Private Sales of Non-regulated Arms.

Allen65 · Apr 14, 2021

dblas said:
We've read the law, have you? Antiques are not mentioned, nor are they a part of the definition of rifle/shotgun in the state statute.

Yes, in fact I did read the original draft of Senate Bill 0208 of 2020, which is what I was referring to. The definition of "rifle" in §4-201 of the Criminal Law Article was included by reference in the original language of bill. It defines "rifle" as:

(e) "Rifle" means a weapon that is:

(1) designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder; and

(2) designed or redesigned, and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed metallic cartridge to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger.

That functional definition does not exclude pre-1898 cartridge guns from its scope. There are several sections of MD law that use that definition of rifle (and the similar one for shotgun), but then go on to specifically exempt "Antique Firearms", as also defined in §4-201. SB0208 of 2020, as introduced, did not.

smkranz · Apr 14, 2021

dblas said:
Antiques are NOT C&R, nor are replicas of them, a flintlock is classified as an antique and thus the law does not apply.

Oops, sorry for any mis-information.

NRA Life ∙ MSI ∙ MD Designated Collector ∙ Certified Beer & Mead Judge

dblas · Apr 15, 2021

Allen65 said:
Yes, in fact I did read the original draft of Senate Bill 0208 of 2020, which is what I was referring to. The definition of "rifle" in §4-201 of the Criminal Law Article was included by reference in the original language of bill. It defines "rifle" as:

(e) "Rifle" means a weapon that is:

(1) designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder; and

(2) designed or redesigned, and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed metallic cartridge to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger.

That functional definition does not exclude pre-1898 cartridge guns from its scope. There are several sections of MD law that use that definition of rifle (and the similar one for shotgun), but then go on to specifically exempt "Antique Firearms", as also defined in §4-201. SB0208 of 2020, as introduced, did not.

Then you also need to read 4-201(b)

(b) Antique firearm. -- "Antique firearm" means:

(1) a firearm, including a firearm with a matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap, or similar ignition system, manufactured before 1899; or

(2) a replica of a firearm described in item (1) of this subsection that:

(i) is not designed or redesigned to use rimfire or conventional centerfire fixed ammunition; or

(ii) uses rimfire or conventional centerfire fixed ammunition that is no longer manufactured in the United States and is not readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade.

Clearly subsection (b) clearly defines antiques and are NOT covered by the bill as was stated previously.

Allen65 · Apr 15, 2021

dblas said:
Then you also need to read 4-201(b)

(b) Antique firearm. -- "Antique firearm" means:

(1) a firearm, including a firearm with a matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap, or similar ignition system, manufactured before 1899; or

(2) a replica of a firearm described in item (1) of this subsection that:

(i) is not designed or redesigned to use rimfire or conventional centerfire fixed ammunition; or

(ii) uses rimfire or conventional centerfire fixed ammunition that is no longer manufactured in the United States and is not readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade.

Clearly subsection (b) clearly defines antiques and are NOT covered by the bill as was stated previously.

There is at least one attorney who I spoke with when putting together testimony against the bill who disagrees with your assessment. An object can fall under more than one defined category. The bill affected anything that fit the definition of "rifle" but failed to exempt something that may have fit the definition of "antique" in addition to fitting the definition of "rifle". Therefore for the purposes of the bill, a pre-1898 cartridge-loaded, shoulder-held long gun with a rifled barrel would be treated as a "rifle".

lazarus · Apr 15, 2021

Allen65 said:
Yes, in fact I did read the original draft of Senate Bill 0208 of 2020, which is what I was referring to. The definition of "rifle" in §4-201 of the Criminal Law Article was included by reference in the original language of bill. It defines "rifle" as:

(e) "Rifle" means a weapon that is:

(1) designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder; and

(2) designed or redesigned, and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed metallic cartridge to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger.

That functional definition does not exclude pre-1898 cartridge guns from its scope. There are several sections of MD law that use that definition of rifle (and the similar one for shotgun), but then go on to specifically exempt "Antique Firearms", as also defined in §4-201. SB0208 of 2020, as introduced, did not.

And now we need double rifles and double shotguns that use a single trigger to fire both barrels.

BOOM! No longer covered by the law

dblas · Apr 15, 2021

Allen65 said:
There is at least one attorney who I spoke with when putting together testimony against the bill who disagrees with your assessment. An object can fall under more than one defined category. The bill affected anything that fit the definition of "rifle" but failed to exempt something that may have fit the definition of "antique" in addition to fitting the definition of "rifle". Therefore for the purposes of the bill, a pre-1898 cartridge-loaded, shoulder-held long gun with a rifled barrel would be treated as a "rifle".

While yes an item can fall into several categories if they are defined that way in different sections, when they are defined one way in subsection (b) that same item cannot then be defined another way in subsection (e) of the same statute. It is either item (b) or it is item (e) of the same statute, it cannot be both.

Raineman · Apr 16, 2021

I haven’t read the entire thread, sorry if this question has been addressed...

Can transfers be done at a MSP barrack? If not, why not?

71Chevelle427 · Apr 16, 2021

Raineman said:
I haven’t read the entire thread, sorry if this question has been addressed...

Can transfers be done at a MSP barrack? If not, why not?

Trooper I asked at Golden Ring had no idea what I was talking about...He said I had to go online and do the application and bring PIN and APP numbers with me...so clearly he thinks they are the same process as handguns.

I've done one at Blue Fins, in Dundalk, and it was relatively easy. Basically the same as if you bought the long gun from them...Fill out the 4473, they call in, and get "Proceed" or "Delay" back immediately. 25 bucks for MDS members.

FWIW, this was the same prick who appears that he hates his job, insisted I needed to show him my collector letter, and was sure that I was not allowed to buy more than one firearm every 30 days... so, I wasn't going to debate with him.

dblas · Apr 16, 2021

Raineman said:
I haven’t read the entire thread, sorry if this question has been addressed...

Can transfers be done at a MSP barrack? If not, why not?

Short answer = no

Short reason = not written in the statute for them to do, plus licensing division is the only NICS portal for MSP, it would require MSP to set up a way to do so from each barracks.

Raineman · Apr 17, 2021

dblas said:
Short answer = no

Short reason = not written in the statute for them to do, plus licensing division is the only NICS portal for MSP, it would require MSP to set up a way to do so from each barracks.

Then I think this issue should be pushed. If the infringement is going to be complied with.

Thanks dblas.

rseymorejr · Apr 17, 2021

Raineman said:
Then I think this issue should be pushed. If the infringement is going to be complied with.

Thanks dblas.

If they don't make it convenient and inexpensive how do they expect people to play their silly games? I'm not inclined to want to waste another $25-$50 buying a rifle or shotgun from somebody.

Raineman · Apr 17, 2021

Agreed. We need to make this infringement a pain in the a$$ for them too.

boothdoc · Apr 17, 2021

Raineman said:
Then I think this issue should be pushed. If the infringement is going to be complied with.

Thanks dblas.

This

Mark75H · Apr 17, 2021

Absolutely no way to push this on MSP, its NOT IN THE ACT OF THE LEGISLATURE

dblas · Apr 17, 2021

Raineman said:
Then I think this issue should be pushed. If the infringement is going to be complied with.

Thanks dblas.

No problem brother.

Looks like we need to write up an amendment to the bill for next year. Not sure the issue was brought up last year when the bill was entered, and this year it was pretty much impossible to do a bill to amend this one, since the veto over ride was on the table and it wasn't enacted yet, and didn't become effective until after crossover.

lazarus · Apr 17, 2021

dblas said:
No problem brother.

Looks like we need to write up an amendment to the bill for next year. Not sure the issue was brought up last year when the bill was entered, and this year it was pretty much impossible to do a bill to amend this one, since the veto over ride was on the table and it wasn't enacted yet, and didn't become effective until after crossover.

$10 from any barracks seems like the way to go. And I agree, if they are going to force it, they should also provide the service.

Bob A · Apr 17, 2021

If I understand the situation correctly, there is no de facto long gun registry; the only contact is with an FFL, who presumably does a NICS check. It would be a huge, expensive PITA for the state to get all that data in a database.

Once MSP gets looped in, the state has an easily accessible record of your long gun purchase.

I don't see any reason to make it easier for the pond scum in Annapolis to know what I've purchased.

Raineman · Apr 17, 2021

Bob A, long guns aren’t regulated, so MSP should not need to have ANY information on the firearm and should only run a NICS instead of the other 453 that they do, and no waiting.

I guess it could be a can of worms, but...federal law...and additional work for them.

And I still don’t believe they don’t keep track now.

SPQM · May 16, 2021

The real mission of this isn't to make us safer -- long guns are like 3% of all murders in MD.

The real mission is to frustrate people -- As attractive as it is to get a 20" HBAR AR in A2 style for only $750, I don't feel like having to coordinate meeting up at a FFL or MSP Barracks just to do a transfer.

teratos · May 16, 2021

rseymorejr said:
If they don't make it convenient and inexpensive how do they expect people to play their silly games? I'm not inclined to want to waste another $25-$50 buying a rifle or shotgun from somebody.

I’m not inclined to recognize this as a law.

Private Sales of Non-regulated Arms.

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

Certified Caveman

Past President, MSI

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Past President, MSI

On the 3rd box

Ultimate Member

Past President, MSI

On the 3rd box

Ultimate Member

On the 3rd box

Ultimate Member

MD Wear&Carry Instructor

Past President, MSI

Ultimate Member

όυ φροντισ

On the 3rd box

Active Member

My hair is amazing

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics