True AWB in MD via O'Malley and Judiciary

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!
  • SigMatt

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 17, 2007
    1,181
    Shores of the Bay, MD
    I think many have the same thoughts and questions as you, Matt. I do. From what I gather (from posts here and elswehere), many of our elected reps here in MD have been very busy over the holidays.

    And that, StickerLT, is what scares the everloving hell out of me.

    My wife's approach is call a friend in PA or VA, put in a gun safe there and move said forbidden arms out of the state. That's not the point and she doesn't understand why I'm so upset at the suggestion. I shouldn't have to move legally owned property in the dead of night to an exile elsewhere because someone just declared it verboten out of fear, politics and/or power.

    Lately, I've been channeling H.L. Mencken. Unfortunately, taking his advice would make things worse for everyone.

    Matt
     

    John from MD

    American Patriot
    MDS Supporter
    May 12, 2005
    22,734
    Socialist State of Maryland
    Back in the eighties, California tried a turn in/confiscation scheme for semi auto rifles and shotguns. So few people complied that the Attorney General ruled it to be unenforceable.

    If Annapolis comes up with the idea of taxing so called AWs, they could only apply to those who bought regulated rifles. Many Colt Sporters and HB match AR's were sold and the MSP has no idea where they are. Do you really think that the owners of those will voluntarily tell them what they own?

    John
     

    teratos

    My hair is amazing
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 22, 2009
    59,775
    Bel Air
    Back in the eighties, California tried a turn in/confiscation scheme for semi auto rifles and shotguns. So few people complied that the Attorney General ruled it to be unenforceable.

    If Annapolis comes up with the idea of taxing so called AWs, they could only apply to those who bought regulated rifles. Many Colt Sporters and HB match AR's were sold and the MSP has no idea where they are. Do you really think that the owners of those will voluntarily tell them what they own?

    John


    We could challenge that. I don't see a free speech tax anywhere.
     

    erwos

    The Hebrew Hammer
    MDS Supporter
    Mar 25, 2009
    13,866
    Rockville, MD
    If Annapolis comes up with the idea of taxing so called AWs, they could only apply to those who bought regulated rifles. Many Colt Sporters and HB match AR's were sold and the MSP has no idea where they are. Do you really think that the owners of those will voluntarily tell them what they own?
    Well, here's the thing: you could hide it, but you'd never be able to shoot it in public in the state, because you KNOW that manned ranges will ask you to show your tax papers to make sure it's legal, like they do with NFA items now. Even at ranges that aren't manned 24/7, there tend to be cops there once in a while... you want some cop asking you for papers on your unregistered rifle? I sure wouldn't. This is basically the plan that Frosh et al seem to be pursuing, in fact: you can keep your evil black rifles, but you can't do anything with them (so you better sell them).

    To be blunt, it's almost a good thing that MD is going down the AWB with grandfathering path, because we can fight that. If they got wise and just decided to tax modern sporting rifles at $100 a year EACH, we'd be in a lot worse shape from a Constitutional standpoint.
     

    erwos

    The Hebrew Hammer
    MDS Supporter
    Mar 25, 2009
    13,866
    Rockville, MD
    We could challenge that. I don't see a free speech tax anywhere.
    You could challenge it, but remember that the NFA is essentially the taxation approach, and that WAS upheld in SCOTUS. There's no free speech tax, it's true, but there's certainly sales tax on newspapers and TVs.
     

    teratos

    My hair is amazing
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 22, 2009
    59,775
    Bel Air
    You could challenge it, but remember that the NFA is essentially the taxation approach, and that WAS upheld in SCOTUS. There's no free speech tax, it's true, but there's certainly sales tax on newspapers and TVs.

    Might be a door to challenging NFA. Common use by the military, as alluded to in Miller. Won't cover SBS or perhaps SBR's in general, but the M4 carbine should be available to every American.
     

    DOsniper

    Active Member
    Mar 4, 2011
    326
    Monkton, MD
    All,

    Been a MD Shooters member for a while but been quiet but coming up for air with events over the past two weeks. Especially supposed proposals upcoming that would truly ban AR-15s, AK pattern rifles and anything else black and scary, limit magazines downward to half of the current limit and ban possession of said rifles within the state.

    I will be in Annapolis to protest and testify against such overreach since I am local down the road in Edgewater.

    What I can't figure out is the rationale except for two possible reasons:

    1) To be seen "doing something".
    2) To finally get back in a purely punitive fashion against pesky gun owners in Maryland.

    The problem is, how would a possession ban be legal? Doesn't that fall under "ex post facto"?

    On #2, I make that argument on the following basis:

    1) "Assault weapons" are already highly regulated in Maryland.

    2) There is a mandatory registration for all "assault weapons" already in this state. Owners are registered with the Maryland State Police as part of that process.

    3) There is already an 8 day waiting period for purchase of any "assault weapon" in this state performed by the State Police.

    4) There is mandatory safety training required before the transfer of any "assault weapon" to any Maryland resident.

    5) There is already a "high capacity magazine" ban in place that is limited to 20 rounds or less, passed in part due to the "dangers" of greater capacity.

    6) There is already an "assault pistol" ban in place in Maryland.

    7) A mental health background check is performed as part of the background check as part of the process to be "not disapproved" for the ownership of an "assault weapon".

    8) The Judiciary Committee cannot demonstrate in the state of Maryland in the past years where these firearms have been used predominantly in any Maryland mass shootings or crimes. Even the Maryland State Police has testified this hasn't been the case.

    Adding guns to regulated list is one thing. Shrinking magazine capacity to 10 and grandfathering in the existing possession under a rework of the existing law by changing "20" to "10" would be seen as worthless, punitive, frustrating but ultimately status quo. We'll just buy 20 rounders in Virginia like we do 30s and life goes on.

    But a possession ban? How many felons in Maryland would that create? And to what end? Because they could. Do these politicians in Annapolis have no respect at all for the rights of peaceful citizens in this state and feel perfectly justified in running roughshod over them, their individual rights and their property rights because they engage in an activity they find distasteful but perfectly legal? Where does it stop? What more do they want?!?

    I'm angry. At the utter lack of respect these people have for those who elect them. They are supposed to represent. Not enact their preferred policy choices and biases. And we've seen in hearing after hearing where those who don't like gun owners just get up and walk out.

    For the first time, I truly fear for what lies at the other end of this process should they succeed this time. I think they may push to pass such things in the House "just because" and to hell with the thousands of us that would show up. We're just residents and constituents, nobody important and it doesn't appear to matter anyway. They just keep getting re-elected.

    If it does happen, what do we do then? Do we meekly turn our guns in to the state or move them out of state? Continue to be grateful they might let us keep a Garand and a 8 round enbloc? Or become potential criminals or forced to make a choice on keeping our valuable property, which represents hours of our lives we don't get back? All at the say-so of a bunch of suits in Annapolis who have no respect at all for anyone who lives here.

    I need to get this out here. I need to know there are others like me. I am trying to channel my anger, my rage, at how a monster in a senseless event is being used for a naked power grab the likes of which I think none of us has ever seen.

    Matt
    Edgewater, MD


    Is it me or is #2 technically illegal under the Gun Owners Protection Act? I thought only the ATF could legally "log" weapons to their owners? If this is true then how come no one or no group has bothered challenging this?
     

    spanokopita

    Member
    Nov 3, 2012
    68
    DOsniper,

    No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or disposition be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary's authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation.

    Hmm.
     

    LeadSled1

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Apr 25, 2009
    4,245
    MD
    The tax would be illegal as it is discriminatory to parts of the population to be unable to exercise a right guaranteed in the 2nd Amendment by not being able to afford it. When you start having to pay for what rights you can exercise it puts the populace on a uneven playing field and all are not equal. Completely against the Constitution. I am sure it would be a heck of a fight but well worth it.
     

    John from MD

    American Patriot
    MDS Supporter
    May 12, 2005
    22,734
    Socialist State of Maryland
    "Even at ranges that aren't manned 24/7, there tend to be cops there once in a while... you want some cop asking you for papers on your unregistered rifle? I sure wouldn't."

    I'm sure there were those folks in 1776 that had the same attitude. It is a good thing that most of the population didn't or we would be speaking the kings English today.

    Non Compliance is a non violent way of standing up for your rights. It worked for MLK and our civil rights are just as important as his.

    John
     

    BenL

    John Galt Speaking.
    I would hope the 2nd Amendment Foundation would be all over them before the ink is dry. ARs, the #1 selling style rifle in the U.S., is now "in common use" and should be easily defensible post-Heller.

    My wife and I have already began the process of hiring contractors to make improvements to the house in case we have to move out of state and sell it (and take our tax base with us to a truly "free state".)
     

    erwos

    The Hebrew Hammer
    MDS Supporter
    Mar 25, 2009
    13,866
    Rockville, MD
    Non Compliance is a non violent way of standing up for your rights. It worked for MLK and our civil rights are just as important as his.
    I can't feed my family if I'm in jail and/or have a criminal record. You want 5-10 years in a MD prison, feel free to parade down main street with your AR-15 and show me how it's done, Internet tough guy.

    The tax would be illegal as it is discriminatory to parts of the population to be unable to exercise a right guaranteed in the 2nd Amendment by not being able to afford it.
    Great reasoning, but it's already failed in court repeatedly (NYC permit fee, anyone?). That's why taxation is such a nasty tactic for anyone who wants to use it.
     

    teratos

    My hair is amazing
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 22, 2009
    59,775
    Bel Air
    Great reasoning, but it's already failed in court repeatedly (NYC permit fee, anyone?). That's why taxation is such a nasty tactic for anyone who wants to use it.

    It did not get as far as SCOTUS, though. Taxing a fundamental right is unprecedented. Taxing a Constitutional right to the point where it is not able to be exercised by a large segment of the population is treasonous.

    Of course, I don't have tremendous faith that SCOTUS would come down on the side of the Constitution.
     

    LeadSled1

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Apr 25, 2009
    4,245
    MD
    It did not get as far as SCOTUS, though. Taxing a fundamental right is unprecedented. Taxing a Constitutional right to the point where it is not able to be exercised by a large segment of the population is treasonous.

    Of course, I don't have tremendous faith that SCOTUS would come down on the side of the Constitution.

    Exactly where I was going.
     

    Norton

    NRA Endowment Member, Rifleman
    Staff member
    Admin
    Moderator
    May 22, 2005
    122,856
    Is it me or is #2 technically illegal under the Gun Owners Protection Act? I thought only the ATF could legally "log" weapons to their owners? If this is true then how come no one or no group has bothered challenging this?

    DOsniper,

    No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or disposition be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary's authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation.

    Hmm.

    The MD AG has ruled that their interpretation is that that provision does not preclude the state from collecting it's own data or requiring registration.
     

    John from MD

    American Patriot
    MDS Supporter
    May 12, 2005
    22,734
    Socialist State of Maryland
    "I can't feed my family if I'm in jail and/or have a criminal record. You want 5-10 years in a MD prison, feel free to parade down main street with your AR-15 and show me how it's done, Internet tough guy."

    As you can see by how little I post, I am not an internet person let alone an "internet tough guy."

    They didn't put all the blacks that stood together in jail. There aren't enough jails to house gun owners if they stand together against this attack on our civil rights.

    BTW, I'm an old guy and I grew up with people who had tattoo numbers on their arms. They taught me never to give up. I don't.

    John
     

    TxAggie

    Ultimate Member
    Feb 25, 2012
    4,734
    Anne Arundel County, MD
    The tax would be illegal as it is discriminatory to parts of the population to be unable to exercise a right guaranteed in the 2nd Amendment by not being able to afford it. When you start having to pay for what rights you can exercise it puts the populace on a uneven playing field and all are not equal. Completely against the Constitution. I am sure it would be a heck of a fight but well worth it.

    This is the same way they were able to get the Poll Tax removed. And remember, voting was not guaranteed under the Bill of Rights but only added later. The second amendment is just that, THE SECOND ONE!

    I'm not saying they won't try it, and as others have mentioned I don't trust SCOTUS anymore either.
     

    Mike OTDP

    Ultimate Member
    Feb 12, 2008
    3,319
    It did not get as far as SCOTUS, though. Taxing a fundamental right is unprecedented. Taxing a Constitutional right to the point where it is not able to be exercised by a large segment of the population is treasonous.

    Of course, I don't have tremendous faith that SCOTUS would come down on the side of the Constitution.

    IIRC, taxing enumerated rights has gotten to SCOTUS, and been ruled unconstutitional. I think Gura has at least one case in the courts now on this subject.

    We have to remember that until the Heller decision, there was surprisingly little jurisprudence on the 2nd Amendment. With that ruling, there's a lot of other rulings that can be cited.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,930
    Messages
    7,259,473
    Members
    33,350
    Latest member
    Rotorboater

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom