The Conference Committee has sent official language out - h.4885

[pastera]

That’s bold, and not heard that before.

The ATF guidance still allows pin and weld as an acceptable way to extend the length of a barrel (over 16”, as it’s “permanent”). We’ll see what gets sold I guess as compliant.

ATF compliance was based on the federal assault weapons ban - And the prior (current until 10/23) law was a "copy or duplicate" of the federal law.

This new bill carries none of the federal case law burdening therefore the state is welcome to interpret their law as they like - and since this was specifically written to discourage and ban gun ownership in general, the language will be interpreted in strict fashion

(iv) a threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor or muzzle break or similar feature

Is a pinned thread protector a "similar feature"?
I would assert the state will take the position that it is.

 

[JDL]

I was curious about that myself.

Depends on what they consider a barrel shroud to be I think. If absolutely anything covering the barrel is a shroud, then yeah, it's an ASF due to it being a semi auto, center fire rifle with a detachable mag and a shroud.

Their definition is potentially so broad that any type of handguard is a shroud.

That is not correct in the text of h4885 they explicitly exempt the slide covering the barrel.

 

[drgrant]

ATF compliance was based on the federal assault weapons ban - And the prior (current until 10/23) law was a "copy or duplicate" of the federal law.

Well it's actually a lot simpler than that- it's also based on the fact that for like since time eternal federal law has considered permanent muzzle attachments to be part of the barrel for GCA purposes.

Is a pinned thread protector a "similar feature"?
I would assert the state will take the position that it is.

That position is laughable considered it's inaccessible and can't be really considered a feature. My guess is that type of verbiage was to also exclude lugs and that kind of thing.

I mean at some point or another we have to admit this kind of thing is just another excursion into extension cord piss jug land. Because if you take it to its logical extreme You could argue that a barrel with a straight profile is also a feature designed to accommodate those devices because you could simply weld or clamp them onto the barrel. (There were plenty of these shitty devices around).

Realistically this is another thing that will never make court.

 

[drgrant]

That is not correct in the text of h4885 they explicitly exempt the slide covering the barrel.

So you think that that term was designed to cover like barrel sleeves like what you would see on a lot of 22LR guns? I've never heard of it referred to as a "slide".

 

[MAJoe]

ATF compliance was based on the federal assault weapons ban - And the prior (current until 10/23) law was a "copy or duplicate" of the federal law.

This new bill carries none of the federal case law burdening therefore the state is welcome to interpret their law as they like - and since this was specifically written to discourage and ban gun ownership in general, the language will be interpreted in strict fashion


Is a pinned thread protector a "similar feature"?
I would assert the state will take the position that it is.

The current law says “flash hider or a threaded barrel designed to accommodate one”. So, any threads are “designed to” if they are of a thread for which a flash hider is manufactured. Flash hiders are no longer banned, just accessible threads which can be used to attach a hider, brake, comp, etc. I would argue a thread protector is not a similar feature since it does nothing to benefit muzzle flash, rise, sound, etc. It’s inert.

 

[JDL]

Well it's actually a lot simpler than that- it's also based on the fact that for like since time eternal federal law has considered permanent muzzle attachments to be part of the barrel for GCA purposes.


That position is laughable considered it's inaccessible and can't be really considered a feature. My guess is that type of verbiage was to also exclude lugs and that kind of thing.

I mean at some point or another we have to admit this kind of thing is just another excursion into extension cord piss jug land. Because if you take it to its logical extreme You could argue that a barrel with a straight profile is also a feature designed to accommodate those devices because you could simply weld or clamp them onto the barrel. (There were plenty of these shitty devices around).

Realistically this is another thing that will never make court.

Not an issue, it is not about the device that can be threaded except a flssh hider or suppressor, it is only about just having a threaded barrel. This obviously was written this way because they were focused on the threaded barrel and not the device. If it was they would have also banned the devices by name or or added them to the Assault Style Wepon description.

 

[pastera]

That is not correct in the text of h4885 they explicitly exempt the slide covering the barrel.

ask yourself what a slide's operation is?
Is the upper handguard of an M1A an operative part of the action?
No, therefore it cannot be described as a slide.

 

[pastera]

Well it's actually a lot simpler than that- it's also based on the fact that for like since time eternal federal law has considered permanent muzzle attachments to be part of the barrel for GCA purposes.


That position is laughable considered it's inaccessible and can't be really considered a feature. My guess is that type of verbiage was to also exclude lugs and that kind of thing.

I mean at some point or another we have to admit this kind of thing is just another excursion into extension cord piss jug land. Because if you take it to its logical extreme You could argue that a barrel with a straight profile is also a feature designed to accommodate those devices because you could simply weld or clamp them onto the barrel. (There were plenty of these shitty devices around).

Realistically this is another thing that will never make court.

I didn't think if it from that perspective.
Since the new language doesn't actually ban flash suppressors then a pinned flash suppressor would comply since by federal law the barrel thread is no longer relevant.

But I don't put it past the state to try to push the issue.

 

[drgrant]

ask yourself what a slide's operation is?
Is the upper handguard of an M1A an operative part of the action?
No, therefore it cannot be described as a slide.

I honestly think that by the time they were getting into writing parts of that law they were getting dangerously close to "the shoulder thing that goes up" territory. I'm surprised that phrase isn't in the law.

 

[pastera]

I honestly think that by the time they were getting into writing parts of that law they were getting dangerously close to "the shoulder thing that goes up" territory. I'm surprised that phrase isn't in the law.

Speaking with different reps and senators the actual intent was to collapse the entire gun sales industry by banning everything possible up to the edge of getting SCOTUS immediately involved.

The "slide" language was included in order to avoid the resulting absolute handgun ban that would have been an immediate SCOTUS review.

 

[JDL]

ask yourself what a slide's operation is?
Is the upper handguard of an M1A an operative part of the action?
No, therefore it cannot be described as a slide.

Not what I was saying. I was only pointing out the law exempts the slide in reference to the question, that would the law make all semiauto hand guns assult style wepon? I have no oppenion on the M1.

 

[pastera]

Not what I was saying. I was only pointing out the law exempts the slide in reference to the question, that would the law make all semiauto hand guns assult style wepon? I have no oppenion on the M1.

Handguns are okay for two reasons:
A heat shielding shroud is only 1 feature
The slide is a operative part of the action therefore couldn't possibly be "designed to shield the bearer’s hand from heat" since slide bite is a thing

 

[JDL]

Yes I understand that. That is not the question was answering. I was answering the question put foward because some one posted that all semiauto hand guns could be considered ASW because they have a slide that wraps around the barrel. I merely posted that h4885 exempts the slide as being a shroud.

 

[PappyM3]

Not what I was saying. I was only pointing out the law exempts the slide in reference to the question, that would the law make all semiauto hand guns assult style wepon? I have no oppenion on the M1.

Headednorth was talking about rifles, specifically the M1A. Not handguns.

As for the shroud/slide discussion, I genuinely believe including the barrel shroud (excluding slide) feature into the rifle feature list was an accident. I think it was a copy and paste error.

But, we’re stuck with it. And rifles don’t generally have slides.

 

[PappyM3]

Yes I understand that. That is not the question was answering. I was answering the question put foward because some one posted that all semiauto hand guns could be considered ASW because they have a slide that wraps around the barrel. I merely posted that h4885 exempts the slide as being a shroud.

But you quoted someone talking about rifles/M1A.

 

[PappyM3]

…My guess is that type of verbiage was to also exclude lugs and that kind of thing.
…

Pretty sure the “or similar feature” is meant to encompass all muzzle devices that redirect gas.

“(iv) a threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor or muzzle break or similar feature;”

The “or” for similar feature is in reference to flash suppressors and muzzle breaks*. They didn’t want to list out compensators, flash cans, etc. partially because they don’t know all of them. The lack of commas indicates it is not “a threaded barrel or similar feature”


*LOL, I just noticed they used “breaks” instead of “brakes”.

 

[drgrant]

Pretty sure the “or similar feature” is meant to encompass all muzzle devices that redirect gas.

“(iv) a threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor or muzzle break or similar feature;”

The “or” for similar feature is in reference to flash suppressors and muzzle breaks*. They didn’t want to list out compensators, flash cans, etc. partially because they don’t know all of them. The lack of commas indicates it is not “a threaded barrel or similar feature”


*LOL, I just noticed they used “breaks” instead of “brakes”.

Good catch. The lack of comma matters at least outside of clown world.

 

[straightshooterjake]

Speaking with different reps and senators the actual intent was to collapse the entire gun sales industry by banning everything possible up to the edge of getting SCOTUS immediately involved.

The "slide" language was included in order to avoid the resulting absolute handgun ban that would have been an immediate SCOTUS review.

If and when the time is right, I would like to hear more about this issue of intent in designing these rules.

There is a lot of stuff in this law that looks like cut and paste errors and failure to understand how firearms work. But there has been no clear evidence about what is accidental and what is intentionally malicious.

For example, it has been posted many times on this forum that requiring long guns to be on the "handguns roster" was a mistake due to the redefinition of firearm. But I am not aware that we actually know that it was a mistake. And I do wonder whether someone wanted put extreme restrictions on sales of long guns, but do it in a way where they could pretend they didn't. Of course, this does seem like an issue that might get to the Supreme Court very quickly, so maybe it really was a mistake.

 

[JDL]

But you quoted someone talking about rifles/M1A.

Your right I somehow did quote the wrong post sorry. No wonder my comments made no sense.
Ha ha ha me laughing at myself
Sorry to confuse.

 

[pastera]

If and when the time is right, I would like to hear more about this issue of intent in designing these rules.

Little of the intent was directly spoken to.
It was mostly inferred by the statements and questions - the intent was to remove as many firearms as possible without triggering a constitutional review.
Nobody asked if a restriction would decrease crime or suicide, only if it would pass Heller/Bruen.

There is a lot of stuff in this law that looks like cut and paste errors and failure to understand how firearms work. But there has been no clear evidence about what is accidental and what is intentionally malicious.

Concur - assume if it allows you to have something that wasn't directly inferred by Heller/Caetano/Bruen then it was accidentally allowed. The entire bill was intentionally malicious as it is the product of outside anti-gun forces joining with our in state anti-gun religious zealotry.

For example, it has been posted many times on this forum that requiring long guns to be on the "handguns roster" was a mistake due to the redefinition of firearm. But I am not aware that we actually know that it was a mistake. And I do wonder whether someone wanted put extreme restrictions on sales of long guns, but do it in a way where they could pretend they didn't. Of course, this does seem like an issue that might get to the Supreme Court very quickly, so maybe it really was a mistake.

No, I believe that to be an oversight error - they know that and eclipse of longarm sales will attract extreme scrutiny of the entire roster schema at every level, even at the 1st circuit.
I don't understand why it hasn't been fixed already since that alone is worthy of a SC level injunction.

 

[Cap'n Mike]

Food for thought.
An M203 Flare launcher is not a heat shield or a barrel shroud

 

[spt_1955]

No, I believe that to be an oversight error - they know that and eclipse of longarm sales will attract extreme scrutiny of the entire roster schema at every level, even at the 1st circuit.
I don't understand why it hasn't been fixed already since that alone is worthy of a SC level injunction.

This is probably at the top of the list GOAL will be addressing on October 24th with their expanded war chest and Bruen trained lawyers.

 

[Harry Christopher]

Little of the intent was directly spoken to.
It was mostly inferred by the statements and questions - the intent was to remove as many firearms as possible without triggering a constitutional review.
Nobody asked if a restriction would decrease crime or suicide, only if it would pass Heller/Bruen.

Concur - assume if it allows you to have something that wasn't directly inferred by Heller/Caetano/Bruen then it was accidentally allowed. The entire bill was intentionally malicious as it is the product of outside anti-gun forces joining with our in state anti-gun religious zealotry.

No, I believe that to be an oversight error - they know that and eclipse of longarm sales will attract extreme scrutiny of the entire roster schema at every level, even at the 1st circuit.
I don't understand why it hasn't been fixed already since that alone is worthy of a SC level injunction.

The arrogance of ignorance of the legislators may be a breath taking wonder to behold but their underlining intent has always been and will always continue to be to disarm as many lawful gun owners as they are able to do so in order to feed their woke feel good narrative........the fact that this action will do absolutely nothing at all to address the very real issue of street crime and only increase the victimization of the citizenry at large is a minor detail that does not interest them in the least........after all......there is no need to let facts get in the way of supporting their thread worn political dogma.

 

[headednorth]

I am saying that the threads need to be removed because this is a new law therefore the federal case law on pinned muzzle devices is no longer applicable.

You gotta be shittin me

 

[AJK129]

Anyway to have this set up legally? It seems ok to me


View: https://youtu.be/1PRAjroxlJI?si=8i1TRASkAPv6oeaQ

 

[chris_1001]

do 4 out of 5 dentists recommend no firing pin block too?

Anyway to have this set up legally? It seems ok to me


View: https://youtu.be/1PRAjroxlJI?si=8i1TRASkAPv6oeaQ

Only 5 rounds per belt. Thanks mura.

 

[pastera]

You gotta be shittin me

@drgrant brought up pinning/welding to comply with nfa length requirements which was a part I wasn't considering.
The question is how the lower courts interpret it - could go either way but rule of lenity says ambiguities go to the defendant.

 

[novo]

Hey I had a question I'm going to be picking up my first 2 firearm this week and I was wondering is there a standard fee that dealers charge to run your background check? If so what is the usual price. Thanks

 

[42!]

Hey I had a question I'm going to be picking up my first 2 firearm this week and I was wondering is there a standard fee that dealers charge to run your background check? If so what is the usual price. Thanks

They aren't charging you for the check, they are charging for the transfer.
If I'm buying the gun from the dealer, they have always included the transfer. Nothing says they have to, but I've never seen it done any other way.
If you bought it somewhere else and they are just doing the transfer, it varies. I've seen free to $50. There is no rule. Ask in advance, when you're asking about inbounding a gun to them.

 

[Nightshift]

I will celebrate the day FPC makes it's filing before SCOTUS with another donation from both the missus and me.

Time to write another check!!!

FPC Asks Supreme Court to Take Up “Assault Weapon” Ban Lawsuit

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) has filed a petition with the United States Supreme Court in Snope v. Brown (formerly Bianchi v. Frosh), its lawsuit challenging Maryland’s ban on so-called “assault weapons,” requesting review of the Fourth Circuit’s highly flawed en banc (full court) decision.

www.firearmspolicy.org