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!
  • teratos

    My hair is amazing
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 22, 2009
    59,775
    Bel Air
    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.

    I would think that registration would be found Constitutional, since in and of itself registration does not preclude the right to possess. You need permits to exercise your 1A rights, to a degree. The problem with a yearly tax on "assault weapons", or high prices on a permit is that they hinder the ability of some people to own the weapons. I would hope that the courts see it that way. Of course, first they have to agree that "assault weapons" are protected under the Constitution because of common use.
     

    pcfixer

    Ultimate Member
    May 24, 2009
    5,947
    Marylandstan
    May I remind all of you here.......
    The Queen of Battle, and her modern descendants, are the birth-right of every American.
    “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force: Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.” – Patrick Henry
    My conscience, and the urgency of our current situation, compel me to speak out. The victim disarmament freaks are now telling us that they don’t want to disarm us- oh, no! They just want to take away our “assault weapons” – our semi-automatic, magazine fed, military-style rifles – and the “high capacity” magazines that feed them. They want us to believe that so long as we can own some kind of firearm, after our semi-auto military rifles are taken, we are not disarmed. That is a LIE.
    The truth is that our semi-automatic, military pattern rifles are the single most important kind of arm we can own, and are utterly necessary for effective defense of our lives, property, and liberty. When you are disarmed of your military rifles, you are DISARMED. At that time, the lion’s share of your military capacity to effectively resist tyranny is removed (yes, accurate bolt action hunting rifles are useful in that role too, but the semi-auto battle rifle is truly the Queen of battle, as Col. Jeff Cooper correctly noted). It is a significant force on the battlefield, and as Patrick Henry said, when you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.
    It is the height of Orwellian perversion of language and logic to say that disarming you of the most effective arms for combat that you still have is somehow not really disarming you, because you still have hunting rifles and shotguns. And you can bet that if you let them take your military semi-autos, next on their list will be your bolt action rifles, which they will call “sniper rifles” (and by God, that is certainly what they are good for!). And then when they have those, they will go after any weapon that holds more than a few rounds, or is capable of any degree of long range accuracy and penetrating power, telling you that you really don’t need one of those to hunt or target practice (a shotgun will suffice), and then they will take everything except single shot shotguns or .22’s (as was done in England) and on down the line. So long as you have at least a .22, they will say you are not “disarmed” while they take everything else (and then they will take the .22s, or insist that you keep them at a gun-range).
    We need to call a spade a spade and teach our fellow citizens that taking away military style semi-autos is disarmament. And we need to throw down the gauntlet and take a hard stand against it, right now. When we, as Oath Keepers, pledged to not obey any orders to disarm the American people, this is what we meant. Any attempt to disarm the people of any arms currently in their possession is illegitimate and must be nullified, refused, disobeyed, and resisted.
    And so, in response to this obvious assault on our right to keep and bear arms (as in military arms), I feel compelled to make the following personal pledge:
    I Stewart Rhodes, as an American, as a military veteran, and as a father, pledge the following:
    I Pledge to never disarm, and in particular, to never surrender my military pattern, semi-automatic rifles (and full capacity magazines, parts, and ammunition that go with them), regardless of what illegitimate action is taken by Congress, the President, or the courts.
    I also pledge to pass on those military pattern rifles to my children and my children’s children, as well as the full capacity magazines, parts, and ammunition to needed to use them, regardless of what illegitimate action is taken by Congress, the President, or the courts. As Founding Father Tench Coxe said, while attempting to allay the fears of critics of the proposed Constitution:
    The powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom?
    Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American… [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people. – Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
    And that “power of the sword” – those “terrible implements of the soldier,” includes the people’s battle rifles and carbines – their M1As, their FN-LARs, their HK 91s, their Grandfathers’ M1 Garand, their AK 47s, their ARs and M4s, etc. – all of the weapons listed as being targeted for Feinstein’s new and improved “Assault Weapons Ban.”
    The whole point of the Second Amendment is to preserve the military capacity of the American people – to preserve the ability of the people, who are the militia, to provide for their own security as individuals, as neighborhoods, towns, counties, and states, during any emergency, man-made or natural; to preserve the military capacity of the American people to resist tyranny and violations of their rights by oath breakers within government; and to preserve the military capacity of the people to defend the Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic, including those oath breaking domestic enemies within government. It is not about hunting, and at its core, the Second Amendment is not really even about self-defense against private criminals. It is about self-defense against public criminals – against tyrants, usurpers, and foreign invaders. (and that is the whole point of the crucial upcoming film, Molon Labe).
     

    pcfixer

    Ultimate Member
    May 24, 2009
    5,947
    Marylandstan
    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.


    Maybe so, Norton. Does not make it legal, constitutional or right.

    http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/registration_article/registration.html

    t would be instructive at this time to recall why the American citizenry and Congress have historically opposed the registration of firearms. The reason is plain. Registration makes it easy for a tyrannical government to confiscate firearms and to make prey of its subjects. Denying this historical fact is no more justified than denying that the Holocaust occurred or that the Nazis murdered millions of unarmed people.
     

    ed bernay

    Active Member
    Feb 18, 2011
    184
    I would think that registration would be found Constitutional, since in and of itself registration does not preclude the right to possess. You need permits to exercise your 1A rights, to a degree. The problem with a yearly tax on "assault weapons", or high prices on a permit is that they hinder the ability of some people to own the weapons. I would hope that the courts see it that way. Of course, first they have to agree that "assault weapons" are protected under the Constitution because of common use.

    registration/permits are only required to exercise 1st amendment rights when you interrupt the flow of traffic via a parade, use amplified sound in public etc...basically when you burden others AND require the government to deploy additional resources such as extra police for traffic control.

    Would politicans be able to require a permit and require you pay a fee for you to have a book, computer, bible, quran, violent movie in your home or in public? What about having an abortion and or handing out pamphlets in public/door to door? I don't think so. Once you require a permit for the exercise of a fundamental enumerated constitutional right, it is no longer a right but a government granted privilege.
     

    teratos

    My hair is amazing
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 22, 2009
    59,775
    Bel Air
    registration/permits are only required to exercise 1st amendment rights when you interrupt the flow of traffic via a parade, use amplified sound in public etc...basically when you burden others AND require the government to deploy additional resources such as extra police for traffic control.

    Would politicans be able to require a permit and require you pay a fee for you to have a book, computer, bible, quran, violent movie in your home or in public? What about having an abortion and or handing out pamphlets in public/door to door? I don't think so. Once you require a permit for the exercise of a fundamental enumerated constitutional right, it is no longer a right but a government granted privilege.


    The analog does not have to be 1:1. The 1A specifically mentions freedom of assembly. There are situations where you do not impede the flow of traffic but still need to apply for a permit to assemble. It may be struck down in SCOTUS, but that won't stop politicians from trying.
     

    Dogabutila

    Ultimate Member
    Dec 21, 2010
    2,359
    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.

    I've never had a range officer or cop ask to see my NFA stamp.
     

    ed bernay

    Active Member
    Feb 18, 2011
    184
    The analog does not have to be 1:1. The 1A specifically mentions freedom of assembly. There are situations where you do not impede the flow of traffic but still need to apply for a permit to assemble. It may be struck down in SCOTUS, but that won't stop politicians from trying.

    Can you give me an example of such a situation and the court case that held it constitutional?

    I agree politicans can try but that doesn't mean it will be successful. Its just a thorn in my side when I see people automatically accept that politicians can turn fundamental enumerated rights into a privilege.
     

    Stormrider1961

    Active Member
    Aug 16, 2011
    214
    Laurel
    Dam I am really getting to not like this state. Hummm wait who else was it that disarmed the public..... right before they marched them off to the ovens?
     

    erwos

    The Hebrew Hammer
    MDS Supporter
    Mar 25, 2009
    13,866
    Rockville, MD
    I've never had a range officer or cop ask to see my NFA stamp.
    Well, good for you. Not all of us are so lucky, nor should we expect to be. If an AWB were to pass in MD, you can absolutely be sure that there will be a push by police to "get illegal assault weapons off the streets". They aren't going to be giving free passes.
     

    eyesinpines

    Active Member
    Mar 4, 2011
    257
    I'm very confused about all this talk about an Assault Weapon ban.

    My Colt AR-15 is NOT an assault weapon. It does look like and has some similar parts to an M16, but an M16 IS a military assault weapon, not to be confused with my civilian AR-15 which is NOT!

    The difference is of course that the M16 has a fully automatic capability without which it would be of no use as a military assault weapon. My AR-15 only shoots one bullet at a time, just like any other rifle. So it's of no use to the military and therefore is obviously NOT an assault weapon.

    It's surprising that so many assume that the AR in AR-15 stands for "Assault Rifle" and therefore it obviously IS. However, we informed know well that the AR-15 was designed by the ArmorLite Rifle Company....AR as in ArmorLite, so has no connotation with an "Assault Rifle". Armorlite sold the patent to Colt who refined it into an M16 full auto for the military while retaining the AR-15 NON- AUTO as a civilian NON ASSAULT WEAPON long gun.

    Frankly my AR-15 has never shot anyone, and simply doesn't match the evil bullet spewing death machine that so many say it is.

    Obviously mine doesn't work the way it's supposed to so maybe I should return it?



    The reason, we know, is that
     

    pcfixer

    Ultimate Member
    May 24, 2009
    5,947
    Marylandstan
    I'm very confused about all this talk about an Assault Weapon ban.

    My Colt AR-15 is NOT an assault weapon. It does look like and has some similar parts to an M16, but an M16 IS a military assault weapon, not to be confused with my civilian AR-15 which is NOT!

    The difference is of course that the M16 has a fully automatic capability without which it would be of no use as a military assault weapon. My AR-15 only shoots one bullet at a time, just like any other rifle. So it's of no use to the military and therefore is obviously NOT an assault weapon.

    It's surprising that so many assume that the AR in AR-15 stands for "Assault Rifle" and therefore it obviously IS. However, we informed know well that the AR-15 was designed by the ArmorLite Rifle Company....AR as in ArmorLite, so has no connotation with an "Assault Rifle". Armorlite sold the patent to Colt who refined it into an M16 full auto for the military while retaining the AR-15 NON- AUTO as a civilian NON ASSAULT WEAPON long gun.

    Frankly my AR-15 has never shot anyone, and simply doesn't match the evil bullet spewing death machine that so many say it is.

    Obviously mine doesn't work the way it's supposed to so maybe I should return it?



    The reason, we know, is that

    :thumbsup: Thank You...:patriot:
     

    John from MD

    American Patriot
    MDS Supporter
    May 12, 2005
    22,729
    Socialist State of Maryland
    Why are people talking about giving up their firearms just because of speculation of possible legislation. To me, that is like surrendering because of a rumor that the enemy is planning an attack. :sad20:

    John
     

    Tree Rat

    Always a good target
    May 20, 2005
    860
    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.

    My worst case illusion is a retroactive ban is passed with stipulations that included firearms are now owned by the state and you could not even transfer out to protect ownership or sell to mitigate a pennies on the dollar compensation the state may, or may not, offer in a confiscation order.


    TR
     

    teratos

    My hair is amazing
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 22, 2009
    59,775
    Bel Air
    Can you give me an example of such a situation and the court case that held it constitutional?

    I agree politicans can try but that doesn't mean it will be successful. Its just a thorn in my side when I see people automatically accept that politicians can turn fundamental enumerated rights into a privilege.
    Not saying I accept it. It can and should be challenged. The politicians can be successful in the short run. It will take years to challenge. I am, to a degree, playing devil's advocate. You and I are on the same page.

    My worst case illusion is a retroactive ban is passed with stipulations that included firearms are now owned by the state and you could not even transfer out to protect ownership or sell to mitigate a pennies on the dollar compensation the state may, or may not, offer in a confiscation order.


    TR
    Ex post facto law. They cannot tell me that what I have is illegal the day after they tell me it is legal.
     

    Gbh

    Ultimate Member
    Nov 25, 2012
    2,260
    It's surprising that so many assume that the AR in AR-15 stands for "Assault Rifle" and therefore it obviously IS. However, we informed know well that the AR-15 was designed by the ArmorLite Rifle Company....AR as in ArmorLite, so has no connotation with an "Assault Rifle".

    ArmaLite
     

    Cheesehead

    Active Member
    Jan 14, 2012
    684
    Sunny Southwest Florida
    Ex post facto law. They cannot tell me that what I have is illegal the day after they tell me it is legal.

    I believe ex post facto laws apply to actions. They can't change the law after the fact, say lower a speed limit and give you a ticket because last week you exceeded this week's limit. Prohibition made alcohol illegal overnight. Possession of many drugs was made made illegal in a similar way. We need to stop the gun grabbers, because they can, and will, if given a chance, make some or all of our guns illegal. It may be unconstitutional, but that hasn't always stopped the statists in the past.
     

    SigMatt

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 17, 2007
    1,181
    Shores of the Bay, MD
    Prohibition required a Constitutional amendment to make illegal something the entire society enjoyed. People turned their noses up against the law nationwide and got it repealed in a little over a decade.

    It was that decade that lead to the National Firearms Act of 1934.

    Supreme Court jurisprudence at the time had found drug bans unconstitutional due to the fact that it was an invasion of individual liberty. It was felt you had the right to ingest whatever substances you desired. Prohibition of alcohol was one reaction of Temperance movement and it was the correct and legal way to deal with the issue then.

    Since states couldn't declare drugs illegal, they used the NFA'34 as a model under the taxing power. Machine guns and the like weren't declared illegal, merely taxed. The tax, at the time, was over 10 times the cost of a machine gun (they didn't hear of indexing to inflation then). So instead of banning drugs which was believed wouldn't stand up to Constitutional muster, they opted to tax them instead with tax stamps required for possession. Then just didn't issue the stamps.

    It took decades until the interpretation of the law, studies, etc changed and allow narcotics to be outright banned as a criminal offence rather than work around it via the taxing power.

    It is fascinating that in Heller, one of the arguments that can made against machine gun possession is the fact the NFA'34 along with the closure of the registry in 1986 made them scarce as an act of government manipulation. Pure example of supply/demand economics in action. We can't use the "in common use" standard, albeit left open for now, to argue for them. The same cannot be said for AR-15s, handguns and shotguns.

    Sure, the gun banners could declare guns illegal. The problem is their best chance sailed with Heller. Before then, any scheme up to and including DiFi's proposed NFA scheme might have held. Not anymore. Any blanket ban is eventually going to wind up at the Supreme Court.

    While I think magazine bans (most likely) and registration/licensing (iffy) might be upheld as Constitutional despite the fact I can likewise argue licensing/registration amount to a poll tax on an enumerated right, the short-term concern is a repeat of 1986 or the use of licensing/registration as a means to stifle and control and enact legal but defacto bans. This is why such schemes are so hotly resisted. We know where they lead.

    What would we do in the meantime? My fear is these laws do pass and then serious attempts at seizure, forced registration or confiscation occur afterward. I can see such a thing spiralling out of control very, very rapidly. Many would comply but I do believe more than a few would hand in their guns a round at a time to whomever showed up to collect. I do believe the anti-rights crowd are forcing these disparate cultures to the Rubicon and thinking about crossing in the name of establishing their power over the next generation if not the entire country.

    We need to stop them to save them as well as ourselves. I just want to be left alone, earn a living, pay my taxes and enjoy my hobbies in peace. If not, whether or not the liberals realize it, they may be planting the seeds of their own destruction as well as ours.

    Judge Alex Kozinski put it best:

    The majority falls prey to the delusion—popular in some circles - that ordinary people are too careless and stupid to own guns, and we would be far better off leaving all weapons in the hands of professionals on the government payroll. But the simple truth - born of experience - is that tyranny thrives best where government need not fear the wrath of an armed people.

    --

    All too many of the other great tragedies of history - Stalin’s atrocities, the killing fields of Cambodia, the Holocaust, to name but a few - were perpetrated by armed troops against unarmed populations. Many could well have been avoided or mitigated, had the perpetrators known their intended victims were equipped with a rifle and twenty bullets apiece, as the Militia Act required here. If a few hundred Jewish fighters in the Warsaw Ghetto could hold off the Wehrmacht for almost a month with only a handful of weapons, six million Jews armed with rifles could not so easily have been herded into cattle cars.


    My excellent colleagues have forgotten these bitter lessons of history. The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed - where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.

    Matt
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,917
    Messages
    7,258,630
    Members
    33,348
    Latest member
    Eric_Hehl

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom