Maryland SB.43 Post-Mortem

I have mixed feelings doing a post like this because I hate the idea of giving our enemies ammunition to use against us in the future. Some feel it is better to let them stumble around and create vague, bad law rather than focused, accurate law. I am all for the stumbling part but at the same time, the more bad law is passed, the wider a net it casts and the more people get swept in, not even knowing they're criminals.

And that has to stop.

I don't know what the future for bans of this sort hold in Maryland in 2008 and beyond. I can tell you I will be there to fight it. But I also want to help get the word out to help show what would have happened in this state had this law been passed. If a gun owner in Maryland who may not have had an interest in "assault weapons" finds this, maybe they'll see how close they might have come to being a criminal and they'll be one more owner willing to write a letter, an e-mail, make a phone call or show up and express their outrage at the stripping of their rights.

Don't think for an instant that the anti-gun folks like the Brady Campaign or Ceasefire are interested in "reasonable gun restrictions". We already have that. For them, not even restrictions like those in Massachusetts or Illinois are enough. Their real agenda is to ban all guns, one type at a time. Trust me, had SB.43 passed, your "high powered sniper rifles" (hunting rifles) and "underpowered varmint guns" (.22 rimfire) would have been next. And then there would have be no firearms left for legal ownership in this state.

Bad law is dangerous law. What follows is my interpretation of what this bill would have meant for Maryland. I am not a lawyer and do not construe any of this as legal opinion or writ. It is merely a layperson's view of the law. Any law, in my opinion, must be understandable by those who read it. And any vagueness or broadness in a law will be happily filled in for you by those with the power to enforce it even if it does not match what your "reasonable interpretation" would be. That is the danger in laws like this.

For reference: the text of SB.43 is here.

For summary, basically what SB.43 did was extend the current assault pistol ban in Maryland to cover so-called "assault weapons" and their copycats. The list of assault weapons that were banned by name is the current regulated firearms list. It banned those weapons by name and any weapon that possessed certain cosmetic characteristics and could accept a detachable magazine.

Let us start with what is banned that is not explicitly listed in the regulated firearms list:

(D) “ASSAULT WEAPON” MEANS:
(1) AN ASSAULT LONG GUN;
(2) AN ASSAULT PISTOL; OR
(3) A COPYCAT WEAPON.
(E) “BOARD” MEANS THE HANDGUN ROSTER BOARD ESTABLISHED UNDER § 5–404 OF THE PUBLIC SAFETY ARTICLE.
(F) (1) “COPYCAT WEAPON” MEANS:
(I) A SEMIAUTOMATIC, CENTERFIRE RIFLE THAT CAN ACCEPT A DETACHABLE MAGAZINE AND ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
1. A PISTOL GRIP THAT PROTRUDES CONSPICUOUSLY BENEATH THE ACTION OF THE WEAPON;
2. A THUMBHOLE STOCK;
3. A FOLDING OR TELESCOPING STOCK;
4. A GRENADE LAUNCHER OR FLARE LAUNCHER;
5. A FLASH SUPPRESSOR; OR
6. A FORWARD PISTOL GRIP;

(II) A SEMIAUTOMATIC, CENTERFIRE RIFLE THAT HAS A FIXED MAGAZINE WITH THE CAPACITY TO ACCEPT MORE THAN 10 ROUNDS;

(III) A SEMIAUTOMATIC, CENTERFIRE RIFLE THAT HAS AN OVERALL LENGTH OF LESS THAN 30 INCHES;

(D)(1) and (D)(2) above are already listed in the current assault pistol and regulated firearms lists. Let's move on to section (F)(1)(I).

I) A SEMIAUTOMATIC, CENTERFIRE RIFLE THAT CAN ACCEPT A DETACHABLE MAGAZINE AND ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:

This covers semi-automatic rifles that use centerfire ammunition. Rimfire weapons do not fall under this provision. The key words in this definition are "can accept". Not whether it came standard with but totally open ended for any point in time or any possible configuration. This suggests that if there a centerfire rifle out there that has a fixed magazine but could be modified to accept a detachable one, it would fall under this definition. The SKS comes to mind here.

1. A PISTOL GRIP THAT PROTRUDES CONSPICUOUSLY BENEATH THE ACTION OF THE WEAPON;
2. A THUMBHOLE STOCK;
3. A FOLDING OR TELESCOPING STOCK;
4. A GRENADE LAUNCHER OR FLARE LAUNCHER;
5. A FLASH SUPPRESSOR; OR
6. A FORWARD PISTOL GRIP;

The standard "assault weapon" definition boilerplate. First off, what is a pistol grip and at what point does it protrude conspicuously below the action? Well, section (K) defines this for us:

(K) “PISTOL GRIP THAT PROTRUDES CONSPICUOUSLY BENEATH THE ACTION OF THE WEAPON” MEANS A GRIP THAT ALLOWS FOR A PISTOL–STYLE GRASP IN WHICH THE WEB OF THE TRIGGER HAND BETWEEN THE THUMB AND INDEX FINGER CAN BE PLACED BELOW THE TOP OF THE EXPOSED PORTION OF THE TRIGGER WHILE FIRING.

A fellow at the SB.43 hearing held up a synthetic stock from a typical hunting rifle and stated, quite accurately, that it could have been considered a pistol grip under the text of this bill. And based on the bend of the stock using this definition, he was correct. The key to the definition is if the space between your thumb and index finger falls below the line of where the trigger first emerges from the receiver, it is considered a "pistol grip". Talk about a deep and deadly trap for the unwary. How many of you think an prosecutor wouldn't hold a ruler up to your rifle while holding it to see if your index finger was below the trigger line? It all depends on your shooting grip.

Thumbhole stock, well, kiss your modified hunting rifles and target rifles goodbye that are based on hunting rifle actions. Or if you buy a Mini-14 so equipped, kiss it goodbye too. Same goes for the folding and telescoping stock. If the pistol grip doesn't get you, the stock layout will. This provision is designed to nail sporterized "assault weapons" and guns like the SVD Dragunov (which makes a decent hunting rifle and civilian versions are sold as such).

As to grenade/flare launchers, there aren't many rifles that come standard with those. I know the Yugo M59/66 SKS does but depending on who is interpreting the law, that rifle may not be covered due to the aforementioned lack of a detachable magazine. But are you willing to wager your freedom on the idea a district attorney is going to consider your SKS not covered? I wouldn't. Oh, and if you own an AR-15 in a standard configuration or with an M-4 profile barrel, you would fall under this provision.

Remember, the phrase is "can accept", not "equipped with". In theory, a civilian AR-15 with either layout could accept an M203 grenade launcher. Highly unlikely but the bounds on this are open-ended. It is not "if you had it" but "could it take it?".

A flash suppressor. Ok, what type and what does it look like? Well, section (H) defines one for us:

(H) “FLASH SUPPRESSOR” MEANS ANY DEVICE THAT IS INTENDED TO OR THAT FUNCTIONS TO PERCEPTIBLY REDUCE OR REDIRECT MUZZLE FLASH FROM THE SHOOTER’S FIELD OF VISION.

Can you say "subjective"? Or does this mean all rifles have to have bevelled target crowns? Muzzle brakes would fall under this as well since they could be interpreted as suppressing flash as well. It doesn't have to be "intended" to do so, just "perceived" to do so. And brakes definitely do redirect the gases from firing away from your field of vision. It just doesn't say how far it has to be. So, pretty much anything with a hole or slot on the end of your barrel is a "flash suppressor".

A forward pistol grip. Well, today, most of these are aftermarket add-ons. Even if you take it off your "tactical" AR-15, the AR is plenty dinged by this by all of the previous stuff. And forget the semi-auto Thompson if it has the forward handgrip in beautiful wood. It's a no-no.

So, basically, under this definition at the discretion of the prosecuting attorney, virtually all semi-automatic rifles in Maryland that can take a detachable magazine by any means either original from the factory, modified to accept or having the potential to be modified to accept one falls afoul of this definition.

Go look in your closet or gun safe. How many of your semi-auto hunting rifles have a "bent stock" and a five round detachable magazine? If the answer is "1" or more, you own an "assault weapon" under SB.43.

And you thought this was about machine guns and so-called "assault weapons"? Don't worry, it gets better and worse.

(II) A SEMIAUTOMATIC, CENTERFIRE RIFLE THAT HAS A FIXED MAGAZINE WITH THE CAPACITY TO ACCEPT MORE THAN 10 ROUNDS;

(III) A SEMIAUTOMATIC, CENTERFIRE RIFLE THAT HAS AN OVERALL LENGTH OF LESS THAN 30 INCHES;

If you have a rare Chinese or Russian SKS with the fixed 20 round magazine (or if you equipped it with one after the fact), if you avoided having an "assault weapon" under SB.43, you have one now. (F)(1)(II) is for good measure to catch any strays that might have slipped through the first net.

And (F)(1)(III) makes damn sure those remaining strays don't get away. This provision is extremely dangerous. If your hunting auto-loader didn't get nailed by (I) or (II), it is almost virtually guaranteed to get nailed by (III). Get out the tape measure and go measure your rifle. The vast majority of rifles tend to fall in the 26-30 inch overall length range. 26 inches is the minimum due to Federal restrictions. And this doesn't even cover magazine capacity or features. If your carbine is semi-automatic with a 2 round internal magazine with a length of 29 15/16 inches, it is an "assault weapon". I am pretty sure a Norinco or Russian pattern SKS would be under 30 inches long. Bye-bye SKS.

So after all this, I wonder how many rifles are not covered by SB.43? Scary indeed.

Moving right along to other "assault weapons"...

(IV) A SEMIAUTOMATIC PISTOL THAT CAN ACCEPT A DETACHABLE MAGAZINE AND ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
1. A THREADED BARREL, CAPABLE OF ACCEPTING A FLASH SUPPRESSOR, FORWARD HANDGRIP, OR SILENCER;
2. A SECOND HANDGRIP;
3. A SHROUD THAT IS ATTACHED TO OR PARTIALLY OR COMPLETELY ENCIRCLES THE BARREL, EXCEPT FOR A SLIDE THAT ENCLOSES THE BARREL, AND THAT ALLOWS THE BEARER TO FIRE THE WEAPON WITHOUT BURNING THE BEARER’S HAND; OR
4. THE CAPACITY TO ACCEPT A DETACHABLE MAGAZINE OUTSIDE OF THE PISTOL GRIP;

Whoa! This bill was supposed to be about "assault weapons", not pistols! As I said, it gets worse and this is part of the "worse". This clause effectively bans virtually every semi-automatic pistol in the state of Maryland. Let's examine why.

(IV) A SEMIAUTOMATIC PISTOL THAT CAN ACCEPT A DETACHABLE MAGAZINE AND ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:

First off, by design, virtually every semi-automatic pistol designed in the past century uses detachable magazines. Also take special note of the fact that they aren't discriminating between rimfire and centerfire pistols. All pistols are covered by this. Even lowly .22 caliber pistols. How many pistol shooters out there don't own at least one .22 for practice?

1. A THREADED BARREL, CAPABLE OF ACCEPTING A FLASH SUPPRESSOR, FORWARD HANDGRIP, OR SILENCER;

Of all the language in the bill, this one is the poison pill that will kill you dead. I heard more about this one sentence in the bill than any other in talking with fellow opposition at the hearing in Annapolis. Understand that we all get the "assault weapon" stuff since the now (and hopefully forever) expired Federal AWB of 1994 gave us the definitions that are now taken for granted as what constitutes an "assault weapon" in the eyes of the uneducated public.

This one sentence exposed SB.43 for its true purpose: a blanket ban on virtually all semi-automatic rifles and handguns in the state of Maryland.

Why?

Because of the phrases "can accept" in (IV) and "capable of accepting" in (IV)(1) together. "Capable of accepting" does not imply "came equipped with" but "could ever be equipped with". Think long and hard about this for a moment. How many semi-automatic pistols out there "can accept" a barrel with a threaded end, either OEM or aftermarket? Practically all.

My Walther P22 .22 caliber pistol is dead-on-arrival. That pistol comes standard with a threaded end designed to accept an adapter for a silencer. Ditto that for many centerfire pistols from Beretta, Smith and Wesson, Walther, H&K and others.

Many pistols come from the factory with the threaded end already on the gun and are merely capped with a removable cover ring. Take the ring off to expose the threads. Other pistols don't come with the threaded barrel but others in the same family do. And if one member of the family can get it, so can every other member. Sort of like germs in your house. And still others can take barrels bought aftermarket with a threaded end. Anyone who has ever disassembled a typical semi-automatic pistol knows precisely how easy it is to drop in a new barrel. All of a few seconds.

In my case, my Sig Sauer was screwed. Sig Arms offers a tactical version of my pistol with a threaded end. All done. My pistol is "capable of accepting" it. It is banned. And probably is every pistol you own too. I overhead one fellow at the hearing state there were only two pistols that he knew of that were not covered by this. Two. Out of thousands. (I would love to hear from you with which two pistols those were).

2. A SECOND HANDGRIP;

Forget all those semi-auto machine pistol type guns. Such as the fold-down grip on some Berettas.

3. A SHROUD THAT IS ATTACHED TO OR PARTIALLY OR COMPLETELY ENCIRCLES THE BARREL, EXCEPT FOR A SLIDE THAT ENCLOSES THE BARREL, AND THAT ALLOWS THE BEARER TO FIRE THE WEAPON WITHOUT BURNING THE BEARER’S HAND; OR

Oh, how nice, they let us keep our semi-automatics that have a slide! Pretty pointless considering the barrel language. This is designed to go after any "assault pistol" type weapons not covered explicitly in the assault pistol list. Also, to prevent two-handed use of any pistol.

4. THE CAPACITY TO ACCEPT A DETACHABLE MAGAZINE OUTSIDE OF THE PISTOL GRIP;

And here is the other poison pill for pistols. Are we talking about a second magazine strapped to the side of the pistol or a magazine that protrudes from the bottom of the grip? I'm betting on the latter interpretation. On the surface, this is designed to go after guns like the Glock that can accept long extended magazines. But dig a little deeper and you begin to realize it pretty much targets any pistol that has the "capacity to accept" a magazine that isn't flush with the bottom of the pistol grip.

Again, we are caught by the "capacity to accept" language. This provision covers your favorite 1911. You can get 8 round and up single-stack magazines for the 1911 that protrude below the grip. Personally, this affects my Sig Sauer as the larger magazine (one extra round) has a "foot" that sticks out below the grip.

Compact Glocks and similar guns get the royal shaft with this one. On those guns, the magazine can form an extended pistol grip! Thinking of the Glock 27 here. What about a magazine that has a flange around the bottom that rests outside the grip? Glocks almost universally use magazines designed like this. So does the Walther P22 and P99. So do a lot of pistols.

This language is vague and utterly lethal. By leaving the definition of "outside of the pistol grip" open, you snare practically every pistol out there that takes detachable magazines. And remember, it didn't have to come to you that way! If you bought a Sig Sauer P220 with 2 7 round mags, it's banned! Even if you never buy the larger magazines! You've become an instant criminal by the mere possession of the current or future potential for a larger magazine.

Clarification: In studying HR.1022 and this language, it appears I misinterpreted the definition of "outside the pistol grip". I interpreted it as "extending beyond the grip". HR.1022 (as much as despise using that bill as reference), is more clear: (iv) the capacity to accept a detachable magazine at a location outside of the pistol grip. Hence, a magazine well not in the pistol grip itself (i.e. Carbon 15). However, in my defense, the language in this provision of SB.43 is vague and could be interpreted by a prosecutor the way I have. The lack of clarifying or descriptive language to narrow down what is meant can have undesired effects as I have demonstrated here.

(V) A SEMIAUTOMATIC PISTOL WITH A FIXED MAGAZINE THAT CAN ACCEPT MORE THAN 10 ROUNDS;

This is just in case we missed any others. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any semi-automatic pistols with fixed magazines but I am sure someone can enlighten me.

That's it for pistols. It appears that revolvers are safe. But then again, maybe not. It all depends on how a revolver is defined in Maryland statutes and whether a prosecutor would consider the idea of being able to swap out the cylinder by breaking open the gun as a "detachable magazine". And if the revolver can accept machining for a threaded end (or comes with one), I am certain that an enterprising prosecutor with an anti-gun bias would happily consider your revolver as falling under this bill. After all, a revolver is the original "semi-automatic" pistol. One round per pull of the trigger. The rest is just details.

And details, especially details unspoken, are the things that get you convicted under the law.

So, this was a fond farewell to pistols in Maryland.

After all of this, the follow-on language for shotguns seems almost an afterthought:

(VI) A SEMIAUTOMATIC SHOTGUN THAT HAS BOTH OF THE FOLLOWING:
1. A FOLDING OR TELESCOPING STOCK; AND
2. A PISTOL GRIP THAT PROTRUDES CONSPICUOUSLY BENEATH THE ACTION OF THE WEAPON, THUMBHOLE STOCK, OR VERTICAL HANDGRIP; OR
(VII) ANY SHOTGUN WITH A REVOLVING CYLINDER.

This is almost a kindness. This actually looks to protect your hunting or skeet/trap shotgun. But you can kiss your home defense "tactical" semi-auto with that collapsable stock goodbye.

The one small mercy is it appears they've left shotgun internal magazine capacities alone. I guess they want us plebians to have something for home defense. Perhaps the drafters considered old-fashioned skeet and trap shooting a real sporting purpose and decided to allow us to keep that one sport for ourselves. How. Bloody. Generous. Of Them.

4–302.
This subtitle does not apply to:
...
(5) the receipt of an assault [pistol] WEAPON or detachable magazine by inheritance if the decedent lawfully possessed the assault [pistol] WEAPON; or
(6) the receipt of an assault [pistol] 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.

I'm going to mostly skip 4-302 since it covers exceptions and most of those pertain to government, law enforcement and FFL possession or transfers. 4-302(5) and 4-302(6) are the ones that affect individuals.

It provides one small measure of grace: if you die and you owned the banned weapon legally under SB.43, you can leave it to your children. But if it is illegal, it's gone. Your executor has the right under this bill to possess the banned weapon as well. Probably long enough for the amount of time they'll need to sell it off out-of-state or turn it in.

Now on to 4-303, which is the other "worse" portion of the bill I alluded to earlier. Here it is:

4–303.
(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.
(b) (1) A person who lawfully possessed an assault [pistol] WEAPON before June 1, 1994 and who registered the assault [pistol] WEAPON with the Secretary of [the] State Police before August 1, 1994 may continue to possess the assault [pistol] WEAPON.

All they did here was copy the assault pistol language from prior legislation and change the word "pistol" to "weapon". However, they didn't opt to amend the language and created a conflict in the law. We'll get to that.

First, 4-303(a)(1) finishes off competitive shooting in the state of Maryland. It also makes Marylanders criminals if you shoot out of state and come home! Guess what, I would have been one of them. I routinely shoot in Virginia. So, even though I might be in legal possession of the banned weapon while in the state, I become an instant criminal for the act of going somewhere else to shoot and coming home again! My purpose was legitimate and even defensible under Federal transport law but this bill makes no exception for lawful activity. If you take it out and then bring it back, you're a criminal.

Correction: On further analysis, 4-303(b)(1) does provide an exception for transport of a banned weapon into Maryland by a Maryland resident provided the weapon being transported was registered with the State Police beforehand. But only for registered weapons. If you acquire a long gun out-of-state (i.e. at a gun show in Virginia) that fell under SB.43 after December 31, 2007 (see below), you would not be allowed to bring it into the state as there is no provision for possession or registration after this date. Basically, you had until the end of 2007 to get whatever guns were going to fall under the ban for the rest of your life because there would be no more allowed after that.

It also means if a shooting match (i.e. one involving "evil" AR-15 match rifles or any type of service match competition), only Marylanders can participate. If you're from Virginia, Pennsylvania, Delaware, etc, you just became a criminal in Maryland if you bring your gun into the state for the day. And vice-versa as a Marylander wanting to attend a competition in another state. There is no exception in the bill for legimate usage (i.e. sporting) and you can't fall back on Federal transport statutes since you aren't covered under them because Maryland is your destination and you would be in violation of State law.

4-303(a)(2) merely repeats existing law. You can't transfer regulated firearms privately in Maryland already. Such transfers in the state have to go through an FFL. Well, not for long. Getting to that.

4-303(b)(1) is the conflict in the law. This section contradicts 4-303(b)(3). How can you lawfully possess and register a gun you bought today if it was supposed to be registered 13 years ago? This clause shows the sloppiness in which the law was drafted. It doesn't matter that the later subsection clarifies possession (as we'll show). Sloppy law means bad law.

(2) A LICENSED FIREARMS DEALER MAY CONTINUE TO POSSESS, SELL, OFFER FOR SALE, OR TRANSFER AN ASSAULT LONG GUN OR A COPYCAT WEAPON THAT THE LICENSED FIREARMS DEALER LAWFULLY POSSESSED ON OR BEFORE OCTOBER 1, 2007.
(3) A PERSON WHO LAWFULLY POSSESSED AN ASSAULT LONG GUN OR A COPYCAT WEAPON BEFORE OCTOBER 1, 2007, AND WHO REGISTERS THE ASSAULT LONG GUN OR COPYCAT WEAPON WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE POLICE BEFORE DECEMBER 1, 2007, MAY CONTINUE TO POSSESS THE ASSAULT LONG GUN OR COPYCAT WEAPON.

And here is the final poison pill for gun owners in Maryland. This was the one that initially got me up in arms. The rest of my outrage occurred later but these sections were the ones that made me lose it initially.

4-303(b)(2) gives Maryland FFLs a chance to minimize their losses by selling off any guns they still have in inventory when the bill came into effect. The downside is after the bill takes effect, no more assault weapons. One of the points I made in my testimony to the committee was the fact that dealers in Maryland would be seriously impacted. Although I have no figures, a visit to a gun shop is revealing. About half of the guns (more in some cases) on the walls are "assault weapons". These guns are not cheap and dealers make some money on them. What happens to dealers who are already operating on thin margins (selling guns is not a way to get rich anywhere) when half of their source of income is banned by the state?

They go out of business. And take their livelihoods and tax revenue to the state with them. Wonderful if you're a gun banner. Not so wonderful if you're the out-of-business FFL with a family to support. And the loss of tax revenue in the state's coffers. I honestly figured this bill would have put half of all the gun dealers in Maryland out of business and force the ones remaining to consolidate simply to survive.

4-303(b)(3) is what sent me into virtual orbit. Yes, folks, that is a mandatory registration clause you are looking at. This is the section that also contradicts 4-303(b)(1). Section 4-303(b)(1) should have been modified. But if someone wanted to follow the law as written could prosecute you as an aside under 4-303(b)(1) and you can try 4-303(b)(3) as an affirmative defense. That is probably the only good luck you'd have if you were prosecuted under the terms of SB.43.

Of all the things involving gun laws, mandatory registration is the one that scares the crap out of me. There is no legitimate purpose for registering firearms anywhere except for the sole purpose of future confiscation. DO NOT comment or e-mail stating the guns should be regulated like cars (after all, we register our cars). The reason is simple: cars are not Constitutionally protected items! Owning and driving a car is a privilege granted to you at the whim of the State. Owning firearms is Right that pre-existed the State. Don't believe me? Well, the DC Circuit Court just issued a ruling using language to that very effect in overturning the DC gun ban.

Some moderates may argue "but the Government just wants to know who has guns, they aren't going to take them from you.". Bullshit. It happened in California. They passed an assault weapon ban there. With language in the bill requiring registration and an explicit promise that the registration list would not be used to confiscate the registered firearms.

Well, a few years later, a subtle change in the language of the ban went from "sorta banning" to "fully banning" the registered firearms. The end result was police using the registration lists (and in some cases, using data illegally obtained from the BATF which they aren't supposed to keep either) knocking on the doors of the owners of guns who had registered their now-banned guns with a request to hand them over.

To their credit, the law-abiding citizens complied. The state, in some cases, did compensate them for their lost property. But in many cases not the full value of that taken property. And it was done without a citizen vote, warrant or due process. I won't even go into the larger issue of what happens to a disarmed populace because of such laws. Stalin. China. Rwanda. The Holocaust. Need I say more?

Basically, if you didn't register your guns by the end of the year, make sure they weren't here in 2008. Because there are no second chances. Regulated firearms already purchased in the state of Maryland are automatically registered with the State Police. The purpose of this clause was to get the ones that weren't bought here or brought in legally by someone moving into the State (yes, there is a specific exemption in the law for this).

This section also only gave the Maryland State Police a three-month window in which to complete registration. Not exactly a long time for what would have been tens of thousands of firearms. I'm sure the taxpayers would have loved the funding that exercise would have required. Not to mention the potential for police officers working on registration lists behind a desk rather than being on patrol.

On principle, I will never register a gun with the State unless I have no other choice. And under SB.43, I did have a choice. I would have moved the affected weapons out of the state of Maryland. And then purchased a replacement in the State for self-defense. It would have been terribly inconvenient but I will not take the chance at the State arbitrally deciding they want my property and coming to take it without due process or just compensation. I have rifles worth well over $1000 and I will not have the State decide they are only going to give me $200 for it. Not now. Not ever.

How many of you in Maryland would have complied versus move yourself or your guns out of the state? Would you have been willing to take a chance on the benevolence of a government in letting your keep your guns for long after passing such a sweeping ban? Because at that point, your continued possession of your guns is solely at the whim at the government. I don't trust those whims or the motives that drive them.

After all of this, the rest of the bill covers penalty for infractions. I will comment on section 4-305 and 4-306 briefly because I got to hear about the true impact of these sections during the hearing.

These two sections deal with the Roster Board in Maryland. This Board is the one that maintains the list of regulated firearms in the state. What I did not know about the Board is that it is a voluntary, unpaid position. The people that work on this Board do so on their own time and dime.

Several Board members testified in opposition to SB.43 because of these sections. The bill basically demands that the board compile a list of all affected weapons in the State within 9 months of its enactment. And the Board only meets bi-monthly. And under the terms of SB.43, a person petitioning to get a weapon removed from the roster had to receive an answer within 45 days. Kind of difficult when the Board meets every 60 days.

Furthermore, the language is such that if the Board doesn't give a decision within 45 days of receipt of the petition, the petition is automatically denied. So much for the appeals process. That comes into direct violation of the intent of this subsection and makes a total mockery of the citizen's appeal process to get a weapon off the list. Deliberate or not, the language is crafted to ensure once a weapon is on the list, it stays there. All the Board has to do is time their receipt of petitions opposite their meeting times and a petition would never have to be heard. The bill places the burden on the petitioner, not the board, to prove a weapon doesn't belong there. The gun is automatically presumed guilty once the Board decides it is so.

Furthermore, as another board member pointed out, SB.43 doesn't affect 45 named weapons as the gun-control groups claims, but hundreds. They would have to go through every weapon ever produced by every manufacturer and apply an "SB.43 test" to each one individually. There was no possible way that this could have been done within 9 months. None.

Although neither pro or anti-gun, the Board members did make it known there was a deep personal and practical cost to these provisions that are not often considered. And the Board members are often not firearms experts. Not a comforting thought when they are deciding the future of your firearms.

The infractions section 4-308 adds a few cherries for you if you commit a crime with a now-banned assault weapon. Go read them. A special note: don't ever get caught with a rifle in the house that was under the ban if your wife or girlfriend calls the police on you. Depending on where it was when they arrived, you're looking at serious jail time. The sentencing provisions are absolutely horrific.

The rest of the bill goes on to repeat the current regulated firearms list and clarifies that FFLs can sell them off prior to the bill taking effect.

That's it. A mere 13 pages of the most horrible law you may ever see.

And it almost passed.

Be there in 2008.