It's proposed background checks for Internet Gun Sales

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

>No stretch. No provision for having AR in the house upon death of AR owner.

There's no provision for owning a car without registration in the event of the death of the previous owner, either. I guess your wife will be going to jail for car theft.

While he has no idea what he's talking about, yours is not a great example. There's no law against owning an unregistered car in MD. Owning an unregistered AR is. Whatever, it's moot.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[OHCHUTE 0]

Quote

Quote

In MD under proposed law. When the husband dies owning an AR she will be in immediate violation of being in possession of an AR, and illegal to own gun. How about that. YOur wife saddled with becoming a felon upon your death.

The assult weapon bans are retarded, but this is not one way in which Maryland's is retarded.

Quote

This subtitle does not apply to:

(5) the receipt of an assault WEAPON or detachable magazine by inheritance if the decedent lawfully possessed the assault WEAPON; or
(6) the receipt of an assault WEAPON or detachable magazine by a personal representative of an estate for purposes of exercising the powers and duties of a personal representative of an estate.

Wify can't register it, can't sell it, can't give it to someone. No provision in dealing with an unregistered AR. I presume she turns it over to the state police which is what they want.... confiscation within a generation of all AR. Funny they left AR sporter in there as not a regulated AR.... no change then regarding possessing Colt AR sporter.

[billvon 2,400]

>There's no law against owning an unregistered car in MD.

Fair enough, although many states do have laws against transferring a car to another person without notifying the DMV; thus an automatic transfer might technically violate the law. (No one, of course, would interpret the law that way or try to enforce it.)

[Kennedy 0]

Difference bin that there is well established and documented civil law concerning what happens to the property of the deceased. Here we're dealing with criminal law and little to no legend.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

In MD under proposed law. When the husband dies owning an AR she will be in immediate violation of being in possession of an AR, and illegal to own gun. How about that. YOur wife saddled with becoming a felon upon your death.

The assult weapon bans are retarded, but this is not one way in which Maryland's is retarded.

Quote

This subtitle does not apply to:

(5) the receipt of an assault WEAPON or detachable magazine by inheritance if the decedent lawfully possessed the assault WEAPON; or
(6) the receipt of an assault WEAPON or detachable magazine by a personal representative of an estate for purposes of exercising the powers and duties of a personal representative of an estate.

Wify can't register it, can't sell it, can't give it to someone. No provision in dealing with an unregistered AR. I presume she turns it over to the state police which is what they want.... confiscation within a generation of all AR. Funny they left AR sporter in there as not a regulated AR.... no change then regarding possessing Colt AR sporter.

-You got caught making shit up. Again.
-You got called on it. Again.
-You respond by changing the subject. Again.

All that's left now is for you to troll, and attack the messenger, as usual.

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

The politicians in Washington apparently don't have a clue about internet gun sales.

It doesn't matter. Politicians stay in power by "doing something" which appeals to the voters without pissing off the people who paid to put them in office.

That said here's a clue about internet gun sales:

Federal law still allows people without Federal Firearms Licenses to sell non-NFA firearms (like machine guns) to residents of the same state. At home, a gun show, the range, or over the internet it doesn't matter. Back ground checks aren't required for sales by non-licensees and the last time I checked they weren't even possible because only FFLs had access to the National Instant Check System.

Federal law allows people in the same state to ship each other non-NFA firearms, although in practice this only works for long guns which can be mailed because handguns and other concealable firearms can't be mailed between non-licensees. Although federal law allows you to ship non-NFA firearms intrastate via a common carrier, it's against their (FedEx, UPS, DHL) tariffs and federal law requires you to notify them when you're shipping a gun so that's not possible.

Private transfers of any sort (internet or otherwise) aren't allowed between non-licensees residing in different states - a FFL needs to be involved.

[kallend 1,623]

When my wife died her car automatically belonged to her estate. In IL the law has specific provision for that circumstance, and transferring ownership from the estate to the beneficiary is also easily and legally accomplished.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Kennedy 0]

The difference is that there was no law in place preventing the estate from transferring the vehicle to any inheritor listed into will, or to you as spouse if not listed. In the case of MD and black rifles, there is no provision for transferring legal ownership to an inheritor, next of kin, or anyone else. When the owner dies, the rifle must be surrendered to the state for destruction (or confiscation for public use by LEO, but I doubt that'll be done). Otherwise anyone taking possession is in violation if the ridiculous state "assault weapons ban".

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

The difference is that there was no law in place preventing the estate from transferring the vehicle to any inheritor listed into will, or to you as spouse if not listed. In the case of MD and black rifles, there is no provision for transferring legal ownership to an inheritor, next of kin, or anyone else. When the owner dies, the rifle must be surrendered to the state for destruction (or confiscation for public use by LEO, but I doubt that'll be done). Otherwise anyone taking possession is in violation if the ridiculous state "assault weapons ban".

Are you sure? Isn't that covered by the subsections of the MD law referenced in Post #25?

[champu 1]

Quote

Quote

The difference is that there was no law in place preventing the estate from transferring the vehicle to any inheritor listed into will, or to you as spouse if not listed. In the case of MD and black rifles, there is no provision for transferring legal ownership to an inheritor, next of kin, or anyone else. When the owner dies, the rifle must be surrendered to the state for destruction (or confiscation for public use by LEO, but I doubt that'll be done). Otherwise anyone taking possession is in violation if the ridiculous state "assault weapons ban".

Are you sure? Isn't that covered by the subsections of the MD law referenced in Post #25?

Well, it's a little murky... My point was that you don't immediately become a felon just for inheriting it. But I've read it a couple more times, and here's a possible train of thought you can go down...

Quote

"This subtitle does not apply to... ...the receipt of an assault WEAPON or detachable magazine by inheritance... ...Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, a person may not... ...possess, sell, offer to sell, transfer, purchase, or receive an assault WEAPON.

subsection b goes on to list...

Quote

(1) A person who lawfully possessed an assault WEAPON before June 1, 1994, and who registered the assault WEAPON with the Secretary of State Police before August 1, 1994, may continue to possess the assault WEAPON; or while carrying a court order requiring the surrender of the assault WEAPON, transport the assault WEAPON directly to the law enforcement unit, barracks, or station if the person has notified the law enforcement unit, barracks, or station that the person is transporting the assault WEAPON in accordance with a court order and the assault WEAPON is unloaded.

(2) A PERSON WHO LAWFULLY POSSESSED AN ASSAULT LONG GUN OR A COPYCAT WEAPON BEFORE OCTOBER 1, 2013, AND WHO REGISTERS THE ASSAULT LONG GUN OR COPYCAT WEAPON WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE POLICE BEFORE DECEMBER 1, 2013, MAY CONTINUE TO POSSESS THE ASSAULT LONG GUN OR COPYCAT WEAPON.

So it's not illegal to receive a legally owned assault WEAPON by inheritance, but there's no provision for you to possess it if YOU did not register it before 1 Dec 2013.

[OHCHUTE 0]

Quote

The difference is that there was no law in place preventing the estate from transferring the vehicle to any inheritor listed into will, or to you as spouse if not listed. In the case of MD and black rifles, there is no provision for transferring legal ownership to an inheritor, next of kin, or anyone else. When the owner dies, the rifle must be surrendered to the state for destruction (or confiscation for public use by LEO, but I doubt that'll be done). Otherwise anyone taking possession is in violation if the ridiculous state "assault weapons ban".

Thank you.

Rules are not completely formulated. They don't even know how they'll do the 8 hour training as the state doesn't have any handgun trainers. Governor Omalley wants to be president so he's on a whirlwind to pass a bunch of laws.

[oldwomanc6 38]

Quote

Quote

The difference is that there was no law in place preventing the estate from transferring the vehicle to any inheritor listed into will, or to you as spouse if not listed. In the case of MD and black rifles, there is no provision for transferring legal ownership to an inheritor, next of kin, or anyone else. When the owner dies, the rifle must be surrendered to the state for destruction (or confiscation for public use by LEO, but I doubt that'll be done). Otherwise anyone taking possession is in violation if the ridiculous state "assault weapons ban".

Thank you.

Rules are not completely formulated. They don't even know how they'll do the 8 hour training as the state doesn't have any handgun trainers. Governor Omalley wants to be president so he's on a whirlwind to pass a bunch of laws.

From what I understand, it's moot. Come October, all guns with AR designation are no longer legal. No matter how you came to possess them.

If I'm wrong, please show.

lisa
WSCR 594
FB 1023
CBDB 9

[GoHuskers 0]

DanG,

We have all been on dives that have gone differently than the dirt dive. Not a mere flaw in execution but an unstated agreement between the jumpers to change the intent mid-air based on a trigger after exit.

Lawmakers with gun control on the mind are talking about the ways and means of reducing the number of, reducing the ammunition for, making the environment cost prohibitive for... The business end of getting guns off the street. What concerns us is that they take it as an afterthought that they are taking away another slice of our freedom.

I am undecided on whether or not ownership of a high capacity magazine is a civil liberty. My opinion on the matter is irrelevant to anyone other than me. I would like to hear someone in our government stating that it might be infringing on a civil liberty and thus deliberated on with the intent to effectively interpret the constitution as it affects millions of americans in the application of their rights. Not just an afterthought that it can be taken, no harm no foul.

What I do know is that I have zero faith in our court system to have consistent rulings on the bill of rights. If a hippie shitting on the steps of city hall is protected under the freedom of speech, why wouldn't high capacity magazines be protected under the right to bear arms. I am reasonably confident that the founding fathers never intended the first amendment to protect flag-burning, porn, and biohazardous "statements" towards our government. They might have expressly intended for citizens to own modern, relevant, military-grade firearms to protect our nation.

Setting upon the task of writing a law that is already written will certainly result in more restrictions. Is there a law enacted by the US Government this year that fits onto a single page of paper? That encompassed a single purpose? The internet background check act might carry a clause in the back making primer and shell casings illegal. The point is that we are opposed to new legislation with the stated purpose of enacting a law that is already enacted and enforced because it is the beginning not the end of the gun control process.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

If a hippie

Speaks volumes; but whatever.

Quote

I am reasonably confident that the founding fathers never intended the first amendment to protect flag-burning, porn, and biohazardous "statements" towards our government.

Re: porn, you may be right. Re: the other two, I am reasonably confident those (especially the last one) most definitely were contemplated by the drafters of the First Amendment.

I believe you're reflecting your personal offense at flag burning (but the First Amendment gives you & me the right to offend each other) and personal disgust at porn (which is certainly your prerogative).

The term "biohazardous "statements" towards our government" is more commonly known, in many dictatorial countries, as "slander against the state". It's generally used to declare citizens who dare to criticize their governments as "enemies of the state". It's commonly used to justify widespread political repression and the detention, torture and murder of political prisoners. It's exactly the evil that the First Amendment was designed to protect us against.

Frankly, I find your use of the term rather alarming. But that's the beauty of the Constitution: you want to use the Second Amendment to protect you against "hippies" who might offend you or insult the government; I want to use the First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to protect me against you. Ironically, since (per your profile) you're currently in the US military, and are therefore an armed adjunct of the government, it's probably also the case that, unless I want to be imprisoned for sedition, the Second Amendment, too, is designed to protect me from you. So it goes.

Quote

They might have expressly intended for citizens to own modern, relevant, military-grade firearms to protect our nation.

Yes, I think they probably did.

[GoHuskers 0]

I do not know of a single case where a non-hippie has ever shit on the city hall steps to make a statement. To be fair the act alone might earn you the title.

The founding fathers lived in a different era. There probably was a mental transition at some point in our country where acts became protected as speech.

I picked each example for a reason:

Porn is not speech; its an industry. Even at the time that it was upheld as being protected by the constitution it was a for profit industry.
Much like the Stolen Valor Act was largely rendered ineffective because the citizen has the right to claim military awards they didn't earn because of their freedom of speech, it is only a crime when it is done for the purpose of securing material wealth. Porn is done to secure material wealth, why then is it protected as free speech?

Flag Burning is an act. I would argue in the era where aristocrats had commoners beaten for not deferring the sidewalk, they had no intention of allowing flag-burning as being protected as free speech. This is of course speculation on both our parts and neither one of us is particularly more empowered to put our words into their mouths so we'll have to agree that our assessments of their intentions differ. (An interesting side note to the flag burning topic is the supreme courts decision that people in HOA's are not guaranteed the right to display an American flag. Regardless of any agreement a resident enters with a HOA they should be constitutionally guaranteed the right to display the American flag.)

Public Defecation is an act, not speech. Its infringes upon the rights of others in many ways. Hence the fact that it was illegal until it was constitutionally protected as free speech.

It is my humble opinion that the supreme court is iconoclastic in some of its landmark cases. They won't guarantee the right to display our flag but they will guarantee the right to burn it. It is important to them to protect our right to point out what is wrong with our country, but not to show our pride.) I have no special hatred of porn, flag-burning, or other acts that apparently are "speech." The court rejects significantly more cases than they accept every year. Why do they shy away from a case which could lay the framework for our national gun policy for the foreseeable future. Why is the first amendment so important and the second amendment is of so little consequence? I'm merely pointing out that their rulings appear inconsistent with the founding fathers intent, if that is the driving force for their rulings.

With respect to gun control it irks me that our national leaders don't stop to consider whether or not they are infringing on our constitutional rights. I get that a lawmaker can propose whatever law they want and then let the court system sort out what is protected by the constitution. But why draft the bill if you are reasonably confident that it infringes upon your citizens rights? Seems like a disservice to the citizens you serve.

I bear no ill will towards the folks on the left side of the aisle. But if they ask me to respect their values, I'd ask the same of them.

Any point about sedition as viewed in the eyes of oppressive governments in the world bears little relevance to the issue of gun control in America. I'm not even insisting that I retain the right to bear arms with high capacity magazines, armor piercing rounds, no background screening, ninja stars that deploy from ball rounds just after impact... I'm just saying that it is a constitutionally protected right to bear arms, that leaves a lot of finer details to be worked out.

[Kennedy 0]

Thanks, that's what I was trying to say. Te estate can pass it to inheritor, and inheritor can receive it, but MD won't actually let you register it, so while you received it legally, if law enforcement ever takes notice that you possess it, you'll be charged and have to prove your innocence since you're not on the list.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Andy9o8 0]

It is a poorly drafted law, because it leaves silent and unanswered the question: "After December, 2013, when someone lawfully (per the statute) receives an assault weapon via inheritance, (a) may he continue to keep it in his sole possession for the rest of his life, and (b) if not, what must he do with it?"

On the one hand, one might think, as you seem to, that since the law makes no specific allowance for continued possession in that instance, that continued possession thus is effectively prohibited; and since it provides no other options, one is left with no practical choice other than to destroy it, render it permanently inoperable or surrender it.

However, there is a principle of statutory construction that when a statute has specific provisions (as this one obviously does), the statute does not apply to whatever is not specifically covered by it. In the case of a statue of prohibition, like this one, that would mean: that which is not specifically prohibited by the statute (and is not prohibited otherwise) is permitted. It would also mean that since surrender or destruction is not specifically required in the event of inheritance, it is not effectively required, either.

Thus, when this statute winds up in the MD courts (which is very likely unless the Legislature amends or clarifies it first), I'd say there's a good chance that, once all the appeals are exhausted, the MD courts will apply this principle of statutory construction and ultimately rule that since the statute does not specifically prohibit continued possession of the weapon by a lawful heir, that that possession is lawful for the heir's lifetime, who may thereafter lawfully pass it along to an heir of his own when he subsequently dies.

[Kennedy 0]

Oh, I absolutely agree with you, but isn't it fucked up that the first bunch will give up the rifle to avoid cost of trials and appeals, and then someone will have to spend out hundreds of thousands for trials and appeals, and still they can only keep it until death.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Macanudo 0]

Quote

The politicians in Washington apparently don't have a clue about internet gun sales. Every gun that is sold off the internet usually is sent to a FFL for transfer to the person buying the gun. During the transfer the dealer does BATF background check and must get a PROCEED, prior to handing the gun to the buyer.

Shhh! Don't give away the big secret. Let 'em think that they're actually passing something new, and then they'll go away happy. Little do they know that it's already being done. Lay low and let 'em feel good for "doing something", even though it's already being done. Then we gun owners can sit back and snicker at how ignorant and foolish they are, while letting them believe they won something. Mum's the word!

[OHCHUTE 0]

Quote

I do not know of a single case where a non-hippie has ever shit on the city hall steps to make a statement. To be fair the act alone might earn you the title.

The founding fathers lived in a different era. There probably was a mental transition at some point in our country where acts became protected as speech.

I picked each example for a reason:

Porn is not speech; its an industry. Even at the time that it was upheld as being protected by the constitution it was a for profit industry.
Much like the Stolen Valor Act was largely rendered ineffective because the citizen has the right to claim military awards they didn't earn because of their freedom of speech, it is only a crime when it is done for the purpose of securing material wealth. Porn is done to secure material wealth, why then is it protected as free speech?

Flag Burning is an act. I would argue in the era where aristocrats had commoners beaten for not deferring the sidewalk, they had no intention of allowing flag-burning as being protected as free speech. This is of course speculation on both our parts and neither one of us is particularly more empowered to put our words into their mouths so we'll have to agree that our assessments of their intentions differ. (An interesting side note to the flag burning topic is the supreme courts decision that people in HOA's are not guaranteed the right to display an American flag. Regardless of any agreement a resident enters with a HOA they should be constitutionally guaranteed the right to display the American flag.)

Public Defecation is an act, not speech. Its infringes upon the rights of others in many ways. Hence the fact that it was illegal until it was constitutionally protected as free speech.

It is my humble opinion that the supreme court is iconoclastic in some of its landmark cases. They won't guarantee the right to display our flag but they will guarantee the right to burn it. It is important to them to protect our right to point out what is wrong with our country, but not to show our pride.) I have no special hatred of porn, flag-burning, or other acts that apparently are "speech." The court rejects significantly more cases than they accept every year. Why do they shy away from a case which could lay the framework for our national gun policy for the foreseeable future. Why is the first amendment so important and the second amendment is of so little consequence? I'm merely pointing out that their rulings appear inconsistent with the founding fathers intent, if that is the driving force for their rulings.

With respect to gun control it irks me that our national leaders don't stop to consider whether or not they are infringing on our constitutional rights. I get that a lawmaker can propose whatever law they want and then let the court system sort out what is protected by the constitution. But why draft the bill if you are reasonably confident that it infringes upon your citizens rights? Seems like a disservice to the citizens you serve.

I bear no ill will towards the folks on the left side of the aisle. But if they ask me to respect their values, I'd ask the same of them.

Any point about sedition as viewed in the eyes of oppressive governments in the world bears little relevance to the issue of gun control in America. I'm not even insisting that I retain the right to bear arms with high capacity magazines, armor piercing rounds, no background screening, ninja stars that deploy from ball rounds just after impact... I'm just saying that it is a constitutionally protected right to bear arms, that leaves a lot of finer details to be worked out.

So how would Andy Warhol's pee paintings fit in. Is that not freedom of expression. BTW, Warhol museum in Pittsburgh PA has much of Andy's art, that which never sold, including many pee paintings. The huge skull painting was by far the largest painting on canvass I've ever seen. The shop is worth seeing if your in Pitt.

[OHCHUTE 0]

Quote

Quote

The politicians in Washington apparently don't have a clue about internet gun sales. Every gun that is sold off the internet usually is sent to a FFL for transfer to the person buying the gun. During the transfer the dealer does BATF background check and must get a PROCEED, prior to handing the gun to the buyer.

Shhh! Don't give away the big secret. Let 'em think that they're actually passing something new, and then they'll go away happy. Little do they know that it's already being done. Lay low and let 'em feel good for "doing something", even though it's already being done. Then we gun owners can sit back and snicker at how ignorant and foolish they are, while letting them believe they won something. Mum's the word!

Good idea! HA

[OHCHUTE 0]

Quote

It is a poorly drafted law, because it leaves silent and unanswered the question: "After December, 2013, when someone lawfully (per the statute) receives an assault weapon via inheritance, (a) may he continue to keep it in his sole possession for the rest of his life, and (b) if not, what must he do with it?"

On the one hand, one might think, as you seem to, that since the law makes no specific allowance for continued possession in that instance, that continued possession thus is effectively prohibited; and since it provides no other options, one is left with no practical choice other than to destroy it, render it permanently inoperable or surrender it.

However, there is a principle of statutory construction that when a statute has specific provisions (as this one obviously does), the statute does not apply to whatever is not specifically covered by it. In the case of a statue of prohibition, like this one, that would mean: that which is not specifically prohibited by the statute (and is not prohibited otherwise) is permitted. It would also mean that since surrender or destruction is not specifically required in the event of inheritance, it is not effectively required, either.

Thus, when this statute winds up in the MD courts (which is very likely unless the Legislature amends or clarifies it first), I'd say there's a good chance that, once all the appeals are exhausted, the MD courts will apply this principle of statutory construction and ultimately rule that since the statute does not specifically prohibit continued possession of the weapon by a lawful heir, that that possession is lawful for the heir's lifetime, who may thereafter lawfully pass it along to an heir of his own when he subsequently dies.

What I can't believe is that only after calling me a troll, you actually join the discussion. Why not just join discussions without calling people trolls?

[Andy9o8 0]

OK, since you asked: What you did was: once again, you made shit up that was wrong because you never bothered to look it up, and you got caught at it and called out. I then predicted that, as in the past, you would probably respond to the debunking by (a) changing the subject and (b) trolling, i.e., deliberately baiting the callers-out by insulting them personally and trying to provoke them to responding in anger. You've been warned about it by the moderators; and gee, don't you think we know why you "disappeared" from here for a week?

Social groups, even online ones, tend to be self-regulating. The more often a given person chronically misbehaves, the less and less tolerance the group has for him. Even some (well-respected!) people who virtually never dip their toe into Speakers Corner have done so for the purpose of calling you out on BS of yours; for example, your repeated and blatant thinly-veiled racism (in other threads). Even many of your fellow conservatives on here have openly shunned you as an embarrassment. Maybe you need to start realizing that your problem here is not other people, it's you.

[oldwomanc6 38]

Am I mistaken, in MD, come October, will all guns classified as AR will be illegal to possess? I asked this once before, but all I've heard since are pot shots here and there.

lisa
WSCR 594
FB 1023
CBDB 9

[champu 1]

Quote

Am I mistaken, in MD, come October, will all guns classified as AR will be illegal to possess? I asked this once before, but all I've heard since are pot shots here and there.

I posted a link to the MD bill in post 25, but in short, no. Anything on the list or clones thereof would need to be registered with the police by 1 Dec in order to continue to possess it legally, however.