carried out certain acts but also that they had a certain mental state. This is often known as the “mens rea” (“guilty mind”) element, and it prevents people from being punished when their intentions were innocent.
I needed to look up what "mens rea" means. IANAL I found this on justia.com for those interested:
From an IT security standpoint, this is a nightmare. Not a safe practice. No one in their right mind would do this.
Anyone that is doing this, I'd suggest bringing the smallest flash drive you can, freshly formatted, and only your testimony on it to speed up the virus scan process.
Not sure that would be true, although it is hard to tell for sure. The question would be whether the ban on the Anderson Am-15 in .223 and .300blk would ban using that receiver to custom build a heavy barrel version. The Anderson AM-15 in .223 is already banned, but not the Anderson AM-15 .300blk(unless this bill passes). My understanding that those two guns are not heavy barrel firearms from the factory. For example, you can build any HBAR, including a Colt HBAR, even though any AR15 in .223 regular barrel is banned. You just cannot build a HBAR that meets the definition of a "copy cat" weapon, viz., a center fire semi auto gun with a detachable mag, and that has two of three features, a flash suppressor, a grenade launcher or a folding stock, or is less than 29 inches long. See MD Code Criminal Law 4-301(h). That is because the MSP has construed the exemption for the Colt HBAR to include HBARs of any manufacturer. See, e.g., the MSP exemption for Armalite HBARs. ON the other hand, it is perfectly possible to read the bill has imposing a complete ban on all builds from the Anderson receiver. Yet, that result is hard to square with MSP guidance. Under that guidance, it is perfectly legal to purchase the Anderson receiver itself using the 77R process, as the 5-101(r)(2) list includes only long guns, not receivers. The receiver can be legally built into a heavy barrel, a pistol for personal use (you cannot sell the Anderson .223 pistol, or build for distribution as it is not on the Roster, but you can build it for personal use) or a SBR (as long as you comply with the NFA of 1934 and the ATF requirements under that act for SBRs). Again, the 5-101(r)(2) list includes only long guns (classified as "assault long guns under MD Code Criminal Law 4-301), not receivers. See MSP ADVISORY LD-FRS-14-003 (2014). Put differently, a receiver is a "firearm" but it is not an "assault long gun." Given that advisory, it would be odd to hold that you can build a Colt receiver into a heavy barrel, but not an Anderson receiver..... YMMV. Now, I don't think you can EVER build an Anderson .223 regular barrel, as that is already banned, including its manufacture. That would include converting an Anderson Heavy Barrel into a regular barrel. This is not Legal Advice.
I'm just not understand this, I was under the distinct impression if the firearm had a heavy barrel is was good to go. I don't get it, singling out one manufacturer over another. Is the proposed law saying if an individual purchased a Anderson Manufacturing (AM15) and a Stag 15 Retro (HBAR) a couple of years ago. Now they would be now illegal?
Then how does that guidance square with MSP's complete ban on anything Bushmaster when they only call out a rifle (and not even one manufactured by the Bushmaster Company) in the statute?
You have just illustrated the absurdity of the matter. So yes, if you build a .300blk using an Anderson lower, it would probably be banned as a "copy" under MD Code Public Safety 5-101(r)(2). So if you use a different lower it MAY be fine, as the .300blk round long gun is otherwise not on the (r)(2) list. But, it is hard to be definitive.