Gun Registration

[Tilted (Premo)]

Originally Posted by migtig

I'm not being clear and I'm not understanding you either.

Let's take the personal you out of the equation.

Let's use the generic you.

You don't own firearms - so this is a non-issue, right? YES.

You do own registered firearms, so do they need to be re-registered, yes or no? It isn't clear to me whether some kind of re-registration would need to be done.

You do own non-registered firearms that was blah blah blah prior to todays date and aren't the assault weapons or copy cat weapons so they are non-issues and don't need to be registered. My reading of SB 281 is that it would require some (already owned) firearms to be registered that aren't currently required to be registered, namely "assault long gun[s]" and "copycat weapon[s]" as those classes would be defined after the bill passed.

You want to buy, sell or trade or your firearms but you cannot until you get gun safety training and a weapons license and then register those weapons if they weren't previously...is this correct? I'm not sure about this.

Is my understanding correct or is there something I'm missing?

My initial response (to you) wasn't related to whether SB 281 actually would require firearms to be registered which aren't currently required to be registered. It was about the notion of firearms needing to be registered in general. That said, at this point, I do believe that SB 281 would require the registration of some firearms that aren't currently required to be registered.





EDIT: On page 9 of the bill, § 4-303(b) of the Criminal Law Title is being amended to include a new subsection (3) which reads:

(3) 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 NOVEMBER 1, 2013, MAY:

(I) CONTINUE TO POSSESS THE ASSAULT LONG GUN OR COPYCAT WEAPON; OR

(II) WHILE CARRYING A COURT ORDER REQUIRING THE SURRENDER OF THE ASSAULT LONG GUN OR COPYCAT WEAPON, TRANSPORT THE ASSAULT LONG GUN OR COPYCAT 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 LONG GUN OR COPYCAT WEAPON IN ACCORDANCE WITH A COURT ORDER AND THE ASSAULT LONG GUN OR COPYCAT WEAPON IS UNLOADED.

And on page 8 § 4-303(a) is being amended to read:

(a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, a person may not:

(1) transport an assault [pistol] WEAPON into the State; or

(2) possess, sell, offer to sell, transfer, purchase, or receive an assault [pistol] WEAPON.

Everything in CAPS is new text, everything in [] is deleted (old) text. Earlier in the text of the bill "assault weapon" is defined to mean an "assault long gun", an "assault pistol", or a "copycat weapon". I believe all of that means that assault long guns and copycat weapons would have to be register if the bill passed, whereas currently only assault pistols necessarily need to be registered. If there's something that I'm missing, anyone can feel free to point it out to me. In fact, I would appreciate it if they did.

[itsbob]

Originally Posted by migtig

If I had a gun wouldn't it already be registered? I'm

No..

[DEEKAYPEE8569]

Originally Posted by Tilted

Sure of which thing - that my firearms aren't registered or that firearms don't generally have to be registered to be lawfully owned?

That second part.
Every gun owner in Maryland who has a rifle (say, a .22), and/or a shotgun (12ga), a pistol (9mm semi-auto) and/or a revolver (.38, .357) would have had to register them with MSPS at the time of purchase. Right?
I mention the above because I know nothing about assault rifle ownership or the requirements.

[Gilligan (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Tilted

whereas currently only assault pistols necessarily need to be registered. If there's something that I'm missing, anyone can feel free to point it out to me. In fact, I would appreciate it if they did.

Current MD law treats anything defined as an "assault rifle" the same as pistols (ALL pistols are treated the same, btw. Semi..wheel gun..does not matter). Same background check, waiting period, registration, etc. And current MD law already bans high-capacity detacheable magazines.

What this new law would do, it appears to me, is require that all the various weapons that they classify as "assault weapons" that were previously grandfathered must now be registered. Like the thousands of AK's and SKS' sold by local department stores around here before the '94 Fed AWB, for example.

[DEEKAYPEE8569]

Originally Posted by Gilligan

Current MD law treats anything defined as an "assault rifle" the same as pistols. Same background check, waiting period, etc. And current MD law already bans high-capacity detacheable magazines.

What this new law would do, it appears to me, is require that all the various weapons that they classify as "assault weapons" that were previously grandfathered must now be registered. Like the thousands of AK's and SKS' sold by local department stores around here before the '94 Fed AWB, for example.

Assault Weapon(def): Any weapon that has the mechanical potential to fire more than one round of ammunition with one trigger pull (ie: full-auto).....right?

[Gilligan (Premo)]

Originally Posted by DEEKAYPEE8569

Assault Weapon(def): Any weapon that has the mechanical potential to fire more than one round of ammunition with one trigger pull (ie: full-auto).....right?

That would be the more correct technical definition. Fully automatic and/or select-fire weapons used primairly by military forces.

However, that is NOT how the loons that are proposing the various wepaons bans are defining them. None of the weapons listed in the various ban lists are automatic or select-fire; never have been and never will be.

[Gilligan (Premo)]

Originally Posted by DEEKAYPEE8569

That second part.
Every gun owner in Maryland who has a rifle (say, a .22), and/or a shotgun (12ga), a pistol (9mm semi-auto) and/or a revolver (.38, .357) would have had to register them with MSPS at the time of purchase. Right?
I mention the above because I know nothing about assault rifle ownership or the requirements.

Of all the firearms you listed above, only the two pistols have to be registered.

[BigBlue]

Originally Posted by bcp

Citizens are not legally bound to follow unconstitutional laws.

Please,please,go ahead and prove it!!!

[GURPS (Premo)]

Originally Posted by migtig

If I had a gun wouldn't it already be registered? I'm

Originally Posted by DEEKAYPEE8569

Ya know.....I was thinking the same thing.....

Originally Posted by migtig

Well obviously I'm missing something. I would think if I had a gun it would already be registered.

Can anybody explain?

AFAIK:

Background Check IS NOT Registration, 4473's stay with the FFL - much to the annoyance of the ATF that wants to build a NATIONAL Firearm db

[BOP]

Originally Posted by bcp

I remember that. I was so glad to hear that you lived through it that I never even bothered to ask for reimbursement for my guns that you had borrowed, And I never will.

Continue to get well, we can replace the boat and the guns, but not you.

:sniff: Must be somethin' in my eye.

I am touched. Really.