What he meant was it was the Judge who brought up the comparison of lube to increasing rate of fire.
RIF
RIF
More than just sending the letter, you need to get this message out to everyone you know - or everyone you know who knows others - who shoot, or keep and HD gun around the house, or have a sleepy grandpa with a varmint .22 in the garage. Everyone with a slicked-up turkey gun. Everyone who's ever (or might) go to some trouble to really clean up the trigger on Dad's old 1911. Everyone. On FB, I shared MSI's post of this same info, with some context and thoughts of my own. I almost NEVER talk guns on FB, as it always stirs the pot. But this is one of those occasions where the people who need to see this info might see it through my action, and the people who see my stuff but hate guns (and gun owners) might pause for a moment to realize what an absurd, Kafka-esque thing has been done in their names.
Tell that to the federal judge who definitely disagrees with you.
Yep. Armchair commentators vs a sitting federal judge. Hmm ... whose advice should I take? My letter goes in tomorrow.
Everyone can and will do as they see fit, but there is no way I'm sending in a signed letter to ATF stating that I am considering owning a soon to be banned device when it only covers me for 12 months. (....and ATF, I am NOT considering owning one)
I am well aware of whose opinion is worthless and whose opinion should be listened to. I am also well aware that it take a judge to read "shall not be infringed" and translate that into "infringe more than all the other rights combined."
All I'm saying is that while I can read English, I can't perform the mental gymnastics to realistically think anyone would ever consider lubricant to be a "part" or a "device."
Everyone can and will do as they see fit, but there is no way I'm sending in a signed letter to ATF stating that I am considering owning a soon to be banned device when it only covers me for 12 months. (....and ATF, I am NOT considering owning one)
This seems to be very specific about only covering "devices" or "parts." I think oil and lubrication is well outside the scope of the law. Let's not add to the circus by making this cover what it doesn't.
That seems to resolve the aftermarket trigger issue.
I got this text from https://legiscan.com/MD/text/SB707/2018
and clicked on the Maryland-2018-SB707-Chaptered.pdf
As near as I can tell this should be the final text of the signed law. Is there an updated version which stripped out the aftermarket trigger waiver?
Seeing as your post count is 1776...I think you should send the letter in no matter what anyone else does.
Karma, bro, karma....
So what happens when we send the form in to the ATF, and they dont respond? How can we prove that we actually applied, with just a copy of a letter that we sent in?
This forum is seen by an incredibly small number of MD gun owners. I'd be surprised if ATF receives 50 letters, of which they will send back 0 approved letters. Then what.....
This is a tiny echo chamber. Most MD gun owners have no idea that a bump stock bill passed, hell probably didn't know one was introduced.
The address the letter needs to be sent to is:
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
99 New York Avenue NE
Washington, DC 20226
This is as given from the ATF.
Just tried to send a certified letter to 99 New York Ave. NE, Washington, DC 20226.
The post office told me that address does not exist. USPS has two addresses in their system - 99 New York Ave NE has a zip code of 20002 and 99 New York Ave NW has a zip code of 20226