AOW's and the Assualt Pistol list

[bobthefisher]

When SB281 was being drafted there were many revisions and anyone falling the debacle remembers the so called "fax" amendments draft. In that draft and any of the current ones posted on Maryland's website have the same concerning the "Assault Pistol" section. The orginal law went from the following to the ammendments in the SB281 draft.

Old Language:
(C) In this subtitle, “assault pistol” means any of the following firearms or a copy regardless of the producer or manufacturer:

New Language:
(C) [In this subtitle, “assault] “ASSAULT pistol” means any of the following firearms [or a copy regardless of the producer or manufacturer]:

Now my understanding is that any bracketed [] notes the exclusion of that language from the bill. So are "copies" of "Assault Pistols" now legal as long as they make it onto the Handgun Roaster Board? The reason I ask this, is the legality of making an MP5K AOW. I understand it would still have to go through an FFL07/Class II SOT, and that since it would be considered an AOW and not a pistol or rifle that it would be legal to posses, regardless of the "Assualt Pistol" list. Still, it's an interesting edit in the new law that I still haven't been able to verify or get a clean copy of the new law, such that it doesn't have any crossed lines or exclusion brackets. Anyone have .02 cents?

 

[240 towles]

AOWs are not governed by the Assault pistol ban as it pertains only to pistols, and AOWs are not classified as pistols. It is how I was able to own a MAC10 in MD.

 

[bobthefisher]

AOWs are not governed by the Assault pistol ban as it pertains only to pistols, and AOWs are not classified as pistols. It is how I was able to own a MAC10 in MD.

So I take it you have a semi-auto MAC-10 AOW with a vertical fore grip? Everything go smoothly during the process? Which manufacture did you go through, or did you purchase it as an AOW on a Form 4?

Still wondering about the whole exclusion of the "copy" language in the new law.

 

[Inigoes]

So I take it you have a semi-auto MAC-10 AOW with a vertical fore grip? Everything go smoothly during the process? Which manufacture did you go through, or did you purchase it as an AOW on a Form 4?

Still wondering about the whole exclusion of the "copy" language in the new law.

Read what 240 wrote.

AOWs are not considered pistols. Yes, it is that simple to understand.

 

[erwos]

Read what 240 wrote.

AOWs are not considered pistols. Yes, it is that simple to understand.

Counter-point: no SBRs were ever considered assault long guns before SB281, yet now the MSP will tell you all day that some SBRs can be assault long guns. And, to be blunt, the "assault long guns can never be SBRs" had a hell of a lot more explicit and documented legislative intent that the "AOW loophole".

The "AOWs are not pistols" is essentially MSP interpretation, and is subject to change at any time. There is no definition of a pistol in the law; all we know is that pistols are handguns. I have always been very leery of the "AOW loophole" when it comes to assault pistols, and I would caution against assuming the previous situation prevails without contacting the MSP first.

 

[NateIU10]

The copy language is still there.

Assault pistol(c) “Assault pistol” means any of the following firearms or a copy regardless of the producer or manufacturer:
(1) AA Arms AP-9 semiautomatic pistol;
(2) Bushmaster semiautomatic pistol;
(3) Claridge HI-TEC semiautomatic pistol;
(4) D Max Industries semiautomatic pistol;
(5) Encom MK-IV, MP-9, or MP-45 semiautomatic pistol;
(6) Heckler and Koch semiautomatic SP-89 pistol;
(7) Holmes MP-83 semiautomatic pistol;
(8) Ingram MAC 10/11 semiautomatic pistol and variations including the Partisan Avenger and the SWD Cobray;
(9) Intratec TEC-9/DC-9 semiautomatic pistol in any centerfire variation;
(10) P.A.W.S. type semiautomatic pistol;
(11) Skorpion semiautomatic pistol;
(12) Spectre double action semiautomatic pistol (Sile, F.I.E., Mitchell);
(13) UZI semiautomatic pistol;
(14) Weaver Arms semiautomatic Nighthawk pistol; or
(15) Wilkinson semiautomatic “Linda” pistol.

Md. Code Ann., Crim. Law § 4-301 (West)

If you look at SB281 as enrolled, someone tried to delete the copy language (hence the brackets) but then the removal of the brackets later (hence the strikethrough on the brackets.) So, nothing has changed in this portion of the law.

 

[erwos]

The copy language is still there.



If you look at SB281 as enrolled, someone tried to delete the copy language (hence the brackets) but then the removal of the brackets later (hence the strikethrough on the brackets.) So, nothing has changed in this portion of the law.

Huh, you're right. I did not see the bracket strikethrough. Good catch

 

[bobthefisher]

The copy language is still there.

If you look at SB281 as enrolled, someone tried to delete the copy language (hence the brackets) but then the removal of the brackets later (hence the strikethrough on the brackets.) So, nothing has changed in this portion of the law.

Where online can you find the "enrolled" version of the FSA 2013 (SB281)?

Yes, the AOW clause, if it works, is truly a loophole as it falls into a totally undefined nether region of MD gun law. I'm going to to be speaking with some other FFL07's in MD and get their take on the whole, making an "Assault Pistol" into an AOW question. I still have my heart set on a nice SP89/MP5k AOW

 

[Xander]

According to section 4-201 of the Criminal Law article f the Maryland Code:

Handgun
(c)(1) “Handgun” means a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed on the person.
(2) “Handgun” includes a short-barreled shotgun and a short-barreled rifle.
(3) “Handgun” does not include a shotgun, rifle, or antique firearm.

An SP89 with a K grip seems to fall under this definition.

 

[Xander]

From the Public Safety article:

Handgun
(n)(1) “Handgun” means a firearm with a barrel less than 16 inches in length.
(2) “Handgun” includes signal, starter, and blank pistols.

 

[bobthefisher]

From the Public Safety article:

Handgun
(n)(1) “Handgun” means a firearm with a barrel less than 16 inches in length.
(2) “Handgun” includes signal, starter, and blank pistols.

Yes, I'm quite aware of these statements in the law, however these shit laws contradict so much, as with SBR's considered handguns or not handguns. And the simple fact that in the past (I know that doesn't mean shit now) SBR's and AOW's have not required any sort of 77R or other state mandated regulated firearm process. We can spit contradicting MD gun law statements at each other all day long, I'm just trying to gather whether someone has tried it before, and what did the FFL require as far as paperwork. Fine line, loophole, gray area, etc. Whatever you want to call it, we'll never hear a formal response about something so specific from within MSP or the AG office unless people start exploiting the fact. I'm down for some "walk the line", how about you guys?

BTW: Anyone that routinely posts in this section doesn't need to be cited MD gun law, as I'm sure the majority of us have read it thousands of times to where our heads explode

No disrespect... just saying is all.

 

[Xander]

If you think there is a contradiction than you don't understand how the law works. Different sections of the code use different definition sections that only apply to the section they are in. No offense, but you kinda do need to re-read it because you don't get it. In light of the fact that you started this thread by misquoting the law because you don't know how to read an enrolled bill, I would turn down the snark level a little. Moving on, your AOW idea is not a "nether region of undefined MD gun law," as you put it, it clearly is a handgun under both definitions. Don't shoot the messenger, pal.

 

[NateIU10]

If you think there is a contradiction than you don't understand how the law works. Different sections of the code use different definition sections that only apply to the section they are in. No offense, but you kinda do need to re-read it because you don't get it. In light of the fact that you started this thread by misquoting the law because you don't know how to read an enrolled bill, I would turn down the snark level a little. Moving on, your AOW idea is not a "nether region of undefined MD gun law," as you put it, it clearly is a handgun under both definitions. Don't shoot the messenger, pal.

SBRs and the AOW the OP are discussing are handguns under MD law. I think the problem is that MSP has been enforcing the law in a way that doesn't treat them as such.

 

[erwos]

SBRs and the AOW the OP are discussing are handguns under MD law. I think the problem is that MSP has been enforcing the law in a way that doesn't treat them as such.

This.

 

[Xander]

Nate's a better writer than I am (probably smarter, too).

 

[240 towles]

So I take it you have a semi-auto MAC-10 AOW with a vertical fore grip? Everything go smoothly during the process? Which manufacture did you go through, or did you purchase it as an AOW on a Form 4?

Still wondering about the whole exclusion of the "copy" language in the new law.

The entire process went very smoothly with about a two month wait before I got my stamp back and could pick up from Midcounty.
It was a masterpiece arms .45 with vertical foregrip
I had Mike at midcounty gunshop order the MAC and he engraved it when the paperwork came in.

The ATF decides what is and is not a pistol. They have deemed that vertical forgrip equipped handguns are not pistols, but are AOWs. They are the agency that has the official sayso.
That being said, the MSP has the power to interpret the law as they see it.

An AOW MAC is no more a pistol than a SBR MAC or a rifle MAC it is a simple designation based off of barrel length, accessories, and tax stamps.

I have shot at DSC with my MAC on several occasions alongside off duty LEOs, and have never had anything but compliments. I always keep a copy of my tax stamp in the car, but I have never been challanged.

Might I also remind everyone that every tax stamp requires the CLEO's signature approving acknowledgement of the intent to posses the aforementioned AOW and as a LEO, if said firearm was considered illegal under MD law, it would be the duty of the sworn officer to inform the individual of the potential violation of the law and to decline the signature.

 

[erwos]

The ATF decides what is and is not a pistol. They have deemed that vertical forgrip equipped handguns are not pistols, but are AOWs. They are the agency that has the official sayso.

But only from a federal perspective. The states can decide whatever they want when it comes to enforcement of state laws. That is to say, MD could theoretically change their definition of an SBR to OAL < 29" (versus the federal definition of OAL < 26") and you'd need to comply with MD law by getting a federal tax stamp on a 28" gun. *shrugs*

That being said, the MSP has the power to interpret the law as they see it.

In the sense of any MD law, sure. What I'd caution against is assuming that federal definitions override state definitions - they do not. MD uses some federal definitions as a matter of convenience, but they are not all legislated.

An AOW MAC is no more a pistol than a SBR MAC or a rifle MAC it is a simple designation based off of barrel length, accessories, and tax stamps.

MD law doesn't define what a pistol is - only a handgun. The MSP seem to be using the NFA definition of pistol for convenience... but they are under no obligation to do so.

MD law also doesn't have any definition of an AOW...

I have shot at DSC with my MAC on several occasions alongside off duty LEOs, and have never had anything but compliments. I always keep a copy of my tax stamp in the car, but I have never been challanged.

This doesn't really mean anything. They might have just assumed it was a registered assault pistol, as there are still some out there.

Might I also remind everyone that every tax stamp requires the CLEO's signature

Not if you have a trust.

 

[bobthefisher]

If you think there is a contradiction than you don't understand how the law works. Different sections of the code use different definition sections that only apply to the section they are in. No offense, but you kinda do need to re-read it because you don't get it. In light of the fact that you started this thread by misquoting the law because you don't know how to read an enrolled bill, I would turn down the snark level a little. Moving on, your AOW idea is not a "nether region of undefined MD gun law," as you put it, it clearly is a handgun under both definitions. Don't shoot the messenger, pal.

Snark level turned off I apologize, it was more of a comment of humor sprinkled with a little frustration of MD gun law. You guys are right though, it's not that the law is contradicting, it's how MSP keeps interpreting/enforcing the law that's contradicting. So is the common consensus that an AOW made from an assault pistol, still would be risky/gray under the definition of the law? That being said, would any of you guys risk/bother making an AOW from an assault pistol?

Xander, do you know where you can download that enrolled version of SB281 that's not all marked up? It would be nice to have an official clean copy for once.

 

[swinokur]

Not official but cleaned up by another MDS member.

 

[Inigoes]

That being said, would any of you guys risk/bother making an AOW from an assault pistol?

I was never a fan of the TEC-9, or the MAC-10 (etc...) because of the hype back in the day.

Now, put a vertical pistol grip on a handgun in a shotgun/rifle caliber; I'm all over it like a fly on sh*t.

I have a thing about creating a solar burst with my two hands

I am still on the hunt for a 50 BMG pistol or AOW.