Constitutionally it has been determined by the judicial that states have the right to regulate what firearms its residents can purchase or possess.
Gun Nut Plans March On Washington
- Thread starter nhboy
- Start date
I didn't say anything like that. What I have said is simply that there are tools available that can be legally obtained and states have the right to regulate those tools.
I think it could be acceptable as we would still have the right to keep and bear arms unless disqualified for some other reason. But that hasn't been proposed by anyone that I know of. Are you equally outraged that convicted felons, the mentally unstable, drug and alcohol abusers, et al, can be infringed upon by denying their right to keep and bear arms?
The point of violating the Constitution for me would be if all arms were prohibited. I can't get a nuclear device, I can't get an F/A aircraft with the armament, I have to have special authority to possess a fully automatic weapon, do I feel infringed upon, nope. Am I happy it works this way, nope.
The Feds don't consider that a transfer -
Are you saying that Maryland does?
Same goes for my semi-auto rifles. But now those are banned. And heck, I *might* own some for which a weeny little 10-rd magazine has never been produced..by anyone..ever.
But I can still sell the vehicles to anyone with the money and desire to buy them. And after they buy them from me, they can use them exactly as I can/do.
Last edited:
True dat. Tragically though it is.
To some extent, yes. But that power has also been found by SCOTUS to have limits, limits traced back to the overriding intent of the 2A. Heller comes quickly to mind.
PsyOps
Pixelated
First of all, this is dealing with LEGAL firearms. TODAY, before the law goes into effect, if you attempt to pass a banned firearm to a gunsmith you and the gunsmith are in violation of the law. If you own the firearm legally, yet still under a ban, undocumented and unsubstantiated possession of that firearm is not legal and that firearm can be confiscated. Come Oct 1, an AR will be banned, and the same conditions with apply.
I first heard of this from my FFL; which is in MD. They provide firearm services, of a wide variety, to nearly all the regional police and security in the DC area. I think they are on good authority to accurately inform me about these things. Unless you convince me you are a constitutional lawyer/scholar and/or were involved in the writing of the law and therefore can explicitly define for me the intent of 3-304, I will take their word over yours as to how this section can be enforced.
Last edited:
bcp
In My Opinion
The convicted felon, and certain mentally unstable people, did something or have some issue that prevents them from owning a firearm.
What did Psyops do other than make the mistake of being in Maryland that should exclude him?
No I don't, but I suspect it will be found constitutional. Just like Obamacare was found to be a tax and not a penalty.
PsyOps
Pixelated
On what grounds do you disagree with it?
Okay, you’ve confused me. Are you saying that John Doe owns an AR15 today, legally acquired, and should he happen to take that weapon to a gunsmith on 10/2/2013 for repair he would be in violation of the law? Even though the law says at section 4-303(b)(3) “A person who lawfully possessed, has a purchase order for, or completed an application to purchase an assault long gun or a copycat weapon before October 1, 2013 may:
(I) Possess and transport the assault long gun or copycat weapon;”
So how does John Doe go from legally possessing a legal weapon to illegally possessing a banned weapon simply by seeking service on the weapon when Federal Regulations indicate that seeking service through a FFL and the return of the weapon to the legal owner isn’t considered a transfer of the weapon?
If that is what they are saying it is surely puzzling. And I won’t try to convince you of something I’m not. But what I will do is work with you to draft an email that you, I or both of us can send to the state legislature asking for their clarification. If the law is as you indicate that would be a confiscation, but I’m not reading it that way though.
The entire concept of greater regulation upon the law-abiding that does nothing to prevent the non-law-abiding from continuing their illegal activity.
Actually you might have made a case for the other way of thinking.
Greater regulation might just help weed out and prevent the non-law-abiding from continuing their illegal activity.
PsyOps
Pixelated
Oct 2, that gun becomes a banned weapon. Handing that AR to your gunsmith and leaving it there is considered a ‘transfer’; that gunsmith is now in ‘possession’ of that banned firearm. Under section 3-304 it is illegal for anyone not LE or legal recipient for disposition of that firearm to take it into their possession. I don’t know if I, as the legal owner of that AR, would be in violation of the law for transferring that firearm to someone who would be in illegal possession of it or not. But it appears clear that the gunsmith would have illegal possession of a banned firearm and it could be confiscated by LE. I’m not saying it would. I think the odds would be low.
The section you cite (4-303) does not talk about exchanging possession. It only addresses transporting your firearm; moving it from your home to an authorized place. These authorized places are defined in section 4-203; of which a ‘bona fide repair shop’ is included. It does not address leaving that firearm in their possession. If you leave it there you have transferred possession of that firearm to a non-legal owner of that firearm.
Again, I trust my FFL. They have no reason to tell me something like this if they hadn’t done their homework.
PsyOps
Pixelated
That’s an interesting way of rewording ‘criminal’ – “non-law-abiding”.
Someone that is aimed at committing a crime is going to find a way to do so. It doesn’t matter if they are a career criminal or a first-timer like Adam Lanza. And they will find a weapon to commit their crime. If they can’t get hold of a semi-auto weapon they will find something else. It’s stated over and over that most violent crimes occur with knives and baseball bats than with guns. The only thing these regulations do is make it easier for criminals to commit their crimes against an unarmed people. I would never expect a progressive like you to get that though.
PsyOps
Pixelated
Again, an interesting way of redefining a criminal.
Well, given that you believe it's constitutional to do this, that makes your point rather moot doesn't it? I mean given the constitution assumes the law-abiding citizen will behave responsibly, yet it's constitutional to limit access to certain firearms, and at the discretion of the government they can limit access to whatever firearms they want, the leverage lies in the hands of our government to determine that we are all potentially “non-law-abiding” citizens. Guilty until proven innocent by edict. And even there, when proven innocent you are still denied.
Another question (not sure if I asked you this already)… At what point would the government be in violation of the 2nd? If they banned shotguns? Certain bolt-action rifles that fire a certain caliber? Where do you draw the line in the sand? If they banned everything but rifles that fired .22 would you consider this to be a violation of the constitution?
Last edited:
Actually..no, he didn't.
PsyOps
Pixelated
Actually they found it to be both a penalty and a tax.
Roberts:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf
But that's off topic...
Here is something else we need to consider that I've been trying to point out... This doesn't end here. There is more to come on gun control.
Biden is quoted as saying: “Let me say this as clearly as I can: this is just the beginning,”
Last edited:
