Clarification of Transport under SB281

[one-star]

Love some input from the lawyers here but based on my reading of 281

If I transport my legally registered "assault weapon" to the NRA range in Virginia, shoot, and then bring it back home, does that count as "transporting the weapon into the state?"

Love to know if we all just became felons under that portion of the law

 

[lx1x]

Love some input from the lawyers here but based on my reading of 281

If I transport my legally registered "assault weapon" to the NRA range in Virginia, shoot, and then bring it back home, does that count as "transporting the weapon into the state?"

Love to know if we all just became felons under that portion of the law

thats pretty much how i understand it..
but yet Frosh keep mentioning its not part of the bill.. people can still transport. (which he fooled the other people so they can go home).

 

[Mr H]

This is being digested, I'm sure, and we'll all learn the ramifications in due time.

But keep in mind that no "law" was made last night... just modification of the proposal.

We still have a long way to go, but even in its current modified form there are still plenty of reasons to shut it down.

 

[mdoffroad]

the way i read, yes

 

[one-star]

This is being digested, I'm sure, and we'll all learn the ramifications in due time.

But keep in mind that no "law" was made last night... just modification of the proposal.

We still have a long way to go, but even in its current modified form there are still plenty of reasons to shut it down.

After last night I have no real hopes of shutting down MoM's vice presidential campaign and Frosh's wet dream....

Just seeking confirmation to help in the fight with the GF over the move to VA

 

[Mr H]

Personally, I think the "transport" issue is being over-read.

I'm waiting to see the way the bill has been modified. The proposal that no further registration of any firearms that were purchased as regulated would be needed, seems to imply that they will be treated "as-is"... but that's just a first glance.

 

[Brooksy]

I agree this is an issue. I think Frosh relies on the actual text saying "Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, a person may not: (1) transport an assault weapon into the State; ..."

Where subsection (b)(3)(I) says "A person who lawfully possessed an assault long gun or copycat weappn before October 1, 2013, and who registers the assault long gun ot copycat weapon with the secretary of state police before november 1, 2013 may: (I) continue to possess the assault long gun or copycat weapon ..."

Frosh and counsel were arguing possess includes transport... but I don't think that flies for the explicit bar on bringing an assault weapon into the state as there is no exception to that in subsection (b). And it may not be transported into the state except as described in subsection (b). The only provision in that subsection is for transport for surrender of the arms to police pursuant to a court order.

 

[erwos]

The law as written seems to ban bringing the gun back into the state. That said, Frosh seemed completely amenable to fixing that bit on the Senate floor, and even thought permission to possess should cover you on this. I wouldn't expect it to survive to the final bill.

It's also not completely clear to me whether the state could successfully prosecute someone with this charge anyways; on its face, that provision violates the currently expansive definition of the interstate commerce clause.

 

[Mr H]

The law as written seems to ban bringing the gun back into the state. That said, Frosh seemed completely amenable to fixing that bit on the Senate floor, and even thought permission to possess should cover you on this. I wouldn't expect it to survive to the final bill.

It's also not completely clear to me whether the state could successfully prosecute someone with this charge anyways; on its face, that provision violates the currently expansive definition of the interstate commerce clause.

My suspicion is that FOPA would come into play here.

"Bring into the state" in this case seems to apply to the ever-so-vague rules regarding new residency, not simple transport for personal use.

 

[erwos]

"Bring into the state" in this case seems to apply to the ever-so-vague rules regarding new residency, not simple transport for personal use.

But that's basically irrelevant, given that you couldn't possess them. So it's really an unnecessary and confusing bit of language.

Has MSI given any thought to amendments they might introduce? I know the plan is to kill it dead, but reducing the cost of failure isn't a horrible idea. I have some ideas for amendments that might even get past Frosh, if you're interested... I feel like very few people understand this bill and the surrounding law as well as I do.

 

[K-Romulus]

I agree this is an issue. I think Frosh relies on the actual text saying "Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, a person may not: (1) transport an assault weapon into the State; ..."

Where subsection (b)(3)(I) says "A person who lawfully possessed an assault long gun or copycat weappn before October 1, 2013, and who registers the assault long gun ot copycat weapon with the secretary of state police before november 1, 2013 may: (I) continue to possess the assault long gun or copycat weapon ..."

Frosh and counsel were arguing possess includes transport... but I don't think that flies for the explicit bar on bringing an assault weapon into the state as there is no exception to that in subsection (b). And it may not be transported into the state except as described in subsection (b). The only provision in that subsection is for transport for surrender of the arms to police pursuant to a court order.

What he said . . .

 

[Brooksy]

Not that I ever would, but I wonder if under the proposed legislation an out-of-state resident caould register a grandfathered assault weapon with MSP that is possessed out of state, but then by registering it could possess it in MD, so long as the transport into state part is amended.

 

[Mark75H]

But that's basically irrelevant, given that you couldn't possess them. So it's really an unnecessary and confusing bit of language.

Has MSI given any thought to amendments they might introduce? I know the plan is to kill it dead, but reducing the cost of failure isn't a horrible idea. I have some ideas for amendments that might even get past Frosh, if you're interested... I feel like very few people understand this bill and the surrounding law as well as I do.

No, it can still die in the senate or die by not being accepted by the house - without being amended to death.

Outright refusal of this BILL is still a LARGE option

 

[Mr H]

But that's basically irrelevant, given that you couldn't possess them. So it's really an unnecessary and confusing bit of language.

Has MSI given any thought to amendments they might introduce? I know the plan is to kill it dead, but reducing the cost of failure isn't a horrible idea. I have some ideas for amendments that might even get past Frosh, if you're interested... I feel like very few people understand this bill and the surrounding law as well as I do.

Even as-amended, it's stil a garbage bill, and you can drive trucks through the holes they didn't "fix".

I suspect it's being delved into now, by those much closer to the day-to-day of it than any of us here...

 

[erwos]

Not that I ever would, but I wonder if under the proposed legislation an out-of-state resident caould register a grandfathered assault weapon with MSP that is possessed out of state, but then by registering it could possess it in MD, so long as the transport into state part is amended.

The bill is clear that it needs to be registered before November.

I agree that they wouldn't be losing much to ban sales and transfer, but keep future registration. We might even see such an amendment proposed.

 

[jonnyl]

But that's basically irrelevant, given that you couldn't possess them. So it's really an unnecessary and confusing bit of language.

Has MSI given any thought to amendments they might introduce? I know the plan is to kill it dead, but reducing the cost of failure isn't a horrible idea. I have some ideas for amendments that might even get past Frosh, if you're interested... I feel like very few people understand this bill and the surrounding law as well as I do.

Yes, I've been torn between hoping the bill is as bad as can be to increase the chances of getting it killed, or getting some decent amendments in to reduce the damage on passage.

The risk is the more watered down it gets the more we risk opposition waning...

 

[Brooksy]

The bill is clear that it needs to be registered before November.

I agree that they wouldn't be losing much to ban sales and transfer, but keep future registration. We might even see such an amendment proposed.

Right. I know it wouldn't cover future purchases. But for firearms I own now, I could theoretically register them with MSP before November. Which would then allow me to possess them in MD even though I am a non-resident? Not something I'd ever do, but if you plan on moving back to MD some time in the future or travel there to compete often enough it might make sense.

I'm just curious how MSP would react to a flood of out of state registration requests. Its a nonstarter really though because gun ownes by and large avoid registration schemes if possible.

 

[one-star]

My suspicion is that FOPA would come into play here.

"Bring into the state" in this case seems to apply to the ever-so-vague rules regarding new residency, not simple transport for personal use.

FOPA only really covers transport "through" a state, not as a terminal destination. Inside a state is beyond the reach of the commerce clause (at least for this).

 

[Mega]

The bill is clear that it needs to be registered before November.

I agree that they wouldn't be losing much to ban sales and transfer, but keep future registration. We might even see such an amendment proposed.

And what of NFA items?
Those are already "registered".

 

[erwos]

And what of NFA items?
Those are already "registered".

The bill is clear that 1) they need to be registered before Nov 2013 and 2) they need to be registered with the MSP. It's entirely possible to have an NFA firearm that the MSP knows nothing about, as anyone with a trust can tell you.