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

[lazarus]

This is not the place to help them fix their bad bills. Their are still some snags in the wording.

Better to defeat it, but I fear it will be harder this time.

If you read the proposed ATF regulations, you will see if adopted, it synchronizes with this to allow a regular FFL to engrave an existing build. So all the comments that they can't do this are moot if the proposed ATF regulations are also adopted.

Hope we can find a way to defeat this again.

If. If those regulations go in to effect before this law does. And if anyone has time to comply. And if FFLs decide to provide this service. I don’t know if a gunsmith that doesn’t have weeks of work stacked up. Are FFL-01s going to run out and buy laser engravers to engrave a couple hundred guns?

If the ATF regulations go in to effect it might be legally feasible to comply. But passing law based on federal regulations that may or may not change in time is the height of stupidity.

And what happens if the ATF regulations languish until a couple of months before the bill goes in to effect? Fat chance most could comply in time. To be clear, you can’t legally comply until ATF regulations change.

The bill last year was at least feasible to comply with in most cases. Though I’ve got an older 80 that couldn’t fit the ridiculously long serial number proposed in the law on it. And didn’t address if you swapped calibers (would that be breaking the law?).

This one is a Nope in several places.

I’d prefer not hoping a lawsuit succeeds. I hope this one goes down in flames. And to do that, it probably means pointing out some of the things, like the current FFL serializing requirements and the record keeping they are being asked to do violates federal regulations on FFLs. So the law cannot be complied with.

 

[BeoBill]

So how come the Patriot Pickets didn't do a counter rally against the Demanding Moms? Are they out of that type of expression, or do they only rally in Virginia now?

 

[jcutonilli]

The Law from above:



I am the manufacturer, I am authorized by the ATF to serialize my own creation (though I am not licensed). So, I can legally afix a serial number today. The BOLDED above does not jive with my current ability to serialize per ATF guidelines. A conundrum at least.


The other topic: Current plastic guns are manufactured with a metal block cast (the frame is destroyed in order to remove) in place for a serial number. Not something that can be done for a 3D print. As I read the law above, I don't think you can just glue on a plate and meet the requirements for a 3D version.

They obviously had some help rewriting the proposed law this year, and there is a National effort to get them passed. I sure hope the SCOUS makes a ruling in the next few months that helps to put an end to this type of nonsense.

.

First of all, please do not refer to that language as law. It is a proposed bill and not law. Hopefully it will stay that way.

Since you are referring to an existing firearm, that highlighted section is not really applicable because it will not be an "unfinished frame or receiver". What is applicable in the proposed language is section 5-703 (B), which addresses the POSSESSION of any existing firearm. This proposed language requires any firearm that you posses (made after 1968 and not an antique firearm) to have a serial number that is imprinted by an FFL (sections 5-703(B)(1) and (2)).

While you may have manufactured that firearm, you are not actually an FFL so any marking you have made would not be in compliance with the proposed language. It requires the serial number to be imprinted by an FFL and if the FFL is a dealer, the serial number must include part of their FFL number in the serial number (see section 5-703(B)(2))

The only federal requirement that I have found for marking a firearm* (serial number) only apply to FFL importers and manufacturers (18 USC 923(i)). The ATF has no statutory authority to authorize you to mark a firearm*. I believe you can voluntarily add one if you like. The federal requirement to keep a serial number only applies to FFL importer or manufacturer applied serial numbers (18 USC 922(k)).

*non NFA firearms. 26 USC 5842 does require anyone making an NFA firearm to mark them with a serial number.

 

[Rocinante]

If. If those regulations go in to effect before this law does. And if anyone has time to comply. And if FFLs decide to provide this service. I don’t know if a gunsmith that doesn’t have weeks of work stacked up. Are FFL-01s going to run out and buy laser engravers to engrave a couple hundred guns?

If the ATF regulations go in to effect it might be legally feasible to comply. But passing law based on federal regulations that may or may not change in time is the height of stupidity.

And what happens if the ATF regulations languish until a couple of months before the bill goes in to effect? Fat chance most could comply in time. To be clear, you can’t legally comply until ATF regulations change.

The bill last year was at least feasible to comply with in most cases. Though I’ve got an older 80 that couldn’t fit the ridiculously long serial number proposed in the law on it. And didn’t address if you swapped calibers (would that be breaking the law?).

This one is a Nope in several places.

I’d prefer not hoping a lawsuit succeeds. I hope this one goes down in flames. And to do that, it probably means pointing out some of the things, like the current FFL serializing requirements and the record keeping they are being asked to do violates federal regulations on FFLs. So the law cannot be complied with.

Sounds like the legality of this bill is entirely dependent on the AFT's proposed rule. If that proposal doesn't go through, and this does, this bill is contradictory to federal statute so wouldn't the supremacy clause kick in?

 

[Doobie]

Is it bad that one of my immediate thoughts were “I wonder how many FFLs are secretly supporting this because they see dollar signs?” I hate to say it ladies and gentlemen, but all of our 2A opponents aren’t in Annapolis. Some of them probably grace these pages. Money > than rights for some people.

 

[Bertfish]

Is it bad that one of my immediate thoughts were “I wonder how many FFLs are secretly supporting this because they see dollar signs?” I hate to say it ladies and gentlemen, but all of our 2A opponents aren’t in Annapolis. Some of them probably grace these pages. Money > than rights for some people.

There is definitely at least one or two

 

[Stoveman]

So how come the Patriot Pickets didn't do a counter rally against the Demanding Moms? Are they out of that type of expression, or do they only rally in Virginia now?

Because we only found out about the rally on short notice and most of us, unlike the overwhelming amount of Karens in the crowd today, have to work.

And by all means if you hear of something let us know either here or on the Book of Faces page.

Our favorite WUSA Ch 9 reporter Scott Broom did reach out to us today by phone for some counter quotes to the piece he filed which should have been on the 5 and 6pm broadcast.

 

[Doctor_M]

There has been a media blitz to paint boo-bangs as the latest and greatest threat to civilization. What a load of fertilizer. WWNC.

 

[teratos]

#WWNC

 

[DC-W]

Don’t overlook the definition of a firearm under 5-101 (iii).

 

[Slackdaddy]

Because the Moms needing action rally was coordinated between the State government, Media, and various PAID Bloomberg groups.

Patriot Picket is an all volunteer group without the media and state ties

So how come the Patriot Pickets didn't do a counter rally against the Demanding Moms? Are they out of that type of expression, or do they only rally in Virginia now?

 

[Bertfish]

Don’t overlook the definition of a firearm under 5-101 (iii).

I'll be overlooking it all when I send Frosh a fax of my tackle

 

[Patattack88]

What are they doing this year on the committee hearings since the world is still dying. Is it all virtual or in person or in person with limited seating? Or is it all written?

 

[DC-W]

All virtual in the senate now until 2/14, then in-person. House is all virtual. This could of course change. We’ll post dates and times as soon as they’re known.

 

[Doctor_M]

Have they limited testimony to 15 seconds or less?

 

[gtodave]

First of all, please do not refer to that language as law. It is a proposed bill and not law. Hopefully it will stay that way.

Since you are referring to an existing firearm, that highlighted section is not really applicable because it will not be an "unfinished frame or receiver". What is applicable in the proposed language is section 5-703 (B), which addresses the POSSESSION of any existing firearm. This proposed language requires any firearm that you posses (made after 1968 and not an antique firearm) to have a serial number that is imprinted by an FFL (sections 5-703(B)(1) and (2)).

While you may have manufactured that firearm, you are not actually an FFL so any marking you have made would not be in compliance with the proposed language. It requires the serial number to be imprinted by an FFL and if the FFL is a dealer, the serial number must include part of their FFL number in the serial number (see section 5-703(B)(2))

The only federal requirement that I have found for marking a firearm* (serial number) only apply to FFL importers and manufacturers (18 USC 923(i)). The ATF has no statutory authority to authorize you to mark a firearm*. I believe you can voluntarily add one if you like. The federal requirement to keep a serial number only applies to FFL importer or manufacturer applied serial numbers (18 USC 922(k)).

*non NFA firearms. 26 USC 5842 does require anyone making an NFA firearm to mark them with a serial number.

The bill to me.seems to base itself on the idea that serializing a firearm is a federal law. It clearly isn't for home manufacture and use. Do you disagree?

 

[Boondock Saint]

I imagine that, were this nonsense to ever become law, there would be widespread compliance with it, as it would be quite easily enforced.

FOAD. Molon labe.

 

[DC-W]

The proposed ATF rule submitted for comment in the spring would require 80% kits (and potentially a whole lot more things currently not considered guns) be treated as firearms and they’d require serials.

That’s not what’s at issue here however.

Simply,
Should the bill pass, if one has unserialized unfinished frames or receivers or unserialized firearms come 1/1/23, they are in violation of the law and vulnerable to prosecution. The firearms must be inscribed in the manner the bill describes, or else.

After 6/1/22, it’d be illegal to acquire unserialized “unfinished frames or receivers” within the state.

It’s all strict liability and don’t think it wouldn’t be enforced. There’s not a county in this state that isn’t issuing ERPOs…

 

[teratos]

Hand over all the guns we don’t know about.

 

[Doctor_M]

Stop, or I shall be forced to yell Stop, again.