Laundry List From SB 281

PsyOps

Pixelated
I have tried to parse through the 38 pages of SB 281 and it just make my head want to explode. And I have tried to search for a simple laundry list of what SB 281 outlines/changes. I’m trying to get the scope of how this affects us. So, can someone provide a list of:

  • What guns are banned?
  • What magazines are banned?
  • What’s required for future purchases?
  • What’s required for current owners?
  • I read somewhere that you can no longer transport any firearm for any reason unless it is to turn it in to the police. Is this true?
  • How does this affect going to ranges?
  • I currently own firearms with magazines that hold more than 10 rounds; are these now banned?

I'm a relatively new gun owner and feel pretty ignorant about some things, so please feel free to fill in any questions I left out.

EDIT: I'm sure some sort of list was already posted, but it's long gone pages down. So sorry if this is redundant. But now that SB 281 has passed, and being a gun owner, I really want to know how this affects me.
 
Last edited:
I'm waiting for updated text for the bill that reflects all of the amendments that have been adopted since it got to the House. They may not post that until both the Senate and the House have passed the same version of the bill. I feel I have a decent general handle on what's going on with it, but I'm not up to speed on all of the details and changes. Perhaps when we get the final text I'll do a bullet point summary of the main provisions, or someone else will beat me to it.

The retroactive registration requirement for assault long guns and copycat weapons has been removed for now. But, with some exceptions, it will be illegal to sell or transfer them going forward. Those categories basically include all of the non-handgun firearms that are currently listed as "regulated" in MD law and centerfire semi-automatic rifles that have a combination of certain features (e.g. flash suppressor). The magazine limit (for new purchases / transfers) will be 10 now, I believe; but I vaguely recall some accommodation being made for the sale of new handguns that normally include magazines with a larger capacity. I'll have to check on that. To purchase handguns going forward, again with some exceptions, you will have to get a handgun qualification license which will, among other things, mean submitting fingerprints. I beleieve it would remain legal to transport firearms - e.g. from your residence to your business or a range, if the firearms are properly stored (e.g. unloaded, ammo and firearms kept separate).
 

TreeRat

Always a Good Target
You know at the risk of being a dick here on an already emotional issue for us gun owners.....

I have to tell you, your lack of knowledge on where this bill stands indicates that you have not been engaged much with the process in Annapolis the last 2 months or so. I estimate around 10,000 of us have burned leave and otherwise taken off from work to attend the rallies, Judiciary Hearings, Floor debates, emailed, called, and written our representatives, joined MSI, donated money, maintained awareness on MDShooters.....to stop this bad bill.

As a result, most of us know precisely where it stands as of today's House passage of the amended Senate bill. Did you stay on the sidelines and now all you want is to know what it all means to you?


TR
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
You know at the risk of being a dick here on an already emotional issue for us gun owners.....

I have to tell you, your lack of knowledge on where this bill stands indicates that you have not been engaged much with the process in Annapolis the last 2 months or so. I estimate around 10,000 of us have burned leave and otherwise taken off from work to attend the rallies, Judiciary Hearings, Floor debates, emailed, called, and written our representatives, joined MSI, donated money, maintained awareness on MDShooters.....to stop this bad bill.

As a result, most of us know precisely where it stands as of today's House passage of the amended Senate bill. Did you stay on the sidelines and now all you want is to know what it all means to you?


TR

At the risk of equally being a dick my contract was renewed, people quit, I was stuck on a one-deep shift for months, and could not, under any circumstances take time off. Being with a new company I start from square-one; so I have no leave right now. My certification is coming expired and I have been studying to renew that. I have family issues, parent issues, personal issues that take up most of my off time. I have tried to read as much as I can but my comprehension level has been pretty low given all that has been going on in my life. I do all I can under MY circumstance to stay engaged.

I'm sorry I'm not as informed as you on this. I'm not ashamed to ask where I don't know the answers; yet you found this as an opportunity to - rather than provide some helpful info - vilify me. Thank you for your useless input.
 
Last edited:

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
1. Future purchase of a regulated firearm, which from now on means a handgun (because currently regulated long guns are going to become banned long guns), would require a "handgun qualification license." (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.) One must be age 21 to apply for the license. To obtain the license requires fingerprinting, a $50 fee paid to the state, and proof of satisfactory completion of either "a firearms safety training course approved by the Secretary [of the Maryland State Police]," or a course approved by the DNR under existing law, which refers to the DNR hunter certification course. There are certain exceptions to the training requirement, including an exception for anyone who "lawfully owns a regulated firearm" -- these people still need the handgun qualification license, but would not be subject to the training requirement. I see no provision that would allow a person to inherit handguns unless he or she first obtains the handgun qualification license -- I may be mistaken about this, and if I am, I would be interested in an explanation of how an unlicensed heir could lawfully take possession of handguns. There are certain narrow exceptions to the new handgun licensing requirement, but none that we need to dwell on here.

2. New acquisition of any firearm defined as an "assault long gun" would be banned as of October 1, 2013, with narrow exceptions for law enforcement, manufacturers, certain defense contractors and the like. The ban would extend to all of the 45 named models of rifles previously listed as regulated rifles in the Public Safety Article, including (as I read it) any long guns deemed to be "copies" by past or future interpretation.

3. In addition, the bill would ban future acquisition of any so-called "copycat" firearms. In this bill, "copycat" does not mean that a firearm is really a copy of anything -- it is just a political gimmick term to refer to firearms that have the specific characteristics that will cause them to be banned. A centerfire rifle will be a banned "copycat" if it meets any one of these three tests:
(1) Has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds; or
(2) has an overall length of less than 29 inches; or
(3) has two of the following attributes: (i) folding stock, (ii) grenade or flare launcher, or (iii) flash suppressor.

4. A semiautomatic RIMFIRE rifle would never be an "assault" weapon under this bill.

5. A semiautomatic pistol would be a banned assault/copycat weapons only if it has a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds; this applies to both rimfire and centerfire.

6. A semiautomatic shotgun would be a banned assault/copycat weapon if it had either a folding stock or a revolving cylinder.

7. "Assault" weapons and "copycat" firearms possessed as of October 1, 2013, would be grandfathered in, with no registration requirement, for both current Maryland residents and people who move to Maryland in the future. Their lawful owners may continue to possess them and to transport them. This would also apply to any such firearm for which the would-be owner "has a purchase order for. or completed an application to purchase" as of October 1, 2013" (note: that phrase was inserted on the floor on April 3, in place of the earlier phrase referring to a "verifiable purchase order"). However, a resident of another state who lawfully acquires such a weapon after October 1, 2013, and who then moves into the state with it, or travels through the state with it, commits a criminal offense (and there is no grace period). Grandfathered assault weapons may be passed on by inheritance. A dealer may sell an "assault long gun" or "copycat" that he "lawfully possessed on or before October 1, 2013." It is not clear to me whether this means the dealer can sell this inventory to Maryland residents; I think the more likely reading is that the dealer may only sell them to residents of other states, subject to the usual federal transfer requirements, or to in-state law enforcement buyers.

8. Anyone who moves into the state would be required to register "all regulated firearms" with 90 days after establishing residency. This would apply to all handguns, except muzzleloaders and antiques (pre-1899), no matter when or where they were acquired. I suppose it will also be applied to any "assault" rifle that was lawfully possessed by the new resident prior to October 1, 2013, although that is not perfectly clear. There will be a $15 application charge, which will cover any number of handguns/regulated firearms. It appears to me that criminal penalties would apply for failure to register a handgun within 90 days, but I would appreciate some lawyer well versed in the criminal code looking at that question. If I am right, a new resident might find grandpa's old service revolver in a trunk in a few years, take it down to the local gun shop to sell it, and end up arrested for failure to register the handgun within 90 days of establishing residency.

9. Like the bill passed by the Senate, I see nothing here to allow a person who lacks the handgun qualification license to temporarily "receive" handgun to shoot on the premises of a range, under the supervision of a parent or spouse, or whatever. Some people point to language in the bill dealing with the temporary possession of regulated handguns by minors, but this is merely the current language of the old regulated firearm law, which is reproduced in the bill because of the legislature's convention in showing where new provisions are being inserted. In my opinion, the old provision allowing temporary possession by a minor under certain circumstances does not clearly constitute an exception to the proposed new requirement that nobody can "receive" a handgun without first obtaining the handgun qualification license -- and a person under age 21 cannot even apply for that license. Even if I am wrong about the minors, there is no exception for unlicensed spouses, guests from out of state, and so forth. I know that some people insist that this is not the intent. Maybe not -- but explicit language would make that clear, and the sponsors have not added any such language that I can see.

10. Future transfers within Maryland of detachable magazines with capacity of greater than 10 rounds are banned. This is true whether or not the magazine is the manufacturer's standard issue for a certain pistol, and it applies to magazines that are associated with old guns.

11. As in the bill passed by the Senate, those who qualify for Maryland carry permits will required to undergo 16 hours of instruction before a permit is issued, and 8 hours before each renewal (i.e., every two or three years), with certain exceptions. The bill would change current law so that permit holders could be criminally charged for carrying outside the bounds of any permit restrictions, in contrast to current law under which carrying outside of restrictions is dealt with administratively (for example, by revocation of the permit).

12. Provisions in the Senate-passed bill removing all firearms rights from persons targeted by out-of-state "protective" orders have been retained, without any language requiring that that the targeted person have an opportunity to receive notice and defend himself in court before the disqualification is applied. There is no language in the bill limiting the scope of this provision to domestic partners, although some say that is the intent.

13. Provisions removing all firearms rights from persons who are protected by court-appointed guardians have been retained, without any language requiring a finding of danger to oneself or others, and without any exceptions for temporary possession for participation in shooting sports and the like. The only exception is guardianships based purely on a "physical" disability.

14. The bill would make it a new crime to "during and in relation to a crime of violence . . . possess or use restricted firearm ammunition." The House committee adopted an entirely new definition of what constitutes "restricted firearms ammunition," and I do not have the technical competence to interpret it. I underscore that this is not a ban on sale or possession, but on use in relation to a crime of violence.

15. The committee-reported bill contains the Simmons Amendment, which would disqualify from firearms ownership those persons who received Probation Before Judgment for certain crimes that are listed in the amendment. As amended on the floor, this would not apply to PBJs that are expunged. The Simmons Amendment is discussed in detail in a separate thread, here:
The Simmons Amendment: probation before judgment - Maryland Shooters

16. The House committees added a new provision that requires that a regulated firearms owner "shall report the loss or theft to the local law enforcement agency within 72 hours after the owner first discovered the loss or theft." This will apply to handguns and pre-ban "assault" weapons, not "regular" rifle guns and long guns. Anyone who "knowingly and willfully violates" this requirement is subject to a $500 fine on the first offense, and to 90 days and/or a $500 fine on any subsequent offense.

17. The House committees added a new provision establishing that state records of firearms transfers, carry permits, etc., are not generally subject to public inspection, except by the person named in the records or his attorney.

SB 281: A summary of some key provisions as passed by the House - Maryland Shooters
 

TreeRat

Always a Good Target
At the risk of equally being a dick my contract was renewed, people quit, I was stuck on a one-deep shift for months, and could not, under any circumstances take time off. Being with a new company I start from square-one; so I have no leave right now. My certification is coming expired and I have been studying to renew that. I have family issues, parent issues, personal issues that take up most of my off time. I have tried to read as much as I can but my comprehension level has been pretty low given all that has been going on in my life. I do all I can under MY circumstance to stay engaged.

I'm sorry I'm not as informed as you on this. I'm not ashamed to ask where I don't know the answers; yet you found this as an opportunity to - rather than provide some helpful info - vilify me. Thank you for your useless input.

If your done with your edits, I will apologize now and let you know that what is known as of today is excerpted in the above posts.

TR
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
However, a resident of another state who lawfully acquires such a weapon after October 1, 2013, and who then moves into the state with it, or travels through the state with it, commits a criminal offense (and there is no grace period). - Great NOW we can be Like NY and arrest Pregnant women@ BWI Passing Through


14. The bill would make it a new crime to "during and in relation to a crime of violence . . . possess or use restricted firearm ammunition." The House committee adopted an entirely new definition of what constitutes "restricted firearms ammunition," and I do not have the technical competence to interpret it. I underscore that this is not a ban on sale or possession, but on use in relation to a crime of violence. - yeah because mass shooters or gang bangers are using Teflon coated bullets or Black Talons



:popcorn:
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
If your done with your edits, I will apologize now and let you know that what is known as of today is excerpted in the above posts.

TR

I appreciate it. I do understand your frustration that you've taken the time to understand these things and have to waste more time explaining to others. I'm a pretty new gun owner and way behind the curve. I'm strugging to understand current law along with these changes.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
You know at the risk of being a dick here on an already emotional issue for us gun owners.....

I have to tell you, your lack of knowledge on where this bill stands indicates that you have not been engaged much with the process in Annapolis the last 2 months or so. I estimate around 10,000 of us have burned leave and otherwise taken off from work to attend the rallies, Judiciary Hearings, Floor debates, emailed, called, and written our representatives, joined MSI, donated money, maintained awareness on MDShooters.....to stop this bad bill.

As a result, most of us know precisely where it stands as of today's House passage of the amended Senate bill. Did you stay on the sidelines and now all you want is to know what it all means to you?


TR

As frustrating as all this has been, alienating people because they were not as involved as much as I or perhaps I not as involved as you, is not going to be helpful moving forward. This fight is not over. Let's make sure we're working on adding people on our side.

:buddies:
 

Vince

......
People are pissed and frustrated especially those of us that have been reading this stuff everyday since it started and those that have been in Annapolis watching these idiot politicians making stupid statements and lies to pass their bill.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
People are pissed and frustrated especially those of us that have been reading this stuff everyday since it started and those that have been in Annapolis watching these idiot politicians making stupid statements and lies to pass their bill.

How are they idiots? Chairman Frosh is simply representing his constituents. Given the desire to wish guns out of existence and, failing that, ban them all, most of them are going to think this rather reasonable stuff.

I mean, I think, I hope, it is all going to crash and burn on Constitutional grounds but, to them, they're doing what they were sent to do.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
You know at the risk of being a dick here on an already emotional issue for us gun owners.....

TR


you would have better success teaching a Pig to SING than get the respect of Liberals in the MD State House on 2 A Issues ..... short of a bunch of heart attacks or car accidents, Dems. in MD what to prove they can be Just Like NY

:cheers:

Thanks for Playing
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
you would have better success teaching a Pig to SING than get the respect of Liberals in the MD State House on 2 A Issues ..... short of a bunch of heart attacks or car accidents, Dems. in MD what to prove they can be Just Like NY

:cheers:

Thanks for Playing

Meaning better to focus on getting more who are not already engaged on our side rather than trying to convert the other side.
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
How are they idiots? Chairman Frosh is simply representing his constituents. Given the desire to wish guns out of existence and, failing that, ban them all, most of them are going to think this rather reasonable stuff.

I mean, I think, I hope, it is all going to crash and burn on Constitutional grounds but, to them, they're doing what they were sent to do.

I would really like to see this on a referendum. I know Mders voted these people in and they feel they are doing their constituents bidding; but my suspicion, in this case, is that they are not representing the people at large. I would really like to see what the people think through their vote. Beyond that I am hearing nothing about whether any of this will end up in court.
 
I would really like to see this on a referendum. I know Mders voted these people in and they feel they are doing their constituents bidding; but my suspicion, in this case, is that they are not representing the people at large. I would really like to see what the people think through their vote. Beyond that I am hearing nothing about whether any of this will end up in court.

This will go to a referendum, you can be confident about that. Opponents just need to get about 20,000 signatures by May 31st and then a total of 70,000 - 80,000 (you want extras as some will be invalidated) by June 30th. Make sure you sign a petition about this and have your friends do so as well. If someone doesn't find you to sign one, you find them.

I suspect we'll lose the referendum. But if nothing else, it will delay the implementation of the law about 14 months until December of 2014.
 

Vince

......
How are they idiots? Chairman Frosh is simply representing his constituents. Given the desire to wish guns out of existence and, failing that, ban them all, most of them are going to think this rather reasonable stuff.

I mean, I think, I hope, it is all going to crash and burn on Constitutional grounds but, to them, they're doing what they were sent to do.
No Larry, if you heard this guy talk, idiot is the correct word.
 

Pushrod

Patriot
How are they idiots? Chairman Frosh is simply representing his constituents. Given the desire to wish guns out of existence and, failing that, ban them all, most of them are going to think this rather reasonable stuff.

I mean, I think, I hope, it is all going to crash and burn on Constitutional grounds but, to them, they're doing what they were sent to do.

I don't agree with you Larry, not on this issue. While I was up in Annapolis and meeting other firearm owners protesting or testifying against this bill, I was amazed by how many were Democrats. They support all the other crap that the Dems put out but are staunchly pro-second amendment. We (pro-2nd people) outnumbered the anti's giving testimony on these bills and protesting them, 100 to 1, and that is a conservative estimate. The people of this State spoke out against this bill and Frosh dismissed them. He did not listen to his constituents, except for the minority that wanted this travesty to pass.

Hopefully when he is up for election again they will remember, but I fear he has been promised something bigger (States AG) for pushing this through and doesn't care about getting re-elected anymore.
 
Top