SB387 "Public Safety - Untraceable Firearms" - The Ban on Private Firearm Making

[ryan2]

DELETED

 

[Kharn]

The atf killed the gunsmithing license and made them all get 07 licensed (manufacturer in firearms other than destructive devices). You can get an 07 out of your house in some places. No retail sales is the usual caveat, county depending. Just keep in mind that the atf inspects ffls. If you do it, get a separate building on your property, give it an "A" address and put the business there.

I thought ATF mentioned the gunsmith license in their latest regulatory proposal?

 

[MigraineMan]

HEADS UP

House Bill 425 is being heard on 2/9*in a virtual-only (Zoom)*hearing starting at 1 pm.
Sign up for this hearing starts on 2/7*at 8 am and ends at 3 pm.

Senate Bill 387 is being heard on 2/16 in-person in a hearing starting at 1 pm in the Senate Judicial Proceedings room. Sign-up starts at 2/15 at 4pm and ends the morning of the hearing at 10am. Sign-up is best*done with your MyMGA account.

Seems they've changed the testimony rules, again, since the last time in-person testimony was allowed. If I'm reading it correctly, you're supposed to sign-up and submit a PDF written testimony file online, with in-person-the-day-of being the exception, not the rule.

Oral Testimony Sign up and Written Testimony Submission for bill hearings scheduled beginning on February 14, 2022.
• Oral Testimony sign up and written testimony submission will begin the day before the bill hearing at 4:00 p.m. and continue until the morning of the hearing at 10:00 a.m.
• The Committee strongly suggests that all witnesses sign up and submit written testimony on their home computer. Any individual that needs to come to the Committee to sign up and submit written testimony MUST make an appointment and MUST bring a flash drive with the witness testimony along with a hard copy of the written testimony. All flash drives will be scanned by Committee staff for viruses prior to allowing an individual to upload testimony.

 

[DC-W]

Yes, signup at home the night before or morning of and then go to the committee room when the hearing starts and wait to be able to speak.

 

[MJD438]

Seems they've changed the testimony rules, again, since the last time in-person testimony was allowed. If I'm reading it correctly, you're supposed to sign-up and submit a PDF written testimony file online, with in-person-the-day-of being the exception, not the rule.

The entire point of pushing written testimony - it makes it more difficult and thus more likely that the public will not participate in the legislative process. COVID-19 was the best thing to happen to them forcing the public out of the public square.

 

[KIBarrister]

I’d be interested to see a statistic on spooky guns confiscated about: a) whether the possessor was already a prohibited person, and b) whether the possessor, even if not others prohibited, was possessing (carrying) it in a manner illegal under state law.

My money is 99.9% of the spooky guns confiscated were already possessed in violation of a statute carrying 5-10 years in prison (i.e., they are not deterred by law).

Also, it was mentioned with last years bull, er, bill, we should have let them pass it - they’d come back with worse. That was a prescient comment.

 

[MJD438]

I’d be interested to see a statistic on spooky guns confiscated about: a) whether the possessor was already a prohibited person, and b) whether the possessor, even if not others prohibited, was possessing (carrying) it in a manner illegal under state law.



My money is 99.9% of the spooky guns confiscated were already possessed in violation of a statute carrying 5-10 years in prison (i.e., they are not deterred by law).



Also, it was mentioned with last years bull, er, bill, we should have let them pass it - they’d come back with worse. That was a prescient comment.

The comments, when asked via PIA and in testimony in prior bill hearings, have always been "we don't track that specifically" or similar claptrap.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

 

[Jim12]

I’d be interested to see a statistic on spooky guns confiscated about: a) whether the possessor was already a prohibited person, and b) whether the possessor, even if not others prohibited, was possessing (carrying) it in a manner illegal under state law.

My money is 99.9% of the spooky guns confiscated were already possessed in violation of a statute carrying 5-10 years in prison (i.e., they are not deterred by law).

Also, it was mentioned with last years bull, er, bill, we should have let them pass it - they’d come back with worse. That was a prescient comment.

Hopefully those testifying will introduce all those facts, figures, and statistics into the legislative record, along with copies of their original sources, in case they might be useful in future court challenges to whatever is eventually enacted.

 

[DC-W]

We have setup a FAQ page: https://www.marylandshallissue.org/jmain/legislation-tracker/277-2022-gun-bill-faq

 

[GuitarmanNick]

Hopefully those testifying will introduce all those facts, figures, and statistics into the legislative record, along with copies of their original sources, in case they might be useful in future court challenges to whatever is eventually enacted.

The MGA cannot be bothered by facts or figures! Nothing they have done so far has reduced violence because their focus is on law abiding citizens.

 

[Deep Thought]

The MGA cannot be bothered by facts or figures! Nothing they have done so far has reduced violence because their focus is on law abiding citizens.

I think they are going to pass something regardless.

Probably an unpopular opinion, but perhaps our only recourse is to try and make it the 'least bad' as possible.

For instance, what if an amendment were offered that exempted:

- Law enforcement officers. These folks need to be able to defend themselves with whatever tool they choose, including firearms of their own design.
- LEOSA holders. Retired LE don't lose the need to defend themselves, let's not take tools from those that have served us and have to 'watch their back' as they age.
- W&C and HQL holders. These folks have been background checked by the state to purchase a firearm. How would it be any more dangerous for society to continue to allow them to make personal weapons?

Acknowledged of course that their implicit goal is to take this right from everyone, but at least it would make the dialog more interesting to make that perspective clear. I think the outcome is already decided, sadly.

 

[Jake4U]

Given the uselessness of this bill to impact "gun violence" and Baltimore's state's attorney's public efforts to ignore/promote criminal activity, how close is Maryland to a tilt point of no return? Most law abiding citizens either cannot legally CCW (The Supreme's vote may change that. We'll see) and those that do understand the shitstorm that will fall on them if they have to make that choice, where does it end? How bad will it get? I predict pretty bad as the next MD governor will probably be as destructively woke as Newsom.

Wish I lived in America.

 

[rbird7282]

I think they are going to pass something regardless.

Probably an unpopular opinion, but perhaps our only recourse is to try and make it the 'least bad' as possible.

For instance, what if an amendment were offered that exempted:

- Law enforcement officers. These folks need to be able to defend themselves with whatever tool they choose, including firearms of their own design.
- LEOSA holders. Retired LE don't lose the need to defend themselves, let's not take tools from those that have served us and have to 'watch their back' as they age.
- W&C and HQL holders. These folks have been background checked by the state to purchase a firearm. How would it be any more dangerous for society to continue to allow them to make personal weapons?

Acknowledged of course that their implicit goal is to take this right from everyone, but at least it would make the dialog more interesting to make that perspective clear. I think the outcome is already decided, sadly.

No, no, no. Law enforcement should play by the same rules as everyone else. No more carve out crap.
I am not against LEOs but the law should be equally applied to everyone

I get background checked every time I buy a firearm, what’s the difference?
How about we actually put the scumbag repeat felons behind bars and keep them there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[teratos]

No, no, no. Law enforcement should play by the same rules as everyone else. No more carve out crap.
I am not against LEOs but the law should be equally applied to everyone

Yep. LEO carve outs are ********. No offense to the LEO here but citizens face the same criminals you do. If you aren’t comfortable doing it with what we can have, then you should be in Annapolis telling these fools that.

 

[5cary]

Yep. LEO carve outs are ********. No offense to the LEO here but citizens face the same criminals you do. If you aren’t comfortable doing it with what we can have, then you should be in Annapolis telling these fools that.

Offense? I'm a LEO, and I agree wholeheartedly. I have two teen sons - neither of whom show an interest in LE as a career. And who can blame them given the treatment of cops today? I want them to have the same rights as me. That's my battle now.

LEOs that support "carve outs" (and I know many) are no better and are probably worse than FUDDS and their hunting rifles.

Carve outs and grandfathering laws are nothing but a path to incrementalism through appeasement. Both should be banned.


Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[whistlersmother]

There will be LEO carve out simply because LE is the enforcement arm. Can't upset the people tasked with enforcing unconstitutional laws.

And everyone should have to play by the same set if rules.

 

[lazarus]

Yep. LEO carve outs are ********. No offense to the LEO here but citizens face the same criminals you do. If you aren’t comfortable doing it with what we can have, then you should be in Annapolis telling these fools that.

About the only carve outs I am comfortable with are location specific ones.

For instance, permits should be shall issue/constitutional carry. However, call me a commie if you want, I think there ARE some places your average citizen should not be allowed to carry a firearm. Into a prison, in court buildings, on a plane, probably a couple of other places I am not thinking of.

But that said...well, I don't think I'd have an issue if off duty officers also had to abide by that. I am not sure I'd have heart burn if off duty officers didn't have to abide by that.

 

[DC-W]

Here's the bill file from the 1972 handgun law that set up the modern scheme of gun control that we have in MD today. Read the testimony http://mdlaw.ptfs.com/awweb/pdfopener?md=1&did=6731
It shaped all the exemptions written into Md Criminal Law § 4-203. It's a lot of people saying, "I'm special, you should treat me so."

Also read all of the other arguments in there and they'll look no different than any bill hearing on guns from any other time. They often turn to emotional pleadings or declaration of rights.

 

[ironpony]

I'll have to look into how a gunsmith FFL works if that ATF proposal becomes reality, and get a laser engraver for my printer.

I believe gunsmiths aren't considered retail stores, so they can be in residential neighborhoods more easily and then also transfer firearms to their own property...

I was able to get an ATF agent to call me on this subject and she said I would have a problem with zoning being residential.

 

[DC-W]

Here's the bill file from 1988's HB1131 which set up the Handgun Roster Board and would prohibit the distribution of "Saturday Night Specials"
https://mdlaw.ptfs.com/awweb/pdfopener?md=1&did=6659