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

[MigraineMan]

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

No carve outs.

In a negotiation (i.e. "actual compromise") both parties get something out of the deal. We are consistently being bullied into conceding, but getting *nothing* in return.

Honestly, ask yourself "What benefit do I/we get out of this?" Empty promises don't count.

Here's what you are starting with.

 

[MigraineMan]

But, but, but ...

 

[DC-W]

Oh man there are some winners from the 1988 bill file. Here's an excerpt from a GOA brochure with quotes from then-Attorney General Curran (what's old is new again there too, maybe?)

He quoted a Department of Justice official as saying, "no respectable individual [would] procure a defense weapon such as a Clock 17 pistol." Curran also stated that the Clock "should be prohibited because it is an invitation for terrorists."

 

[DC-W]

Here's Parris Glendening demanding that affordable pistols be removed from society.

 

[DC-W]

And AG Joseph Curran's testimony. Again, the terms are all exchangeable with the rhetoric we hear today. Mercifully, the ban on polymer handguns never materialized, but one can see that the desire is all the same.

 

[RRomig]

This post expanded quickly so I apologize for not reading everything. Can you direct me to which bill bans private firearm making.
Thanks

 

[Deep Thought]

No carve outs.

In a negotiation (i.e. "actual compromise") both parties get something out of the deal. We are consistently being bullied into conceding, but getting *nothing* in return.

Honestly, ask yourself "What benefit do I/we get out of this?" Empty promises don't count.

Here's what you are starting with.

Obviously I'd prefer to have less of my cake taken, ideally none at all.

But, they are going to take some of our cake. Most likely they are going to take an entire slice. In my view opposing it will fail. It's however possible we may be able to reduce the slice of cake taken.

When faced with the choice of the entire slice, or a slightly smaller slice.. I know what I'll choose every time. The sad reality is I suspect the slice is already taken and this seemingly unpopular view is moot anyway.

 

[DC-W]

This post expanded quickly so I apologize for not reading everything. Can you direct me to which bill bans private firearm making.
Thanks

Right up top https://www.mdshooters.com/showpost.php?p=6545704&postcount=1

 

[whistlersmother]

Obviously I'd prefer to have less of my cake taken, ideally none at all.

But, they are going to take some of our cake. Most likely they are going to take an entire slice. In my view opposing it will fail. It's however possible we may be able to reduce the slice of cake taken.

When faced with the choice of the entire slice, or a slightly smaller slice.. I know what I'll choose every time. The sad reality is I suspect the slice is already taken and this seemingly unpopular view is moot anyway.

Appeasement has never worked.

What's the difference if the entire slice is taken at once or piece by piece. Its the same.

Edit: remove the quote of BeoBill. Not applicable to my comment

 

[Deep Thought]

Appeasement has never worked.

What's the difference if the entire slice is taken at once or piece by piece. Its the same.

Respectfully I don't think that's correct. FSA2013 could have been MUCH worse.

 

[Occam]

Appeasement has never worked.

What's the difference if the entire slice is taken at once or piece by piece. Its the same.

And yet here we are with polymer framed guns. Should we simply have abandoned pushback against the attempt to ban them entirely, because we also couldn't get every single thing exactly as we want it in a deep blue, politically monolithic state with deep-pocket gun haters running legislative committees?

We CANNOT have Maryland the way we want it. We are a true minority in this state. If not being able to have everything we want, but being able to push back on some of it is "appeasement," and therefore we should throw our hands up and let them have everything they want because anything less than perfection for us is cowardly or worse or something ... then what's the point? Give them everything they want, on every tax, regulatory, educational, sanctuary, immigration, freedom of speech/assembly, 2A, and every other thing, right? Because we can't get them to do ANY of those things exactly how we'd like, and chipping away at it, at least ... well that's just appeasement, right?

Perfection is the enemy of the good. We are mathematically unable to achieve even a pale shadow of perfection in this state when it comes to legislative matters on ANY topic, including the 2A. They hate us, and they think it's hilarious when we try. Best we can do is point out that they're wasting taxpayer dollars (which they don't care about) passing laws that will not stand in court years later, and then give money to those entities that take up the litigation for us. That's where the viable fight is.

But telling people with a good sense of reality that they're Neville Chamberlin for bothering to at least mitigate a given legislative train that's coming down the tracks at us, that's not thinking much of the people trying their best to slow down that train in the meantime.

 

[whistlersmother]

Your guns are gone.

Whether its now or latter, what's the difference?

Compromise means each side gets something. Gun owners have gotten nothing, unless you count a couple more years of less rights as having gotten something.

 

[teratos]

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.

Commie.

I would agree. However the list should be narrowly tailored. In the long run, almost none of it makes any difference to someone intent on harm.

Your guns are gone.

Damn shame. In Davy Jones’ gun locker at the bottom of the sea.

#WWNC

 

[Nickberg500]

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.

That would turn a right into a privilege for the legally endowed. I don't think they'd bite regardless - but even if they did, honestly I'd rather they overstep so it's easier to beat them in court.

*Especially* since the current bill would create a situation where even though I give them blood money for an HQL and register a bunch of pistols, they will still felonize me for making one spooky-boi.

 

[Bob A]

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

. . . 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.

Prisons, courts are reasonable. Post offices, schools, planes - not so much. What's the difference between a plane and a bus? Harden the cockpit doors and ditch the TSA.

 

[teratos]

Prisons, courts are reasonable. Post offices, schools, planes - not so much. What's the difference between a plane and a bus? Harden the cockpit doors and ditch the TSA.

Air Marshals are cool. Not the one here necessarily, but the other guys? Cool.

 

[Collector98]

Worst case, if it passes, what would that mean for all the people who made form 1 suppressors and sbr's from scratch?

 

[dist1646]

Once again the dems are taking advantage of people not being able to show up and testify in person to oppose their tyranny!

 

[BeoBill]

So what happens if someone has a bunch of 80% NOT finished? Do you serialize them? I mean you own a useless. Chuck of material, just haven't worked it yet.

You would need to determine if they were an "unfinished frame or receiver". Under the proposed bill

There is some vagueness as to how "readily" may be interpreted as well as "is marketed or sold to the public"

I don't believe an 80% would be considered readily completed, but the ATF/state may have a different interpretation in the future.

I believe the "is marketed" part is a current thing, which I am guessing is not happening with your 80%. The state may have a different interpretation in the future.

Great way to make criminals out of people that have always done the right thing. Seems or is unlawful from where i sit/stand. Shameful


Maybe soon fossil fuel cars will be outlawed. Maybe speech.

They don't care what happens to the tax paying, law abiding citizen. Its all for the chillrenz

This bill is a travesty and like every other bill they push doesn't deter a criminal or hold one responsible. These are always an attack on us and the 2A. Period!

Sad that this continues.

It's all up to the rogue MSP to write the COMAR "interpretations" to suit their desires anyway. The actual law is only the start of the screwing, and is pretty much superfluous. Plan on worst case by the time they're finished with it.

 

[BeoBill]

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.

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.

So what will happen if, say, 50 or so people show up anyway? Can they stand around in the hallway? With the Media in attendance?

We tax cattle are being "excepted" completely out of the process. This smells to me like Denial of Civil Rights Under Color of Law. But I defer to the actual lawyers here.