The final SB 281: A detailed summary for non-lawyers

[BigToe]

This is covered in Paragraph No. 15 in the original post, and in this separate thread that I posted:
http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=113930

I did not see any conclusion as to whether it could legally be retroactive. It all seemed to be speculation. Is their any official word from AG as to the details?

 

[ddeanjohnson]

I did not see any conclusion as to whether it could legally be retroactive. It all seemed to be speculation. Is their any official word from AG as to the details?

I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. If this affects your personal situation, consult a lawyer who is expert both in Maryland criminal law and Maryland firearms law. Personally, if I had ever been subject to a PBJ for one of the enumerated offenses (which I never was), I would regard myself as disqualified as of October 1. Indeed, much of the debate in the House of Delegates, both in the joint committee and on the floor, dealt with that very issue. They wrote this into the definition of "disqualifying crime." In my opinion, it applies to every covered PBJ regardless of when it was imposed, unless that PBJ was or is "expunged under Title 10, Subtitle 1 of the Criminal Procedure Article."

 

[BigToe]

I understand, that is the speculation. But I see a lot of problems with this. For one, there is a 120 day backlog of applicants who truthfully filled out the current paperwork, who after Oct 1st, will still be denied if they have a PBJ for a qualifying crime.

Furthermore, I'm sure there have been 8-day releases to those who truthfully filled out the paperwork, and received a firearm, whose application will be processed after Oct. 1st, and who's application will be denied, and their firearm confiscated.

The whole thing just seems either not thought out at all, or carefully thought out to purposely create a situation for the legal confiscation of firearms. Perhaps, even a first test to see the reaction, before instating an all out ban and confiscation of certain qualifying firearms (ie. NJ)

And if that is the case, I would think rather than bowing to the MD legislature and having these PBJs expunged, it would be better to allow them to attempt these unconstitutional confiscations and fight the charges. If anyone in this situation were to stand his ground constitutionally, I, for one, would certainly contribute to their legal fees.

 

[ddeanjohnson]

I understand, that is the speculation. But I see a lot of problems with this. For one, there is a 120 day backlog of applicants who truthfully filled out the current paperwork, who after Oct 1st, will still be denied if they have a PBJ for a qualifying crime.

Furthermore, I'm sure there have been 8-day releases to those who truthfully filled out the paperwork, and received a firearm, whose application will be processed after Oct. 1st, and who's application will be denied, and their firearm confiscated.

The whole thing just seems either not thought out at all, or carefully thought out to purposely create a situation for the legal confiscation of firearms. Perhaps, even a first test to see the reaction, before instating an all out ban and confiscation of certain qualifying firearms (ie. NJ)

And if that is the case, I would think rather than bowing to the MD legislature and having these PBJs expunged, it would be better to allow them to attempt these unconstitutional confiscations and fight the charges. If anyone in this situation were to stand his ground constitutionally, I, for one, would certainly contribute to their legal fees.

What you see as bugs, the authors of the Simmons Amendment see as features.

There was no provision of SB 281 that received more thorough, open debate than the Simmons Amendment, both in the joint House committee, and on the House floor. It was strongly opposed by Del. Joseph Vallario (D), the chairman of the Judiciary Committee. Yet, Simmons prevailed.

If your scenario occurs, it will not be the first time that individuals who acquired firearms legally in Maryland, later had them confiscated because of changes in the law or interpretation of the law. Moreover, Congress has done the same sort of thing (the 1996 Lautenberg Amendment, for example), and the federal courts have ruled that this does not violate the U.S. Constitution's prohibition on ex post facto legislation of penalties. Basically, they've held that the legislatures can determine what disqualifications are appropriate and that these are not really penalties for the crime. However, all such decisions that I am aware of pre-dated the U.S. Supreme Court rulings in Heller and McDonald.

 

[Watdahec]

Sorry if my question had been covered before but, post Oct.1st, is it still possible to take any banned firearms to any range for recreational purposes?

 

[BigToe]

Sorry if my question had been covered before but, post Oct.1st, is it still possible to take any banned firearms to any range for recreational purposes?

It is legal, but some ranges may not allow them after the ban, so be sure to check.

 

[ddeanjohnson]

Sorry if my question had been covered before but, post Oct.1st, is it still possible to take any banned firearms to any range for recreational purposes?

It depends on what you mean by "any banned firearms." If you are talking about firearms that were lawfully owned prior to October 1, 2013, then their status does not change -- they are "grandfathered." If you are talking about firearms lawfully acquired by residents of other states after October 1, 2013, no, they may not be legally brought into Maryland, even for competitions or other temporary sporting purposes. We're talking about the law here. Range policies vary.

 

[malone630]

may have already been answered before any body know if the kel-tec su-16 would be on this list or can you still buy after 1st

 

[ddeanjohnson]

I have made various minor updates in the Original Post to reflect the latest information on certain points. In addition, I've added a prominent recommendation that those with specific questions about what models of rifles are banned or not banned, the status of various components and accessories, etc., consult the "Frequently Asked Questions" by erwos, which he updates periodically with the latest information available: http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=109281

 

[ameridane]

Quote" The handgun license is not required for an active or "retired" member of the armed forces of the United States or the National Guard, for active or retired law enforcement officers, or to purchase any handgun defined in federal law as an antique, or curio or relic. (This has nothing to do with whether or not the handgun buyer possesses a federal "C&R" license and should not be confused with such.) One must be age 21 to apply for the license." End Quote

Just one question about this paragraph. Is it fair to assume that a permanent US resident and as a foreign retired armed person honorably discharged from any given country armed forces will not be given the same leniency as a US soldier in this law?

 

[ddeanjohnson]

Quote" The handgun license is not required for an active or "retired" member of the armed forces of the United States or the National Guard, for active or retired law enforcement officers, or to purchase any handgun defined in federal law as an antique, or curio or relic. (This has nothing to do with whether or not the handgun buyer possesses a federal "C&R" license and should not be confused with such.) One must be age 21 to apply for the license." End Quote

Just one question about this paragraph. Is it fair to assume that a permanent US resident and as a foreign retired armed person honorably discharged from any given country armed forces will not be given the same leniency as a US soldier in this law?

It's crystal clear that the various military exceptions in the new law apply only to U.S. military. And even for U.S. military, honorably discharged persons are not exempt from the HQL requirement. Only active duty and retirees are exempt.

 

[breimer273]

Quote" The handgun license is not required for an active or "retired" member of the armed forces of the United States or the National Guard, for active or retired law enforcement officers, or to purchase any handgun defined in federal law as an antique, or curio or relic. (This has nothing to do with whether or not the handgun buyer possesses a federal "C&R" license and should not be confused with such.) One must be age 21 to apply for the license." End Quote

Just one question about this paragraph. Is it fair to assume that a permanent US resident and as a foreign retired armed person honorably discharged from any given country armed forces will not be given the same leniency as a US soldier in this law?

The quote does say the must be retired from the armed forces of the UNITED STATES. So yes, your assumption would be correct. Also note that there is a distinction between retired and honorably discharged. If you are honorably discharged then you are not retired, so even if you were honorably discharged from the military in the U.S. you would still need to get the HQL. The exception is only made if you are retired or active.

IANAL

EDIT: Just saw the previous post answering the question...

 

[ddeanjohnson]

I have made very minor updates to the Original Post summary, and added this guidance: Readers who want additional details on exactly what models of rifles are or may be banned, the status of "stripped lowers," and other technical questions of that sort, are strongly advised to refer to the "Frequently Asked Questions" by erwos, which is periodically updated with the latest information: http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=109281

 

[Mobile]

There are so many grey areas and contradictory instructions ... this law is a goat rope of unbelievable magnitude. The only people who think this makes anybody safe are those who don't understand it (i.e., the people who supported it.)

 

[Tebonski]

Guys, I don't know if this is the right forum to ask. Can a parent take his child or teen to a gun range and allow them to fire a .22 handgun or even an AR15? Would the teen be in violation of "receiving a regulated firearm?" I realize there is probably only a very remote chance of a sworn law enforcement officer being there in uniform of plainclothes who would arrest on these flimsy ambiguous rules. And then imagine a states attorney prosecuting a father and son for the violation but this is Maryland ruled by a tyrant.

 

[Mobile]

The answer is in item #9 of the first post. I think you'd be okay.

 

[Tebonski]

The answer is in item #9 of the first post. I think you'd be okay.

Very good. Should be okay. Thanks.

 

[ddeanjohnson]

I have updated the Original Post with minor tweaks to Paragraph 1, concerning the Handgun Qualification License.

 

[wt71]

Does anyone have the final text? I appreciate the summary but I am looking for the actual text of the bill.

Thanks!

Here you go

http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2013RS/bills/sb/sb0281e.pdf

 

[Neuromorph]

Job may have me moving to MD in 2014. Confused about regulated and banned firearms in the new legislation.

According to this OP, I cannot bring in any 'regulated' firearms that I legally own that were acquired after Oct 1, 2013?

I was heart set on acquiring many firearms that are subsequently on the banned 'assault weapons' list prior to my move, and want to make sure things are legit before these purchases. I would hate making these purchases (post Oct 1 outside of MD), only to find that I am unable to continue to possess them during my move.

I understand I need to register all weapons I enter the state with, but I do not see the relevant wording that says, that my property is restricted even though I havent entered the state yet.

Side question, I have some unfinished lowers and 80%s I am planning on making into a AR pistol, I believe I can bring the lowers and 80s in, but will not be able to finish manufacturing into the pistol, due to it being a 'clone' of a "bushmaster pistol"... can anyone confirm?