Private Sales of Non-regulated Arms.

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!
  • lazarus

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 23, 2015
    13,673
    The penalty overall though, the continued unjustifiable erosion of your God given rights, is pretty disgusting

    What right does the government have regulating what I put in my own body? When have they been the decider of what I do in private with another consenting and informed adult?

    We've allowed and some of us have been highly supportive of making darned sure government could tell us that stuff.

    Do I really, really want to go get high? No, not really. I sure don't though because the government says I will lose my job and my guns if I do (weed anyway). If it is something other than weed, I'll also go to jail or prison.

    I think it is abhorrent and against the principals and morals of WHY we choose to have the government we do for them telling me what I can do with my own body.

    So I advocate and vote the way I do to change things I don't like. But the penalty is high, even if the risk of being a middle aged white guy if I were smoking dope in the privacy of my own home are really low of being caught.

    If I wouldn't lose my job or be sanctioned at work, if I wouldn't lose my guns, if all I faced was a nominal fine and loss of the thing, I'd probably just ignore the law.

    I speed sometimes because my risk is I'd probably get a ticket that is fraction of a day's pay check so long as I believe I am being safe (unless I was REALLY booking, then I might loose my license and have other penalties, which is why I don't ever speed a LOT).

    Can this all lead to an erosion of rights? yes. Hopefully though we can correct that through the ballot box. Outright ignoring them has great risk. Complying with them also carries risks of further erosion of rights or of having complied ends up causing you property loss, injury, death, etc.

    Everyone has some line they won't cross. And I am well aware of how you boil a frog. Me personally though, I am not going to simply ignore laws because I find them immoral. It is all risk vs reward. What is the government going to do or likely to do to me for not following it, as well as risk of discovery. What is the reward for not following the law (moral reward, financial, personal, etc.)

    If I had 0% chance of being caught robbing a bank, I wouldn't do it because I strongly disagree with robbing banks and I'd have a moral risk/punishment well above any financial gain I would enjoy. The government doesn't need to punish me or be able to catch me to prevent me from robbing banks.

    If I had a 0% chance of being caught owning some belt fed new manufactured machineguns and I could take them to the range and shoot them and enjoy them and I knew I'd never be caught. Well, the government can outlaw that all they want. I see no moral issues with doing any of what I'd be doing. So the government can go take a flying leap.

    Or maybe I'd have a decent chance of being caught, but the government would fine me $100 and ask I don't do it again and they wouldn't take my property. Just pinky swear I get rid of it.

    Guess what I am still going to do?

    Laws I think are wrong I am going to advocate my law makers change them. Or try to elect law makers that will change them. Laws that I think are wrong and my risk levels (risk of being caught and punishment) are extremely low, well I might not comply with them and do that whole advocate and vote thing. Laws I think are wrong with medium or high risk, I am going to follow them and advocate and vote. If I think something is wrong enough then I'd do more than advocate and vote, but there still has to be some "reward" in doing that. If I think defying the government over an odious law is just going to lead to me getting sent to prison for some indeterminately long time or being killed almost for certain and I think the chance I can change the law or the government that created and is enforcing that law...why would I do that? Sometimes something can be so odious, living with it is worse than not being alive. I get that. There are things that could be for me. Hyperbolic example, but if the government passed a law that the government was to take my children and turn them in to soylent green, well I just would not be able to live with that even if I thought there was a 0% chance of changing the outcome.

    I think EVERYONE is the same way. Well, except plenty of people won't vote or advocate. They'll just bellyache about it.

    And to be clear, I am not saying it isn't disgusting. We shouldn't just "live with it and be happy and ask the Government I'd like some more". I am going to be pissed every time I have to do it. I've written my legislators. I'll probably continue writing my legislators and certainly evaluating what candidates for office say they support or don't.
     

    Ponder_MD

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 9, 2020
    4,554
    Maryland
    Watching our 2a rights get chipped away at certainly boils my blood too. But, I can afford the FFL fee and the time to make the transfer, and never have to worry that the other side has something on me. Right now in my life, I simply can’t imagine a situation that would warrant exposing myself to such a potential penalty (especially the loss of clearance/job) to have to backdate a transfer.

    The chipping away and "cumulative infringement" are something that I alluded to in another thread. I worry that the 2nd will become a right that only the wealthy can afford to exercise.

    We shrug off $20 for an FFL fee but consider that Bertfish recently inquired if anyone had .30-06 ammo to donate to a friend because that friend literally needed it to put food on their family table.

    Now imagine that this friend needs to pay for a background check for a lousy box of .30-06 to feed their family. Imagine if this friend needed to buy a replacement hunting rifle because the other one broke beyond repair and had to pay more fees. It adds up, it matters.

    This is something that I really hate about Progressives- they constantly sell themselves as the protector of the worker and the downtrodden but constantly step all over them.
     

    tigmaned

    Active Member
    Feb 25, 2007
    522
    Crofton
    how are people in MARYLAND that don't belong to say a forum like this, going to find out about this NEW B/S MARYLAND law? making us jump through a Federal law.....
    anyone seen or heard about it on WJZ News?? on the radio?? local gun shops have a sign up about it??
     
    Last edited:

    Mark75H

    MD Wear&Carry Instructor
    Industry Partner
    MDS Supporter
    Sep 25, 2011
    17,172
    Outside the Gates
    how are people in MARYLAND that don't belong to say a forum like this, going to find out about this NEW B/S MARYLAND law? making us jump through a Federal law.....
    anyone seen in on WJZ News?? on the radio?? local gun shops have a sign up about it??

    I have heard it briefly mentioned on WBAL radio in the past month or so re the veto override.
     

    lazarus

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 23, 2015
    13,673
    I have heard it briefly mentioned on WBAL radio in the past month or so re the veto override.

    Also a couple newspapers have had articles about it.

    How would you find out anything you do is legal or illegal?

    Laws change all the time. How did anyone learn regulated firearms had to go through an FFL back in the day?

    It sucks. But a citizen should have some basic knowledge of how his government works. Yeah, means maybe you should spend an hour once a year to see what new laws your state made or undid after their legislative session.

    It is infinitely easier to find out that kind of information today than it was 30 years ago.
     

    shrinkwrap

    Active Member
    MDS Supporter
    Apr 30, 2012
    145
    MoCo
    Just a hypothetical, since none of us law-abiding citizens would ever think of doing this, but what if a bill of sale for a long gun private transfer was back-dated (probably couldn't have been posted on MDS because of the date stamp)?

    Let me say at once that I am AGHAST that anyone would even THINK of doing such a thing (I'm even considering canceling myself for bringing it up), but just as a thought experiment, what do folks think?

    Interesting. All of the responses to my post point to the fact that we (meaning MD gun owners) as a group, are quite law-abiding, regardless of the reason. Just another irony in today's upside-down culture.
     

    Nickberg500

    Ultimate Member
    Sep 20, 2019
    1,064
    North of Baltimore County
    Interesting. All of the responses to my post point to the fact that we (meaning MD gun owners) as a group, are quite law-abiding, regardless of the reason. Just another irony in today's upside-down culture.
    I think if everyone blatantly didn't follow the law it might work. Like as a form of protest we formed a line of 100 people and passed a shotgun and money down the line, what would they do?
     

    shrinkwrap

    Active Member
    MDS Supporter
    Apr 30, 2012
    145
    MoCo
    I think if everyone blatantly didn't follow the law it might work. Like as a form of protest we formed a line of 100 people and passed a shotgun and money down the line, what would they do?

    I like your idea, but I think it would have to be more than 100 people. If it's non en masse, thousands at once, they would likely call in reinforcements and arrest the 100. Unless, of course, we all carried BLM signs. Then it would probably be OK.
     
    Last edited:

    welder516

    Deplorable Welder
    MDS Supporter
    Jun 8, 2013
    27,297
    Underground Bunker
    Voters in Maryland a generally stupid and will believe what they are told by politicians look at B-46 he is worse then O-44 and a whole lot dumber . Not messing with big oil and wham 11K jobs gone plus all the support for those jobs .

    Voters are stupid and politicians know this and use it against the people that keep an eye out for freedom
     

    trickg

    Guns 'n Drums
    MDS Supporter
    Jul 22, 2008
    14,584
    Glen Burnie
    Ultimately there's no viable way to enforce this law on any gun that was purchased prior to the date the law went into effect.

    Example: I have a rifle I bought 10 years ago and I no longer want it for whatever reason. The state of Maryland has absolutely no clue that I have this rifle. None. Let's say I have a friend who wants this rifle, and he comes to my house one evening, pays me whatever amount of money, and he takes the rifle home. Easy peasy, lemon squeezy. He now has the rifle, but Maryland has no way to viably prove when he took possession of it, unless they happened to actually see the transaction take place. We're not at that level of Big Brother yet.

    It will matter for guns initially purchased in Maryland for non-regulated firearms after the law goes into effect - they'll be papered - but for anything prior to that? Even for papered guns, we follow the laws because we're good citizens who do that, but unless a crime is committed with such a firearm that brings it to light in the eyes of the law, how would the state even know if we didn't voluntarily tell them every time?

    I know that this board generally frowns on these kinds of posts, but that is the reality. The only people these laws every hurt are those who follow the law - the criminal element ignores such laws, and always has, so they're kind of pointless.
     

    trickg

    Guns 'n Drums
    MDS Supporter
    Jul 22, 2008
    14,584
    Glen Burnie
    I believe MSP reported this to the legislature during the discussion and debate last year.
    The fact that it's unenforceable for the literally hundreds of thousands/millions of guns purchased and owned prior to the passing of the law? And they passed it anyway? Shocker. :sad20:
     

    lazarus

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 23, 2015
    13,673
    The fact that it's unenforceable for the literally hundreds of thousands/millions of guns purchased and owned prior to the passing of the law? And they passed it anyway? Shocker. :sad20:

    It isn't unenforceable.

    How is under age drinking universally enforceable? If I let my kids drink in my own house under age, how if the government going to find out about it unless someone blabs?

    They aren't.

    The law is not unenforceable. If an officer nabs someone in a sting, they can sure as heck enforce the law then. If someone says something, they can potentially use that again the various parties to get them.

    New firearms are VERY easy to enforce this on.

    Ad nauseum.

    So it isn't unenforceable. Do you REALLY think even most of the gun grabbers care all that much if you are transferring a gun to a friend? Probably not that much for a lot of them.

    This will likely cut way down on private transfers between parties that do not know each other.

    Because again, how do you know it isn't a sting? How do you know the other guy won't rat you out later about something? If you are buying, how do you know the date the gun was actually purchased?

    Etc.

    You'd honestly have to either be stupid, or intentionally and willfully knowing you are both breaking the law and risking getting caught and don't care to proceed with a private party transfer to a stranger moving forward.

    That is what the legislators cared the most about. I am sure plenty cared to about you transferring a gun to a friend, but I think most didn't. But they aren't going to put in a carve out that "you know the guy, so it is fine".

    Risk vs reward is going to significantly reduce the behavior government says they care about and possibly the riskier behavior of rando is buying a gun from someone without a background check.

    And the law isn't unenforceable. It has a higher likelihood of being able to be enforced in the instances where government again likely cares the most about reducing the "riskier" behavior.

    Sell a gun to a rando and they get involved in a crime, very well might sell you out, in which case find out how easy it is for the DA to get a conviction on you.
     

    lazarus

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 23, 2015
    13,673
    can I still give my son long guns without transferring them

    Yes. Family is exempt. You can look at the law for the exact list, but parents, children, siblings are all exempt for sure.

    If I remember correctly aunts, uncles, nieces, nephew are also exempt. I believe step relationships of parent/child is as well.

    Can't recall if cousins or in-laws are exempt (I believe in-laws are, I don't think cousins are).
     

    trickg

    Guns 'n Drums
    MDS Supporter
    Jul 22, 2008
    14,584
    Glen Burnie
    Comments in bold below:
    It isn't unenforceable.

    How is under age drinking universally enforceable? If I let my kids drink in my own house under age, how if the government going to find out about it unless someone blabs?
    Children may consume alcohol at home, supposedly under the supervision of a parent. That's perfectly legal - bad example to use.

    They aren't.

    The law is not unenforceable. If an officer nabs someone in a sting, they can sure as heck enforce the law then. If someone says something, they can potentially use that again the various parties to get them.

    New firearms are VERY easy to enforce this on.
    No - they aren't. The ONLY way the state knows who has a gun is if people voluntarily adhere to the law, so the only time this is enforceable would be for the sale of a new firearm at a dealer.

    Ad nauseum.

    So it isn't unenforceable. Do you REALLY think even most of the gun grabbers care all that much if you are transferring a gun to a friend? Probably not that much for a lot of them.

    This will likely cut way down on private transfers between parties that do not know each other.

    Because again, how do you know it isn't a sting? How do you know the other guy won't rat you out later about something? If you are buying, how do you know the date the gun was actually purchased?
    I seriously doubt that the MSP has the time or manpower to mount stings on everyday people like you and me to catch the random one-off. If that's what they're doing then they are pissing away our taxpayer money when there's real crime they could be fighting.

    Etc.

    You'd honestly have to either be stupid, or intentionally and willfully knowing you are both breaking the law and risking getting caught and don't care to proceed with a private party transfer to a stranger moving forward.

    That is what the legislators cared the most about. I am sure plenty cared to about you transferring a gun to a friend, but I think most didn't. But they aren't going to put in a carve out that "you know the guy, so it is fine".

    Risk vs reward is going to significantly reduce the behavior government says they care about and possibly the riskier behavior of rando is buying a gun from someone without a background check.

    And the law isn't unenforceable. It has a higher likelihood of being able to be enforced in the instances where government again likely cares the most about reducing the "riskier" behavior.

    Sell a gun to a rando and they get involved in a crime, very well might sell you out, in which case find out how easy it is for the DA to get a conviction on you.
    Absolutely none of this matters if the gun was purchased prior to the law going into effect and has no paper on it. The state is completely ignorant that it existed in the first place, so if Rando decides to try to sell you out...

    Rando: He sold me the gun!
    Me: I've never seen this man before in my life/I've never seen that gun before in my life.

    Case closed.

    This is all about as enforceable as the magazine law. But we all know, the first rule of Magazine Club is we DON'T TALK ABOUT MAGAZINE CLUB.
     

    Darkemp

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Aug 18, 2009
    7,808
    Marylandistan
    I like your idea, but I think it would have to be more than 100 people. If it's non en masse, thousands at once, they would likely call in reinforcements and arrest the 100. Unless, of course, we all carried BLM signs. Then it would probably be OK.

    This is also a state where it is now illegal to buy or sell a foam plate. Nothing should surprise any of us.
     

    dblas

    Past President, MSI
    MDS Supporter
    Apr 6, 2011
    13,087
    The fact that it's unenforceable for the literally hundreds of thousands/millions of guns purchased and owned prior to the passing of the law? And they passed it anyway? Shocker. :sad20:

    The passing of the law really doesn't change anything, MSP still has no clue when the rifle/shotgun was purchased, and unless they can have reason to believe the law was subverted, they have no reason to take a firearm and check the manufacture date and run down when it was sold by an FFL.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,915
    Messages
    7,258,418
    Members
    33,348
    Latest member
    Eric_Hehl

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom