If passed as is they can confiscate, penalize, destroy, transfer your wealth to attorneys, etc etc looong before SCOTUS even knows. Heck, could be 12 additional Judges by then, just a thought.
Question I have is, how many times since 1968 has having a serial number on a firearm actually done anything for the police in a case?
Question I have is, how many times since 1968 has having a serial number on a firearm actually done anything for the police in a case?
Question I have is, how many times since 1968 has having a serial number on a firearm actually done anything for the police in a case?
Not sure what those have to do with the bill.
Police are likely going to ask for a copy of that record when you report it stolen, so if it turns up they can for sure say if a handgun turns up engraved "9x19 Jim Smith Elkridge MD MDSPFU01" that it is the Jim Smith who reported it stolen. And according to his record he said he built it back in July of 2018.
If everything is destroyed, what does an FFL do now? I don't see MSP or a prosecutor having any interest in going after someone because they had a provable house fire and records were destroyed. Legally, I don't know. Maybe you could recreate it based on memory. Again, I think the key thing is they are most interested in you keeping a record of what was engraved on the gun. If the gun is destroyed, I don't think they care if the record is destroyed also.
See above for Tornado.
On the feds, how is that suddenly a concern? I only say that because it would have to be a federal law requiring that. The state can't mandate you provide information to the feds that the feds can't legally accept. If a federal law mandates registration of guns (home made or all) then the fact that a MD law required your gun to be engraved and you keep a record doesn't change the fact that the feds are now requiring registration.
Oh no, the state didn't make me engrave the gun and keep a record. Sorry ATF, nothing to turn in.
Your last is a non-issue as it relates to this law. If the state requires this information to be provided to MSP later, that new bill could just require record creation at that point if this bill never comes to be. Mandatory registration is mandatory registration. The only time it would make a difference is if you were deciding to not comply with mandatory registration and then only if someone else was the record keeper already.
I charitably want to think MGA's reasoning (and likely some of the LEAs) is that look, legitimate owners should have no problems putting their identifying information on their gun. If they aren't doing it, well then they are the ones making guns for the criminals. If we are catching guys with guns that don't have identifying information on it, well they were obviously creating or getting someone to make guns for them with criminal intent.
For someone making guns for someone else, well ATF doesn't say it is illegal. It just can't be WHY I am making a gun. It has to be for me. But a lot of ATF regs and laws have been dodged around because they have to prove intent. Look at all of the gun sellers that are obviously making a business of it, but not doing background checks and not getting an FFL that are selling hundreds of guns a year. ATF finally goes after them and in many cases they don't even get a slap on the wrist, because ATF has to prove intent.
I am sure now some criminals are pointing their finger back at the guy making this stuff. But, I mean, the guy is just making guns for himself. But he is fickle, so selling off the ones he isn't using for him.
But if MD is going to require putting your name and home town on it. That guy making the guns and selling them to criminals now has a law he is specifically breaking that requires no need to prove intent.
No. I am not trying to say this law is good or justified. I would say this is a large part of the reason Lopez is pushing it is they think it'll be easier to prove charges on criminals carrying "ghost guns" as well as some of the guys making them for criminals (supposing it isn't just the criminal themselves).
Nailed a lot of people on straw purchases or illegal transfers. Probably a tiny number of legitimate gun owners who discarded the gun after the crime. Numbers, no idea. I do know it has solved at least some crimes (or caught others secondary to the crime itself).
Not super often as most guns used in crime are stolen.
Please. How many people on this forum have made a gun from an 80% lower/frame and then decided to sell it? My guess would be less than 10, probably closer to 0. The biggest issue with 80% guns is that criminals who are making or stealing them are not put behind bars for long periods of time. Actually the same holds true for serialized firearms as well.
Do you really think that police/prosecutors really need another gun law to help prosecute these scumbags? Most of them are felons to begin with so it’s already illegal with any gun. Last thing we need is another law that prosecutors and judges ignore when it comes to career criminals.
Please. How many people on this forum have made a gun from an 80% lower/frame and then decided to sell it? My guess would be less than 10, probably closer to 0. The biggest issue with 80% guns is that criminals who are making or stealing them are not put behind bars for long periods of time. Actually the same holds true for serialized firearms as well.
Do you really think that police/prosecutors really need another gun law to help prosecute these scumbags? Most of them are felons to begin with so it’s already illegal with any gun. Last thing we need is another law that prosecutors and judges ignore when it comes to career criminals.
Sadly so few people who do it actually get charged with straw purchases
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Cross bill SB 624 has been filed in the senate. First Reading was on Jan 29. Sign up for testimony is on 2/15. Hearing is on 2/17 @ 1:00PM (or there about). Senator Lee again this year. I did not read word for word but I read the bottom of each page and compared it to HB 638. They appear to be identical at a glance.
Very well said Doc.Fuggem. Let these monstrosities pass as-is. With as badly as our side is treated, they don’t deserve to have us grovel before them. Opposing the Bill indicates you intend to comply.
Fuggem. Let these monstrosities pass as-is. With as badly as our side is treated, they don’t deserve to have us grovel before them. Opposing the Bill indicates you intend to comply.
IF I did go to testify, all I would do is what Mopar the Great did a few years ago.
Fuggem. Let these monstrosities pass as-is. With as badly as our side is treated, they don’t deserve to have us grovel before them. Opposing the Bill indicates you intend to comply.
This is how you win.
That is exactly it. Imagine if none of us discuss any of this any longer and just do what we do.
In the past people say wwnc but at the same time had the debate asking them not to change things and take our rights.