Maryland AW Ban essentially confiscates banned AW

aehnuke · Jan 26, 2013

Again, I'll just post this here:

10 (2) A LICENSED FIREARMS DEALER MAY CONTINUE TO POSSESS,
11 SELL, OFFER FOR SALE, OR TRANSFER AN ASSAULT LONG GUN OR A COPYCAT
12 WEAPON THAT THE LICENSED FIREARMS DEALER LAWFULLY POSSESSED ON OR
13 BEFORE OCTOBER 1, 2013.
14 (3) A PERSON WHO LAWFULLY POSSESSED AN ASSAULT LONG
15 GUN OR A COPYCAT WEAPON BEFORE OCTOBER 1, 2013, AND WHO REGISTERS
16 THE ASSAULT LONG GUN OR COPYCAT WEAPON WITH THE SECRETARY OF
17 STATE POLICE BEFORE NOVEMBER 1, 2013, MAY:
18 (I) CONTINUE TO POSSESS THE ASSAULT LONG GUN OR
19 COPYCAT WEAPON; OR
20 (II) WHILE CARRYING A COURT ORDER REQUIRING THE
21 SURRENDER OF THE ASSAULT LONG GUN OR COPYCAT WEAPON, TRANSPORT
22 THE ASSAULT LONG GUN OR COPYCAT WEAPON DIRECTLY TO THE LAW
23 ENFORCEMENT UNIT, BARRACKS, OR STATION IF THE PERSON HAS NOTIFIED
24 THE LAW ENFORCEMENT UNIT, BARRACKS, OR STATION THAT THE PERSON IS
25 TRANSPORTING THE ASSAULT LONG GUN OR COPYCAT WEAPON IN ACCORDANCE
26 WITH A COURT ORDER AND THE ASSAULT LONG GUN OR COPYCAT WEAPON IS
27 UNLOADED.
28 4–304.
29 A law enforcement unit may seize as contraband and dispose of according to
30 regulation an assault [pistol] WEAPON transported, sold, transferred, purchased,
31 received, or possessed in violation of this subtitle.

Yes, the way I read it, it explicitly states what a person may do with the now registered 'assault weapon': continue to possess or turn it in to the police. Transporting it would allow the police to seize it as contraband. In another thread some members of MDS claimed that the language used is more nuanced than what it appears to say, and that it does actually allow transport. No one cared to explain how so, so I'll stick to my interpretation. This bill is insane and cannot be allowed to pass.

dev · Jan 26, 2013

aehnuke said:
Again, I'll just post this here:

10 (2) A LICENSED FIREARMS DEALER MAY CONTINUE TO POSSESS,
11 SELL, OFFER FOR SALE, OR TRANSFER AN ASSAULT LONG GUN OR A COPYCAT
12 WEAPON THAT THE LICENSED FIREARMS DEALER LAWFULLY POSSESSED ON OR
13 BEFORE OCTOBER 1, 2013.
14 (3) A PERSON WHO LAWFULLY POSSESSED AN ASSAULT LONG
15 GUN OR A COPYCAT WEAPON BEFORE OCTOBER 1, 2013, AND WHO REGISTERS
16 THE ASSAULT LONG GUN OR COPYCAT WEAPON WITH THE SECRETARY OF
17 STATE POLICE BEFORE NOVEMBER 1, 2013, MAY:
18 (I) CONTINUE TO POSSESS THE ASSAULT LONG GUN OR
19 COPYCAT WEAPON; OR
20 (II) WHILE CARRYING A COURT ORDER REQUIRING THE
21 SURRENDER OF THE ASSAULT LONG GUN OR COPYCAT WEAPON, TRANSPORT
22 THE ASSAULT LONG GUN OR COPYCAT WEAPON DIRECTLY TO THE LAW
23 ENFORCEMENT UNIT, BARRACKS, OR STATION IF THE PERSON HAS NOTIFIED
24 THE LAW ENFORCEMENT UNIT, BARRACKS, OR STATION THAT THE PERSON IS
25 TRANSPORTING THE ASSAULT LONG GUN OR COPYCAT WEAPON IN ACCORDANCE
26 WITH A COURT ORDER AND THE ASSAULT LONG GUN OR COPYCAT WEAPON IS
27 UNLOADED.
28 4–304.
29 A law enforcement unit may seize as contraband and dispose of according to
30 regulation an assault [pistol] WEAPON transported, sold, transferred, purchased,
31 received, or possessed in violation of this subtitle.

Yes, the way I read it, it explicitly states what a person may do with the now registered 'assault weapon': continue to possess or turn it in to the police. Transporting it would allow the police to seize it as contraband. In another thread some members of MDS claimed that the language used is more nuanced than what it appears to say, and that it does actually allow transport. No one cared to explain how so, so I'll stick to my interpretation. This bill is insane and cannot be allowed to pass.

It's very confusing however I see it another way.
It seems that in the first clause a licensed firearm dealer may sell, transfer...... etc before October 31.

Then at the bottom it prohibits the sale transfer and so on if it is in violation of the subtitle which is after the 31st.

In the same way if you register the weapon in the correct time period you would not be violating the subtitle. Violating the subtitle (not registering) would make it contraband and subject for confiscation if transported because at this point in time you are not allowed to possess if you did not register.

I'm not a lawyer or understand the nuances in legalese but this is what I'm seeing. It is confusing non the less and needs clarity from the ones who wrote the bill as soon as possible.

Bisondice · Jan 26, 2013

from my cold dead hands :envy:

Markp · Jan 26, 2013

Part I: Does this APPLY to me!

4–303. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, a person may not:

(1) transport an assault weapon into the State; or
(2) possess, sell, offer to sell, transfer, purchase, or receive an assault weapon.

Well do I own an Assault Weapon? (YES/NO) If NO, then it does NOT apply to me.

If YES, and I had not submitted to the will of the state to register like a sex offender then: I cannot transport an assault weapon into the state, possess, sell, offer to sell, transfer, purchase, or receive an assault weapon. (b)

So what does that mean for me, since I own an evil assault weapon and I registered like a sex offender?

First, nowhere does it state that you cannot transport your weapon within the state.
Since a registered Assault weapon would be allowed to remain in your possession as allowed subsection (b),

You cannot do the following:
Transport an assault weapon into the State.
Sell, offer to sell, transfer, purchase, or receive an assault weapon.

NOTHING ELSE IS PROHIBITED.

ChrisD · Jan 26, 2013

First goes the 2nd, then the 4th, then the 1st. Only in MD, guilty until you prove yourself innocent.

MDGolom · Jan 26, 2013

aehnuke said:
Again, I'll just post this here:

10 (2) A LICENSED FIREARMS DEALER MAY CONTINUE TO POSSESS,
11 SELL, OFFER FOR SALE, OR TRANSFER AN ASSAULT LONG GUN OR A COPYCAT
12 WEAPON THAT THE LICENSED FIREARMS DEALER LAWFULLY POSSESSED ON OR
13 BEFORE OCTOBER 1, 2013.
14 (3) A PERSON WHO LAWFULLY POSSESSED AN ASSAULT LONG
15 GUN OR A COPYCAT WEAPON BEFORE OCTOBER 1, 2013, AND WHO REGISTERS
16 THE ASSAULT LONG GUN OR COPYCAT WEAPON WITH THE SECRETARY OF
17 STATE POLICE BEFORE NOVEMBER 1, 2013, MAY:
18 (I) CONTINUE TO POSSESS THE ASSAULT LONG GUN OR
19 COPYCAT WEAPON; OR
20 (II) WHILE CARRYING A COURT ORDER REQUIRING THE
21 SURRENDER OF THE ASSAULT LONG GUN OR COPYCAT WEAPON, TRANSPORT
22 THE ASSAULT LONG GUN OR COPYCAT WEAPON DIRECTLY TO THE LAW
23 ENFORCEMENT UNIT, BARRACKS, OR STATION IF THE PERSON HAS NOTIFIED
24 THE LAW ENFORCEMENT UNIT, BARRACKS, OR STATION THAT THE PERSON IS
25 TRANSPORTING THE ASSAULT LONG GUN OR COPYCAT WEAPON IN ACCORDANCE
26 WITH A COURT ORDER AND THE ASSAULT LONG GUN OR COPYCAT WEAPON IS
27 UNLOADED.
28 4–304.
29 A law enforcement unit may seize as contraband and dispose of according to
30 regulation an assault [pistol] WEAPON transported, sold, transferred, purchased,
31 received, or possessed in violation of this subtitle.

Ok, first off IANAL but I think people are not interpreting 4-304 correctly. Earlier in the statue it used the phase "transport into the state", but in 4-304 the "into the state" is missing. Is this why everyone is saying we can't transport our weapons to the range? The key here is line 31 "in violation of this subtitle". If you register your weapon by the deadline, you will NOT be violating the statue. If you fail to register your weapon by the deadline, then yes, the police will confiscate it. As I see it all this does is give the police the right to confiscate banned weapons that are not registered.

I do think it's important for someone attending the upcoming hearing to ask this question for we 1) have and answer, and 2) that answer is on record.

Daddyursus · Jan 26, 2013

mmmm...So my future choices are...live in my car at the range so I won't be transporting it there...or buy a big farm and call it a range

TimGB · Jan 26, 2013

aehnuke said:
Again, I'll just post this here:

10 (2) A LICENSED FIREARMS DEALER MAY CONTINUE TO POSSESS,
11 SELL, OFFER FOR SALE, OR TRANSFER AN ASSAULT LONG GUN OR A COPYCAT
12 WEAPON THAT THE LICENSED FIREARMS DEALER LAWFULLY POSSESSED ON OR
13 BEFORE OCTOBER 1, 2013.
14 (3) A PERSON WHO LAWFULLY POSSESSED AN ASSAULT LONG
15 GUN OR A COPYCAT WEAPON BEFORE OCTOBER 1, 2013, AND WHO REGISTERS
16 THE ASSAULT LONG GUN OR COPYCAT WEAPON WITH THE SECRETARY OF
17 STATE POLICE BEFORE NOVEMBER 1, 2013, MAY:
18 (I) CONTINUE TO POSSESS THE ASSAULT LONG GUN OR
19 COPYCAT WEAPON; OR
20 (II) WHILE CARRYING A COURT ORDER REQUIRING THE
21 SURRENDER OF THE ASSAULT LONG GUN OR COPYCAT WEAPON, TRANSPORT
22 THE ASSAULT LONG GUN OR COPYCAT WEAPON DIRECTLY TO THE LAW
23 ENFORCEMENT UNIT, BARRACKS, OR STATION IF THE PERSON HAS NOTIFIED
24 THE LAW ENFORCEMENT UNIT, BARRACKS, OR STATION THAT THE PERSON IS
25 TRANSPORTING THE ASSAULT LONG GUN OR COPYCAT WEAPON IN ACCORDANCE
26 WITH A COURT ORDER AND THE ASSAULT LONG GUN OR COPYCAT WEAPON IS
27 UNLOADED.
28 4–304.
29 A law enforcement unit may seize as contraband and dispose of according to
30 regulation an assault [pistol] WEAPON transported, sold, transferred, purchased,
31 received, or possessed in violation of this subtitle.

Yes, the way I read it, it explicitly states what a person may do with the now registered 'assault weapon': continue to possess or turn it in to the police. Transporting it would allow the police to seize it as contraband. In another thread some members of MDS claimed that the language used is more nuanced than what it appears to say, and that it does actually allow transport. No one cared to explain how so, so I'll stick to my interpretation. This bill is insane and cannot be allowed to pass.

When I read it, I thought the ability to transport the registered/grandfathered "assault weapon" was implicit although I agree it was not spelled out clearly. I think people are reading the line about being able to transport with court order to surrender as implying that is the only time you can transport. I am thinking that is meant to cover the case where you are surrendering an "assault weapon" that is not properly registered or has been revoked/expired so as not to make the activity of surrendering it illegal.

mtb · Jan 26, 2013

For transport of every other weapon type they spell out where you can transport them. Here they do not use that same text; the text they do use says only with a court order to take the gun to the police.

Ken

jr88 · Jan 26, 2013

There are multiple reasons this Bill violates the 2nd amendment and should be opposed. If we argue over certain "bits" of the bill, I believe it indicates we have already conceded to its passing and are begging them to throw us a bone. One year ago, we were very close to getting our CCW rights restored, now they want to gut the entire 2A. I don't believe public sentiment has really changed that much in Md. to support this and we need to bring this to light. If the state sent an armored carrier to "transport" my AR to the range free of charge, I still OPPOSE the bill.

mtb · Jan 26, 2013

I think everyone here opposes it. It is just worse than most people think. People need to get down to Annapolis on the 6th!

Les Gawlik · Jan 26, 2013

Just keep in mind that some of these extreme provisions are bargaining chips to be tossed away. I received a forwarded email (not sent to me) from a state delegate that it is guaranteed "something will pass". So they allow us to transport to or from a range, like current handgun laws, keep all the registration stuff, and call it a day. We breathe a sigh of relief, and they march us a little further into servitude.

This has nothing to do with Sandy Hook, children or even guns, for that matter. This is all about getting MOM to energize his base and test the waters for 2016. He first has to get on the national stage to participate in the primary process. He has been a D spokesperson (my party, as of last Wednesday) for some time, but is not known outside of Maryland.

This is geared to get national attention. The Monica Media will, I think, be out in force, and it won't be to show how decent and patriotic we are. MOM will do everything possible to portray us in a false light to "justify" draconian restrictions. Either way he wins. Crime has been trending down. If that continues, he can claim credit. If it doesn't, he can give an "Our achievements to date are impressive, but there's work to be done" speech.

Smart people would be trying to figure out how to give MOM some favorable press without losing our 2A rights. We are just pawns in their game.

teratos · Jan 26, 2013

jr88 said:
There are multiple reasons this Bill violates the 2nd amendment and should be opposed. If we argue over certain "bits" of the bill, I believe it indicates we have already conceded to its passing and are begging them to throw us a bone. One year ago, we were very close to getting our CCW rights restored, now they want to gut the entire 2A. I don't believe public sentiment has really changed that much in Md. to support this and we need to bring this to light. If the state sent an armored carrier to "transport" my AR to the range free of charge, I still OPPOSE the bill.

This will make it that much easier when a suit is filed.....

If this thing gets passed, I am praying they pass the biggest turd they can. The lawyers and courts will have a field day. MD needs to get its pee-pee spanked in regards to how they view the 2A.

TxAggie · Jan 26, 2013

Les Gawlik said:
Just keep in mind that some of these extreme provisions are bargaining chips to be tossed away. I received a forwarded email (not sent to me) from a state delegate that it is guaranteed "something will pass". So they allow us to transport to or from a range, like current handgun laws, keep all the registration stuff, and call it a day. We breathe a sigh of relief, and they march us a little further into servitude.

This has nothing to do with Sandy Hook, children or even guns, for that matter. This is all about getting MOM to energize his base and test the waters for 2016. He first has to get on the national stage to participate in the primary process. He has been a D spokesperson (my party, as of last Wednesday) for some time, but is not known outside of Maryland.

This is geared to get national attention. The Monica Media will, I think, be out in force, and it won't be to show how decent and patriotic we are. MOM will do everything possible to portray us in a false light to "justify" draconian restrictions. Either way he wins. Crime has been trending down. If that continues, he can claim credit. If it doesn't, he can give an "Our achievements to date are impressive, but there's work to be done" speech.

Smart people would be trying to figure out how to give MOM some favorable press without losing our 2A rights. We are just pawns in their game.

While I agree that this is about MOM, I think if that is the case then he is grossly misreading the electorate. Obama didn't get elected because of a shift in the electorate like all the meatheads in the media are saying. He got elected because he is a cult of personality. If he would have been open about how strict he wanted the new AWB to be, he would have never won Ohio and probably Pennsylvania.

I think if he gets an AWB ban passed here it will be just as toxic, if not more so, as Romney passing healthcare in Massachusetts. Cuomo is in the same boat.

jonnyl · Jan 26, 2013

There is nothing in this law that changes transport for long guns, or changes the status of "registered assault" weapons to be treated as handguns for transport purposes. It also doesn't say you can "posses in the home".

This bill sucks bad enough for so many reasons, but I don't think this is one of them.

rwbow1969 · Jan 26, 2013

Les Gawlik said:
Just keep in mind that some of these extreme provisions are bargaining chips to be tossed away. I received a forwarded email (not sent to me) from a state delegate that it is guaranteed "something will pass". So they allow us to transport to or from a range, like current handgun laws, keep all the registration stuff, and call it a day. We breathe a sigh of relief, and they march us a little further into servitude.

This has nothing to do with Sandy Hook, children or even guns, for that matter. This is all about getting MOM to energize his base and test the waters for 2016. He first has to get on the national stage to participate in the primary process. He has been a D spokesperson (my party, as of last Wednesday) for some time, but is not known outside of Maryland.

This is geared to get national attention. The Monica Media will, I think, be out in force, and it won't be to show how decent and patriotic we are. MOM will do everything possible to portray us in a false light to "justify" draconian restrictions. Either way he wins. Crime has been trending down. If that continues, he can claim credit. If it doesn't, he can give an "Our achievements to date are impressive, but there's work to be done" speech.

Smart people would be trying to figure out how to give MOM some favorable press without losing our 2A rights. We are just pawns in their game.

MOM needs to wake up with a dead hooker in his bed in a room full of reporters to de-rail his political machine. Otherwise he has his bases covered.

USN24 · Jan 26, 2013

All of this is just getting ridiculous! Protect our 2nd Amendment rights!

pcfixer · Jan 26, 2013

Since I'd be a criminal anyhow. I pleed the 5th Amendment.

nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

SB 281 does infringe on 2 Amendment rights. DC vs Heller also says this.

. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment . The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster.

The way I read this is any total ban of firearms is and entire class of 'arms" as stated above.

Mooseman · Jan 26, 2013

Whether or not we can transport our ARs and AKs to the range is not important now. We need to fight the bill tooth and nail to the bitter end. If we cannot win this battle, we can worry about the details then. At least they give us one month to sell.

teratos · Jan 26, 2013

pcfixer said:
SB 281 does infringe on 2 Amendment rights. DC vs Heller also says this.

Correct. This IS a class of arms that Americans turn to for self defense. Our lawmakers are too arrogant to believe it.

Maryland AW Ban essentially confiscates banned AW

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Trusted Shellback

Active Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

My hair is amazing

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Get Wiffit

DoubleO7

Ultimate Member

R.I.P.- Hooligan #4

My hair is amazing

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics