Maryland: California-Style Ammunition Background Check Bill [includes background check for purchasing ammo]

NRA Institute for Legislative Action ^ | 11 January 2021 | NRA-ILA

[COBOL2Java]

House Bill 175 is a deeply flawed bill that requires “ammunition vendors” to conduct a federal NICS background check on prospective recipients of ammunition. “Ammunition vendor” is vaguely defined in the legislation and could potentially mean that private individuals cannot sell or give ammunition to friends, family, fellow hunters, range buddies, etc.

Federal law only allows Federal Firearms Licensees (FFL) and state authorities to run NICS checks, and they may do so only for firearms. Businesses selling ammunition are not required to hold an FFL. Many small businesses such as sporting goods stores, hardware stores, and antique shops sell ammunition without transferring firearms. Both licensed firearm dealers and ammunition-only vendors are unable to run a NICS check for an ammunition-only sale.

The bill exempts ammunition transfers by vendors at shooting ranges that hold a “business or other regulatory license” only if the “ammunition is at all times kept within the facility’s premises.” That means that people may not keep ammunition that they purchased to replenish expended ammunition brought from home or keep leftover ammunition without taking the time to go through government red tape. Vendors for those shooting on private property, such as a visiting instructor bringing ammunition for students, presumably may not distribute ammunition.

The bill exempts transfers of ammunition by vendors to holders of a Handgun Qualification License (HQL), but this exemption also falls short. Many law-abiding gun owners do not hold an HQL, such as those who have not purchased a handgun since 2013, those who have no desire to purchase handguns, young adults aged 18-20, individuals from out of state, and current or retired military personnel who are exempt from an HQL.

[spetznaz]

Sign of things to come unless every person who would be adversely affected by this stands together

[OttawaFreeper]

Ho hum, as if criminals would ever regard this sort of legislation as cutting into their activities.

[COBOL2Java]

Ho hum, as if criminals would ever regard this sort of legislation as cutting into their activities.

It's not aimed at criminals. It's aimed at law-abiding citizens who may accidentally run afoul of the law, thus making them criminals. It gives the authorities the legal means to thereby confiscate their weapons and prohibit weapons purchases - for the rest of their lives.

[nathanbedford]

Reading the language of the Second Amendment begs the question for me, how is it that states have latitude in restricting the right to keep or bear arms? One can make the argument that our equally precious rights documented in the Bill of Rights, like freedom of speech and worship, are restrictions written against Congress and therefore the application of those restrictions against the states depends on the 14th amendment, which history tells us the Supreme Court has a checkered history rather than a consistent history in applying the Bill of Rights against the states.

The Second Amendment does not limit the application to Congress but makes it a general prescription, "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," presumably by any governmental entity, federal or state. Now that Scalia has documented that right in his opinion Washington DC vs. Heller, why is that not applied uniformly against every "infringement" conceived by every blue state? Once the right to keep arms was confirmed by Scalia why not the right to bear arms?

I know I'm not up on the jurisprudence of gun control but I would like to be informed.

[COBOL2Java]

I know I'm not up on the jurisprudence of gun control but I would like to be informed.

A gun-grabber legal-eagle:

Background Check Procedures in Maryland

[OttawaFreeper]

Agreed, and hoping I was not being rude or flippant in my initial response. More of trying to show the Karens that they are doing something but, as you say, it is aimed at law-abiding citizens who may accidentally run afoul of the law. I can imagine seeing all sorts of arrests and charges brought on the grounds of this law being thrown out or resulting in 1 dollar fines if there is any sanity remaining in that state.

[COBOL2Java]

We've got a liberal Republican governor who, even for him, realized that several of the legislators' laws went too far. He vetoed them, but they overrode his vetoes, particularly a gun-grabber one.

Senate Votes to Override Hogan Veto of Bill to Expand Background Checks for Long Guns

[Notthemomma]

Link is bad on the Hogan story. It redirects to this same thread.

[COBOL2Java]

Worked for me

[IamConservative]

Speaking of ammo, Ammoman.com has stock again for popular rounds, but boy howdy. Higher than the testicles on a giraffe. 223 is $1.00 a bang. 9mm is $.80.

[jeffersondem]

Look at the bright side: if all blue states make it impossible for people trapped there to buy ammo, that will leave red state patriots free to buy all the national production.

[cyclotic]

Disneyland on the Chesapeake (The Maryland General Asylum, I mean Assembly) only meets for 90 days per year. Otherwise I can’t imagine the damage these lunatics could do.

HB175 is a great example. Fortunately there’s no companion Senate Bill and the session ends April 12.

They have a completely insane day called Sin Die. It’s the last day of the session where they ram through whatever they didn’t get around to. Mostly just voting without thinking.

[maxwellsmart_agent]

Background checks do nothing to stop a mass shooter from doing what they want to do. It is all glitter and confetti!

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

Gone are the days when I as a 14 year old kid, walked into a discount store(1961) and bought 50 rds of .22 shells for .45 cents. No questions asked.

[ridesthemiles]

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED...........