Gun Nut Plans March On Washington

[bcp]

Wasn't there a prophet in the Bible who nobody would listen to until his prophecies came true? Again? Again?

How dare a simple subject question his masters.

 

[Midnightrider]

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.

You have been misinformed by your FFL. First, taking possession is not a transfer.
Second, that gun that was bought prior to oct 1 is a legal gun, that doesn't change unless you illegally transfer it.

Leaving a gun at a gunsmith is not currently considered a transfer. I didn't fill out any transfer paperwork the last time I dropped off a regulated firearm for repair. Unless sb281 changed that, dropping your gun off at the gunsmith will not be an illegal transfer.

There is a lot of misinformation out there, FFL are just as prone to it as anybody.

 

[Bird Dog]

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.

It hasn't worked yet, why will work tomorrow?

You and your ilk still believe in government stimulated miracles.

Dream on. Dream weaver.

 

[Tilted]

http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2013RS/bills/sb/sb0281f.pdf

​

This is the "gunsmith trap" - If your AR breaks after Oct 1 and you take it to a gunsmith for repair, the exchange of that AR to the gunsmith was not legally done. No background check was accomplished for that gunsmith to take possession of that banned firearm. Under this section of the law LE could confiscate and destroy that weapon since the gunsmith is in illegal possession of a banned firearm.

Here's another little trap you may not know about... 'the hunting trap' - If you go hunting out of the state with your AR, and get caught trying to bring it back it, you are in violation section 4-303, and LE is required to confiscate that LEGALLY OWNED firearm from you.

I think your first point is supported by a plain reading of SB 281 but your second point is not. The gunsmith would, in general, be in violation of the law for possessing and for receiving that AR. As for 'the hunting trap', the exception to §4–303 belongs to you, as the pre-law possessor of the AR, so you could lawfully continue to possess and transport it. Others could not, but you could. As the law reads, I don't even think you could hand it to me at a gun range so that I could test fire it; you might not be in violation of the law, but I would.

Of course, we can't now know how prosecutors might choose to try to enforce, or not enforce, various provisions of the law. They may, e.g., in many cases choose to ignore instances of short-term possession by people other than the pre-law possessor of a given assault weapon. This particular aspect of the law is absurd and odious regardless.



Ken King - What do you see as the saving provision, in SB 281 or in existing law, when it comes to the situation PsyOps refers to? After October 1st it will, with some exceptions, be illegal to possess or to receive certain "assault weapon". There is not blanket exception to those prohibitions when it comes to firearms that were lawfully possessed before October 1st. The exception only protects the person who, prior to that date, lawfully possessed a given firearm. In other words, the firearm itself is not 'grandfathered', a particular person's possession of it is. In general and with limited exceptions, they can't transfer it to others and others can't possess or receive it.

If I take an AR to a gunsmith, there may not be a "transfer" as the law would regard that term, but the gunsmith will "receive" the firearm and they will, for some period of time, "possess" the firearm. Their doing so will be in violation of Subtitle 3 of Title 4 of Maryland's Criminal Law Article (i.e. "this subtitle") and thus law enforcement could seize and dispose of the firearm per the amended §4-304:

A law enforcement unit may seize as contraband and dispose of according to regulation an assault [pistol] WEAPON transported, sold, transferred, purchased, received, or possessed in violation of this subtitle.

There are some provisions in §4-302 which function to limit the scope of the prohibitions on possessing and receiving the firearms we're talking about, but I can't find one that would apply in the general case that PsyOps refers to. Can you?

 

[Ken King]

Ken King - What do you see as the saving provision, in SB 281 or in existing law, when it comes to the situation PsyOps refers to? After October 1st it will, with some exceptions, be illegal to possess or to receive certain "assault weapon". There is not blanket exception to those prohibitions when it comes to firearms that were lawfully possessed before October 1st. The exception only protects the person who, prior to that date, lawfully possessed a given firearm. In other words, the firearm itself is not 'grandfathered', a particular person's possession of it is. In general and with limited exceptions, they can't transfer it to others and others can't possess or receive it.

If I take an AR to a gunsmith, there may not be a "transfer" as the law would regard that term, but the gunsmith will "receive" the firearm and they will, for some period of time, "possess" the firearm. Their doing so will be in violation of Subtitle 3 of Title 4 of Maryland's Criminal Law Article (i.e. "this subtitle") and thus law enforcement could seize and dispose of the firearm per the amended §4-304:



There are some provisions in §4-302 which function to limit the scope of the prohibitions on possessing and receiving the firearms we're talking about, but I can't find one that would apply in the general case that PsyOps refers to. Can you?

§4-302(4) organizations that are required or authorized by federal law governing their specific business or activity to maintain assault [pistols] WEAPONS and applicable ammunition and detachable magazines;

 

[Gilligan]

The gunsmith would, in general, be in violation of the law for possessing and for receiving that AR.

What a mess.

Ironically, perhaps, I only shoot most of my firearms (shotguns the exception) , including all of those that will be banned after 1 October, at a range in Virginia. Maybe its time I just move there.

 

[Tilted]

§4-302(4) organizations that are required or authorized by federal law governing their specific business or activity to maintain assault [pistols] WEAPONS and applicable ammunition and detachable magazines;

I thought that might be the one you tried to argue. Do you think that gunsmiths are necessarily "organizations" and that they are necessarily "required or authorized by federal law" to maintain assault weapons? I don't see how that argument is persuasive. If "authorized by federal law" just means 'not prohibited by federal law', then that leaves a pretty glaring (read: will be exploited near endlessly) loophole in some of SB 281's prohibitions.

I don't think a gunsmith is whom that provision was meant to or could be successfully argued to apply to. Perhaps some gunsmiths have some kind of special license from the federal government, but I'm not aware that in general you have to somehow be licensed by the federal government to be a gunsmith.

Beyond the specific gunsmith scenario that PsyOps referred to, would you agree that under SB 281 I couldn't let you shoot my AR at a gun range even if I lawfully possessed it before October 1st (unless you fall under one of the exemptions, e.g. as being a LEO)? I couldn't let my brother do so, heck I couldn't hand the thing to him in my own house. Well, I could do those things but he'd be in violation of the law.

 

[Gilligan]

From the ATF Q&A site:

Q: Is a license needed to engage in the business of engraving, customizing, refinishing or repairing firearms?

Yes. A person conducting such activities as a business is considered to be a gunsmith within the definition of a dealer.

[27 CFR 478.11]

Q: Does a gunsmith need to enter in a permanent “bound book” record every firearm received for adjustment or repair?

If a firearm is brought in for repairs and the owner waits while it is being repaired or if the gunsmith is able to return the firearm to the owner during the same business day, it is not necessary to list the firearm in the “bound book” as an “acquisition.” If the gunsmith has possession of the firearm from one business day to another or longer, the firearm must be recorded as an “acquisition” and a “disposition” in the permanent "bound book" record.

As you can see, gunsmithing requires an 01 FFL license, and.....leaving your AR with one is indeed a transfer unless it for less than 24 hours. Maryland's new law, however, does not address any such exclusion or exception so one would have to conclude that the AR cannot be handed over, period.

I seriously considered applying for an FFL to do gunsmith work in our machine shop. I still have all the forms (Fed and state both) and instructions. But I decided it wasn't worth the hassle.

 

[Tilted]

From the ATF Q&A site:





As you can see, gunsmithing requires an 01 FFL license, and.....leaving your AR with one is indeed a transfer unless it for less than 24 hours. Maryland's new law, however, does not address any such exclusion or exception so one would have to conclude that the AR cannot be handed over, period.

I wouldn't have read PsyOps scenario as necessarily referring to someone operating a business. Perhaps that is what he meant, we'll have to wait for him to clarify that.

I took him as giving an example of some normal things that someone could currently do and that it would seem very reasonable to expect to still be able to do, but which would be a violation of the law under SB281. That would include taking your firearm to a gunsmith to have them work on it (e.g. someone that knows how to work on firearms, not necessarily someone that runs a business - lots of people gunsmith to some extent). That's, by the way, why I referred to the general case he was describing and not to specific cases that might fall into what he was describing (e.g. taking your firearm to a business that, for whatever reason, needed to be licensed).

 

[Gilligan]

I wouldn't have read PsyOps scenario as necessarily referring to someone operating a business. Perhaps that is what he meant, we'll have to wait for him to clarify that.

I took him as giving an example of some normal things that someone could currently do and that it would seem very reasonable to expect to still be able to do, but which would be a violation of the law under SB281. That would include taking your firearm to a gunsmith to have them work on it - i.e., letting someone else handle or temporarily possess your firearm. That's, by the way, why I referred to the general case he was describing and not to specific cases that might fall into what he was describing (e.g. taking your firearm to a business that, for whatever reason, needed to be licensed).

?? "gunsmithing" requires an FFL license. He was talking about taking an AR to a gunsmith...right?

 

[Ken King]

I thought that might be the one you tried to argue. Do you think that gunsmiths are necessarily "organizations" and that they are necessarily "required or authorized by federal law" to maintain assault weapons? I don't see how that argument is persuasive. If "authorized by federal law" just means 'not prohibited by federal law', then that leaves a pretty glaring (read: will be exploited near endlessly) loophole in some of SB 281's prohibitions.

I don't think a gunsmith is whom that provision was meant to or could be successfully argued to apply to. Perhaps some gunsmiths have some kind of special license from the federal government, but I'm not aware that in general you have to somehow be licensed by the federal government to be a gunsmith.

Beyond the specific gunsmith scenario that PsyOps referred to, would you agree that under SB 281 I couldn't let you shoot my AR at a gun range even if I lawfully possessed it before October 1st (unless you fall under one of the exemptions, e.g. as being a LEO)? I couldn't let my brother do so, heck I couldn't hand the thing to him in my own house. Well, I could do those things but he'd be in violation of the law.

Gunsmiths, by law, are dealers (see 27CFR478.11). To be a dealer you need the FFL. Gunsmiths need a FFL, thus they are authorized to conduct their business by Federal law.

As to "organization", if under the same CFR above, a "person" can be Any individual, corporation, company, association, firm, partnership, society, or joint stock company. I don't see it as much of a stretch that an organization could be a business.

As to "loaning" a weapon at the range. That looks to be a problem, intended or not.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Gunsmiths, by law, are dealers (see 27CFR478.11). To be a dealer you need the FFL. Gunsmiths need a FFL, thus they are authorized to conduct their business by Federal law.

FYI, there are different types of FFL Licenses.

Not all dealers are gunsmiths, and not all gunsmiths are dealers.

Even you and I can get a C&R FFL License, and get old guns sent straight to our house.

 

[Tilted]

?? "gunsmithing" requires an FFL license. He was talking about taking an AR to a gunsmith...right?

No, operating a business gunsmithing does - at least, it would seem, according to what you posted. Just gunsmithing does not, at least to the extent I'm aware. If it does, then I know of a number of people (myself included I suppose) that have been violating that particular law for quite some time.

Have you ever thought you needed a license to fix or work on someone's firearm for them - e.g., someone that wasn't as familiar with firearms as you were and asked if you could, e.g., mount a scope for them? That's gunsmithing, but I can't imagine it requires a license. Under SB 281, they would not be able to let you do that for them. They wouldn't be able to let you look at their AR, which has started jamming on them, to see if you could figure out what the problem is. They wouldn't be able to let you change the stock for them or any number of things that reasonable people would still (I think) think that you should be able to do. Again, they might be able to let you do these things, but you would be in violation of the law if you did - and that would make the firearm confiscatable.

I took that as PsyOps point, the absurdity of the law and the (perhaps?) unintended consequences of it. The law doesn't create an exception for already-owned firearms as some I've heard would seem to believe. It only creates an exception whereby a particular person can continue to possess a particular firearm - others (e.g. friends, family) aren't allowed to temporarily possess that firearm. And, based on much common law, it wouldn't take much to legally 'possess' that firearm and in so doing give law enforcement a basis on which to confiscate and dispose of it.

 

[Gilligan]

No, operating a business gunsmithing does - at least, it would seem, according to what you posted. Just gunsmithing does not, at least to the extent I'm aware. If it does, then I know of a number of people (myself included I suppose) that have been violating that particular law for quite some time.

Have you ever thought you needed a license to fix or work on someone's firearm for them - e.g., someone that wasn't as familiar with firearms as you were and asked if you could, e.g., mount a scope for them? That's gunsmithing, but I can't imagine it requires a license. Under SB 281, they would not be able to let you do that for them. They wouldn't be able to let you look at their AR, which has started jamming on them, to see if you could figure out what the problem is. They wouldn't be able to let you change the stock for them or any number of things that reasonable people would still (I think) think that you should be able to do. Again, they might be able to let you do these things, but you would be in violation of the law if you did - and that would make the firearm confiscatable.

I took that as PsyOps point, the absurdity of the law and the (perhaps?) unintended consequences of it. The law doesn't create an exception for already-owned firearms as some I've heard would seem to believe. It only creates an exception whereby a particular person can continue to possess a particular firearm - others (e.g. friends, family) aren't allowed to temporarily possess that firearm. And, based on much common law, it wouldn't take much to legally 'possess' that firearm and in so doing give law enforcement a basis on which to confiscate and dispose of it.

The ATF's definition of "gunsmithing" is very broad. Even decorative work or stock refinishing is considered gunsmithing. If you want to see a ton of threads discussing the legaltity...or not..of "friends gunsmithing for friends"...look no farther than the half dozen or so forums dedicated to the subject.

 

[Tilted]

Gunsmiths, by law, are dealers (see 27CFR478.11). To be a dealer you need the FFL. Gunsmiths need a FFL, thus they are authorized to conduct their business by Federal law.

As to "organization", if under the same CFR above, a "person" can be Any individual, corporation, company, association, firm, partnership, society, or joint stock company. I don't see it as much of a stretch that an organization could be a business.

As to "loaning" a weapon at the range. That looks to be a problem, intended or not.

See my comments to Gilligan. You're talking about a gunsmith operating as a business. Fair enough. I'm not necessarily talking about someone operating a business - that's why I referred to the general case and not to some specific cases. As for what PsyOps was referring to, I'll leave that to him to clarify - perhaps it was something other than what I took it as, but I wouldn't assume (as you perhaps do) that he was referring necessarily to a business.

And yes, a business would generally be regarded as a person (and thus generally as an organization) under federal law. That's not in dispute. But for at least some aspects of federal law the definition of organization specifically excludes an individual.

 

[Ken King]

FYI, there are different types of FFL Licenses.

Not all dealers are gunsmiths, and not all gunsmiths are dealers.

Even you and I can get a C&R FFL License, and get old guns sent straight to our house.

Agreed on differing licenses. Read what the CFR says is a dealer -

Dealer. Any person engaged in the business of selling firearms at wholesale or retail; any person engaged in the business of repairing firearms or of making or fitting special barrels, stocks, or trigger mechanisms to firearms; or any person who is a pawnbroker. The term shall include any person who engages in such business or occupation on a part-time basis.

 

[Gilligan]

No, operating a business gunsmithing does - at least, it would seem, according to what you posted. .

Was not the subject simply focused on the future legality of taking an AR to a gunsmith?

The weeds are getting very tall in here.

 

[Tilted]

The ATF's definition of "gunsmithing" is very broad. Even decorative work or stock refinishing is considered gunsmithing. If you want to see a ton of threads discussing the legaltity...or not..of "friends gunsmithing for friends"...look no farther than the half dozen or so forums dedicated to the subject.

It's not the definition of gunsmithing that's relevant to me here, it's the notion of operating as a business. Lots of things are illegal (or require licensing) when done as a business even though they aren't (or don't) otherwise. If you're suggesting to me that it may be illegal for me to mount a scope on my friends rifle without a license, that suggestion comes as quite a surprise to me. Perhaps it's correct, but that would make the body of firearms law even more troubling.

 

[Gilligan]

It's not the definition of gunsmithing that's relevant to me here, it's the notion of operating as a business..

I'm not aware of any gunsmiths that will repair or modify any of my firearms for free.

I'll keep looking for one, though.

 

[Gilligan]

If you're suggesting to me that it may be illegal for me to mount a scope on my friends rifle without a license, that suggestion comes as quite a surprise to me. Perhaps it's correct, but that would make the body of firearms law even more troubling.

It is "generally accepted" that you can do the following without an FFL:

1. Work on your own firearms

2. Work on firearms that belong to others, as long as there is no compensation asked nor received, and you do not have any kind of advertising for that activity whatsoever.

Item 2 must clearly be "occasional" only.